Are a lot of people missing the point of a Director of Football?

[Skills]

People seem to be under the impression that when a Director of Football comes in, he'll somehow usurp our CEO. The CEO of a company that is partly traded on the NYSE, and has an obligation to protect shareholder investment. An we'll put a football man in charge of the club. This to me is utterly insane.

It's the manager, who a DOF will actually strip a lot of power away from. The DOF will still report to the CEO, and the amount of money available to spend will still be determined by a 'financial guy'. This is sensible or you could end up bankrupting the club, and crashing the share price.

When a DOF football comes in, we'll hopefully finally reduce the manager to a head coach. And he'll be reporting to the DOF. Then it's not a question of 'backing the manager in the transfer market' it's a question what can the coach achieve with the resources already at the club (which btw should be the first question in an interview).

The club should continue to assess the squad and coach, and see how they can upgrade either allowing us to be a bit more dynamic.

 

[AshRK]

The reason people want DOF or whatever different term that is called is to have a football person taking footballing decisions. Let Woodward manage the financial aspect but let someone else run the footballing side.

 

[Rozay]

Said this loads over the summer. But in my opinion, it’s largely fan desperation. We’ve tried literally everything else. We’ve spent big, we’ve gone for rookie coaches, recommended coaches, proven coaches etc. At least the unknown of a DOF offers hope.

In my opinion, a football club obviously needs certain functions carried out to a high level. So long as that is happening, that’s all that matters, not some trendy job title. It’s not just Ole and Ed rubbing the club. There are scouts, a head of scouting, Nicky Butt doing what he does with the youth and an army of other employees on the football side. People speak as if Ed Woodward does it all, but there are obviously many other job roles on the football side.

People want a DoF because we didn’t sign a player who turned out great. But in the absence of one, we still have an army of scouts. If they are not that good, or if a recommendation was overruled, that’s another thing - but we could just as easily have a director of football who isn’t that good either. The point is, the function has not been neglected.

I’m not against a DoF, I just don’t share the assessment that one is necessarily the answer to everything. People see another team playing some nice football and yearn for a DoF, usually the one that team has. He is not going to coach the team.

Off the field, in my opinion, the most important job by far is that of true manager.

 

[Skills]

The reason people want DOF or whatever different term that is called is to have a football person taking footballing decisions. Let Woodward manage the financial aspect but let someone else run the footballing side.

But there's nothing to suggest Woodward's running the footballing side of things? I mean just look at the players we've targeted under each manager, and how they seem to change when a new one comes in - and then say that Woodward is behind them?

Even with a CEO he would still be well within his rights to veto a transfer that he deems is out of budget or one which will throw the wage budget out of whack.

The footballing side of things I want a DOF to do is to hire and sack managers when necessary (which woodward has cocked up by giving managers too much time, poor extensions and just poor hirings) and also out transfer strategy (which is stripping power away from the manager)

 

[Rozay]

The reason people want DOF or whatever different term that is called is to have a football person taking footballing decisions. Let Woodward manage the financial aspect but let someone else run the footballing side.

What specific football decisions do you speak of? Team tactics? Transfer targets? Youth development?

 

[He'sRaldo]

People seem to be under the impression that when a Director of Football comes in, he'll somehow usurp our CEO. The CEO of a company that is partly traded on the NYSE, and has an obligation to protect shareholder investment. An we'll put a football man in charge of the club. This to me is utterly insane.

It's the manager, who a DOF will actually strip a lot of power away from. The DOF will still report to the CEO, and the amount of money available to spend will still be determined by a 'financial guy'. This is sensible or you could end up bankrupting the club, and crashing the share price.

When a DOF football comes in, we'll hopefully finally reduce the manager to a head coach. And he'll be reporting to the DOF. Then it's not a question of 'backing the manager in the transfer market' it's a question what can the coach achieve with the resources already at the club (which btw should be the first question in an interview).

The club should continue to assess the squad and coach, and see how they can upgrade either allowing us to be a bit more dynamic.

I think the main reasons people advocate a DOF are continuity regardless of manager, and preventing poor managerial decisions.

Those were both huge problems in the Mourinho regime.

 

[AshRK]

But there's nothing to suggest Woodward's running the footballing side of things? I mean just look at the players we've targeted under each manager, and how they seem to change when a new one comes in - and then say that Woodward is behind them?

Even with a CEO he would still be well within his rights to veto a transfer that he deems is out of budget or one which will throw the wage budget out of whack.

The footballing side of things I want a DOF to do is to hire and sack managers when necessary (which woodward has cocked up by giving managers too much time, poor extensions and just poor hirings) and also out transfer strategy (which is stripping power away from the manager)

Your last para sums up my major concern with Woodward. I don't think he knows what he is doing. I know he has done reasonably well in commercial aspect but there is nothing so far that suggests he is a good negotiator. They guy has made many school boy errors in some of the negotiations. Also, my biggest concern in him taking all the footballing decisions is his face value has taken a great beating. There is no denying the guy has become a living parody. The only reason players or future manager will be interested in our club is because of its name and history. But then you have this guy represent, I don't think that would be a great selling point. I think it is high time he keeps his arrogance aside and let some other guy make the footballing decisions.

 

[sammsky1]

What is the guarantee that we hire a great DoF? Who will choose him?

What happens is we still sign unsuitable players after a DoF is signed? How long does a DoF get before he is sacked?

I think it's a red herring.

 

[Rozay]

What is the guarantee that we hire a great DoF? Who will choose him?

What happens is we still sign unsuitable players after a DoF is signed? How long does a DoF get before he is sacked?

I think it's a red herring.

Exactly this.

 

[Catt]

I honestly think it's a case of getting the right manager. If you do that things fall into place.

 

[AshRK]

What specific football decisions do you speak of? Team tactics? Transfer targets? Youth development?

Appointing managers. I don't see any continuity in what we have done in the last 6 years. It seems he just appoints people without much thinking. Like why would you give Jose an extension when he hadn't proven much and then have a fallout in just 4 months. Then why would you not wait till the end of the season before deciding on Ole rather than jumping the gun soon. I just don't trust this guy to appoint the right person after he sacks ole. His strategy so far seems let us throw our luck at everything and hope something sticks. It never works like that.

Also, I don't see him as a great negotiator. I feel his image has taken a beating to an extent that other teams take a ride of him.

 

[Rozay]

Appointing managers. I don't see any continuity in what we have done in the last 6 years. It seems he just appoints people without much thinking. Like why would you give Jose an extension when he hadn't proven much and then have a fallout in just 4 months. Then why would you not wait till the end of the season before deciding on Ole rather than jumping the gun soon. I just don't trust this guy to appoint the right person after he sacks ole. His strategy so far seems let us throw our luck at everything and hope something sticks. It never works like that.

Also, I don't see him as a great negotiator. I feel his image has taken a beating to an extent that other teams take a ride of him.

Jose got an extension because he led us to our best finish post Fergie. I do agree though that a good DoF would help with continuity.

I do think all of his managers made sense at the time; and I disagree that they have not been sacked quickly enough. Moyes didn’t see out a season, LVG got us into the CL so was allowed to continue, and then was sacked at the end of the next season when he failed to. Everyone is a hindsight expert, and said Jose should have been sacked last summer, but how do you sack a manager for finishing second? He was rightfully allowed to continue, and when things were going wrong, he was sacked. Ole cane in as interim. After a string of wins, the experts on and off Redcafe unanimously agreed he should be given the job. Now of course, Ed is an idiot for doing so.

 

[Skills]

Jose got an extension because he led us to our best finish post Fergie. I do agree though that a good DoF would help with continuity.

I do think all of his managers made sense at the time; and I disagree that they have not been sacked quickly enough. Moyes didn’t see out a season, LVG got us into the CL so was allowed to continue, and then was sacked at the end of the next season when he failed to. Everyone is a hindsight expert, and said Jose should have been sacked last summer, but how do you sack a manager for finishing second? He was rightfully allowed to continue, and when things were going wrong, he was sacked. Ole cane in as interim. After a string of wins, the experts on and off Redcafe unanimously agreed he should be given the job. Now of course, Ed is an idiot for doing so.

By having high standards.

 

[Bubz27]

But there's nothing to suggest Woodward's running the footballing side of things?

Did Ed veto Jose selling Martial? And signing Maguire because he wasnt better than what we had? And the board refused to sell Rojo because it's to a rival?

 

[AshRK]

Jose got an extension because he led us to our best finish post Fergie. I do agree though that a good DoF would help with continuity.

I do think all of his managers made sense at the time; and I disagree that they have not been sacked quickly enough. Moyes didn’t see out a season, LVG got us into the CL so was allowed to continue, and then was sacked at the end of the next season when he failed to. Everyone is a hindsight expert, and said Jose should have been sacked last summer, but how do you sack a manager for finishing second? He was rightfully allowed to continue, and when things were going wrong, he was sacked. Ole cane in as interim. After a string of wins, the experts on and off Redcafe unanimously agreed he should be given the job. Now of course, Ed is an idiot for doing so.

I don't care what some people here have to say. We are not CEO of the company, are we? To say but we fans also wanted Ole to be permanent because of our emotional love cannot be presented as an excuse for Woodward's flaw.

I didn't mind him giving an extension to Jose but then you know what you get with Jose. To sign him ato a new contract and then come summer say we will not be agreeing with your philosophy looks absurd. Don't you talk about that when hiring or offering him an extension. All tom dick and harry could see last season was going to turn a disaster when Jose started moaning and any guy who has followed Jose's career would tell you if you don't back him like he wants then you are going to see some moaning and crying and that's what happened. At the end of everything it seems hastily taken decision to offer him the extension.

Coming to Ole, yes he was amazing at the start but even at that time we didn't achieve much. It was another hastily taken decision. Now just because some Joe in redcafe said then Ole should have been appointed doesn't give an excuse to Ed.

 

[Skills]

Did Ed veto Jose selling Martial? And signing Maguire because he wasnt better than what we had? And the board refused to sell Rojo because it's to a rival?

He refused to swap Martial + cash for Perisic. That's 2 seasons after spending 50m on Martial. As a CEO he's well within his rights to stop the club writing off millions of pounds.

He also rightly refused to sanction another CB signing at the club, because he'd already sanctioned signing one in each of the last 2 transfer windows and the clubs wage bill was full of them. I'd say, anytime woodwood has actually put his foot down it's actually been the right decision. I just wish he did it for Matic and Sanchez too, and we would've been in a better positioned.

 

[Rozay]

I don't care what some people here have to say. We are not CEO of the company, are we? To say but we fans also wanted Ole to be permanent because of our emotional love cannot be presented as an excuse for Woodward's flaw.

I didn't mind him giving an extension to Jose but then you know what you get with Jose. To sign him ato a new contract and then come summer say we will not be agreeing with your philosophy looks absurd. Don't you talk about that when hiring or offering him an extension. All tom dick and harry could see last season was going to turn a disaster when Jose started moaning and any guy who has followed Jose's career would tell you if you don't back him like he wants then you are going to see some moaning and crying and that's what happened. At the end of everything it seems hastily taken decision to offer him the extension.

Coming to Ole, yes he was amazing at the start but even at that time we didn't achieve much. It was another hastily taken decision. Now just because some Joe in redcafe said then Ole should have been appointed doesn't give an excuse to Ed.

The point is the logic behind the decision is easily discernible. Every bad decision should not have been made in hindsight, yet at the time, it was a perfectly fine decision, as agreed by all those criticising it on here and by the experts paid millions to commentate on the game.

As you say, as much as it calls Woodward’s decision making into question, it also underlines that most people on here are probably best ignored and are not the experts they like to think they are. Yet here we are again a few months later saying what Ed should do, Ole should go etc, with the only difference being, I suppose, that we were wrong the last time but we’re all right this time, promise!

 

[ROFLUTION]

The reason people want DOF or whatever different term that is called is to have a football person taking footballing decisions. Let Woodward manage the financial aspect but let someone else run the footballing side.

/Thread.

 

[Skills]

What is the guarantee that we hire a great DoF? Who will choose him?

What happens is we still sign unsuitable players after a DoF is signed? How long does a DoF get before he is sacked?

I think it's a red herring.

And what's the guarantee we're not going to hire another dud manager.

It's easy though, if we continue to sign shit players you find a new DOF. If we're not getting the best out of the players we have, he sacks the manager. It's about holding people accountable in the right positions.

We can't be in this situation, that he's a shit coach but he's doing a good job of overhauling the squad. That's not a good enough reason to keep someone, so you're better of splitting the accountabilities in two.

 

[Crashoutcassius]

The point is we have spent as much or more than anybody and it has been wasted through lack of a plan

 

[Amerifan]

People seem to be under the impression that when a Director of Football comes in, he'll somehow usurp our CEO. The CEO of a company that is partly traded on the NYSE, and has an obligation to protect shareholder investment. An we'll put a football man in charge of the club. This to me is utterly insane.

It's the manager, who a DOF will actually strip a lot of power away from. The DOF will still report to the CEO, and the amount of money available to spend will still be determined by a 'financial guy'. This is sensible or you could end up bankrupting the club, and crashing the share price.

When a DOF football comes in, we'll hopefully finally reduce the manager to a head coach. And he'll be reporting to the DOF. Then it's not a question of 'backing the manager in the transfer market' it's a question what can the coach achieve with the resources already at the club (which btw should be the first question in an interview).

The club should continue to assess the squad and coach, and see how they can upgrade either allowing us to be a bit more dynamic.

This is a really good post. Most of the comments on here suggest the DOF is a fix-all. He will manage up by stealing the checkbook from Woodward and splashing the cash on all those world class players Ed keeps missing. He will manage down by telling the manager to “play attractive football and win all your games”, because no one ever told Ole to do that before. Uh huh.

The one thing the right DOF would add to the equation is a sense of continuity during managerial changes. Ensuring consistency of players and play style would be a valuable addition to the current setup.

 

[POF]

The Director of Football role is absolutely crucial at United. The club has absolutely zero direction and is continually flip flopping between different styles of play, type of player and managers with different philosophies.

Under Ole, there appears to be an attempt to return to "the United way". To rebuild the culture at the club and bring some more leadership into the playing group. What if Ole is sacked? What happens then?

The club has spent an absolute fortune in "backing the manager" only for those expensively signed players to become virtually worthless under the next manager with a completely different style. It's how you end up with such a threadbare squad despite huge investment in the playing squad.

The mismanagement of the playing squad over the last 6 seasons is as bad as I've ever seen from any top club.

 

[Scotty McT]

But there's nothing to suggest Woodward's running the footballing side of things?

Multiple sources reported that Woodward wasn't interested in signing Alderweireld because he wasn't better than the defenders we already have.

 

[TheGodsInRed]

This is my take why a DOF is crucial in modern day football.

Ensuring continuity between managers is vital. Every new appointed manager seems to be employed as a polar opposite of the previous one, such as van gaal’s high possession football failing was reacted with employing a static manager who was happy to concede possession and rely on opponents making mistakes. This meant the majority players needing changing and he brought in experienced slow but disciplined players to adopt Mourinho’s style.
Then when that fails, we go for the opposite again and recruit a manager that wants young speedy players and before we know it we need a brand new first team.

You hire a DOF that wants to implement a particular philosophy, and recruit players that suit that style. If the manager is not working out, you replace a manager that will be able to work with your players and philosophy to stop this constant gutting of the team.

Football managers last an average of two seasons nowadays, so recruitment policy needs to adapt to this to ensure continuity, and you need to seriously know your football to get this right. Something which Woodward does not.

 

[SER19]

In my mind a good director of football will mean that should a manager ever leave l, an appropriate choice is made for a new one to slot in fairly seamlessly. The same with player recommendations.

Basically the footballing 'direction' is clear and guided and not the jumbled mess we've seen for 6 years. A shambolic bumbling cluster feck of panic buys, over the odds paying and some good players who clearly didn't fit any sort of notion of united football at all.

This would include transitioning youth players deemed good enough to the first team squad too

 

[Waynne]

Would a competent Director of Football hire Ole Gunnar Solksjaer to manage Manchester United?

 

[Skills]

This is a really good post. Most of the comments on here suggest the DOF is a fix-all. He will manage up by stealing the checkbook from Woodward and splashing the cash on all those world class players Ed keeps missing. He will manage down by telling the manager to “play attractive football and win all your games”, because no one ever told Ole to do that before. Uh huh.

The one thing the right DOF would add to the equation is a sense of continuity during managerial changes. Ensuring consistency of players and play style would be a valuable addition to the current setup.

The Director of Football role is absolutely crucial at United. The club has absolutely zero direction and is continually flip flopping between different styles of play, type of player and managers with different philosophies.

Under Ole, there appears to be an attempt to return to "the United way". To rebuild the culture at the club and bring some more leadership into the playing group. What if Ole is sacked? What happens then?

The club has spent an absolute fortune in "backing the manager" only for those expensively signed players to become virtually worthless under the next manager with a completely different style. It's how you end up with such a threadbare squad despite huge investment in the playing squad.

The mismanagement of the playing squad over the last 6 seasons is as bad as I've ever seen from any top club.

This is my take why a DOF is crucial in modern day football.

Ensuring continuity between managers is vital. Every new appointed manager seems to be employed as a polar opposite of the previous one, such as van gaal’s high possession football failing was reacted with employing a static manager who was happy to concede possession and rely on opponents making mistakes. This meant the majority players needing changing and he brought in experienced slow but disciplined players to adopt Mourinho’s style.
Then when that fails, we go for the opposite again and recruit a manager that wants young speedy players and before we know it we need a brand new first team.

You hire a DOF that wants to implement a particular philosophy, and recruit players that suit that style. If the manager is not working out, you replace a manager that will be able to work with your players and philosophy to stop this constant gutting of the team.

Football managers last an average of two seasons nowadays, so recruitment policy needs to adapt to this to ensure continuity, and you need to seriously know your football to get this right. Something which Woodward does not.

Fully agreed with everything, but still the biggest loser in that scenario isn't Woodward. It's the managers who are going to lose the extraordinary amount of influence they enjoy, and will for once be held accountable for their actual management of the playing squad.

The fact that a manager isn't backed enough, or hasn't managed to sign an entire first XI of his choice will not be an excuse anymore.

 

[POF]

Fully agreed with everything, but still the biggest loser in that scenario isn't Woodward. It's the managers who are going to lose the extraordinary amount of influence they enjoy, and will for once be held accountable for their actual management of the playing squad.

The fact that a manager isn't backed enough, or hasn't managed to sign an entire first XI of his choice will not be an excuse anymore.

But it should help the manager because they should not inherit a squad that is not fit for purpose for the style of football they want to implement.

It also means that the manager can concentrate on preparing the team for games rather than needing to be across the entire world population of footballers to identify his transfer targets.

 

[Skills]

But it should help the manager because they should not inherit a squad that is not fit for purpose for the style of football they want to implement.

It also means that the manager can concentrate on preparing the team for games rather than needing to be across the entire world population of footballers to identify his transfer targets.

True, or they themselves will not be hired in the role if the players at the club aren't the ones they can work with.

I also completely agree with the second point. I want our managers/coaches to be held accountable for their coaching. That's what they should be focused on. For me the first question at a managers interview should be, what can he do for us with the squad available? Not what we can do for him with our chequebook

 

[The United]

The reason people want DOF or whatever different term that is called is to have a football person taking footballing decisions. Let Woodward manage the financial aspect but let someone else run the footballing side.

The DOF will still have to report to Woodward when it comes to big footballing decisions.

Don't get me wrong. We need to focus more on footballing side with footballing people. But, hiring DOF would solve pretty much nothing when it comes to player transfers or choosing managers which most people here are hoping with a DOF.

 

[The United]

Also, people talking about DOF as like in whoever we sign as one would fit with the club and will never make any mistakes.

I mean he will be like a manager. He can make mistakes as well. By then, we will have one more person from management to hate on and abuse on.

Why not, right?

 

[Eckers99]

Would a competent Director of Football hire Ole Gunnar Solksjaer to manage Manchester United?

A competent DOF would've seen how the season panned out rather than hiring someone based upon fan sentiment.

 

[Amerifan]

All those in favor of a DOF...
All those opposed...
The ayes have it. The motion carries.

 

[Cassidy]

I honestly think it's a case of getting the right manager. If you do that things fall into place.

Until he leaves and then the next one you get is shite

 

[Cassidy]

A competent DOF would've seen how the season panned out rather than hiring someone based upon fan sentiment.

A competent one doesn't hire Ole regardless. They would have already lined up the replacement before the season was out

 

[Bastian]

Yeah, having someone with extensive knowledge of recruitment, player markets, a great network, the right approach to players, knows how to conduct due diligence on transfers (also players who are from other countries), and works according to a particular vision is way overrated. Since Woodward will still control the money, we should just stick with him.

Did I do that right?

 

[Class of 63]

A director of football is so last year, a transfer committee is what we should be aiming for, and the Manager in situ should have a say who is on said committee - that or stay as we are.

 

[Sterling Archer]

Would a DOF get in a better coach than one whose resume includes MLS Whitecaps and Bahrain? I'd bite your hand off for that.

 

[roonster09]

The reason I want DoF is to reduce the burden on manager. Job is too big for 1 person to keep track of everything. We will miss out on many players just because we couldn't make decision on player. With DoF, recruitment process will be everyday of the year. He will keep track of young players and also proactively approach players whose contract is expiring.

We need to divide the job and hire the specialists instead of relying on manager for everything.

I agree with the point OP is making, have seen few posts saying DoF will work against Woodward or something close to that. End of the day DoF, manager work under Woodward and he will make the important decision. Only thing that will change is our transfer strategy.

 

[Sky1981]

It's just decision shifting from a manager to a dof.

Appointing a wrong dof could still feck us.
Good dof bad manager still mean bad football.
Bad dof bad manager is still a catastrophe.
Good manager bad dof is stiffling progress.
Good manager good dof is the best scenario, but we cant even identify a good manager let alone both