UnitedSofa
You'll Never Walk Away
- Joined
- Jul 12, 2013
- Messages
- 7,284
The club never sells!
And where did you come up with this?Interesting that the club was pushing for Kolo Muani whilst ETH wanted Hojlund, and ultimately got his way. Seems we still only have a 'Director of Football' in name only.
Interesting that the club was pushing for Kolo Muani whilst ETH wanted Hojlund, and ultimately got his way. Seems we still only have a 'Director of Football' in name only.
Interesting that the club was pushing for Kolo Muani whilst ETH wanted Hojlund, and ultimately got his way. Seems we still only have a 'Director of Football' in name only.
Director of Football doesn't mean he will target players and signs as he wish. DoF, Manager, coaching staff, Recruitment staff all work as a team.
Not sure why people always want to make it as DoF vs Manager.
Interesting that the club was pushing for Kolo Muani whilst ETH wanted Hojlund, and ultimately got his way. Seems we still only have a 'Director of Football' in name only.
That is a major problem and goes back to the manager having too much emphasis on transfer decisions it should be something that's completely cohesive not individual. There are clear examples of when a DOF has input due to the allocated resources at disposal and the best example was Liverpool's recommendation via Edwards to sign Salah it didn't come from the manager.
It doesn't matter if the said manager is successful it's not a sustainable model heading forward because the downside always outweighs the upside in football and if the said manager is sacked the revolving door rebuilding policy is back in full force. Then every manager needs a minimum of three seasons to 'undo' what the previous manager has done. It's the same story over and over again. The club hasn't and doesn't learn.
Additionally the DOF positionally is far more of a constant compared to the periodical position of a manager. The constant should always be the more influential.
I agree with the notion, when you look at the history of this thread it's full of praise for things that are relatively basic.
If a team signs most of it's priority targets before the end of pre season it's good but the caveat is the fees.
I agree.Because they have a weird view that a DoF alone makes all decisions and if he doesn't well then he isn't much of a DoF at all
Exactly. 99% of posters on here have bemoaned this approach by us for years. They've been crawling all over this issue and how it holds us back. Yet suddenly willing to overlook it... go figure!
spot onIn my head, director of football is there to make sure that the manager aligns with the clubs ethos, so that if that manager gets sacked, a new manager with similar ethos can come in and you won’t need to reset the team every time a manager is sacked
That is a major problem and goes back to the manager having too much emphasis on transfer decisions it should be something that's completely cohesive not individual. There are clear examples of when a DOF has input due to the allocated resources at disposal and the best example was Liverpool's recommendation via Edwards to sign Salah it didn't come from the manager.
It doesn't matter if the said manager is successful it's not a sustainable model heading forward because the downside always outweighs the upside in football and if the said manager is sacked the revolving door rebuilding policy is back in full force. Then every manager needs a minimum of three seasons to 'undo' what the previous manager has done. It's the same story over and over again. The club hasn't and doesn't learn.
Additionally the DOF positionally is far more of a constant compared to the periodical position of a manager. The constant should always be the more influential.
In my head, director of football is there to make sure that the manager aligns with the clubs ethos, so that if that manager gets sacked, a new manager with similar ethos can come in and you won’t need to reset the team every time a manager is sacked
That is a major problem and goes back to the manager having too much emphasis on transfer decisions it should be something that's completely cohesive not individual. There are clear examples of when a DOF has input due to the allocated resources at disposal and the best example was Liverpool's recommendation via Edwards to sign Salah it didn't come from the manager.
It doesn't matter if the said manager is successful it's not a sustainable model heading forward because the downside always outweighs the upside in football and if the said manager is sacked the revolving door rebuilding policy is back in full force. Then every manager needs a minimum of three seasons to 'undo' what the previous manager has done. It's the same story over and over again. The club hasn't and doesn't learn.
Additionally the DOF positionally is far more of a constant compared to the periodical position of a manager. The constant should always be the more influential.
For these points to be valid based on this one issue, you have to assume that the committee outside Ten Hag (the DOF doesn't decide alone) wanted Kolo Muani but really not Højlund. It doesn't say that though. Or at least, that tweet to me rather only suggested that others would have preferred Kolo Muani, without indicating what they thought of Højlund. So it's entirely possibly that Højlund was second or third or fourth on their list of preferred strikers, and that Ten Hag's insistence (presumably backed by arguments, not sheer stubborness) elevated him to #1 in the committee's eventual decision. In which case all these comments about Ten Hag totally overruling the DOF are way overblown.Exactly. 99% of posters on here have bemoaned this approach by us for years. They've been crawling all over this issue and how it holds us back. Yet suddenly willing to overlook it... go figure!
Prior to ETH there wasn't any cohesion, long term plan or anyone with credible ability that has actually delivered on it. So it's either our DoF suddenly decides he's the one to lead and create the footballing philosophy from scratch or he works with the manager, who is literally the one creating that identity now.
It's a fine line and either method is a risk but when there wasn't any existing foundation to work with in the first place, it's strange to make it sound like the DoF/club have some brilliant track record and are kowtowing to ETH. Your take lacks so much context as if we've been run like Bayern, City or Madrid for the past 10 years. Really bizarre.
No it doesn't lack any context, it's all factual (maybe not 99%, but it sure felt that way). All I'm saying is right now nobody is bothered that we're following the same approach because things are relatively ok on the pitch, but if things go off the rails, or we don't win major trophies soon, I guarantee that everybody will be bumping this thread and questioning the whole lot again.
If and when ETH goes, I will not be shocked in the slightest if we go for a completely different manager and we'll be talking about a rebuild. Obviously we're not at that point yet, but I base this on the fact that we apparently coveted managers with completely different styles just last summer. Which tells me there was no overarching plan or philosophy. Like you said, we're relying on one manager to dictate that, you seem to be happy with it but thinking strategically over the long run, I think it's a bad approach.
No it doesn't lack any context, it's all factual (maybe not 99%, but it sure felt that way). All I'm saying is right now nobody is bothered that we're following the same approach because things are relatively ok on the pitch, but if things go off the rails, or we don't win major trophies soon, I guarantee that everybody will be bumping this thread and questioning the whole lot again.
If and when ETH goes, I will not be shocked in the slightest if we go for a completely different manager and we'll be talking about a rebuild. Obviously we're not at that point yet, but I base this on the fact that we apparently coveted managers with completely different styles just last summer. Which tells me there was no overarching plan or philosophy. Like you said, we're relying on one manager to dictate that, you seem to be happy with it but thinking strategically over the long run, I think it's a bad approach.
No it doesn't lack any context, it's all factual (maybe not 99%, but it sure felt that way). All I'm saying is right now nobody is bothered that we're following the same approach because things are relatively ok on the pitch, but if things go off the rails, or we don't win major trophies soon, I guarantee that everybody will be bumping this thread and questioning the whole lot again.
If and when ETH goes, I will not be shocked in the slightest if we go for a completely different manager and we'll be talking about a rebuild. Obviously we're not at that point yet, but I base this on the fact that we apparently coveted managers with completely different styles just last summer. Which tells me there was no overarching plan or philosophy. Like you said, we're relying on one manager to dictate that, you seem to be happy with it but thinking strategically over the long run, I think it's a bad approach.
In my head, director of football is there to make sure that the manager aligns with the clubs ethos, so that if that manager gets sacked, a new manager with similar ethos can come in and you won’t need to reset the team every time a manager is sacked
On the one hand you want the DoF to manage the long term vision and have 'final' say (or thereabouts) on transfers but then you also say 'oh but if ETH fails badly here, I don't expect the DoF to then do a good job or hiring the next manager'. Make up your mind.
Yessss I can’t wait for this! Want to see the club bring in top young talent as squad depth after we fix the first team.After this summer, we have filled all the gaps, especially if fe get Amrabat. I think next summer will be even better then, because then we don't have to panic and can search for cheaper targets and more 'Pellistri signings'. Atleast I hope so.
We are looking to offload
1) Maguire 30M
2) Henderson 20M
3) Fred 10M
4) VDB 10M
5) McT 30M
If Murtough is able to sell these deadwood and got approx. 100M for these players then this will be one of our best windows.
Maybe Murtough is finally showing his worth.
We are looking to offload
1) Maguire 30M
2) Henderson 20M
3) Fred 10M
4) VDB 10M
5) McT 30M
If Murtough is able to sell these deadwood and got approx. 100M for these players then this will be one of our best windows.
Maybe Murtough is finally showing his worth.
What I like about this transfer window is the lack of drama. The transfer team went on quietly doing their business -- plugging up the gaps. Very professional.
No bombastic statements ala Woodward especially in the Age of Social Media.... in fact, I don't recall any in fact.
This is the Way.
You mean telling prospective sellers that you have an insane war chest is a good way to get ripped off? Morons all of them before this.
Been a frustrating window for transfer WUM's. Usually United are a major source of their summer window nonsense. This year, we hear about a specific target and not much else about any other players in those same positions. Then within weeks we've signed that player. So simple, so remarkableWhat I like about this transfer window is the lack of drama. The transfer team went on quietly doing their business -- plugging up the gaps. Very professional.
No bombastic statements ala Woodward especially in the Age of Social Media.... in fact, I don't recall any in fact.
This is the Way.
Been a frustrating window for transfer WUM's. Usually United are a major source of their summer window nonsense. This year, we hear about a specific target and not much else about any other players in those same positions. Then within weeks we've signed that player. So simple, so remarkable
That's why credit needs to go to Arnold too -- he's willing to delegate authority; unlike the prick Woodward who resisted getting a DOF for the longest time.
Absolutely. Arnold's role is very underestimated in our club rebuilding. He realizes where we are & genuinely wants to improve the club rather than assuming "Players will come to us if we throw out money", "Let's hire only marketable players", "Let's hand out long term contracts to duds to increase asset value in our balance sheet". The shift in approach would not have been possible without Arnold completely backing Murtough and Ten Hag. It's feels like we're not a circus but a properly run football club for the first time in a decade.
I think you're looking at it the wrong way. Obviously if the manager hates a player, its probably not going to work out but it's physically impossible for a manager to be aware and have in depth scouting information on all the players a scouting network has knowledge of in its aggregate.There's no point in bringing in players the manager doesn't want. He's not going to be successful that way. So you do need to try and sign the players he does want. What should be important in the eyes of the club or a DOF is that those players fit a certain profile we're looking to create in terms of age, style or whatever.
It seems Maguire sales is very close to be done. Well done!
No, how a DoF should work is have a vision for the club and appoint a manager befitting that vision - including in terms of style of play etc.Exactly. 99% of posters on here have bemoaned this approach by us for years. They've been crawling all over this issue and how it holds us back. Yet suddenly willing to overlook it... go figure!
Precisely this.
All the fawning over him in this thread is embarrassing. He's shown himself to be pretty inept when it comes to moving players who are surplus to requirements, and if paying extra 30-40% in fee and wages for a new signing is a job well done then standards are at an all-time low.