Solve them? You can't solve cnutishness or lazyness out of a player, you can just feck them off, what he is doing.
Should ETH have a say on INEOS transfers or accept whatever he is given?
- Thread starter fastwalker
- Start date
Well, ETH's tranfers so far have clearly been pretty unsuccessful. I'd be interested to know how other clubs manage the process. Does the DoF make all the decisions, for the sake of the continuity of the football project more broadly, or are there a number of inputs into it (scouts, manager, DoF, etc)? If the manager has no say at all, I'm not sure how many managers would go along with that. How do City, or Brighton, for example, handle it? They seem to have been pretty successful, so it would be good to research how they go about dividing up the decision-making process, unless you want a dictator. Does the club want a dictator, even a benign one like SAF?
JAS and Perez are responsible for the squad. Manager don’t get a say really, also why someone like Ancelotti works well for us. Doesn’t moan and just makes the best of it. I think the last manager with a say in transfers was Mourinho but even he didn’t get everything he wanted.
Admittedly that works rather great when you buy the best players around but JAS/Perez also don’t really go for average players (mostly). United seems to have a bigger issue with that.
I might be wrong but I thought that Calafat and JAS are the main guys when it comes to transfers. Perez is more like high-level stuff, green-lighting the big transfers but he is definitely not watching matches of young Rodrygo or Vini before signing them.
Ancelotti is essentially a head coach. He probably finds on Twitter whom Real is buying.
If he mentions the right wing he should be laughed at…
He should have a say but not a full veto
Im sure guys like Pep & Klopp probably have full say over who they want and who they do not want. ETH isnt on their level and it should be a combined decision. Especially after ETH first few transfers, like what the hell. Could have been fired for those transfers alone.
Still wish he had Rangnick in his corner scouting players. This was his RR's strong point, especially when you look at his short list who he wanted at United. Some of these players ended up going for insane amounts of cash after they blew up but of course ETH didnt want this.
Still wish he had Rangnick in his corner scouting players. This was his RR's strong point, especially when you look at his short list who he wanted at United. Some of these players ended up going for insane amounts of cash after they blew up but of course ETH didnt want this.
The articles about EtH supposedly wanting to 'maintain his say on transfers' is deliberate clickbait because there are very few clubs in which the manager isn't part of the recruitment team at all.
Obviously what we need to avoid moving forward is the manager having too much input
Obviously what we need to avoid moving forward is the manager having too much input
Im sure it will be done as committee group with some pretty adult conversations along the way e.g. ETH wants a player of a certain profile, the club give their list. The club notify ETH of certain players they have been offered, does he want them.
Regardless of whether its ETH or the man in the moon, there will need to be a degree of flexibility both sides. Ineos wont let any manager run amock with a wish list. Likewise they cant be too inflexible as to just dump players on him. Look at how Liverpool and City do business, a lot is under the radar but you can bet that both Klopp and Pep have a big say in the player and the profile their respective clubs recruit.
Regardless of whether its ETH or the man in the moon, there will need to be a degree of flexibility both sides. Ineos wont let any manager run amock with a wish list. Likewise they cant be too inflexible as to just dump players on him. Look at how Liverpool and City do business, a lot is under the radar but you can bet that both Klopp and Pep have a big say in the player and the profile their respective clubs recruit.
Imagine his cultists if he doesn’t have full control over transfers.
‘He cannot perform better with the players he has been given, no manager in the world could do any better. He would be great if he got X, Y and Z that he wanted’.
He would basically become un-sackable.
‘He cannot perform better with the players he has been given, no manager in the world could do any better. He would be great if he got X, Y and Z that he wanted’.
He would basically become un-sackable.
He should have his input but no right to veto anything. We need to stop allowing these managers to sign all the boys they know.
The problem to a huge degree has always been the clubs fanbase and their need for a cult of personality leading the club.
Like many successful organisations, key decisions are often made by committees and underpinned by a philosophy and a strategic direction.
Recruitment is always a risk, and there's no point in buying players that the manager doesn't want, but the era of all encompassing managers controlling all aspects at the club are gone.
If we don't figure out what we're trying to do as a club, it doesn't matter anyway.
Recruitment is always a risk, and there's no point in buying players that the manager doesn't want, but the era of all encompassing managers controlling all aspects at the club are gone.
If we don't figure out what we're trying to do as a club, it doesn't matter anyway.
100% should have a say because it’s ultimately his tactics and formations so he can explain what he needs
Calafat is for the scouting.
And the latter is the point yeah, Ancelotti gets what he gets and needs to make it work.
Could it work for United? Sure, but you need people who have an eye for talent. Whether Ten Hag can get them playing good football…
Manager should be consulted sure but thats about it
This. Kim Chen for manager.
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.
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.
Last edited:
Agreed.
On one hand, I think he did the right thing. On the other hand, I think he needs to be subtle about it. Fergie is ruthless and quick with these decisions. He doesn't rock the boat and let these players sit around of months. Beck, Stam, and others were quick and decisive. EtH alienate these players from the team like Sancho, Maguire and other. When he needs them, what does he expect? 100% commitment? They are only playing their best to get another club willing to offer good wages, they don't care about Erik or the club as they are gone once the transfer market is open.
We can't afford any more Onanas and Antonys, that’s for sure, but clearly the manager should be consulted.
I don't think they do, I'm sure they have clout but they'll be presented with options by their DoFs, not just say give me this guy and that guy. Everyone else actually has a plan. Also their initial transfers were pretty wild as well. The best teams don't have managers running recruitment, I am trying to think of who else does it but I think it might literally just be us who operate this way.
He’s the on very thin ice so he shouldn’t be given any real say as he’s unlikely to be the manager for very long.
The only say Ten Hag should have is what taxi to call to take him back to Holland when he's sacked
I don't think this veto clause will work with the new structure and I can very much see friction occurring fairly soon
You're wrong twice actually. He didnt create those conflicts, their poor form did, and he's improved the team through two of the "conflicts" with the other 2 ongoing.
Ronaldo was eventually gotten rid off and we were immediately better off, Maguire had played better since he was dropped for a while, Sancho is responsible for his situation and we'll have to see with Rashford.
Fair. I think he was definitely wrong about McTominay. His problem is that any player we replace will likely be replaced by a similarly overpriced clown so I don't think he can quickly get rid of them the way SAF did.
Good point.
The problem isn’t with him having A say, the problem is with him having THE say, or a power of veto. He should definitely be allowed input, any head coach should be; but the final decision shouldn’t be his and he shouldn’t be allowed to either push through or veto signings. No head coach should. The final say should go to the DoF in conjunction with the recruitment and data team.
He should be involved with identifying the type of player (position, traits etc.), and even making recommendations, but ultimately you want the recruitment specialists and data analysts identifying the targets and presenting them to the DoF, who goes through all the background, data and research with them and then sees which players fit within the acceptable budgetary parameters and have a long term utility for the club, not just a short term impact for the current head coach.
The managers agent/agency shouldn’t have any direct influence over transfer policy. That is one of the most perverse and disturbing elements of the current regime.
He should be involved with identifying the type of player (position, traits etc.), and even making recommendations, but ultimately you want the recruitment specialists and data analysts identifying the targets and presenting them to the DoF, who goes through all the background, data and research with them and then sees which players fit within the acceptable budgetary parameters and have a long term utility for the club, not just a short term impact for the current head coach.
The managers agent/agency shouldn’t have any direct influence over transfer policy. That is one of the most perverse and disturbing elements of the current regime.
No. Sporting Director should have the ultimate say on both players and coach. Both should be recruited to suit the style of play the Sporting Director wants the club to have.
When Txiki was buying Doku for Pep, I doubt he spent hours trying to win him over. Do we genuinely believe Dan Ashworth spends loads of time begging Eddie Howe to give his buys the nod?
If Ten Hag can't accept having an Overmars type figure over him at United, like he had at Ajax, it goes to show he's not that invested in the job.
When Txiki was buying Doku for Pep, I doubt he spent hours trying to win him over. Do we genuinely believe Dan Ashworth spends loads of time begging Eddie Howe to give his buys the nod?
If Ten Hag can't accept having an Overmars type figure over him at United, like he had at Ajax, it goes to show he's not that invested in the job.
He can take what he is given and then we can start a thread that Ineos did not back the manager.
Completely agree and hopefully INEOS see it in exactly the same way. We need the manager to fit in with how we want to play
I think ultimately it should be down to the DoF but the manager should have an input. It would be weird if he had no say what so ever.
Aye. The Sporting Director, Head of Recruitment and possibly the Chief Executive or Club President (if this person possesses the breadth of knowledge to have a say in such matters, like José Ángel Sánchez at Real Madrid or Uli Hoeneß at Bayern Munich in the past) should be the ones driving our transfer operations, after carefully considering the opinions of experts in the scouting and analytical department of course. And they should be expected to always act in the best interest of the club, particularly with the medium to long term health of the institution in mind, which calls for consistency of vision and decision-making (and sometimes, sacrificing the short term), with good working practises and senstivity (with regard to the unavoidable human element) creating a snowball effect and ensuring the optimization of their collaboration.
A lot can go wrong if a contemporary Head Coach is allowed to weild excessive influence in non-coaching departments, particularly at a club that hasn't the foggiest idea about constructing a robust, competitive decision-making hiearchy (like Manchester United). If I recall correctly, the average Premier League based Head Coach has a lifespan of a bit less than 1½ years — they might be good coaches and trainers, but not necessarily the best talent identifiers (which is an art form, even in the age of big data), and that would make them fundamentally unsuited to overt transfer-related intrusion. And when push comes to shove, they will act in self-interest and make short-termist decisions to protect their own jobs (which might or might not be in alignment with the interests of the club itself), while recklessly stockpiling on personal favorites that would be subpar, if not redundant, under their successor (particularly if their principles of football and tactical leaning are divergent), which is just precious money down the drain.
CIES Football Observatory: Demo-economic analysis of player transfers (2014-2023)
Manchester United needs to learn from its multitude of mistakes in the post-Ferguson era, and should be structured so that the club can smoothly navigate semi-regular change at the Head Coaching position (this happened at most of the successful clubs of the last 10-20 years...including the trio of Real Madrid, Bayern Munich and Barcelona). That needs to be our default setting. And while we shouldn't be inherently midstrusting of Head Coaches, we should be strict with the near-absolute bifurcation of responsiblities, instead of entertaining their whims and fancies and hastily handing them the keys to the entire castle (in the hopes that they will turn out to be messianic figures, following in the footsetps of Busby and Ferguson). Slight accomodations should only be made for exceptional ones who have clearly evidenced talent-assessment pedigree (ideally at Manchester United, just to make sure they work well with the ideals and structural underpinnings that are specific to this club). For the most part, Head Coaches should stick to training and improving the group of players they have at the disposal, as opposed to micromanaging other departments.
No.
Good post. Agree entirelyAye. The Sporting Director, Head of Recruitment and possibly the Chief Executive or Club President (if this person possesses the breadth of knowledge to have a say in such matters, like José Ángel Sánchez at Real Madrid or Uli Hoeneß at Bayern Munich in the past) should be the ones driving our transfer operations, after carefully considering the opinions of experts in the scouting and analytical department of course. And they should be expected to always act in the best interest of the club, particularly with the medium to long term health of the institution in mind, which calls for consistency of vision and decision-making (and sometimes, sacrificing the short term), with good working practises and senstivity (with regard to the unavoidable human element) creating a snowball effect and ensuring the optimization of their collaboration.
A lot can go wrong if a contemporary Head Coach is allowed to weild excessive influence in non-coaching departments, particularly at a club that hasn't the foggiest idea about constructing a robust, competitive decision-making hiearchy (like Manchester United). If I recall correctly, the average Premier League based Head Coach has a lifespan of a bit less than 1½ years — they might be good coaches and trainers, but not necessarily the best talent identifiers (which is an art form, even in the age of big data), and that would make them fundamentally unsuited to overt transfer-related intrusion. And when push comes to shove, they will act in self-interest and make short-termist decisions to protect their own jobs (which might or might not be in alignment with the interests of the club itself), while recklessly stockpiling on personal favorites that would be subpar, if not redundant, under their successor (particularly if their principles of football and tactical leaning are divergent), which is just precious money down the drain.
CIES Football Observatory: Demo-economic analysis of player transfers (2014-2023)
Manchester United needs to learn from its multitude of mistakes in the post-Ferguson era, and should be structured so that the club can smoothly navigate semi-regular change at the Head Coaching position (this happened at most of the successful clubs of the last 10-20 years...including the trio of Real Madrid, Bayern Munich and Barcelona). That needs to be our default setting. And while we shouldn't be inherently midstrusting of Head Coaches, we should be strict with the near-absolute bifurcation of responsiblities, instead of entertaining their whims and fancies and hastily handing them the keys to the entire castle (in the hopes that they will turn out to be messianic figures, following in the footsetps of Busby and Ferguson). Slight accomodations should only be made for exceptional ones who have clearly evidenced talent-assessment pedigree (ideally at Manchester United, just to make sure they work well with the ideals and structural underpinnings that are specific to this club). For the most part, Head Coaches should stick to training and improving the group of players they have at the disposal, as opposed to micromanaging other departments.
And it will likely be the same people saying that ETH can’t succeed with the structure as it is now, then saying that INEOS did not back him
His track record here has been appalling and any goodwill he had in regards to spotting talent is in the gutter. I don’t think there should be much of any trust in him when it comes to transfers.
Its old info but its still relevant
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