Ed did that. Neville then was mean to Ed, the fans then were mean to Ed, and then he signed Maguire.
Ed is the victim here.
Should ETH have a say on INEOS transfers or accept whatever he is given?
- Thread starter fastwalker
- Start date
Ed is the victim here.
I don't think the manager shouldn't have the final say on recruitment but they shouldn't have zero say either
for example if the DoF wants a 100m player and the manager says he wouldn't use him, then it would be ridiculous to sign that player unless we'd already decided to change managers
for example if the DoF wants a 100m player and the manager says he wouldn't use him, then it would be ridiculous to sign that player unless we'd already decided to change managers
Those who want him to stay state we need a proper structure behind him, and shouldn't be responsible for transfers. Therefore he'd have to make do with what he's given
Anyway he's made a complete mess of choosing his own platers so far. For that reason aline he's best ignored
Anyway he's made a complete mess of choosing his own platers so far. For that reason aline he's best ignored
If the DoF wants to sign a 100m player but the manager says he won't play, the club has a massive problem. Either DoF, or manager, or both should be fired. Probably the manager (why on Earth he will not play a 100m player?).
If a DOF wants to sign a player for £100m and the manager wouldn't use him, either the DOF or manager isn't fit for purpose
He should have a say like all managers should but he shouldn’t have the final say.
that isn't a massive problem though, you just don't sign the player
Yes, it would be an easy way to identify crap players.
No, he shouldn't. People with a long-term view of the club's mentality and 'style' should have full mandate.
The manager should always have some say and even a veto but not a deciding say , especially not a manager who has bought as poorly as ETH has.
There are 0 good reasons why a manager decides apriori that he won't play a 100m player. 100m players usually are good. It essentially is just an ego-trip of the manager.
The way it usually works is he will have a big say but the transfer list presented will have come through the DoF/scouting filter and match a profile rather than their name or who they play for etc.
Our issue as I see it is managers have come in, not really had much support or expertise behind them and gone for players they know or big name, obvious signings.
Case in point, we look for an RW and ETH is given 5 names. If those 5 names are all fast, athletic players and fit a certain criteria we want in an RW, you can't sign Antony because he isn't on the list.
Our issue as I see it is managers have come in, not really had much support or expertise behind them and gone for players they know or big name, obvious signings.
Case in point, we look for an RW and ETH is given 5 names. If those 5 names are all fast, athletic players and fit a certain criteria we want in an RW, you can't sign Antony because he isn't on the list.
of course he should, it has to be a dialogue.
The manager and DOF profiles the player that fits the style and DOF and scouting team try to find one that fits in our budget.
Then the manager and DOF sit down with the scouts and data analysis team to pick a list of probable players and assign them priority.
Why would you want to bring in players the manager would never play? which btw is what we have done multiple times already under woodward and murtough
The manager and DOF profiles the player that fits the style and DOF and scouting team try to find one that fits in our budget.
Then the manager and DOF sit down with the scouts and data analysis team to pick a list of probable players and assign them priority.
Why would you want to bring in players the manager would never play? which btw is what we have done multiple times already under woodward and murtough
He should have a say after a list of potential transfers has been prepared by our scouting team and DOF. Him actually adding anyone to that list is a big NO though for obvious reasons.
Oh Brighton? Where the Manager, scout and director have to all give a signing the green light before signing? That system that Ashworth uses when setting up the transfer department.
To be serious for a moment...
Managers should have a say on incoming players, after all they will be the ones working with them. However, a manager should not be in a position where he suggests specific players without significant input from the recruitment department. Sure, suggest Antony - but when the recruitment department says "he's not good enough, he's not good enough".
Now, once in a while clubs will be convinced by a manager to "get their man". If the club decides to give the manager that type of influence, the manager should live and die by that choice.
Ideally the recruitment department and the manager discuss and deliberate until they agree on a signing. In the rare cases where they can't agree, the DOF should step in and make the final decision. However, like someone already pointed out- it doesn't make any sense to value a player at 25M euros and then go ahead and sanction spending 90M euros on the same player. Set a limit, have alternative targets, move on, make sensible decisions.
De Jong for instance. It was clear what type of player Ten Hag wanted, he was clearly the player he wanted to build his team around. How did we go from the manager wanting to sign De Jong to signing Antony - in a completely different to position - for him? We needed a striker a deep lying playmaker. They go out and splash 72M on Casemiro and 95M on Antony? Was Antony a consolation prize? Did we just spend the money earmarked for De Jong on Antony to show Ten Hag that we support him?
We apparently had 160-170M euros, needed a striker and a De Jong alternative, and we spent it all on Casemiro and Antony? We could have had Rice and a decent striker for that. Honestly, what were they thinking?
Sure, let the manager have a say, but sort out the recruitment process and make it sensible, because right now it's a bunch of nonsense.
I was merely referring to their choice for a Potter replacement, not familiar with their recruitment system.
I just used the extreme example of a 100m player who the manager won't play to illustrate the point (a major disagreement on recruitment). But it was a poor example as you've highlighted.
my point was meant to be about the need for two yeses from two key stakeholders in a financial decision that carries a lot of risk
Of course he should have a veto. As long as he's the manager he's also the one picking the team on match days. There's no point in signing someone the manager doesn't want unless it's for the youth team.
He obviously shouldn't be writing up shortlists of targets but that's a different matter.
He obviously shouldn't be writing up shortlists of targets but that's a different matter.
Manager should have a veto, but he shouldn’t be manager when they are all set up. He has shown nothing to warrant any sort of confidence, or that he should be a part of any next chapter.
He is extremely fortunate to still have a job so doubt he has mentioned this when meeting the new regime.
Maybe the story is true mind - hopefully they get rid. Most of his signings have been borderline terrible.
Maybe the story is true mind - hopefully they get rid. Most of his signings have been borderline terrible.
Have a say, yes. Have power of veto? No way
No, he shouldn't even be our manager right now.
I assume most people will be somewhere between miffed and apoplectic when posed this question.
Regardless of who is the manager, if we are trying to modernise the club in all areas then no, the manager should not have a major say, or a final say, on transfers. Of course the manager / head coach will determine which positions need sorting and what sort of player he is looking for, that much is obvious. But we need to move away from a model of having so many incompetent people at executive level that they end up going with the last minute fleecing offered by agents or the players a manager has identified.
If a manager becomes established here then his say might become more important, but that's unlikely let's be honest.
Regardless of who is the manager, if we are trying to modernise the club in all areas then no, the manager should not have a major say, or a final say, on transfers. Of course the manager / head coach will determine which positions need sorting and what sort of player he is looking for, that much is obvious. But we need to move away from a model of having so many incompetent people at executive level that they end up going with the last minute fleecing offered by agents or the players a manager has identified.
If a manager becomes established here then his say might become more important, but that's unlikely let's be honest.
He should be sacked
Shouldn't be in the job.
If he is, he should have a minor say. I personally think he shouldn't have a veto.
If he is, he should have a minor say. I personally think he shouldn't have a veto.
He shouldn’t be the only one. We need everyone involved, sporting director, manager, scouts, and the sporting board need to have the same agreement who they are signing to come into conclusion whether the players fit the profile or no.
Managers should have a voice, but by no means should they be the main person. There should be a recruitment department above him that handles pretty much everything. I would guess the process should go like this:
- Club/sporting department hires a manager who plays the type of football they want to play
- Manager presents a target of squad he wants, how deep, what sort of player he wants in every position
- Manager analyzes the players he has, reports back and says what players fit him or don't fit him and what he lacks from his target squad, and makes a priority list of what he needs
- Recruitment team compile a list of the players who fit into the plan for every position, and rank them based on quality, then realism and availability. Should be a huge list.
- Transfer targets are pulled from this list for priority positions (recruitment team)
- Recruitment team goes after players and informs the manager they are signing player a/b/c
- Manager only gets asked for their preference if there isn't much between a few options when it comes to specific names, otherwise the manager isn't involved
No. And that's not a dig at EtH, but goes for any "head coach" we have.
If only United operated like this in the last 10 years, we would have been far less shit.
I think most clubs operate like this.
He's going to get away with this window as we aren't shopping in Harrods were shopping in Cash Generator for loans.
Ready made excuses for him again. If he survives until the summer thats when the real question of trust comes into it. Do we trust him with the war chest again.
Ready made excuses for him again. If he survives until the summer thats when the real question of trust comes into it. Do we trust him with the war chest again.
I think he should have a say. A say in the sense of the profile of payer he's looking for based on the style of play he wants to implement.
Not a say in the sense of I want this guy no matter the price.
Not a say in the sense of I want this guy no matter the price.
If we are persisting with him, he has to have a say and perhaps a very crucial one. He has struggled to manage players he had worked with before, I dread to think how he would cope managing players that he is handed without prior alignment.
I'm quite struck by the amount of people saying he should have no say, that'd be a totally chaotic way to run a club. I'd be concerned if any manager of ours was sidelined from transfer targets. It certainly seems that we've had the extreme on one end with Ten Hag being backed by money and not much else in terms of structure, which is a pretty risky set-up and has proven harmful.
But what is it that makes people assume that Jim and INEOS will walk in and have a successful player recruitment approach? It's not uncommon for some big-balled owner to impose his own transfer wishes upon the manager in power-plays or for whatever reason. It seems naive for people to want or expect the new splintered ownership structure to provide some silver bullet transfer strategy.
But what is it that makes people assume that Jim and INEOS will walk in and have a successful player recruitment approach? It's not uncommon for some big-balled owner to impose his own transfer wishes upon the manager in power-plays or for whatever reason. It seems naive for people to want or expect the new splintered ownership structure to provide some silver bullet transfer strategy.
For sure. If he somehow is here next season, the truthers won't be happy when we do not sign a few Eredivisie players. 'He was not backed by the club, should instead leave and join Real Madrid'.
I’m convinced that he still doesn’t understand the profile of players required to succeed in the premier league so if he is to stay, I’d prefer he has a limited say in transfers.
I think he should have some say but given his pathetic track record he doesn't deserve to, I doubt he'll be in charge much longer once the new group takes over anyway.
I call BS. Almost every manager has a say in the transfer in almost every club. New players won't be like a surprise gift that is given to the managers. ETH won't be dumb to demand anything more than that.
It perhaps suggests we shouldn't persist with him
He will be gone hopefully in the summer at the latest. Absolute delusion