Should ETH have a say on INEOS transfers or accept whatever he is given?

[astracrazy]

I'm sure in the Man City all or nothing documentary it's covered how it works there plus many articles. I hate to say it but we should be looking to them on this.

The recruitment team lead by the DOF have a shadow formation of a list of potential signings in each position which is constantly updated. The squad is planned up four years in advanced taking into account availability, ages, contacts etc. Pep is consulted on positions of improvement and targeted players but that's it.

It's how it should work here. EtH should indeed be involved in the discussion for which position(s) are being focusing on, or his preference between players A, B or C for a position. But he shouldn't be the one who is deciding who A, B or C is nor having the final say.

 

[LawCharltonBest]

Surely it’s been covered in these 7 pages that it’ll probably be a non-issue anyway?

 

[RoyH1]

Yes this is so true. We obsess the cult of the manager. There is no new Fergie, Pep and Klopp is as close as you will get but they both need good structures around them. The job is simply too big to be looking at transfers whilst coaching the first team

Agree. All the big clubs have a professional football setup around the manager so the latter doesn't need to use his time looking at video from other players. Of course they should have some sort of say but no veto.

 

[Rista]

The manager or head coach should be the most disposable part of the structure. That's the whole point of it - he's accountable for the short term success of the club during his tenure, so he should have a very limited influence in medium to long term decisions.

You wouldn't ask the club manager, whether you need a new stadium or not - nor should you be asking him what players we'll be buying because they're significant medium term investments for the club.

Also, the way the transfer market is at this moment in time - means that you need to be adaptable and capitalise on contract situations and up and coming players - and not get rinsed once they've already had a big move or garnered significant interest. So a manager vetoeing your long term plans because they don't fit his own personal needs at the club is extremely short sighted.

What if the manager doesn't want us to spend us £40m on an up and coming CM who we think has WC potential because his own immediate needs are for a ST? Do you sit there and watch that talent taken off the market for good, and then turn into a £100m+ asset elsewhere in a few years?

This is precisely we we get rinsed in the market - we're always looking to resolve our managers short term needs, and sometimes the transfermarket just doesn't have the right players for the right price. So you have to adapt, wait it out and just snap up the best talent available in that moment in time. And just as you are adaptable with the players, you also become adaptable to the idea that there might be a better head coach on the market next summer. What if all of a sudden the a hugely talented head coach is available? Are we just going to sit there and watch him go elsewhere, because we've invested too much in the current ones vision or ideas?

The tail shouldn't wag the dog. The manager needs to be more disposable than the players because ultimately that position is the biggest liability in all of football.

We are doing basically everything wrong. We hire managers with the intention of keeping them for at least a decade, hoping they are the next messiah. We give them way too much power and our fanbase still complains about the manager "not being backed". Even though the chances of a good appointment are not high in world of football, we rely on exactly this manager being THE ONE or else every decision they make damages the club long term. We have fans who make every excuse under the sun for managers and have no problem anyone at the club losing their job except for the manager. Fans who would happily ship out our best players from last season but don't you dare to even suggest the manager should get the sack as apparently that's the worst thing the club can do. I think a significant portion of those asking for "proper structure" would not actually be happy if we got exactly that.

 

[RedRonaldo]

He already has his chance and he totally fecks it up. So no, even he stays he won’t have a say.

 

[Gordon Godot]

We are doing basically everything wrong. We hire managers with the intention of keeping them for at least a decade, hoping they are the next messiah. We give them way too much power and our fanbase still complains about the manager "not being backed". Even though the chances of a good appointment are not high in world of football, we rely on exactly this manager being THE ONE or else every decision they make damages the club long term. We have fans who make every excuse under the sun for managers and have no problem anyone at the club losing their job except for the manager. Fans who would happily ship out our best players from last season but don't you dare to even suggest the manager should get the sack as apparently that's the worst thing the club can do. I think a significant portion of those asking for "proper structure" would not actually be happy if we got exactly that.

Exactly, football has moved on, clubs are too big and the demands complex. You need a really good coach rather than a manager in the old sense. Fergie was already struggling at the end, yet the obsession with the big manager allowed him to choose his successor. Others have said you build a football structure and mix youth with strong signings and then have a sold base. There will be ups and downs but not the utter mess we are now in. We certainly all the excuses now for ETH without the answer being blindingly obvious he has failed. On your final point I disagree, I think most who want that would be delighted and then we can stop the manager worship cult.

 

[VP89]

He already has his chance and he totally fecks it up. So no, even he stays he won’t have a say.

All managers should have a say, he just shouldn't have control over it.

 

[jadaba]

We are doing basically everything wrong. We hire managers with the intention of keeping them for at least a decade, hoping they are the next messiah. We give them way too much power and our fanbase still complains about the manager "not being backed". Even though the chances of a good appointment are not high in world of football, we rely on exactly this manager being THE ONE or else every decision they make damages the club long term. We have fans who make every excuse under the sun for managers and have no problem anyone at the club losing their job except for the manager. Fans who would happily ship out our best players from last season but don't you dare to even suggest the manager should get the sack as apparently that's the worst thing the club can do. I think a significant portion of those asking for "proper structure" would not actually be happy if we got exactly that.

It is true that we obsess over having 'the one' as our manager, probably warped by the success of Matt Busby and Fergie, but look at the most successful English teams over the past decade - City, Liverpool, and Chelsea - the first two have had their managers for almost a decade, while Chelsea are Chelsea, they'll always quickly dispose of their coaches. Even Arteta has been at Arsenal for 5 years now despite winning only 1 trophy. Most big teams still have the intention of keeping their managers for as long as possible, there's nothing innately wrong with that approach.

 

[Iker Quesadillas]

It is true that we obsess over having 'the one' as our manager, probably warped by the success of Matt Busby and Fergie, but look at the most successful English teams over the past decade - City, Liverpool, and Chelsea - the first two have had their managers for almost a decade, while Chelsea are Chelsea, they'll always quickly dispose of their coaches. Even Arteta has been at Arsenal for 5 years now despite winning only 1 trophy. Most big teams still have the intention of keeping their managers for as long as possible, there's nothing innately wrong with that approach.

City and Liverpool have kept their managers because of their achievements. Klopp and Guardiola combined have had exactly one full-length season that ended below minimum expectation (of top 4 finish).

 

[Revan]

It is true that we obsess over having 'the one' as our manager, probably warped by the success of Matt Busby and Fergie, but look at the most successful English teams over the past decade - City, Liverpool, and Chelsea - the first two have had their managers for almost a decade, while Chelsea are Chelsea, they'll always quickly dispose of their coaches. Even Arteta has been at Arsenal for 5 years now despite winning only 1 trophy. Most big teams still have the intention of keeping their managers for as long as possible, there's nothing innately wrong with that approach.

I think you got the causality wrong. Most big clubs keep managers when they are successful. It is not that they want the manager to be there as long as possible, more like, when the manager is performing, they continue keeping him.

If City become as bad as United are, Pep Guardiola will get sacked.

 

[NLunited]

Cheers mate!

Funny thing is, we might just be the worst team in the league in defending transitions. Our midfield is carved open time and time again. There is so much space between our midfield and defense that no DM in the world would be able to fill. This was better last season with Varane and Martinez, as they are much better suited to a high line than Maguire + 1. City can afford a high line due to them having Walker to sweep pretty much any counter.

It's all well and fine winning the ball up high, but if that means that the opposition team is also in position with plenty of men behind the ball, I see no real advantage to that than winning the ball further back towards our own goal. The second issue is that we don't have enough players that thrive in that form of transitional play. In the good ol' days of Giggs, Ronaldo, Rooney, Tevez etc, we had transitional play of 40-60 yard with running and passing. Transitional play winning the ball high up the pitch is a completely different game that requires a whole different skillset. The first requires fast players with great passing from the back and/or midfield. The other requires much more technically sound players. One would think Antony would suit this as he is good at keeping the ball, but he constantly makes the wrong decisions and/or underhit passes.

Nail on the head. I think we can play both styles if we have key players fit.

Playing the high-press version requires more running and more discipline; if one or both are subpar, we are in big trouble.

Antony indeed should be doing much better with his decision making; he has all the skills. Amad is a defensive liability : I would play Pellestri more, or Garnacho on the right.

By far our biggest issue is our forwards aren‘t able to score.

 

[londonredmaniac]

Of course he should be involved. If his opinion is so wrong then sack him. You need a joined up process from top to bottom.

The idea that you just give a manager a bunch of players and don't give him any input what so ever is mental.

You just don't give him the majority day or a final say....

How do we even know Ineos would appoint the right people at this stage?

The notion of cutting your manager out of the decision completely is absolutely nuts. That's so far disconnected in the opposites direction.

 

[devilish]

It is true that we obsess over having 'the one' as our manager, probably warped by the success of Matt Busby and Fergie, but look at the most successful English teams over the past decade - City, Liverpool, and Chelsea - the first two have had their managers for almost a decade, while Chelsea are Chelsea, they'll always quickly dispose of their coaches. Even Arteta has been at Arsenal for 5 years now despite winning only 1 trophy. Most big teams still have the intention of keeping their managers for as long as possible, there's nothing innately wrong with that approach.

All clubs would want the manager to be successful and remain at the club for long term. No one likes reinventing the wheel. However we're obsessed with it because we have this rather outdated mentality were the manager is the cornerstone of everything and if he leaves then everything collapse. TBF that's what our club is. 99% of all major trophies were won by either SAF or Sir Matt. We're essentially a two men club.

That needs to change. United can't be dependent on a visionary/genius to be successful.

 

[jadaba]

City and Liverpool have kept their managers because of their achievements. Klopp and Guardiola combined have had exactly one full-length season that ended below minimum expectation (of top 4 finish).

I think you got the causality wrong. Most big clubs keep managers when they are successful. It is not that they want the manager to be there as long as possible, more like, when the manager is performing, they continue keeping him.

If City become as bad as United are, Pep Guardiola will get sacked.

I don't contest that they'd be gone if they were underachieving over the course of some seasons, I'm just contesting the idea that we're exceptional in our searching for the ideal decade-long appointment, most clubs are looking for that.

And while we may be looking for long-term managers, we have disposed of those who have consistently not met the minimum expectations, in the same time that Pep and Klopp have managed City and Liverpool, we've had 5 managers (including Rangnick), so it's not like we're uniquely reluctant to change managers once they demonstrate they're not the right fit.

 

[jadaba]

All clubs would want the manager to be successful and remain at the club for long term. No one likes reinventing the wheel. However we're obsessed with it because we have this rather outdated mentality were the manager is the cornerstone of everything and if he leaves then everything collapse. TBF that's what our club is. 99% of all major trophies were won by either SAF or Sir Matt. We're essentially a two men club.

That needs to change. United can't be dependent on a visionary/genius to be successful.

That's very true, there is a feeling that while we don't have a genius at the helm, competing for things like Premier League remains out of reach.

 

[Fortitude]

As with anything ever; you earn trust with astute insight and proving of your own competence and ability. If ten Hag's signings were even 6/10, he'd have a lot more leeway going forward. If he had proven to be amazing in the transfer window, he'd have already been elevated to the point where his veto would be the correct thing. It goes the other way, too, however. If you're proven to be very bad or atrocious in the market, you will be treated accordingly and so far as we know, ten Hag is an appalling assessor of talent and the requirements and demands of the PL, ergo his words should carry as little weight as possible and definitely not be anything close to the definitive say.

Thus far, he has betrayed his own signings by switching style of play to something they are ill-suited for: you don't buy a slow, weak player to play a hugely vertical game - in one fell swoop, you've made him redundant, but it's the club and the medium and long-term budget that is hit for six. A massive issue with ten Hag being given veto is that if he is then sacked further down the line, there are even more incompatible players we can't offload to go with the pile he's already saddled the club with.

The club has to act in the interests of itself first and foremost and the manager needs to work within that confine ensuring that whether he is a success or a failure the players are still fit for purpose and aren't liabilities the moment he is sacked or leaves of his own accord.

 

[OldTrevil]

He should have a veto, as buying a player who the manager won't be using would be nonsensical. However, he shouldn't be the one identifying or selecting the targets. As it has been said, a good structure would be along the lines of the manager identifying the profiles he needs for each position and then the recruitment team identifying possible options. They would then have a discussion within which the player options would be ranked and so on, and the manager would use his veto to remove the players he doesn't want. After that the recruitment team go and do their best to negotiate and deliver the 1st choice players as often as possible, keeping the manger updated along the way. Something like that seems best to lead to a harmonious relationship and success on the pitch, while everyone maintains clear responsibilities to be judged upon.

 

[devilish]

That's very true, there is a feeling that while we don't have a genius at the helm, competing for things like Premier League remains out of reach.

Our local supporters club is very close to the Neville brothers especially Gaz. You only have to hear what SAF did to be absolutely shellshocked about him.

a- he was an amazing talent spotter. That was one of his three main strengths. It took him seconds to identify the right person for the right job and to acknowledge his limits as well. That allowed him to hire the right person for the right job and then mitigate for his limitations

b- he was an elite motivator. He made everyone think he's feckin Napoleon Bonaparte and act accordingly within the limitations SAF had put him into.

c- he was everywhere at the same time. SAF would have a finger in the pie regarding tactics, he'll be scouting players, he'll be talking with young players, he'll watch games at academy level, he'll discuss contract renewals with players. He'll be there to close every small gap in every area in every place.

Good luck finding someone capable to emulate that

 

[Infra-red]

I think Manchester United managers should be involved in the recruitment process. Whether they have a formal veto or not is largely immaterial - I would think that if a manager expressed the opinion that a particular player did not suit their tactical system and was of absolutely no use to them, the Director of Football or Head of Recruitment would take that opinion into account and almost certainly refrain from signing said player anyway (why waste your money on a player the manager can't/won't use).

Regarding Ten Hag specifically, I think it is quite unlikely that he will be the manager of Manchester United at the point at which the summer recruitment decisions are finally taken, so a conflict between him and Ineos over transfers will never arise anyway.

 

[Gordon Godot]

I think Manchester United managers should be involved in the recruitment process. Whether they have a formal veto or not is largely immaterial - I would think that if a manager expressed the opinion that a particular player did not suit their tactical system and was of absolutely no use to them, the Director of Football or Head of Recruitment would take that opinion into account and almost certainly refrain for signing said player anyway (why waste your money).

Regarding Ten Hag specifically, I think it is quite unlikely that he will be the manager of Manchester United at the point at which the summer recruitment decisions are finally taken, so a conflict between him and Ineos over transfers will never arise anyway.

Disagree and this is where fans dont understand modern football clubs and the best structures. In a proper set up, there is general acceptance of style and how a team will play, and the sort of players that fit that and where the pressing needs are. So if the recruitment team put someone forward who 'does not suit their tactical system', they have failed. I would love to know what system that Antony was meant to fit, or for that matter Mount? At best a manager might have a veto but the recruitment team supply the options

 

[Giggsy13]

To suggest a manager has no say at all on incoming players is completely naive. Of course managers have a say but it’s a competent director of football who will veto a move if it makes no sense from a financial or sporting perspective. Murtough clearly did neither and is incompetent. The fact other options weren’t presented to Antony just goes to show the absolute failure our football scouting and recruiting department has been for well over a decade. INEOS should correct this but it will take time and patience to steer the club back to being competently run and successful.

 

[Infra-red]

Disagree and this is where fans dont understand modern football clubs and the best structures. In a proper set up, there is general acceptance of style and how a team will play, and the sort of players that fit that and where the pressing needs are. So if the recruitment team put someone forward who 'does not suit their tactical system', they have failed. I would love to know what system that Antony was meant to fit, or for that matter Mount? At best a manager might have a veto but the recruitment team supply the options

Which are the 'modern football clubs' where managers are completely uninvolved in the recruitment process?

 

[wolvored]

Of course he should be involved. If his opinion is so wrong then sack him. You need a joined up process from top to bottom.

The idea that you just give a manager a bunch of players and don't give him any input what so ever is mental.

You just don't give him the majority day or a final say....

How do we even know Ineos would appoint the right people at this stage?

The notion of cutting your manager out of the decision completely is absolutely nuts. That's so far disconnected in the opposites direction.

The trouble is we have had virtually 10 years of shit with occasional moments. This has been because every manager has been supported by getting virtually every player they have wanted and given a couple of seasons, Moyes the exception. That’s why we are were we are. We need a medium to longterm view where we know what the style of play is going to be the DOF then chooses the coach who can coach that style. That coach should have very little input in picking players until the end a choice of player A or B or C, who have been scouted and then vetted.by DOF/SD

 

[stefan92]

Which are the 'modern football clubs' where managers are completely uninvolved in the recruitment process?

They are involved, you need them to agree on the overall direction and style of play. The point is, the involvement is earlier - the manager needs to define a player profile, the scouting identifies fitting players, the DoF oversees this process and tries to get the top pick(s), the manager is welcome to voice his preferences which one should be priority.

If a manager says that he can't use a player presented by the scouting team then it means that the earlier phases of the recruitment process went wrong.

 

[Infra-red]

They are involved, you need them to agree on the overall direction and style of play. The point is, the involvement is earlier - the manager needs to define a player profile, the scouting identifies fitting players, the DoF oversees this process and tries to get the top pick(s), the manager is welcome to voice his preferences which one should be priority.

If a manager says that he can't use a player presented by the scouting team then it means that the earlier phases of the recruitment process went wrong.

I don't disagree with any of that. As I wrote above, I think the United manager should be involved in the recruitment process (just as you've described). @Gordon Godot does not and says that 'modern clubs' instead operate with a 'proper set up' where the manager is not involved - I am curious to know who those clubs are.

 

[Revan]

Which are the 'modern football clubs' where managers are completely uninvolved in the recruitment process?

Real Madrid and Chelsea, they essentially know nothing about the transfers.

The managers are involved but not a lot in Bayern. Probably a bit more, but still not a lot in City and Liverpool.

 

[NewGlory]

This question requires a lot if detail because "a say in transfers" is not one thing it involves multiple parts:

1. Identifying need - what position is a priority, and what profile of player in that position (e.g. chance-creating, left-footed right winger vs goal-scoring, right-footed right winger etc)

2. Deciding budget for the transfer window

3. Sourcing potential candidates

4. Negotiating transfer fees and deciding if deal
is acceptable

5. Final decision - veto powers

In a well-run, power-balanced club:


Of these, manager and director football should collaborate on #1

CEO is responsible for #2 and manager may get no say in it

Manager should have very little say in #3

Manager should have zero say in #4

Manager should have veri power on #5

 

[Valencia Shin Crosses]

Our local supporters club is very close to the Neville brothers especially Gaz. You only have to hear what SAF did to be absolutely shellshocked about him.

a- he was an amazing talent spotter. That was one of his three main strengths. It took him seconds to identify the right person for the right job and to acknowledge his limits as well. That allowed him to hire the right person for the right job and then mitigate for his limitations

b- he was an elite motivator. He made everyone think he's feckin Napoleon Bonaparte and act accordingly within the limitations SAF had put him into.

c- he was everywhere at the same time. SAF would have a finger in the pie regarding tactics, he'll be scouting players, he'll be talking with young players, he'll watch games at academy level, he'll discuss contract renewals with players. He'll be there to close every small gap in every area in every place.

Good luck finding someone capable to emulate that

Yet we've tried for a decade now, when not even the closest thing to SAF (Pep) does anything close to that much all at once.

It's also pretty ironic that one of our main issues with Pre-ETH managers was that we wouldn't back them much in the market, but the guy we finally decide to back fully while also giving a huge amount of control over recruitment is terrible at it. There's an argument to be made that if the approaches were flipped we would have had a lot more success the past decade.

 

[jadaba]

Our local supporters club is very close to the Neville brothers especially Gaz. You only have to hear what SAF did to be absolutely shellshocked about him.

a- he was an amazing talent spotter. That was one of his three main strengths. It took him seconds to identify the right person for the right job and to acknowledge his limits as well. That allowed him to hire the right person for the right job and then mitigate for his limitations

b- he was an elite motivator. He made everyone think he's feckin Napoleon Bonaparte and act accordingly within the limitations SAF had put him into.

c- he was everywhere at the same time. SAF would have a finger in the pie regarding tactics, he'll be scouting players, he'll be talking with young players, he'll watch games at academy level, he'll discuss contract renewals with players. He'll be there to close every small gap in every area in every place.

Good luck finding someone capable to emulate that

Finding someone to emulate just one of those would be a blessing.

 

[Nogbadthebad]

The best clubs are planning recruitment needs 3 to 4 years ahead, identifying potential and tracking them.

They do this because there is a basic structure to the team that means they understand those needs regardless of who the manager is, because they also employ managers to fit into that basic structure as well.

We have done none of that. Which is why we have a squad in such a mess. Half of it is built for counterattacking, some is built for playing on the front foot, some are antony.

No cohesion. Because we follow the whims of each manager. And whatever ten hag's abilities are, spotting talent very clearly is not one. Hes been the worst of the lot and should be nowhere near any transfer desicions.

 

[Big Ben Foster]

Our local supporters club is very close to the Neville brothers especially Gaz. You only have to hear what SAF did to be absolutely shellshocked about him.

a- he was an amazing talent spotter. That was one of his three main strengths. It took him seconds to identify the right person for the right job and to acknowledge his limits as well. That allowed him to hire the right person for the right job and then mitigate for his limitations

b- he was an elite motivator. He made everyone think he's feckin Napoleon Bonaparte and act accordingly within the limitations SAF had put him into.

c- he was everywhere at the same time. SAF would have a finger in the pie regarding tactics, he'll be scouting players, he'll be talking with young players, he'll watch games at academy level, he'll discuss contract renewals with players. He'll be there to close every small gap in every area in every place.

Good luck finding someone capable to emulate that

He was a truly remarkable leader; the fact that some seem to think giving any manager time will magically turn him into SAF is an insult to the great man.

 

[Herschel Krustofsky]

Surely it’s been covered in these 7 pages that it’ll probably be a non-issue anyway?

In a strange kind of way, I’m impressed people are still ‘debating’ it

 

[NLunited]

Managers don‘t spend the transfer money: clubs do. The Antony transfer is the fault of the club. We had walked away but did not have another concrete target. Even so, we should not have gone back to get Antony.

The fact that we overpaid is on the club, identifying him as a target was probably mostly Ten Hag.

 

[croadyman]

Managers don‘t spend the transfer money: clubs do. The Antony transfer is the fault of the club. We had walked away but did not have another concrete target. Even so, we should not have gone back to get Antony.

The fact that we overpaid is on the club, identifying him as a target was probably mostly Ten Hag.

Yeah should definitely have walked away when it got into £80m plus territory,the trouble was like you say a complete lack of alternatives

 

[fallengt]

He should. Which position, what kind of player & their characteristic, age, backup or main role, etc..But he must not pick the target nor decide budget.
These are not manager's job

 

[AndySmith1990]

He should. Which position, what kind of player & their characteristic, age, backup or main role, etc..But he must not pick the target nor decide budget.
These are not manager's job

At most his only input should be which positions are a priority

 

[Red Indian Chief Torn Rubber]

Interesting report attributed to ESPN that ETH wants to have a say on INEOS transfers. Whilst it is normal for managers to be consulted on transfers, I am frankly less than impressed with ETH's forays into the transfer market. Would INEOS be any better? Let's wait and see. Personally I would rather that ETH got on with coaching and preparing teams to win games than spend time dabbling in the transfer market.

Any thoughts?

https://www.espn.co.uk/football/sto...g-wants-say-man-united-transfers-ineos-source

Its all up to INEOS. They fix the recruitment department, ETH will have a say without ever being allowed overruling power. Else he will be replaced. So its nothing for us to bother about. Besides, for the sake of comparison, remember Klopp's initial forays into the market were hit and miss. Then things dramatically improved when the so called "transfer committee" weighed in more.

 

[gaffs]

Yeah should definitely have walked away when it got into £80m plus territory,the trouble was like you say a complete lack of alternatives

Was there a lack of alternatives?

Or was it that Ten Hag was in a tough position with the losses against Brighton and Brentford and just wanted "his man", no matter the price?

I do find it hilarious to assume that United, with 50+ scouts, were not able to identify one right sided forward, thus forcing the manager to sign Antony.

 

[gaffs]

It has to be a joint decision. If club buys players without a managers input, you get a situation like Graham Potter at Chelsea, where players are being signed daily, when he clearly had no knowledge of what was happening.

 

[Skills]

Yeah should definitely have walked away when it got into £80m plus territory,the trouble was like you say a complete lack of alternatives

This shou never be an excuse to buy a poor player for an inflated fee instead. You just make the coach make do with what he's got.

Man City went 2 seasons without a CF until they got Haaland. They didn't think it was worth indulging in the market for an underwhelming option for an over inflated price.

Real Madrid on the back of getting hammered in the CL SF and losing La Liga last summer, have gone this summer without buying a striker after losing their best player in Benzema. Because again, it's not worth buying one for an overrinflated price. Instead they're making Ancelotti actually manage what he's got.

Thankfully for them, ancelotti is smart enough to know his place in their hierarchy and is adapting to what he's got.