Long term strategy and planning with short term solutions

[andersj]

There appear to be a common misconception among supporters, and maybe even at boardroom level at our club, that a long term strategy at a football club rely on the coach/manager. Man Utd appears to have been on the search for a new Sir Alex Ferguson ever since he left.

Having one manager in charge for such a long period of time gave Man Utd several advantages and an edge on some of our rivals. First and foremost, we had continuity and a direction for our club. We could plan for the long term in a manner very few could.

In a way it makes sense that it used to be that way. When there was less money and the sport was less professional you had less staff. The manager (hence the term «manager», not a coach) acted a bit like a CEO of a small company and was literally in charge of everything relating to the sporting department of the club. Today, at a top club, you have a sport science department, including doctors, physios, data analysts etc. Specialists. All of these will, in a sense, bring continuity along with the top management at a club.

These days, it appear to be the other way around. Trying to plan for the long term through a coach/manager dont bring continuity at all. Quite the contarary actually. Building to have a manager for a longer period does not make the club robust. Rather it makes the club fragile as you could be locked to an underperforming coach. It also gives the manager the chance to hide behind the term of «a long term project».

Furthermore, the status of the head coach is volatile. It is subject to the handling of big egos and putting in place the right game plan against rival clubs. He will be measured every weekend by media and supporters on what is likely to be a small part of a managers job. Small, but very, very important and that is why you have to seperate it. A manager could do a great job developing the club, co-operating with management, but if he fails on the pitch he will be most likely be gone very soon.

Some of the most successfull clubs in Europe over the past decade changes head coach quite often. Chelsea, Real Madrid and Bayern had between seven and ten managers between 2010 and 2020. Liverpool and Man City with Klopp and Pep appears to be outliers at this point. You can not expect to stumble across a new Pep or Klopp when hiring a manager.

The fact that a club can change head coach often and continue competing for titles is, in my opinion, proof that they are robust. Their long term planing do not rely on one individual. They dont have to start from scratch every time they get a new coach. Why is that?

I’m sure there are several good reasons. But crucially, their long term strategy comes from the top (board/management). Their recruitment, that is not the job of the coach, reflects that. There are also a sport science department taking care of their assets with a long term view.

When Bayern hired Louis van Gaal it was their first step towards playing possession-football. Their intention was that he would do the groundwork for Pep Guardiola. Ever since they have hired managers who wants to play high-press, possession football. Their recruitment reflect that. When Man Utd hired van Gaal we ended up replacing him with Mourinho (ironically, Woodward later argued that Mourinho to a bigger degree than van Gaal felt like a long term solution).

Most likely, an elite coach will look for a club where a long term strategy and proper structure is in place. A good coach will likely understand what they can do and what they can not do. Implementing a long term strategy in a position that rely on short term results is in the bracket of what they cannot do. To succeed, they have to be part of a club/organization with a long term strategy that align with theirs, and where the infrastructure to succeed, including support staff, is already in place.

When Ferguson left I was convinced we could attract any manager/coach in the world. But as it turned out, the two best coaches, were never really interested. The pitch to Klopp about Disneyland was probably not the only turnoff about Man Utd.

In summary, I strongly believe that to plan long term you need to have an organization where changing coach every now and then will not be considered a big issue. You prefer not to, and try to find a Ferguson/Klopp, but you can if it is needed. You want to create an organization where the coach is part of the long term strategy, but he can never be the long term strategy or outline it. Some will say that the key is a strong DoF and that is obviously part of it. But more importantly, you need a competent board.

From the outside, it is hard to assess where Man Utd is at right now. We have recentley hired Murtough and Fletcher as DoF and technical director (whatever that mean). That could be a first step in the right direction. But the clubs unwillingness to take action the last few weeks, and rumours about prefering a long term option as coach and consequently ignoring a few great options that have been available the last twelve month, makes me less confident about the strategy and direction of our club. It feels like Man Utd have a long term strategy that are tied close to the manager making it difficult to move him on as it will make us start from scratch, Again. If that is the case, we are in a very fragile position.

TL;DR

 

[TheRoyble]

Good post. I'd certainly agree some clubs have a long term strategy (eg Chelsea, City) whereas others make it up as they go along based on what they read in Shoot comic (eg Spurs, Utd).
Perhaps managerial longevity is coincidental? Get someone who fits your system and they may stay long they may not.

 

[smi11ie]

I thought that the modern system was a DoF and a Head Coach. Utd have a Manager, Head Coach and a DoF as well as a Technical Director. I get the impression that Utd is poorly structured and there is not a clear strategy in place. Too many cooks spoil the broth.

This is my understanding of how a club should work.

Director of football determines the playing style and the players that fit that style.

A Head coach is selected who fits into the style determined by the DoF.

That is easy right?

 

[andersj]

I thought that the modern system was a DoF and a Head Coach. Utd have a Manager, Head Coach and a DoF as well as a Technical Director. I get the impression that Utd is poorly structured and there is not a clear strategy in place. Too many cooks spoil the broth.

This is my understanding of how a club should work.

Director of football determines the playing style and the players that fit that style.

A Head coach is selected who fits into the style determined by the DoF.

That is easy right?

I agree. Maybe even better if the style is determined by a competent CEO/board but executed by the DoF.

That is probably another issue with our structure. Woodward should rather be CFO next to a CEO like (van der Sar or Rummenigge).

 

[smi11ie]

I agree. Maybe even better if the style is determined by a competent CEO/board but executed by the DoF.

That is probably another issue with our structure. Woodward should rather be CFO next to a CEO like (van der Sar or Rummenigge).

I totally agree with that. Woodward should be Chief Commercial Officer but you need a football guy in charge of things.

 

[Skills]

Long term success is just a series of short term successes

 

[andersj]

Long term success is just a series of short term successes

There is a lot of truth to that. Assuming definition of success is smart.

 

[Lecland07]

I don't think you can plan to have a manager for the long term as there are two major factors:

1. Are they good enough to fulfil the club's goals consistently?
2. Do they want to stay?

Ferguson ticked off both of these. If one of these were not true, he would have left Manchester United far earlier and we may not be talking about having a long-term manager at this point. Ferguson was a rarity, not only in being able to continually win with the Manchester United, but also that he did not want to manage any other big club. There have been quite a lot of great managers who could have extended their stay, but chose not to. It is not something a club should be expecting.

The long-term goal should be around how we want the club to play and the expectations. But, most importantly, the club should be constantly looking for better managers, even when they have a manager in place. Man City have been a perfect example of doing this, actually.

They are aggressive in their pursuit and do not shy away from constantly searching for better managers just because they have one in place, even if they are good. This might seem underhanded to some, but it is fantastic long-term planning. Guardiola was to become manager quite a long time before (Mancini, was it?) their manager at the time left. Letting Mancini go was based around their opportunity to get Guardiola, and they carried it through.

There are already rumours about them sounding out replacements for Guardiola and, I think, his contract has two seasons still to run. Of course, it is hugely beneficial if the club knows when a manager is leaving (like Klopp and Guardiola have done with their clubs, recently), but that comes about from having a system of only keeping good/quality managers in those positions and seeking out replacements well in advance.

 

[Lentwood]

Yeah see your point, I have been arguing for ages that if the club is well-run, the manager should only really be one piece of the puzzle, and not a particularly big piece at that.

The trouble is, because Utd was run by Gill and SAF for so long, our structure is archaic and we're very much dependant on the manager being able to do nearly everything.

 

[andersj]

Listening to Neville yesterday it sounds as if we did not go for Conte as we had a plan with OGS. He made it sounds like our coach is the plan and strategy going forward.

That is the only reasons I can see too, and it really makes us fragile. Really amature level of planning. Woodward and Glazer should be embarrassed at their own stupidity.

 

[Sky1981]

Stop thinking 25 years ahead.

Think 2 years. When you got it right the next 2 would be a continuation.

We think about 3 years under lvg then prince giggs took over, etc.

If we want a dof to foresee the next 10 or 15 years we would be repeating the same mistake all over again. Just because he got a DOF label doesnt mean he has what it takes to plan for 10 years.

And i agree with skills. Long term plan is a series of short term success.

 

[Sky1981]

Listening to Neville yesterday it sounds as if we did not go for Conte as we had a plan with OGS. He made it sounds like our coach is the plan and strategy going forward.

That is the only reasons I can see too, and it really makes us fragile. Really amature level of planning. Woodward and Glazer should be embarrassed at their own stupidity.

Stop listening to neville.

 

[Sky1981]

We did not hire Ferguson for 26 years.

We give him 8 consecutive contract extension. Aka we do not think he'll last that long. We just extend as we see fit.

26 years should not be the goal. Even under fergie it's 3 at a time.

 

[Dan_F]

Good post. I’m not sure why football clubs believe they are different to any other type of big business in regards to planning. This is basic stuff that you’d learn doing a GCSE in business studies.

I always have to laugh when I see posts/threads on our net spend or transfer fees, as if that absolves the Glazers of how they’re running the club.

Stop thinking 25 years ahead.

Think 2 years. When you got it right the next 2 would be a continuation.

We think about 3 years under lvg then prince giggs took over, etc.

If we want a dof to foresee the next 10 or 15 years we would be repeating the same mistake all over again. Just because he got a DOF label doesnt mean he has what it takes to plan for 10 years.

And i agree with skills. Long term plan is a series of short term success.

But the right tools have to be in place to get that short term success. If you bounce from manager to manager without a clue it won’t work. Hiring Jose, letting him spend £300 million to adapt the team to his methods, then switching to a high pressing manager just wouldn’t work because the players wouldn’t be suitable. That’s why you have a vision of what you’re trying to achieve, and base your hiring on that.

 

[hurricane thunderclap]

What youngsters have we to push forward is the up and coming simply not good enough?

 

[Sky1981]

Good post. I’m not sure why football clubs believe they are different to any other type of big business in regards to planning. This is basic stuff that you’d learn doing a GCSE in business studies.

I always have to laugh when I see posts/threads on our net spend or transfer fees, as if that absolves the Glazers of how they’re running the club.




But the right tools have to be in place to get that short term success. If you bounce from manager to manager without a clue it won’t work. Hiring Jose, letting him spend £300 million to adapt the team to his methods, then switching to a high pressing manager just wouldn’t work because the players wouldn’t be suitable. That’s why you have a vision of what you’re trying to achieve, and base your hiring on that.

It's easy to say so in retrospect. To be fair, Moyes was an SAF decision, as much as we have doubt and rightly so we did give in and give it a try. Not that we can say no but at that time I did thought that maybe the old man was right.

LVG in retrospect wasn't such a bad decision, total football etc with Giggs as heir, 3 years short term to instill a new sets of structure post Moyes. Honestly I thought it's a grand move, too bad we got a stale and senile LVG instead of the old LVG.

With Jose, it's also understandable that with Giggs and LVG fiasco we pull out the most logical think any big clubs would have done under crisis, pick the best out of the lot (i know this is debatable) and again "AT THAT TIME" it's logical think to do.

What's illogical is appointing Ole the Cardiff manager, we shouldn't bought into the notion perpetrated by Neville and Co that Jose and Lvg doesn't work so it's Ole at the wheel. We should have just tell them all to F off and continue with appointing the next best manager available, probably with a side note of having a similar style of play. We should have interview them and ask them "Do you have plan with our squad"? As most manager usually does. We seems to resign to manager clearing out everything and rebuild from the ashes while it doesn't have to be that way. It's a self fulfilling prophecy and utter stupidity. Conte/TenHaag would probably want his first XI in the long run, but for 2 years I bet they could make any squad work with a sprinkle of 1 or 2 new signing. We give the wrong man the wrong key and it snowballed to today.

There's no guarantee the next big name manager gonna make it, but there's no guarantee for everyone. Chelsea got like 3 manager for every 1 good manager. So does Bayern (although for Bayern their domestic is rather forgiving), so does Barcelona, Madrid, and co. We shouldn't be like a spoilt kids that failed 2 times and got PTSD and refused to dip the water again.

 

[stefan92]

When Bayern hired Louis van Gaal it was their first step towards playing possession-football. Their intention was that he would do the groundwork for Pep Guardiola. Ever since they have hired managers who wants to play high-press, possession football. Their recruitment reflect that.

Overall very good post. But I doubt this section is true. When Bayern signed van Gaal, Guardiola had just managed Barca for one season. That was one geeat seaspn, but arguably van Gaals reputation was still at least as big, especially considering that Bayern requires their managers to speak German, which means that Guardiola at the time would not have been an option.

 

[andersj]

Overall very good post. But I doubt this section is true. When Bayern signed van Gaal, Guardiola had just managed Barca for one season. That was one geeat seaspn, but arguably van Gaals reputation was still at least as big, especially considering that Bayern requires their managers to speak German, which means that Guardiola at the time would not have been an option.

I got it from «Pep Confidential», the book by Marti Perarnau, about Peps first year at Bayern*. In Chapter 4 Paul Breitner speaks about how they identified the «Barcelona-approach» as the way forward and modern football (this was in 2009) and that they saw van Gaal as the man to make the first step towards such a system.

It might not be entirely accurate, but the general point remains. They recongized a type of football and hired coaches to build on what the last coach did.

The book is available on google for free. Search for van Gaal and Pep Confidential and you will find it.

 

[stefan92]

I got it from «Pep Confidential», the book by Marti Perarnau, about Peps first year at Bayern*. In Chapter 4 Paul Breitner speaks about how they identified the «Barcelona-approach» as the way forward and modern football (this was in 2009) and that they saw van Gaal as the man to make the first step towards such a system.

It might not be entirely accurate, but the general point remains. They recongized a type of football and hired coaches to build on what the last coach did.

The book is available on google for free. Search for van Gaal and Pep Confidential and you will find it.

I think it is clear that Bayern understood the need to have a clear football philosophy and went a bit for the Barca way. And yes I do see that Guardiola was at a certain point a dream signing for some people on Bayern's board.

However Bayern never gave full control to Guardiola in the same way City did and also did not prepare for him by signing his old Barca friends, so I absolutely do not believe that Bayern said in 2009 "we are going to hire Guardiola".

 

[reelworld]

The DoF and head coach structure is pretty much the American sport system. Which why I'm amazed why the Glazers didn't think of implementing this early when Ferguson retired.

If you look at Ajax, Bayern and Barca, IMO, the people responsible understand clearly what kind of football they want to play. At Ajax it was part of their identity since Rinus Michel days. Cruyff brought it to Barca and it becomes part of their identity as well. Because of this, the DoF and the head coach hired will be someone who can implement that identity. That's the long term planning that they follow through.
Now at United, we do have an identity, unfortunately that identity was carried out by one man for 26 years. And because of that, once that man goes, it was clear that United should move on and established a new footballing identity, but can't because they are so used to old ways, not understanding that that way of playing was only achievable by Ferguson and Ferguson only.

 

[andersj]

I think it is clear that Bayern understood the need to have a clear football philosophy and went a bit for the Barca way. And yes I do see that Guardiola was at a certain point a dream signing for some people on Bayern's board.

However Bayern never gave full control to Guardiola in the same way City did and also did not prepare for him by signing his old Barca friends, so I absolutely do not believe that Bayern said in 2009 "we are going to hire Guardiola".

As I said, my recollection might not have been 100 % accurate, but the point remains. They wanted to move on from where they where (probably somewhere similar to Man Utd) and towards a similar path as Barcelona. They saw Louis van Gaal as the first step to take them there.

You are probably right that they did not say in 2009 thay «we want to hire Guardiola». But that is not quite the point I’m trying to make either. Sorry if my wording was clumpsy.

I think the way Bayern built on the foundation from van Gaal really seperates them from Man Utd, who went in the exact opposite direction by hiring Mourinho, thereby deciding to start from scratch again. Today, quite a few people want us to hire ten Hag. I think he is an exciting coach and would welcome him. Too bad that will be another start from scratch.

 

[stefan92]

As I said, my recollection might not have been 100 % accurate, but the point remains. They wanted to move on from where they where (probably somewhere similar to Man Utd) and towards a similar path as Barcelona. They saw Louis van Gaal as the first step to take them there.

You are probably right that they did not say in 2009 thay «we want to hire Guardiola». But that is not quite the point I’m trying to make either. Sorry if my wording was clumpsy.

Your point that a long term strategy should not be bound to hiring certain people is even more emphasized by that I think.

Van Gaal started that possession based, high pressing style, similar to Barca, and from then on they signed managers who roughly followed that way. Ancelotti and Kovac were mistakes, but in general they kept that style until today.

 

[andersj]

Tweet

— Twitter API (@user) date

 

[bosnian_red]

Tweet

— Twitter API (@user) date

Pointless buzz words without meaning that they use as a cop-out.

The manager has to manage the squad successfully. That's it. You can't compromise your future but you have to be successful the best way you know how right now.

 

[TheGodsInRed]

Great post. Agree completely.

Football is too big now to have one general manager.

 

[croadyman]

Tweet

— Twitter API (@user) date

Well if you want someone who has had experience of working with an academy go and get Rodgers

 

[clarkydaz]

Fletcher at the wheel

 

[lefty_jakobz]

A long term strategy would be for the fans to force the current owners out.

We have a series of yes men running the footballing side most of whom are not fit to task. As one of the worlds biggest clubs, you would think we would have some of the best in field in the footballing positions (DoF technical director coaching staff manager) but what we have is a little boys club trying to play football manager and failing

 

[andersj]

Well if you want someone who has had experience of working with an academy go and get Rodgers

Hopefully they want someone who is actually very good too.

How many youth players has Rodgers promoted and given more than 1 000 min in the PL?

 

[croadyman]

Hopefully they want someone who is actually very good too.

How many youth players has Rodgers promoted and given more than 1 000 min in the PL?

Yeah that is a very valid point but think he could at least get us playing some quality stuff and IMPROVING players

 

[TMDaines]

There appear to be a common misconception among supporters, and maybe even at boardroom level at our club, that a long term strategy at a football club rely on the coach/manager. Man Utd appears to have been on the search for a new Sir Alex Ferguson ever since he left.

Having one manager in charge for such a long period of time gave Man Utd several advantages and an edge on some of our rivals. First and foremost, we had continuity and a direction for our club. We could plan for the long term in a manner very few could.

In a way it makes sense that it used to be that way. When there was less money and the sport was less professional you had less staff. The manager (hence the term «manager», not a coach) acted a bit like a CEO of a small company and was literally in charge of everything relating to the sporting department of the club. Today, at a top club, you have a sport science department, including doctors, physios, data analysts etc. Specialists. All of these will, in a sense, bring continuity along with the top management at a club.

These days, it appear to be the other way around. Trying to plan for the long term through a coach/manager dont bring continuity at all. Quite the contarary actually. Building to have a manager for a longer period does not make the club robust. Rather it makes the club fragile as you could be locked to an underperforming coach. It also gives the manager the chance to hide behind the term of «a long term project».

Furthermore, the status of the head coach is volatile. It is subject to the handling of big egos and putting in place the right game plan against rival clubs. He will be measured every weekend by media and supporters on what is likely to be a small part of a managers job. Small, but very, very important and that is why you have to seperate it. A manager could do a great job developing the club, co-operating with management, but if he fails on the pitch he will be most likely be gone very soon.

Some of the most successfull clubs in Europe over the past decade changes head coach quite often. Chelsea, Real Madrid and Bayern had between seven and ten managers between 2010 and 2020. Liverpool and Man City with Klopp and Pep appears to be outliers at this point. You can not expect to stumble across a new Pep or Klopp when hiring a manager.

The fact that a club can change head coach often and continue competing for titles is, in my opinion, proof that they are robust. Their long term planing do not rely on one individual. They dont have to start from scratch every time they get a new coach. Why is that?

I’m sure there are several good reasons. But crucially, their long term strategy comes from the top (board/management). Their recruitment, that is not the job of the coach, reflects that. There are also a sport science department taking care of their assets with a long term view.

When Bayern hired Louis van Gaal it was their first step towards playing possession-football. Their intention was that he would do the groundwork for Pep Guardiola. Ever since they have hired managers who wants to play high-press, possession football. Their recruitment reflect that. When Man Utd hired van Gaal we ended up replacing him with Mourinho (ironically, Woodward later argued that Mourinho to a bigger degree than van Gaal felt like a long term solution).

Most likely, an elite coach will look for a club where a long term strategy and proper structure is in place. A good coach will likely understand what they can do and what they can not do. Implementing a long term strategy in a position that rely on short term results is in the bracket of what they cannot do. To succeed, they have to be part of a club/organization with a long term strategy that align with theirs, and where the infrastructure to succeed, including support staff, is already in place.

When Ferguson left I was convinced we could attract any manager/coach in the world. But as it turned out, the two best coaches, were never really interested. The pitch to Klopp about Disneyland was probably not the only turnoff about Man Utd.

In summary, I strongly believe that to plan long term you need to have an organization where changing coach every now and then will not be considered a big issue. You prefer not to, and try to find a Ferguson/Klopp, but you can if it is needed. You want to create an organization where the coach is part of the long term strategy, but he can never be the long term strategy or outline it. Some will say that the key is a strong DoF and that is obviously part of it. But more importantly, you need a competent board.

From the outside, it is hard to assess where Man Utd is at right now. We have recentley hired Murtough and Fletcher as DoF and technical director (whatever that mean). That could be a first step in the right direction. But the clubs unwillingness to take action the last few weeks, and rumours about prefering a long term option as coach and consequently ignoring a few great options that have been available the last twelve month, makes me less confident about the strategy and direction of our club. It feels like Man Utd have a long term strategy that are tied close to the manager making it difficult to move him on as it will make us start from scratch, Again. If that is the case, we are in a very fragile position.

TL;DR

I agree with much of what you say. I think part of the issue is that our current setup has the Manager and Football Director as peers, rather than the Manager reporting into a Director of Football. Murtough is more of "a fixer", as The Athletic described it, and focusses on transfers, rather than overseeing our overall footballing vision and shaping the squad accordingly. Unless our structure changes, we are still very beholden to the manager to ultimately determine our style of play and shape the squad accordingly, even if they do not have the best interest of United in the medium and long-term at heart.

 

[youmeletsfly]

re appear to be a common misconception among supporters, and maybe even at boardroom level at our club, that a long term strategy at a football club rely on the coach/manager. Man Utd appears to have been on the search for a new Sir Alex Ferguson ever since he left.

This part should be written a bit differently. I think you intended to say that our club shouldn't just stick by a manager as long as we have a proper structure, instead of the below:
There appear to be a common misconception among supporters, and maybe even at boardroom level at our club, that a long term strategy at a football club rely on the coach/manager.

The part where I don't agree at all is Fletcher as DoF or whatever being progress. Any position that starts with Director in a company should be filled by an experienced candidate, not by a very average ex United player that achieved jack shit after retiring.

Other than that, long strategy should be alright as long as it's divided into sprints that will take the club to certain achievements that help complete the end goal, year by year.
My issue with the current plan is that no particular achievements have been hit just before and since Ole has been hired. Yes, most of the classic United fans will say the club's more positive, Ole cleared the deadwood and so on, but that's common sense not an achievement.

I'd really like to see something simple like:
- hiring an experienced DoF with a view towards playing a particular way of football
- DoF bringing a coach that does the above
- Both of them restructuring the so called "world class" academy
- Both of them recruit according to the playing style
- Both of them appoint coaches and analysts who fit the playing style
- Repeat manager + coaching setup until it works

It must also be taken in consideration that football these days is so so technical, like any other business venture. Results are proportional with the quality of your organizational setup, especially in operational positions like coaching.

It's not rocket science, but such a plan would change the whole structure and values the club currently has. Whether that's fine or not, I don't care, I'm a fan not an owner. However, think about the level of changes they'd need to probably make: remove DoF, remove coach, remove coaching setup, remove certain scouts, remove youth coaches, remove medical staff, remove nutritionists, etc. The amount of people you need to remove(compensate) and replace will roughly equate with half of the UCL money. Considering a capable DoF and coach would also spend quite a few money on players to fit their new style, the investment would be huge and it's obviously not worth for the current owners.

 

[Bebestation]

Just a little question, were Van Gaal and Mourinho hired as managers planning to be the next SAF exactly?

 

[tomaldinho1]

There appear to be a common misconception among supporters, and maybe even at boardroom level at our club, that a long term strategy at a football club rely on the coach/manager. Man Utd appears to have been on the search for a new Sir Alex Ferguson ever since he left.

Having one manager in charge for such a long period of time gave Man Utd several advantages and an edge on some of our rivals. First and foremost, we had continuity and a direction for our club. We could plan for the long term in a manner very few could.

In a way it makes sense that it used to be that way. When there was less money and the sport was less professional you had less staff. The manager (hence the term «manager», not a coach) acted a bit like a CEO of a small company and was literally in charge of everything relating to the sporting department of the club. Today, at a top club, you have a sport science department, including doctors, physios, data analysts etc. Specialists. All of these will, in a sense, bring continuity along with the top management at a club.

These days, it appear to be the other way around. Trying to plan for the long term through a coach/manager dont bring continuity at all. Quite the contarary actually. Building to have a manager for a longer period does not make the club robust. Rather it makes the club fragile as you could be locked to an underperforming coach. It also gives the manager the chance to hide behind the term of «a long term project».

Furthermore, the status of the head coach is volatile. It is subject to the handling of big egos and putting in place the right game plan against rival clubs. He will be measured every weekend by media and supporters on what is likely to be a small part of a managers job. Small, but very, very important and that is why you have to seperate it. A manager could do a great job developing the club, co-operating with management, but if he fails on the pitch he will be most likely be gone very soon.

Some of the most successfull clubs in Europe over the past decade changes head coach quite often. Chelsea, Real Madrid and Bayern had between seven and ten managers between 2010 and 2020. Liverpool and Man City with Klopp and Pep appears to be outliers at this point. You can not expect to stumble across a new Pep or Klopp when hiring a manager.

The fact that a club can change head coach often and continue competing for titles is, in my opinion, proof that they are robust. Their long term planing do not rely on one individual. They dont have to start from scratch every time they get a new coach. Why is that?

I’m sure there are several good reasons. But crucially, their long term strategy comes from the top (board/management). Their recruitment, that is not the job of the coach, reflects that. There are also a sport science department taking care of their assets with a long term view.

When Bayern hired Louis van Gaal it was their first step towards playing possession-football. Their intention was that he would do the groundwork for Pep Guardiola. Ever since they have hired managers who wants to play high-press, possession football. Their recruitment reflect that. When Man Utd hired van Gaal we ended up replacing him with Mourinho (ironically, Woodward later argued that Mourinho to a bigger degree than van Gaal felt like a long term solution).

Most likely, an elite coach will look for a club where a long term strategy and proper structure is in place. A good coach will likely understand what they can do and what they can not do. Implementing a long term strategy in a position that rely on short term results is in the bracket of what they cannot do. To succeed, they have to be part of a club/organization with a long term strategy that align with theirs, and where the infrastructure to succeed, including support staff, is already in place.

When Ferguson left I was convinced we could attract any manager/coach in the world. But as it turned out, the two best coaches, were never really interested. The pitch to Klopp about Disneyland was probably not the only turnoff about Man Utd.

In summary, I strongly believe that to plan long term you need to have an organization where changing coach every now and then will not be considered a big issue. You prefer not to, and try to find a Ferguson/Klopp, but you can if it is needed. You want to create an organization where the coach is part of the long term strategy, but he can never be the long term strategy or outline it. Some will say that the key is a strong DoF and that is obviously part of it. But more importantly, you need a competent board.

From the outside, it is hard to assess where Man Utd is at right now. We have recentley hired Murtough and Fletcher as DoF and technical director (whatever that mean). That could be a first step in the right direction. But the clubs unwillingness to take action the last few weeks, and rumours about prefering a long term option as coach and consequently ignoring a few great options that have been available the last twelve month, makes me less confident about the strategy and direction of our club. It feels like Man Utd have a long term strategy that are tied close to the manager making it difficult to move him on as it will make us start from scratch, Again. If that is the case, we are in a very fragile position.

TL;DR

It is funny how we treated LVG, the plan was there and we, for the only time I can think of, were actually hiring someone on the understanding they were not a long term option and someone else would come in within 3 years. Then we hired Mou


We need to think of the club as a separate entity to the coaching team, think of it as the club 'renting' a coaching team (these days as they typically come in and then all leave together when they are replaced). Basically like when you finance your car through a PCP.

The coaching unit (i.e the core team) come in and essentially slot in at the top of the coaching pyramid. If you have used some common sense (lacking at United but hopefully that changes) you have 'rented' a coaching team with a style of play you like, you then let the get to work. The club's responsibility is to keep the infrastructure (scouting networks, youth teams and staff training etc.) below them in order and back them in the transfer market if they like what they see. When the coaching unit's time ends (regardless of how) you already know a number of options with a similar style who could replace them and you work through those in order of preference.

It's not about hiring someone to win everything immediately or finding the next [insert great manager's name here], the club's responsibility is not to win trophies; it is to provide continuity and a tier one platform for incoming coaching units. They are the ones who should the pressure of trying to win things and they are directly responsible for what we see on the pitch.

 

[Yorkeontop]

Tweet

— Twitter API (@user) date

I agree with much of what you say. I think part of the issue is that our current setup has the Manager and Football Director as peers, rather than the Manager reporting into a Director of Football. Murtough is more of "a fixer", as The Athletic described it, and focusses on transfers, rather than overseeing our overall footballing vision and shaping the squad accordingly. Unless our structure changes, we are still very beholden to the manager to ultimately determine our style of play and shape the squad accordingly, even if they do not have the best interest of United in the medium and long-term at heart.

Any other major clubs that do it this way? It's sobering to realise how much power we still give the manager. At board level he gets judged on way more than just performances. As long as he achieves certain results (top 4), he keeps his job.

 

[Nickelodeon]

Genuinely think that the whole long term strategy discussion is a bit misused. Long term strategy is being equated by longer terms of managers which in my opinion is absolutely incorrect. This is part of the propaganda of the likes of Gary Neville because "Man United's manager should always be given time."

I would look at clubs like Bayern and Chelsea as the most well run because not only do they win trophies, they do so with a good/great squad built at a relatively lower net spend. If we analyze just two metrics, average tenure per manager and trophies won per manager, we'll be able to see why they are successful. If their managers fail, they fail fast because they aren't randomly given time because they might improve in the future. If they succeed, that doesn't earn them long contracts and they're expected to deliver trophies on a regular basis. Liverpool and City have two of the best managers of the world running their teams and hence it is natural for them to hold on to them for longer terms. And those two are the only ones in major clubs who have deservedly earned their stints.

The actual impact of long term strategy wouldn't be in fact on managerial tenures, but the overall net spend needed on players. Going from a possession based structure to a Mourinho style of football means that a rebuild is needed. So essentially, a bridge like a DoF, can ensure that the style of football isn't so radically different (unless you want it to) that the majority of the squad becomes unusable. In fact, that is primarily what is being discussed in managerial interviews. You don't bring in a manager and ask them their preference of signings straight up, it is what they are expected to deliver with the existing squad and whether it aligns with the boards expectation.

Genuinely believe that a great manager can be the difference between us and competing for titles like it was for Chelsea. Our owners, while being pathetic in almost every aspect, have actually spent a decent sum of money which has been wasted on average, poor or past-it managers. If the managers weren't the problem, they would've had trophy filled cabinets after leaving us. We just need a quality coach who knows what they want and we can compete. In my humble opinion, it really is that simple.