That is far from "simple" reality though, when you think about it. As clear-cut as that arrangement sounds, it really raises far more questions than it answers. Such as:
- Who drives the process? Who gets to decide what players are put on the table to be vetoed or not?
- How are priorities set, and by whom? Who decides if it's better to pursue a specific 80m winger rather than, say, a specific 35m one and additionally buy a 45m RB?
- What does it say about the coherence of the whole recruitment process if a player actually makes it as far as the veto stage before being shot down by the manager or the DOF?
If you ask me, it's a huge worry that the distribution of power on recruitment is even framed around the concept of vetoing. To a club that does good work on recruitment that would be irrelevant, because it wouldn't arise.
Oh I am not a big fan of the process. I criticized our modus operandi throughout SAF's late reign and got more vocal after the legend retired. I even got the tag to prove that. Let's give me my opinion of why our system doesn't work
a-its a known thing that the Glazers are clueless + they take ages to decide. The whole takeover process is a classic example of that. Thus any deal the football board might negotiate prior to the opening of the summer transfer window will probably be ignored as transfer budgets aren't set and the Glazers will kick the can later on. Meanwhile any deal that drags on is a problem because the Glazers will take their own time to give their go ahead. Take that + the manager's interest to have new players as quick as possible to integrate into the group then there's a very short time window for the two (DOF and manager) to come to a consensus.
b- in the current setup its within the DOF's interest to simply let the manager call the shots. That's because the only time the DOF can look bad is if the clubs pays silly money on a player only for the manager to refuse to play him. If he avoids that then its pretty much plain sailing for him. If the manager's sign great players then the DOF will get some of the credit for it. If he doesn't then well, its the manager's fault, isn't it? Surely no one can blame Murtough for signing Antony, Amrabat and Martinez. They all played for ETH ffs! On the other hand the manager has no choice but to take action. Unlike Murtough, Arnold and co his job is highly performance based. If he doesn't make it to top 4 then he's out. He can't afford to shrug responsibility given the circumstances.
Thus we have a system which was initially built to distribute the blame on as many people as possible (many people, little responsibility) but in reality it gets all the cons of having so many overheads (ridiculous red tape) without getting any benefits (the manager ends up taking the decision). Add to the fact that manager these days lack both the time (man management had become a nightmare) and the knowledge (most managers had grown up working with a competent DOF) then things are even worse then they look. That's why I hate people pinning the fault on one person (usually the manager). Murtough has a veto as well. If he disagreed on a deal then he should have shown some cojones and veto it.
A properly run club would have a different setup. The manager and the DOF would sit down and together they'll identify the type of player the club needs with the manager probably listing one or two examples. Then the football team would spend months analyzing data, sending scouts and investigating the candidates availability and character traits. Throughout the process the manager will be kept on the loop with videos and information (data stats etc) of any candidate. By the end of the process the entire team would have 3-4 names with an estimate of how much they would cost. Occasionally the manager's and the DOF's opinion will differ but usually the communication between the two will be so constant that the DOF's candidate will be very similar in terms of characteristics to the manager's candidate. Ultimately the DOF and the CEO will decide things as the former is specialized in recruitment while the other one hold the purse strings.