Telegraph Football: Man Utd looking to appoint director of football this summer | Appointed

[Revaulx]

Transfers are the most unpredictable and toughest part of football. The person involved has to contend with clubs who want to make as much £££ as possible, agents whose interest vary from what is good for their players, to what is good for the club, what is good for themselves or what is good for their pool of players and players who are fickle prima donnas. One blink and months of hard work can go to the shitters. I was few meters away from Sir Alex Ferguson when he said at our supporters club that Gazza's deal had been done and dusted and he'll be signing for us after the weekend. Turned out that the old man allowed his guard down (he was on a holiday in Malta) and that was enough for Spurs to step in and feck us.

Which is why we need someone who is in the know how for 24/7 and had spent his professional life building contacts with agents and clubs. No manager/CEO can do that. They are too busy with their jobs.

Absolutely! This is every bit as important as “footballing vision”.

Even if the style of football changes from one manager to the next (and let’s face it: it’s bound to to some extent) we need someone who knows which players out there would actually fit that manager’s style of play. Ed and Matt can’t do this.

 

[Plymouth Red]

Possibly me being old-fashioned, but that seems to be the managers job? Or should a DOF tell the manager/coach the style of play? So if its Liverpool and they brought another DOF in, they'd potentially stop with the "high-press" because a DOF would prefer a different style?

I guess one of the reasons DOFs are often ex players is so they can work with the coaches to determine the on pitch approach. This is the obvious gap in our current structure.
In the example you mentioned, I guess it would take a brave DOF to say Klopp should change his tactics. Maybe an easier discussion to tie Ole down, though.

 

[Adnan]

Possibly me being old-fashioned, but that seems to be the managers job? Or should a DOF tell the manager/coach the style of play? So if its Liverpool and they brought another DOF in, they'd potentially stop with the "high-press" because a DOF would prefer a different style?

That should be the clubs job and it's the club that would then set the philosophy regarding the direction of the club which would mean a specialist in the area would be brought in to carry out the task in the short and long-term, which would provide stability/continuity from the play style to the recruitment and that wouldn't change if the head coach is sacked.

 

[M Bison]

That should be the clubs job and it's the club that would then set the philosophy regarding the direction of the club which would mean a specialist in the area would be brought in to carry out the task in the short and long-term, which would provide stability/continuity from the play style to the recruitment and that wouldn't change if the head coach is sacked.

And this seems to be the issue, the lack of understanding on what the job of DOF is. It seems to be one of those roles whereby you ask 10 different people and you get 10 different answers.

 

[Foxbatt]

I guess one of the reasons DOFs are often ex players is so they can work with the coaches to determine the on pitch approach. This is the obvious gap in our current structure.
In the example you mentioned, I guess it would take a brave DOF to say Klopp should change his tactics. Maybe an easier discussion to tie Ole down, though.

I presume so long as Klopp kept winning there is no point in telling him to change.

 

[Adnan]

And this seems to be the issue, the lack of understanding on what the job of DOF is. It seems to be one of those roles whereby you ask 10 different people and you get 10 different answers.

The role is very simple and numerous articles have been written on the role in question.

But to simplify it, what the DoF would do is appoint the head coach and sign players to a set footballing philosophy and that would create the conditions for the coach to succeed. So in a DoF setup the judgement of the scouts is of absolute paramount importance and since SAF retired that hasn't been the case at the club. Also it's sensible to have a DoF in control of the football department because of the longevity of the role in comparison to giving task to the manager who has a short shelf life.

 

[devilish]

Thanks for that, I must admit I'm confused by the whole DOF thing and I dont fully understand it, the above does help to a point, but it still doesnt sit right with me.

In the Del Piero story it worked out, but i'm assuming there must be a number of alternative's where the stories ending wasnt as positive. In this example, had Del Piero decided to leave, that would have potentially been a massive issue for the manager and his style of play - fundamentally, the DOF wouldnt know the detail and potentially the value a player brings, to the manager, the team and other players.

I dont understand how a DOF at Board level as you say, and in their ivory tower can really understand the intricacies of the team. I do appreciate the point around team politics, but in a sense, is that not part of running a team? Is it not the same as an Operations Director of a manufacturer, sitting at Board level but not having a grip on personnel within the production line?

It really wouldn't. Del Piero at that point was finished. He could give 15 minutes here and there but that's what is. The manager would play him if he is available but he needed a first teamer more, something the club wasn't ready to give him unless he's shown the door. That's something no manager would do as he would have a revolt in his hands. A DOF on the other hand wouldn't care as his job isn't tied to the team's results. Actually if Del Piero downed the tools then he'll be strengthening his argument as he would prove that the guy is actually finished and is pure trouble.

That's part of the DOF's job though. DOF are constantly in touch with agents and clubs which makes transfers more efficient and effective. If let's say Milan are on the look out for a RW on the cheap then an effective DOF would use his contacts with Milan and the player (ex lingard) to try and seal a move. If there's a decent player whose heading towards the end of his contract then a top DOF will be close enough to the player's agent to 'persuade him' not to sign a new contract and join their club instead. Alternatively that player can start playing badly/getting injured more regularly while his agent would start talking shit so that the player's price would go down. Does that ring a bell? That's type of micromanagement can't be done by the manager or the CEO simply because they simply don't have the time for it.

 

[M Bison]

That's part of the DOF's job though. DOF are constantly in touch with agents and clubs which makes transfers more efficient and effective. If let's say Milan are on the look out of a RW on the cheap then an effective DOF would use his contacts with Milan and the player to try and seal a move. If there's a decent player whose heading towards the end of his contract then a top DOF will be close enough to the player's agent to 'persuade him' not to sign a new contract and join their club instead. Alternatively that player can start playing badly/getting injured more regularly while his agent would start talking shit so that the player's price would go down. Does that ring a bell? That's type of micromanagement can't be done by the manager or the CEO simply because they simply don't have the time for it.

Ha ha, no idea what you’re talking about there

 

[Andersonson]

DoF handles transfer and is the boss of all recruitment, right?

He must work along with the philosophies the club has.?

How was this when SAF and Gill worked together?

I'm pretty sure Pep instructs Begiristain and not the other way around?

Can someone explain to me like im 12 why we need a DoF and what role he takes and what role the manager will take in this? Im pretty sure this differs from club to club

 

[wolvored]

Never understood the obsession with a Director of Football. As shown this summer we have a team of scouts who identify and recommend players. The manager whoever that is then gives approval on said player. I fail to see what’s wrong with this method.

I see a lot of people saying Ed Woodward is inexperienced. He’s been doing this for 7 years now. He knows what he’s doing a director of football isn’t going to change how we operate.

He is niave though. We have had 4 different managers with 4 different styles and ended up with a mish mash of players, who dont all fit the current managers style. A DOF would pick the manager/head coach for the style/philosophy of the football he wanted to play, and if it didnt work with that manager would pick the next manager to supplement that style. The players would all be picked depending if they fitted that style. Ole wanted to play an high press, yet picked a slow as feck CB in his naivity. With a DOF who knew his stuff, that wouldnt have happened.

 

[Cheimoon]

DoF handles transfer and is the boss of all recruitment, right?

He must work along with the philosophies the club has.?

How was this when SAF and Gill worked together?

I'm pretty sure Pep instructs Begiristain and not the other way around?

Can someone explain to me like im 12 why we need a DoF and what role he takes and what role the manager will take in this? Im pretty sure this differs from club to club

To me, the stupidest thing United have done since SAF's departure was replacing Moyes with Van Gaal and Van Gaal with Mourinho. That makes no sense: it's three different styles in just a few years, making long-term player recruitment impossible.

So to me, when people speak of United DNA, that's what the DOF should define: on a high level, what should the club play like? Possession football? High-pressure transition-focused football? Counter-attacking from a defensive setup? Something else? Do we want to be a development club or buy to win? And there are probably some other high-level things to determine. Some of this is also budget-dependent and would need input from the CEO.

Once that's figured out, the DOF oversees the hiring of a coach that fits that general vision. Obviously, the coach would fill in the details in their own way; a DOF is not the tactical mastermind. Also, the vision can develop, influenced by the coach and other factors. But this guarantees that the club can direct all of its resources in the same direction: youth development, player scouting, and indeed coach scouting - replacing a coach isn't as big a deal if you roughly know what you want and always keep a shortlist of potentially interesting coaches.

From that general setup, the rest can be figured out as required. For example, some coaches might want to be closely involved in player recruitment, some might not; and the DOF might have their own preferences for the decision-making process around recruitment. They might also want to keep a coach out of the process as much as possible to ensure they can spend maximum time working with the first team and preparing for matches. (In that sense, the model also allows coaches to be more focused on the football.) And so on. But the main thing is guaranteeing direction - and then this Moyes-Van Gaal-Mourinho nonsense won't happen.

At least, that's my takeaway.

 

[simonhch]

To me, the stupidest thing United have done since SAF's departure was replacing Moyes with Van Gaal and Van Gaal with Mourinho. That makes no sense: it's three different styles in just a few years, making long-term player recruitment impossible.

So to me, when people speak of United DNA, that's what the DOF should define: on a high level, what should the club play like? Possession football? High-pressure transition-focused football? Counter-attacking from a defensive setup? Something else? Do we want to be a development club or buy to win? And there are probably some other high-level things to determine. Some of this is also budget-dependent and would need input from the CEO.

Once that's figured out, the DOF oversees the hiring of a coach that fits that general vision. Obviously, the coach would fill in the details in their own way; a DOF is not the tactical mastermind. Also, the vision can develop, influenced by the coach and other factors. But this guarantees that the club can direct all of its resources in the same direction: youth development, player scouting, and indeed coach scouting - replacing a coach isn't as big a deal if you roughly know what you want and always keep a shortlist of potentially interesting coaches.

From that general setup, the rest can be figured out as required. For example, some coaches might want to be closely involved in player recruitment, some might not; and the DOF might have their own preferences for the decision-making process around recruitment. They might also want to keep a coach out of the process as much as possible to ensure they can spend maximum time working with the first team and preparing for matches. (In that sense, the model also allows coaches to be more focused on the football.) And so on. But the main thing is guaranteeing direction - and then this Moyes-Van Gaal-Mourinho nonsense won't happen.

At least, that's my takeaway.

I’ve been saying this for ages. That the long term lack of a strategic plan overarching manager recruitment has had dire effects not only on results on the pitch, but also the scale of player acquisition expenditure. The best teams will always be those with the lowest rate of turnover. Ferguson talked about this a lot. This is indicative of a lack of domain experience amongst top executives at the club.

 

[POF]

True and people think that we are just advocating for any DOF, that DOF has to be the 'best in class' like what Gary Neville said. Its pointless to pick up another former player and install them.as DOF because he will be terrible especially for an inaugural appointment.

We spent £200m on our first choice defense (Shaw 30m, Maguire 90m, Lindelof 30m and AWB 50m) and yet every single one of these players can be upgraded on. Half of that defense was during the much touted cultural reboot so we cant blame it on big bad Jose and LVG. You can't look at Maguire and AWB playing and say 'yeah this was the best way to spend £140m', you just can't. Now we have another player, VDB, who we signed and the manager doesn't know how to use or even wish to use him.

The £140m spent on Maguire and Wan Bissaka sums up the need perfectly. 2 seasons previously, Maguire moved for £15m. One season earlier, £5m would have been expensive for Wan Bissaka.

United have/had a really short term transfer outlook. The stories were that the manager gave Woodward a list of players he wanted in advance of each window. What a ridiculous way to manage the most important assets of such a huge organisation. It led to hundreds of millions of pounds being wasted on substandard players.

Squad management should be ongoing and long term. Players should be identified and acquired when they are at their most affordable rather than when they're flavour of the month and the most expensive they will ever be.

It seems like things have changed over the last couple of years. They seem to be identifying a profile of players and are willing to wait for a player when they're not available (Bruno/Sancho).

Now they need someone with the contacts and market savvy to be able to manage this recruitment more effectively. I don't even think they need an appointment who will stay for a long time. They seem to be identifying players with the right profile. Now they just need a capability of acquiring those players which doesn't involve paying double their value.

 

[acnumber9]

I wish I could believe that a Director of Football is the holy grail that people think it is. They’re still going to answer to the Glazers/Woodward and a bad appointment can only make matters worse just by adding an extra voice. And let’s face it, we have no reason to believe that Woodward would make the right appointment.

 

[el_loco_bielsa]

I wish I could believe that a Director of Football is the holy grail that people think it is. They’re still going to answer to the Glazers/Woodward and a bad appointment can only make matters worse just by adding an extra voice. And let’s face it, we have no reason to believe that Woodward would make the right appointment.

Any change in the structure is only going to be as good as the people hired to do the job and their ability to work together. So it would be silly to ditch a move to a DOF-coach system after hiring a rubbish DOF who also doesn't get on with the coach.

During liverpool's years in the wilderness, we spent a decade or more on liverpool forums having this exact debate and whether it was the path towards fixing the malaise.

FSG after they'd just bought the club adopted this route and instead of going for one of the top candidates (the three outstanding candidates at the time being Zorc at dortmund, Paratici at juve and Monchi at Seville) they brought in a bullshit merchant (Damien Comolli) who interviewed very well but was dreadful at the actual job. The only silver lining was that he brought in Michael Edwards as part of his team.

Over time John Henry learned from and rectified his mistakes and eventually via the much maligned interaction between Brendan Rodgers and his 'transfer committee' they've arrived at the winning combination of a promoted Michael Edwards (who is a de facto DOF) and Klopp.

The key thing here is a) they're both bloody good at their jobs and b) they work hand in glove and manage any disagreements extremely well, knowing when to compromise. So klopp giving way on his demand for Julian Brandt and agreeing to buying Salah instead when presented with the data is only the best-known example - there were plenty of others. Without Edwards, Klopp would still be managing a team fighting for top 4 - and it would've been a similar issue if Klopp had had an inferior DOF to Zorc at bvb, or one he didn't get on with quite so well.

The issue at Manchester United is both a political one and also an issue of personnel. You have owners who have the complete confidence of the accountant who brokered their deal to buy the club and has subsequently been promoted to be the sole director of all operations at united. He is highly reluctant to cede control of any part of the club - from the financial to the sporting side of things - so he hasn't yet hired a sporting director because you'd have to assume he doesn't want to. In addition you have a coach who is quite simply not good enough - he's been hired on the basis of having been an influential ex-player rather than on the basis of his CV. He has a team who are capable of pulling out results in spite of him rather than because of him - quite simply because they have some of the best players in the league in the likes of Fernandes and Rashford.

So for effective change to happen it needs to start right at the top - with Ed Woodward. You need a CEO who is happy to cede control of sporting matters and concentrate on the financial/logistical side of things, like Mike Gordon at liverpool or Soriano at City. You then bring in a professional to run the sporting side of things, and allow him to shortlist some managers and decide via consensus who to appoint.

 

[Rozay]

Never understood the obsession with a Director of Football. As shown this summer we have a team of scouts who identify and recommend players. The manager whoever that is then gives approval on said player. I fail to see what’s wrong with this method.

I see a lot of people saying Ed Woodward is inexperienced. He’s been doing this for 7 years now. He knows what he’s doing a director of football isn’t going to change how we operate.

What we desperately need is someone to come in and do what Edu has done at Arsenal.

 

[0le]

Any change in the structure is only going to be as good as the people hired to do the job and their ability to work together. So it would be silly to ditch a move to a DOF-coach system after hiring a rubbish DOF who also doesn't get on with the coach.

During liverpool's years in the wilderness, we spent a decade or more on liverpool forums having this exact debate and whether it was the path towards fixing the malaise.

FSG after they'd just bought the club adopted this route and instead of going for one of the top candidates (the three outstanding candidates at the time being Zorc at dortmund, Paratici at juve and Monchi at Seville) they brought in a bullshit merchant (Damien Comolli) who interviewed very well but was dreadful at the actual job. The only silver lining was that he brought in Michael Edwards as part of his team.

Over time John Henry learned from and rectified his mistakes and eventually via the much maligned interaction between Brendan Rodgers and his 'transfer committee' they've arrived at the winning combination of a promoted Michael Edwards (who is a de facto DOF) and Klopp.

The key thing here is a) they're both bloody good at their jobs and b) they work hand in glove and manage any disagreements extremely well, knowing when to compromise. So klopp giving way on his demand for Julian Brandt and agreeing to buying Salah instead when presented with the data is only the best-known example - there were plenty of others. Without Edwards, Klopp would still be managing a team fighting for top 4 - and it would've been a similar issue if Klopp had had an inferior DOF to Zorc at bvb, or one he didn't get on with quite so well.

The issue at Manchester United is both a political one and also an issue of personnel. You have owners who have the complete confidence of the accountant who brokered their deal to buy the club and has subsequently been promoted to be the sole director of all operations at united. He is highly reluctant to cede control of any part of the club - from the financial to the sporting side of things - so he hasn't yet hired a sporting director because you'd have to assume he doesn't want to. In addition you have a coach who is quite simply not good enough - he's been hired on the basis of having been an influential ex-player rather than on the basis of his CV. He has a team who are capable of pulling out results in spite of him rather than because of him - quite simply because they have some of the best players in the league in the likes of Fernandes and Rashford.

So for effective change to happen it needs to start right at the top - with Ed Woodward. You need a CEO who is happy to cede control of sporting matters and concentrate on the financial/logistical side of things, like Mike Gordon at liverpool or Soriano at City. You then bring in a professional to run the sporting side of things, and allow him to shortlist some managers and decide via consensus who to appoint.

Great post, deserves a like.

 

[Sandikan]

I wish I could believe that a Director of Football is the holy grail that people think it is. They’re still going to answer to the Glazers/Woodward and a bad appointment can only make matters worse just by adding an extra voice. And let’s face it, we have no reason to believe that Woodward would make the right appointment.

This.
I don't quite understand the logic - as how likely is it that your DOF and manager are perfectly aligned in their thinking?
And who is more powerful? Does the manager just become a "coach" in effect with the DOF being the guy who signs the players?

 

[JakeC]

Any change in the structure is only going to be as good as the people hired to do the job and their ability to work together. So it would be silly to ditch a move to a DOF-coach system after hiring a rubbish DOF who also doesn't get on with the coach.

During liverpool's years in the wilderness, we spent a decade or more on liverpool forums having this exact debate and whether it was the path towards fixing the malaise.

FSG after they'd just bought the club adopted this route and instead of going for one of the top candidates (the three outstanding candidates at the time being Zorc at dortmund, Paratici at juve and Monchi at Seville) they brought in a bullshit merchant (Damien Comolli) who interviewed very well but was dreadful at the actual job. The only silver lining was that he brought in Michael Edwards as part of his team.

Over time John Henry learned from and rectified his mistakes and eventually via the much maligned interaction between Brendan Rodgers and his 'transfer committee' they've arrived at the winning combination of a promoted Michael Edwards (who is a de facto DOF) and Klopp.

The key thing here is a) they're both bloody good at their jobs and b) they work hand in glove and manage any disagreements extremely well, knowing when to compromise. So klopp giving way on his demand for Julian Brandt and agreeing to buying Salah instead when presented with the data is only the best-known example - there were plenty of others. Without Edwards, Klopp would still be managing a team fighting for top 4 - and it would've been a similar issue if Klopp had had an inferior DOF to Zorc at bvb, or one he didn't get on with quite so well.

The issue at Manchester United is both a political one and also an issue of personnel. You have owners who have the complete confidence of the accountant who brokered their deal to buy the club and has subsequently been promoted to be the sole director of all operations at united. He is highly reluctant to cede control of any part of the club - from the financial to the sporting side of things - so he hasn't yet hired a sporting director because you'd have to assume he doesn't want to. In addition you have a coach who is quite simply not good enough - he's been hired on the basis of having been an influential ex-player rather than on the basis of his CV. He has a team who are capable of pulling out results in spite of him rather than because of him - quite simply because they have some of the best players in the league in the likes of Fernandes and Rashford.

So for effective change to happen it needs to start right at the top - with Ed Woodward. You need a CEO who is happy to cede control of sporting matters and concentrate on the financial/logistical side of things, like Mike Gordon at liverpool or Soriano at City. You then bring in a professional to run the sporting side of things, and allow him to shortlist some managers and decide via consensus who to appoint.

Good post, I agree with almost everything you've said here. I'm also critical of Ole and his in game management and his inconsistency when it comes to aspects of our tactical set up. However I think it's unfair to say that some of our better moments are in spite of him. Ole is here on merit after the exceptional turn around in atmosphere, and decent results since he got the job as caretaker. He still appears slightly naïve (Not replacing Fred VS PSG, allowing our defenders to sit so narrow against direct sides, and his hesitancy to make changes) at times, but very astute at others (3-1 City win last season, our total demolition of Leipzig, our never say die attitude in Paris last year.)

 

[Cloud7]

Possibly me being old-fashioned, but that seems to be the managers job? Or should a DOF tell the manager/coach the style of play? So if its Liverpool and they brought another DOF in, they'd potentially stop with the "high-press" because a DOF would prefer a different style?

In it's simplest terms, it's like this. The owners/CEO of the club decide they want to take the club in a particular direction. This direction involves style of play, example Guardiola type possession, or Klopp style high press and direct football, what sort of direction they want to take with respect to transfers, whether it's a galactico policy like Madrid of old, or a full on young and developing policy like Dortmund, or something in the middle like us, and other things like that, as pertains to what vision the owners have for the club.

The DOF then goes out and recruits managers and players who fit into this vision. This will be a change from the United mantra of the manager being untouchable and the most important person in the club, which to me is a very dated idea anyway, since the manager position is volatile, and they should never be in charge of the entire vision of a club. In this model the manager is just another cog in the machine, just like the players.

In your example, yes, they would potentially stop it if the club owners decide that they want to go in a different direction, and they hire a DOF to take the club in that direction. It's not a matter of the style the DOF prefers, they're merely an instrument so as to execute the wishes of the owners.

A better example would be City. Somewhere along the line the owners decided they wanted to play Barcelona type football, and so they went about hiring football executives from Barcelona to oversee the management of the club, they then signed players that fit the vision they wanted, and they signed a manager that fit that vision.

 

[Cloud7]

Any change in the structure is only going to be as good as the people hired to do the job and their ability to work together. So it would be silly to ditch a move to a DOF-coach system after hiring a rubbish DOF who also doesn't get on with the coach.

During liverpool's years in the wilderness, we spent a decade or more on liverpool forums having this exact debate and whether it was the path towards fixing the malaise.

FSG after they'd just bought the club adopted this route and instead of going for one of the top candidates (the three outstanding candidates at the time being Zorc at dortmund, Paratici at juve and Monchi at Seville) they brought in a bullshit merchant (Damien Comolli) who interviewed very well but was dreadful at the actual job. The only silver lining was that he brought in Michael Edwards as part of his team.

Over time John Henry learned from and rectified his mistakes and eventually via the much maligned interaction between Brendan Rodgers and his 'transfer committee' they've arrived at the winning combination of a promoted Michael Edwards (who is a de facto DOF) and Klopp.

The key thing here is a) they're both bloody good at their jobs and b) they work hand in glove and manage any disagreements extremely well, knowing when to compromise. So klopp giving way on his demand for Julian Brandt and agreeing to buying Salah instead when presented with the data is only the best-known example - there were plenty of others. Without Edwards, Klopp would still be managing a team fighting for top 4 - and it would've been a similar issue if Klopp had had an inferior DOF to Zorc at bvb, or one he didn't get on with quite so well.

The issue at Manchester United is both a political one and also an issue of personnel. You have owners who have the complete confidence of the accountant who brokered their deal to buy the club and has subsequently been promoted to be the sole director of all operations at united. He is highly reluctant to cede control of any part of the club - from the financial to the sporting side of things - so he hasn't yet hired a sporting director because you'd have to assume he doesn't want to. In addition you have a coach who is quite simply not good enough - he's been hired on the basis of having been an influential ex-player rather than on the basis of his CV. He has a team who are capable of pulling out results in spite of him rather than because of him - quite simply because they have some of the best players in the league in the likes of Fernandes and Rashford.

So for effective change to happen it needs to start right at the top - with Ed Woodward. You need a CEO who is happy to cede control of sporting matters and concentrate on the financial/logistical side of things, like Mike Gordon at liverpool or Soriano at City. You then bring in a professional to run the sporting side of things, and allow him to shortlist some managers and decide via consensus who to appoint.

Excellent post.

 

[Maticmaker]

Appointing someone at DoF level is going to be like all such appointments, "what exactly is the role he/she is going to take on?" As always, the 'devil will be in the detail'.
What will the owners expect from the DoF; What will the CEO expect from the DoF; what will the manager expect from the DoF and finally what will the fans expect? You can be sure it will be something different in each case.

For me the key questions are;
1) Will the DoF be essentially an 'advisor role', to the Owners/Board, to the CEO, to the Manager, and to Fans (via protected media outlets?)
2) Or will the DoF also have 'clout' i.e. reporting directly to the board, the DoF and can overrule/withhold consent to either or both of the plans of CEO and the Team Manager and submits the overarching 'blue-print' to take the club forward?

IMO these two questions need to answered clearly before any appointment, otherwise it will just be another layer of management to add to the confusion that sometimes now seems to occur.
With question 1, the 'advisor role' the individual aspects remain the responsibility of those employed as, i.e. board member, CEO, or Team Manager, the DoF simply adds either a specific and/or an overall perspective.
With question 2 the DoF in effect becomes part of a 'triumvirate' at the top, and creates the need for a majority decision to be made on all decisions where more than one view pertains.

The fact it is taking so long to appoint a DoF suggests that no decision on 1 or 2 has yet been taken; therefore elements of the Job description still need to be clarified and hence a prospective person specification cannot be issued as yet.

 

[georgipep]

The £140m spent on Maguire and Wan Bissaka sums up the need perfectly. 2 seasons previously, Maguire moved for £15m. One season earlier, £5m would have been expensive for Wan Bissaka.

That's not how it works in real life though. Maguire three seasons ago wasn't the player he was when we bought him. He wasn't proven enough. Wan-Bissaka was a virtual unknown and paying any amount for him would've been ridiculously risky. If we did buy those two players when they were cheap, they wouldn't get game time with us and they wouldn't develop. If they did get game time, they would make mistakes and would've been destroyed by media, pundits and fans. As a result, most likely their careers at Manchester United would've been over.

United have/had a really short term transfer outlook. The stories were that the manager gave Woodward a list of players he wanted in advance of each window. What a ridiculous way to manage the most important assets of such a huge organisation. It led to hundreds of millions of pounds being wasted on substandard players.

Our knowledge on how transfers work at the club is based on guesses. Nothing else

Squad management should be ongoing and long term. Players should be identified and acquired when they are at their most affordable rather than when they're flavour of the month and the most expensive they will ever be.

We have and continue buying for the long term. Diogo Dalot, Daniel James, Facundo Pellistri and Amad Diallo are the latest "big name" examples of that. Maybe you want more? What happens with such players if we buy them? They can't get playing time at the club. Do we loan them? That's always a risk due to a multitude of reasons (are they going to play? is the manager of that club going to change? do they have someone in the same position that they would prefer to develop? etc.) and if I recall, most people were not too happy with the Chelsea model.

It seems like things have changed over the last couple of years. They seem to be identifying a profile of players and are willing to wait for a player when they're not available (Bruno/Sancho).

I agree and am very happy to see that. Buying a player just for the sake of buying is not a good strategy.

Now they need someone with the contacts and market savvy to be able to manage this recruitment more effectively. I don't even think they need an appointment who will stay for a long time. They seem to be identifying players with the right profile. Now they just need a capability of acquiring those players which doesn't involve paying double their value.

The main fallacy I see with people when discussing the Director of Football role is around the expectations of different clubs. Let's take Monchi (Sevilla), Campos (ex-Lille) and Overmars (Ajax) as examples. None of them would be under the same pressure and expectations as they are in their current roles. Sevilla are not expected to challenge for the La Liga title and thus can take their time investing and brooding talent. Same with Lille. Ajax, on the other hand, have a dominating position in Netherlands and have both the best squad in the country by a mile and the ability to keep selling their top talent while remaining competitive.

The common thing with those three clubs and DoFs is that they are representing selling clubs. We are not a selling club.

I don't know how good or bad we are at negotiations. The media make a meal out of every rumour that involves Manchester United and our fanbase eats it up like it is gospel. People need to realize that what actually happens in any negotiation remains known only to the parties involved. Romano, Falke and other "in the know" bullsh!tters are exploiting people's craving for more new and exciting information that will give them the bragging rights over their mates. It's that simple.

 

[Ali Dia]

Imagine we are finally sorting everything out rather than it being another false dawn/them just hiring another yes man/hiring someone terrible who will set us back yet again.

 

[AneRu]

Any change in the structure is only going to be as good as the people hired to do the job and their ability to work together. So it would be silly to ditch a move to a DOF-coach system after hiring a rubbish DOF who also doesn't get on with the coach.

During liverpool's years in the wilderness, we spent a decade or more on liverpool forums having this exact debate and whether it was the path towards fixing the malaise.

FSG after they'd just bought the club adopted this route and instead of going for one of the top candidates (the three outstanding candidates at the time being Zorc at dortmund, Paratici at juve and Monchi at Seville) they brought in a bullshit merchant (Damien Comolli) who interviewed very well but was dreadful at the actual job. The only silver lining was that he brought in Michael Edwards as part of his team.

Over time John Henry learned from and rectified his mistakes and eventually via the much maligned interaction between Brendan Rodgers and his 'transfer committee' they've arrived at the winning combination of a promoted Michael Edwards (who is a de facto DOF) and Klopp.

The key thing here is a) they're both bloody good at their jobs and b) they work hand in glove and manage any disagreements extremely well, knowing when to compromise. So klopp giving way on his demand for Julian Brandt and agreeing to buying Salah instead when presented with the data is only the best-known example - there were plenty of others. Without Edwards, Klopp would still be managing a team fighting for top 4 - and it would've been a similar issue if Klopp had had an inferior DOF to Zorc at bvb, or one he didn't get on with quite so well.

The issue at Manchester United is both a political one and also an issue of personnel. You have owners who have the complete confidence of the accountant who brokered their deal to buy the club and has subsequently been promoted to be the sole director of all operations at united. He is highly reluctant to cede control of any part of the club - from the financial to the sporting side of things - so he hasn't yet hired a sporting director because you'd have to assume he doesn't want to. In addition you have a coach who is quite simply not good enough - he's been hired on the basis of having been an influential ex-player rather than on the basis of his CV. He has a team who are capable of pulling out results in spite of him rather than because of him - quite simply because they have some of the best players in the league in the likes of Fernandes and Rashford.

So for effective change to happen it needs to start right at the top - with Ed Woodward. You need a CEO who is happy to cede control of sporting matters and concentrate on the financial/logistical side of things, like Mike Gordon at liverpool or Soriano at City. You then bring in a professional to run the sporting side of things, and allow him to shortlist some managers and decide via consensus who to appoint.

Spot on, even the decision to hand Ole a long term deal is a perfect example of an executive way out of his depth. People are just defensive but the facts speak for themselves - we have only won the title under two great managers in our history and for a club of our stature that points to serious underlying issues and we tend to let sentimentality cloud our judgement a lot.

 

[AneRu]

In it's simplest terms, it's like this. The owners/CEO of the club decide they want to take the club in a particular direction. This direction involves style of play, example Guardiola type possession, or Klopp style high press and direct football, what sort of direction they want to take with respect to transfers, whether it's a galactico policy like Madrid of old, or a full on young and developing policy like Dortmund, or something in the middle like us, and other things like that, as pertains to what vision the owners have for the club.

The DOF then goes out and recruits managers and players who fit into this vision. This will be a change from the United mantra of the manager being untouchable and the most important person in the club, which to me is a very dated idea anyway, since the manager position is volatile, and they should never be in charge of the entire vision of a club. In this model the manager is just another cog in the machine, just like the players.

In your example, yes, they would potentially stop it if the club owners decide that they want to go in a different direction, and they hire a DOF to take the club in that direction. It's not a matter of the style the DOF prefers, they're merely an instrument so as to execute the wishes of the owners.

A better example would be City. Somewhere along the line the owners decided they wanted to play Barcelona type football, and so they went about hiring football executives from Barcelona to oversee the management of the club, they then signed players that fit the vision they wanted, and they signed a manager that fit that vision.

Agreed, our model is heavily dependent on having a superhuman manager - a GOAT level manager. If we don't have that we don't win, simple as.

 

[Adnan]

Any change in the structure is only going to be as good as the people hired to do the job and their ability to work together. So it would be silly to ditch a move to a DOF-coach system after hiring a rubbish DOF who also doesn't get on with the coach.

During liverpool's years in the wilderness, we spent a decade or more on liverpool forums having this exact debate and whether it was the path towards fixing the malaise.

FSG after they'd just bought the club adopted this route and instead of going for one of the top candidates (the three outstanding candidates at the time being Zorc at dortmund, Paratici at juve and Monchi at Seville) they brought in a bullshit merchant (Damien Comolli) who interviewed very well but was dreadful at the actual job. The only silver lining was that he brought in Michael Edwards as part of his team.

Over time John Henry learned from and rectified his mistakes and eventually via the much maligned interaction between Brendan Rodgers and his 'transfer committee' they've arrived at the winning combination of a promoted Michael Edwards (who is a de facto DOF) and Klopp.

The key thing here is a) they're both bloody good at their jobs and b) they work hand in glove and manage any disagreements extremely well, knowing when to compromise. So klopp giving way on his demand for Julian Brandt and agreeing to buying Salah instead when presented with the data is only the best-known example - there were plenty of others. Without Edwards, Klopp would still be managing a team fighting for top 4 - and it would've been a similar issue if Klopp had had an inferior DOF to Zorc at bvb, or one he didn't get on with quite so well.

The issue at Manchester United is both a political one and also an issue of personnel. You have owners who have the complete confidence of the accountant who brokered their deal to buy the club and has subsequently been promoted to be the sole director of all operations at united. He is highly reluctant to cede control of any part of the club - from the financial to the sporting side of things - so he hasn't yet hired a sporting director because you'd have to assume he doesn't want to. In addition you have a coach who is quite simply not good enough - he's been hired on the basis of having been an influential ex-player rather than on the basis of his CV. He has a team who are capable of pulling out results in spite of him rather than because of him - quite simply because they have some of the best players in the league in the likes of Fernandes and Rashford.

So for effective change to happen it needs to start right at the top - with Ed Woodward. You need a CEO who is happy to cede control of sporting matters and concentrate on the financial/logistical side of things, like Mike Gordon at liverpool or Soriano at City. You then bring in a professional to run the sporting side of things, and allow him to shortlist some managers and decide via consensus who to appoint.

Good post from a Liverpool perspective. But unfortunately there's many of our fans who would like to see us carry on wasting money by giving the manager too much control in the hope the Messiah turns up..

 

[Varun1]

What we desperately need is someone to come in and do what Edu has done at Arsenal.

I hope you're being sarcastic because IMO Edu has been a disaster at Arsenal.

Any change in the structure is only going to be as good as the people hired to do the job and their ability to work together. So it would be silly to ditch a move to a DOF-coach system after hiring a rubbish DOF who also doesn't get on with the coach.

During liverpool's years in the wilderness, we spent a decade or more on liverpool forums having this exact debate and whether it was the path towards fixing the malaise.

FSG after they'd just bought the club adopted this route and instead of going for one of the top candidates (the three outstanding candidates at the time being Zorc at dortmund, Paratici at juve and Monchi at Seville) they brought in a bullshit merchant (Damien Comolli) who interviewed very well but was dreadful at the actual job. The only silver lining was that he brought in Michael Edwards as part of his team.

Over time John Henry learned from and rectified his mistakes and eventually via the much maligned interaction between Brendan Rodgers and his 'transfer committee' they've arrived at the winning combination of a promoted Michael Edwards (who is a de facto DOF) and Klopp.

The key thing here is a) they're both bloody good at their jobs and b) they work hand in glove and manage any disagreements extremely well, knowing when to compromise. So klopp giving way on his demand for Julian Brandt and agreeing to buying Salah instead when presented with the data is only the best-known example - there were plenty of others. Without Edwards, Klopp would still be managing a team fighting for top 4 - and it would've been a similar issue if Klopp had had an inferior DOF to Zorc at bvb, or one he didn't get on with quite so well.

The issue at Manchester United is both a political one and also an issue of personnel. You have owners who have the complete confidence of the accountant who brokered their deal to buy the club and has subsequently been promoted to be the sole director of all operations at united. He is highly reluctant to cede control of any part of the club - from the financial to the sporting side of things - so he hasn't yet hired a sporting director because you'd have to assume he doesn't want to. In addition you have a coach who is quite simply not good enough - he's been hired on the basis of having been an influential ex-player rather than on the basis of his CV. He has a team who are capable of pulling out results in spite of him rather than because of him - quite simply because they have some of the best players in the league in the likes of Fernandes and Rashford.

So for effective change to happen it needs to start right at the top - with Ed Woodward. You need a CEO who is happy to cede control of sporting matters and concentrate on the financial/logistical side of things, like Mike Gordon at liverpool or Soriano at City. You then bring in a professional to run the sporting side of things, and allow him to shortlist some managers and decide via consensus who to appoint.

Very very good post.

 

[JB7]

Why?

I don't want anyone from that 98-00 Arsenal team anywhere near United. Honestly don't care how many years have passed.

 

[Rozay]

I hope you're being sarcastic because IMO Edu has been a disaster at Arsenal.

Very very good post.

I am being very sarcastic. I’m generally in disagreement with this fixation on a DoF. My suspicion is that most don’t really know what they are talking about, they just speak football jargon and generalisations on the topic.

 

[Adnan]

According to statistics in the last 10 years in the PL, 5 managers have been sacked every season on average. So it's sensible to have someone managing the football side other than the coach who has a short shelf life in the job.

This doesn't mean a Sporting Director won't face bumps in the road along the way. But if the model is implemented correctly then we shouldn't see a cull of the squad every time a manager is sacked or see a change in footballing ideology with each new appointment which would yield stability/continuity.

We have been the amongst the biggest spenders post Fergie and haven't challenged for the title once. It's time we changed something and adopted a model which is widely used by the most successful clubs in the world.

 

[Varun1]

I am being very sarcastic. I’m generally in disagreement with this fixation on a DoF. My suspicion is that most don’t really know what they are talking about, they just speak football jargon and generalisations on the topic.

For every Edu there's a Michael Edwards.

 

[Rozay]

For every Edu there's a Michael Edwards.

Naturally. Which emphasises the point that the success is always in the personnel, not in the system itself.

I’ve always said - a football club will always be required to make certain decisions, and their success will depend on whether they get them wrong or right. The job title of the person making them is a red herring. We have people who pick managers, pick players etc. All that matters is that the choices are good ones. It’s irrelevant whether that person is titled DoF or member of a ‘transfer committee’, for example, which we have.

Edu, amongst many others, has just highlighted that if you have a director of football, and that director of football hires the wrong managers and signs the wrong players - the team will not progress. People are so fixated with is getting a DoF. If we don’t want one, it doesn’t leave us ‘behind’ other clubs. It would do if, in the absence of a director, we had NOBODY scouting players, doing deals etc. But that isn’t the case, so all that then matters is the quality of those decisions - we can choose to make them in whatever structure we want.

Barcelona are a complete clown show and have a DoF but yet have hired several poor managers and wasted huge money in the transfer market. Liverpool have bought and hired well. Their structure is totally irrelevant to that fact.

 

[Varun1]

Naturally. Which emphasises the point that the success is always in the personnel, not in the system itself.

I’ve always said - a football club will always be required to make certain decisions, and their success will depend on whether they get them wrong or right. The job title of the person making them is a red herring. We have people who pick managers, pick players etc. All that matters is that the choices are good ones. It’s irrelevant whether that person is titled DoF or member of a ‘transfer committee’, for example, which we have.

Edu, amongst many others, has just highlighted that if you have a director of football, and that director of football hires the wrong managers and signs the wrong players - the team will not progress. People are so fixated with is getting a DoF. If we don’t want one, it doesn’t leave us ‘behind’ other clubs. It would do if, in the absence of a director, we had NOBODY scouting players, doing deals etc. But that isn’t the case, so all that then matters is the quality of those decisions - we can choose to make them in whatever structure we want.

Barcelona are a complete clown show and have a DoF but yet have hired several poor managers and wasted huge money in the transfer market. Liverpool have bought and hired well. Their structure is totally irrelevant to that fact.

Maybe what many fans want is not so much as an individual with the DoF title, as much as someone who has a good knowledge and understanding of transfers.
And since our transfer committee, Ole, Ed or whoever is in charge of transfers has been pretty poor at it, barring Bruno & it remains to be seen about this summer's transfers, fans want a change, whether that's a DoF or whatever title he/she will have; I feel the first part of your post is hanging too much on the DoF title.

You're rightly calling out Barca's DoF and Edu, yet you're ignoring it when it comes down to Liverpool.

 

[Rozay]

Maybe what many fans want is not so much as an individual with the DoF title, as much as someone who has a good knowledge and understanding of transfers.
And since our transfer committee, Ole, Ed or whoever is in charge of transfers has been pretty poor at it, barring Bruno & it remains to be seen about this summer's transfers, fans want a change, whether that's a DoF or whatever title he/she will have; I feel the first part of your post is hanging too much on the DoF title.

You're rightly calling out Barca's DoF and Edu, yet you're ignoring it when it comes down to Liverpool.

I’m not ignoring anything regarding Liverpool. They are an example of why we need to get recruitment right, and the others are examples of why a Director of Football is not necessarily the answer to achieve that.

Fans rarely know what they want tbh. Not in detail. We just want to win ultimately. Us deciding our transfers have been ‘poor’ isn’t that relevant - our manager seems to be happy with the players he has gotten, and that’s really what matters in the end. I mean, we are agreeing that Barca haven’t done well with transfers - but those transfers include world class players like Coutinho, Griezmann, Dembele etc - players our fans, in all their wisdom, would likely have been ecstatic had we signed.

Personally, I just want Ole to get the players he wants, but temper that with the acceptance that a manager doesn’t always get everyone they want. The rest - the hatred towards Woodward etc, I’m not so much invested in that as none of us really know the details/specifics of the transfer world. We’ve done alright, our team is getting better. Some of the players we’ve signed wouldn’t have been my first choice, but that doesn’t matter if they were Ole’s.

 

[Adnan]

Naturally. Which emphasises the point that the success is always in the personnel, not in the system itself.

I’ve always said - a football club will always be required to make certain decisions, and their success will depend on whether they get them wrong or right. The job title of the person making them is a red herring. We have people who pick managers, pick players etc. All that matters is that the choices are good ones. It’s irrelevant whether that person is titled DoF or member of a ‘transfer committee’, for example, which we have.

Edu, amongst many others, has just highlighted that if you have a director of football, and that director of football hires the wrong managers and signs the wrong players - the team will not progress. People are so fixated with is getting a DoF. If we don’t want one, it doesn’t leave us ‘behind’ other clubs. It would do if, in the absence of a director, we had NOBODY scouting players, doing deals etc. But that isn’t the case, so all that then matters is the quality of those decisions - we can choose to make them in whatever structure we want.

Barcelona are a complete clown show and have a DoF but yet have hired several poor managers and wasted huge money in the transfer market. Liverpool have bought and hired well. Their structure is totally irrelevant to that fact.

The success is in the system but the person in question has to implement the system correctly. There's many examples that I can give you too.

Right or wrong decisions shouldn't be made only on a CV/resume basis. Mourinho in theory was the correct decision due to his track record of winning trophies but he failed and wasted huge amounts of money because we as a club over ruled our club scouts in favour of giving him autonomy in the transfer market. Where it was reported by Jason Burt that he was using his own independent scouts to identify talent. Now that should ring alarm bells straight away but it didn't for us and Mourinho only cared about his own career/CV. That's what you call a broken system with different departments pulling in different directions.

Edu didn't hire Arteta but rather Arteta had been on Arsenal's radar for quite some time which predates the arrival of Edu. We also need to try and understand what type of system the Kroenke's have implemented at Arsenal and what responsibility Edu has with-in that framework. He sure didn't have much to do with Arteta's arrival who Arsenal reportedly interviewed in the weeks leading upto Wenger's departure.

Barcelona have been one of the most succesful clubs in the world in the last 20 years and their current issues due to their board shouldn't wipe out the great work done by people in the football/recruitment department for decades which yielded several European Cups and multitude of league titles.

 

[Rozay]

The success is in the system but the person in question has to implement the system correctly. There's many examples that I can give you too.

Right or wrong decisions shouldn't be made only on a CV/resume basis. Mourinho in theory was the correct decision due to his track record of winning trophies but he failed and wasted huge amounts of money because we as a club over ruled our club scouts in favour of giving him autonomy in the transfer market. Where it was reported by Jason Burt that he was using his own independent scouts to identify talent. Now that should ring alarm bells straight away but it didn't for us and Mourinho only cared about his own career/CV. That's what you call a broken system with different departments pulling in different directions.

Edu didn't hire Arteta but rather Arteta had been on Arsenal's radar for quite some time which predates the arrival of Edu. We also need to try and understand what type of system the Kroenke's have implemented at Arsenal and what responsibility Edu has with-in that framework. He sure didn't have much to do with Arteta's arrival who Arsenal reportedly interviewed in the weeks leading upto Wenger's departure.

Barcelona have been one of the most succesful clubs in the world in the last 20 years and their current issues due to their board shouldn't wipe out the great work done by people in the football/recruitment department for decades which yielded several European Cups and multitude of league titles.

So have Manchester United.

As for the rest of it, it’s still besides the point. For example, we could have a Director of Football in place, and Mourinho could have also used his own scouts. The club had its own scouting network in place, we didn’t hire a manager and tell him that we also need him to bring some scouts.

And I’m not saying the decisions need to be made based on CV or resume either. I’m saying that whatever criteria is used to make the decision, it is not required to be made by a director in order for it to be a success. The examples I have given are simply to illustrate that Directors also make poor decisions. It doesn’t matter whether we have one or not. If we decide to go another way, we are able to have an alternative structure and make good recruitment decisions. This is my only point. We can point to clubs with directors who have made good calls, and clubs with directors who have made bad ones. All that tells us is that it is important for a club to make good decisions, not that a director is the solution to making them.

The likes of Jason Burt and the rest are mainly charlatans anyway. All these journalists are just footy fans with English degrees who have a massively over-inflated idea as to the value of their own opinions of the game. Jason Burt is not more qualified than Jose Mourinho in assessing how a top football club should operate.

 

[Adnan]

So have Manchester United.

As for the rest of it, it’s still besides the point. For example, we could have a Director of Football in place, and Mourinho could have also used his own scouts. The club had its own scouting network in place, we didn’t hire a manager and tell him that we also need him to bring some scouts.

And I’m not saying the decisions need to be made based on CV or resume either. I’m saying that whatever criteria is used to make the decision, it is not required to be made by a director in order for it to be a success. The examples I have given are simply to illustrate that Directors also make poor decisions. It doesn’t matter whether we have one or not. If we decide to go another way, we are able to have an alternative structure and make good recruitment decisions. This is my only point. We can point to clubs with directors who have made good calls, and clubs with directors who have made bad ones. All that tells us is that it is important for a club to make good decisions, not that a director is the solution to making them.

The likes of Jason Burt and the rest are mainly charlatans anyway. All these journalists are just footy fans with English degrees who have a massively over-inflated idea as to the value of their own opinions of the game. Jason Burt is not more qualified than Jose Mourinho in assessing how a top football club should operate.

Manchester United had a DoF and his name was Sir Alex Ferguson who had the whole club pulling in the same direction. We haven't had that since he retired and the managers appointed post his retirement have signed players on their judgment rather than the judgement of club scouts. Moyes signed Fellaini and Mata which suited his football and then when he was sacked, in came LVG whose footballing mantra was polar opposite to Moyes and he inherited Fellaini who is far removed from the style of play LVG wants to implement but he used him regardless and begun to cull the squad. And then he was sacked and in came Mourinho whose football again was total opposite to his predecessor and the process of the clear out begun again. Do you see the pattern and instability it caused due to the changing styles after each sacking?

If we have a DoF and hire Mourinho, then Mourinho isn't the manager but the Head Coach and the manager in that scenario is the DoF who will have the ultimate say in driving the short and longterm goals with help of numerous scouts working under him.

I've even said before that under a non DoF setup things could work aswell as long as the manager survives long enough in the job which provides stabillity which for me is the key to success. And under the current coach (Ole) that does look like it's happening.

Jason Burt never claimed he knows more about football than Mourinho. But rather he reported that from his information from within the club, it was said that Mourinho was using his Portuguese based scouts to sign players. The same info from with in the club was also available to the Manchester press pack which included the likes of Ducker, Stone, Dawson etc.

 

[Rozay]

Manchester United had a DoF and his name was Sir Alex Ferguson who had the whole club pulling in the same direction. We haven't had that since he retired and the managers appointed post his retirement have signed players on their judgment rather than the judgement of club scouts. Moyes signed Fellaini and Mata which suited his football and then when he was sacked, in came LVG whose footballing mantra was polar opposite to Moyes and he inherited Fellaini who is far removed from the style of play LVG wants to implement but he used him regardless and begun to cull the squad. And then he was sacked and in came Mourinho whose football again was total opposite to his predecessor and the process of the clear out begun again. Do you see the pattern and instability it caused due to the changing styles after each sacking?

If we have a DoF and hire Mourinho, then Mourinho isn't the manager but the Head Coach and the manager in that scenario is the DoF who will have the ultimate say in driving the short and longterm goals with help of numerous scouts working under him.

I've even said before that under a non DoF setup things could work aswell as long as the manager survives long enough in the job which provides stabillity which for me is the key to success. And under the current coach (Ole) that does look like it's happening.

Jason Burt never claimed he knows more about football than Mourinho. But rather he reported that from his information from within the club, it was said that Mourinho was using his Portuguese based scouts to sign players. The same info from with in the club was also available to the Manchester press pack which included the likes of Ducker, Stone, Dawson etc.

Again, this is theory and theology - it reads well to those who consider themselves as having some sort of football bachelors degree, but I’m not buying it all in reality.

Firstly, Fergie was no Director of Football. He was a football manager, and a brilliant one at that. It’s just something that sounds cool and has been repeated often enough that it sticks. When he was here, we had scouts as we do now, we had people running the academy as we do now, and David Gill was in charge of the football business side of things. Players like Cristiano Ronaldo and several others were not discovered by Sir Alex Ferguson due to him being a Portuguese league loving hipster. He was scouted by those we pay to do that stuff, and Fergie had the final say, as Ole does now.


Also, Moyes bought two players, one of whom he only bought about 3 months before he was sacked. Majority of his squad was Fergie’s.

And what exactly was Moyes’ ‘football philosophy’ and how was Van Gaal’s such a ‘polar opposite’ to the extent it rendered his squad useless? And then on to Mourinho. Van Gaal used Fellaini like any manager at any club uses players already there when they join a club. He also bought midfielders of his own, in Schweinsteiger, Schneiderlin and Herrera. Two of them were not very good, one was good under both him, and the next manager. He began to cull the squad because it was a tired squad left by Sir Alex. Mourinho also used Fellaini. Because he’s a good manager and uses football players at his disposal. He sold some players signed by previous managers not because of any style of play clash, but because they were rubbish and underperforming. If Klopp was sacked today, the new manager would come in and play Sadio Mané. He might sell Adrian though, solely because he’s shite.

Pochettino and Mourinho apparently have very different philosophies, yet Mourinho is getting the same level of performance out of the same players. And those same players are playing to different tactics under Mourinho than they did under Pochettino. As is the manager’s right. Nobody above the manager in some board room should be setting a football philosophy of the team.

Take a situation like Arteta at Arsenal. Who is supposed to be under threat here? Because all I’m reading is that Arteta’s job is at risk. Is it that once you hire a Director of Football, who apparently sets the club’s ‘football philosophy’, signs the players, hires the manager that any failure of the football team is laid squarely at the manager? Why is Edu not to be sacked? People seem to think we should hire a man and basically allow him to build our club exactly how he wants it, and then if the project is failing, that same man should just replace his manager.

No one man is fit to decide the club’s philosophy, signings, style of play and manager. It’s a ridiculous level of responsibility to bestow upon someone with no guarantee of what you will get in return. A failed director would, in theory, collapse an entire club and set them back years. And if a Director wants to decide tactics or style of play then he may as well just coach the team himself then. The manager is just a patsy with no real control over anything.

It is also a ridiculous suggestion to allow a Director to build the squad that he likes and then limit himself to trying to find the perfect manager for HIS group of players. Again, who questions the players? If a Director signs 6 players and the club fail, what happens? Does he sack the manager? Because of course, the issue could not possibly be with the director that signed 6 players who have failed. Just let him pick a new manager. The implication is that he can change all the moving parts around him because anything he himself has implemented is obviously not the problem.

Just because someone comes in as a DoF doesn’t mean he’ll be any good at his job. If he is, great, but likewise, if the manager is great - the team would also perform.

 

[Adnan]

Again, this is theory and theology - it reads well to those who consider themselves as having some sort of football bachelors degree, but I’m not buying it all in reality.

Firstly, Fergie was no Director of Football. He was a football manager, and a brilliant one at that. It’s just something that sounds cool and has been repeated often enough that it sticks. When he was here, we had scouts as we do now, we had people running the academy as we do now, and David Gill was in charge of the football business side of things. Players like Cristiano Ronaldo and several others were not discovered by Sir Alex Ferguson due to him being a Portuguese league loving hipster. He was scouted by those we pay to do that stuff, and Fergie had the final say, as Ole does now.


Also, Moyes bought two players, one of whom he only bought about 3 months before he was sacked. Majority of his squad was Fergie’s.

And what exactly was Moyes’ ‘football philosophy’ and how was Van Gaal’s such a ‘polar opposite’ to the extent it rendered his squad useless? And then on to Mourinho. Van Gaal used Fellaini like any manager at any club uses players already there when they join a club. He also bought midfielders of his own, in Schweinsteiger, Schneiderlin and Herrera. Two of them were not very good, one was good under both him, and the next manager. He began to cull the squad because it was a tired squad left by Sir Alex. Mourinho also used Fellaini. Because he’s a good manager and uses football players at his disposal. He sold some players signed by previous managers not because of any style of play clash, but because they were rubbish and underperforming. If Klopp was sacked today, the new manager would come in and play Sadio Mané. He might sell Adrian though, solely because he’s shite.

Pochettino and Mourinho apparently have very different philosophies, yet Mourinho is getting the same level of performance out of the same players. And those same players are playing to different tactics under Mourinho than they did under Pochettino. As is the manager’s right. Nobody above the manager in some board room should be setting a football philosophy of the team.

Take a situation like Arteta at Arsenal. Who is supposed to be under threat here? Because all I’m reading is that Arteta’s job is at risk. Is it that once you hire a Director of Football, who apparently sets the club’s ‘football philosophy’, signs the players, hires the manager that any failure of the football team is laid squarely at the manager? Why is Edu not to be sacked? People seem to think we should hire a man and basically allow him to build our club exactly how he wants it, and then if the project is failing, that same man should just replace his manager.

No one man is fit to decide the club’s philosophy, signings, style of play and manager. It’s a ridiculous level of responsibility to bestow upon someone with no guarantee of what you will get in return. A failed director would, in theory, collapse an entire club and set them back years. And if a Director wants to decide tactics or style of play then he may as well just coach the team himself then. The manager is just a patsy with no real control over anything.

It is also a ridiculous suggestion to allow a Director to build the squad that he likes and then limit himself to trying to find the perfect manager for HIS group of players. Again, who questions the players? If a Director signs 6 players and the club fail, what happens? Does he sack the manager? Because of course, the issue could not possibly be with the director that signed 6 players who have failed. Just let him pick a new manager. The implication is that he can change all the moving parts around him because anything he himself has implemented is obviously not the problem.

Just because someone comes in as a DoF doesn’t mean he’ll be any good at his job. If he is, great, but likewise, if the manager is great - the team would also perform.

Fergie was without doubt the person who set the directives at the club when it came to seting the short and long term goals. You can call him DoF or what ever but the point is that he was the man that was calling the shots. And no he didn't have the same scouts as we have now because under Fergie it was reported that he only had two full-time scouts of which one was his brother Martin Ferguson. The setup is completely different now as has been well documented. Also I'm not sure what Cristiano Ronaldo has to do with anything.

Moyes bought two players but alienated even more and by the end of his tenure we had lost most of our Championship winning back 4. Moyes plays a very conservative style of football which is very risk averse and used width to create chances without sacrificing defensive stability during his short spell at the club. I think we might've broke the crossing into the box from all angles record under him in one game. Van Gaal in comparison has always had a defined way of playing football which was to dominate zones through possession and coached his teams especially in the early days of his career to interchange positions which was a philosophy that he inherited from Rinus Michels and turbo charged with his Ajax team. Both LVG and Moyes were polar opposites when it comes to how they want to implement their style. Fellaini wasn't a player you use for possession football so he was used as the long ball option because playing him in midfield he was never good enough due to his immobility. Mourinho again used him for route one football. And yes most coaches would buy Mane because no matter if you play reactive or proactive football, you still need forwards who are technical and can transition play quickly. Having ball playing CBs is important in certain styles and not so important in others. Same applies for keepers and midfielders including fullbacks.


Mourinho and Pochettino both benefitted from the work that has/had been done at academy level. And i've touched upon this before regarding the foundations that were laid by the people at the club which hugely benefitted both. So both getting a similar level of performance out of the team is testament of the work done by the club and scouts. Spurs have been a better run club than us post Fergie with a much smaller budget.


Why should Edu be sacked when he's barely been in the job long enough and had nothing to do with Arteta's arrival? Should Hassan Salihamidzic have been sacked last season at Bayern after the sacking of Kovac? Bayern sacked Kovac and promptly promoted Salihamidzic to a executive position from his sporting director role and in the the same season they won the Champions League. Rummenigge knew the job that Salihamidzic was doing was good hence giving him a promotion even after sacking the coach. You can't judge both roles with the same criteria and if the coach is failing it doesn't mean the man in charge of the footballing department is also failing as referenced in the case of Salihamidzic and Kovac.

The director doesn't set the philosophy but rather the club does. Clubs like Bayern don't bring in a director to ask them to set their personal philosophy but rather they (club) set their philosophy and ask him to work to a set criteria which revolves around playing attacking football. And everybody works in unison towards a common goal with in that remit. So even when they sack a coach the blow isn't anywhere near as bad because the people directing the ship are still in control. So it's not one man who is making decisions in isolation but rather a whole team of scouts who specialize in evaluating talent who then report to the man at the top whose sole responsibility will be to get deals done quickly and effeciently without any distractions.