Juventus fan who used to support United
- Sep 5, 2002
At most top clubs the answer is no. They are usually asked what type of player they want and then asked if they would work with X or Y player. Football had changed since the 80s. There's so many professionals in football whose job is to find clinks in one's armour that even the greatest of managers can become obsolete in a matter of 10 years. That means that similarly to players, managers tend to move regularly from one club to another to cash in as much as possible until he gets retired. Also the industry had become so big that its impossible for a manager to scout players, court them and get them to the club. That by itself is a full time job.You're saying that managers don't hold any responsibility in transfers at all ?
Thus why a DOF is hired by most clubs ie someone who can do that stuff full time + he make sure that the manager's 'philosophy' and 'ambition' doesn't contrast that of the club. You rightly said that we've been iffy on transfers lately. I'd love to add to that by saying we were iffy in terms of coaching appointments as well which in itself is a subset to the same problem. Its ridiculous how Moyes was given the power to sack a winning coaching stuff with decades of experience to replace them with his own men. Its ain't that different from LVG, Mou and his good self bringing in the likes of Fellaini, Bastian, Valdes, Matic and co not because they fitted the club's criteria but because they were jobs for the boys.
I think United lack at least 2 people to come to terms with modern football. There's the DOF role which I mentioned and there's also the vice chairman role. The latter is at board level full time and acts as their trusted football expert there. His job vary from 'protecting' the board (who often understand football as much as Souness does) from being taken for a ride from the football men. He also act as an intermediary between various top people at the club (DOF, Manager etc), he's the link between the fans and the board + he makes sure that the club's traditions and standards are kept.
If Ole fails as manager I'd love to take the job unless of course the old Scot general isn't in the mood to dive back in.
Having a veto doesn't necessary translate to a lot of responsibility. It means saying no to signing player X. However it doesn't mean that we'll be signing player Y instead. Such responsibility is often given to most managers. Its necessary just in case the club is close in signing a player the manager hates and would never play unless hells freeze or pigs start flying. In normal circumstances that option is rarely used simply because it gives the message that the manager is picky and also because transfers are often complicated and saying no to X player might end up having to start the season with a hole in the team.Not true at all, given that OGS has a veto vote on new acquisitions.