By your definition anyone but the Glazers would be puppets, without authority either. But executives don't just freestyle and then see what sticks when the board get involved. They negotiate internally what their strategy and (financial) parameters going forward are and then, afterwards, act them out in public. Whatever Zorc does has been authorized by Watzke and/or the board. He knows the answer on whether they can afford not to sell Sancho before he enters the public arena, not after.
The function of the board is oversight, not active management, it's staffed with CEOs from outside companies and politicans, not football people.
No! Sometimes but not all the time. (Don’t be naive)
On another note. Now I understand why our communication isn’t straight forward. Probably cultural or age differences. My age is probably closer to the board members and Watzke. (Could also means that sometimes I’m outdated, it goes two ways. Smile)
When it comes to decisions involving €100m+ it’s your CEO‘s responsibly to involve your Supervising Board. From the board’s perspective they can have different agendas depending on who‘s the receiver. You have internal, external and public communications. In other words Zork (internal), United (external) and supporters (public communication)
Maybe the board knows that they have to sell Sancho at one point but doesn’t want to communicate that to their DoF, manager or the players. They don’t want to upset their supporters so they let Zork do the dirty job with a passionate defending about their stance. At the same time they negotiate with United by a third party who report to the board/Watzke. Nobody (Zork) is lying but at the same time they exploits all options without losing face.
I totally respect Michael Zork and his contribution but I also know that when big money is involved internal politics often trumps above 100% transparency.”