The conflict of interest in the Man Utd manager role

Skills

Snitch
Joined
Jan 17, 2012
Messages
29,784
This isn't a thread exclusive to Ole, but this has existed ever since Ferguson has retired.

As a club, we're currently in a position where a manager can only be judged after he's been "backed". That means, he's been allowed to spend 100s of million to bring his "own players in". So who's accountable for maximising the resources already at the club? Are the club meant to just right off the 100s of millions they have already spent, backing the last manager the media and our fanbase wanted to be "backed"?

What's the incentive for the manager, to make full use of the players already at his disposal when he's got a get out of jail free card saying they're not his players? Moyes played this card, Mourinho basically sabotaged half a season to make the same point. I'm not saying Solskjaer is doing the same, but evaluating a manager only after he's spend the best part of £300m is not a very efficient strategy.

This doesn't fly at any other club across Europe.
 

momo83

Full Member
Joined
Dec 5, 2013
Messages
843
This isn't a thread exclusive to Ole, but this has existed ever since Ferguson has retired.

As a club, we're currently in a position where a manager can only be judged after he's been "backed". That means, he's been allowed to spend 100s of million to bring his "own players in". So who's accountable for maximising the resources already at the club? Are the club meant to just right off the 100s of millions they have already spent, backing the last manager the media and our fanbase wanted to be "backed"?

What's the incentive for the manager, to make full use of the players already at his disposal when he's got a get out of jail free card saying they're not his players? Moyes played this card, Mourinho basically sabotaged half a season to make the same point. I'm not saying Solskjaer is doing the same, but evaluating a manager only after he's spend the best part of £300m is not a very efficient strategy.
It’s a point mostly spread by class of 92 lot on TV. Suddenly for managers that they support the job becomes like FIFA it’s simply about buying players
 

RedDevilRoshi

Full Member
Joined
Sep 28, 2017
Messages
3,005
Most clubs have a proper footballing structure we don’t.
And we won’t have one whilst Woodward is still here. The Glazers ain’t going to sack him. He helped them buy the club in the 1st place.
 

Skills

Snitch
Joined
Jan 17, 2012
Messages
29,784
And we won’t have one whilst Woodward is still here. The Glazers ain’t going to sack him. He helped them buy the club in the 1st place.
So this is where a lot of our fans are missing the point with the structure.

That structure would do nothing to Woodward's job as CEO. That structure would instead, strip power and ambiguity away from the managers role and instead hold him accountable. A manager would have close to no influence on transfers, so the only thing he's being judged on is his coaching and squad management.
 

Chairman Steve

Full Member
Joined
May 9, 2018
Messages
1,283
We don’t seem to have that autonomous structure at other big clubs around Europe, where theres no ‘manager’ and it’s ’head coach’ supported by a DoF/technical directors. The latter of the partnership is arguably more important than the former.

Were still stuck in an antiquated structure where manager is king, and we havent changed that. I don’t know whether thats because Ed Woodward thinks of himself as some kind of Adriano Galliani figure, and thinks a non-football figure can make great footballing decisions, or whether they cannot be bothered to appoint one because they lose power, or they cant be bothered to spend money to get one, or they’re deluded to think Sir Alex Fergusons just grow on trees.

When Real, Barca, Juve and Bayern sack head coaches, it’s really no big deal as the club will continue to work, life goes on and new guy can come in and pick the team up briefly until a permanent appointment is made. When we sack a manager, the season may as well be a fecking write off.
 

Skills

Snitch
Joined
Jan 17, 2012
Messages
29,784
We don’t seem to have that autonomous structure at other big clubs around Europe, where theres no ‘manager’ and it’s ’head coach’ supported by a DoF/technical directors. The latter of the partnership is arguably more important than the former.

Were still stuck in an antiquated structure where manager is king, and we havent changed that. I don’t know whether thats because Ed Woodward thinks of himself as some kind of Adriano Galliani figure, and thinks a non-football figure can make great footballing decisions, or whether they cannot be bothered to appoint one because they lose power, or they cant be bothered to spend money to get one, or they’re deluded to think Sir Alex Fergusons just grow on trees.

When Real, Barca, Juve and Bayern sack head coaches, it’s really no big deal as the club will continue to work, life goes on and new guy can come in and pick the team up briefly until a permanent appointment is made. When we sack a manager, the season may as well be a fecking write off.
I think supported is not quite the right word. It's more like they work for the DOF, and they're held accountable for their responsibilities by the director of football. It's the lack of accountability that we're missing.

We lack someone who can set the success criteria. We need a football guy on top who sets the expectation and a binary success criteria for the head coach year to year. Then it's a simple pass/fail, on whether the guy is on track to deliver or not.

Now someone will probably say who's the football guy to evaluate the DOF. Well you don't need one at that high level. You need someone there to just evaluate, whether the amount of money invested in the club (including the hiring/firing of head coaches) over the last X years has translated into on-field success.
 

Rood

nostradamus like gloater
Scout
Joined
Jun 21, 2008
Messages
17,599
Location
@United_Hour
This is why we need a DoF

But this time I think there is at least a long term plan to bring in a certain type of player whereas in the past it was very much reliant on each manager
 

M Bison

Full Member
Joined
Oct 26, 2015
Messages
3,805
Location
In the Wilderness
Supports
York City
I think this is a valid point however for me this is the first year we haven’t backed the manager to the hilt and have been more careful in our transfer dealings.

It must be frustrating if you’re Woodward and each time you fire a manager, the next one comes in and says the players the previous manager bought aren’t up to it and there’s a job on to dispose of players.

I felt in summer there was some actual longer-term thought applied to our transfers.

Should Ole be fired any time soon, any manager coming in would have less of a mess from the previous regime to clean up.
 

In Rainbows

Full Member
Joined
Apr 17, 2014
Messages
4,524
It’s a point mostly spread by class of 92 lot on TV. Suddenly for managers that they support the job becomes like FIFA it’s simply about buying players
Not exactly about which managers they support. Neville is notorious for wanting managers to get 2-3 years at least. Hell, he still thinks it was a mistake to sack Moyes. A large section of our fanbase subscribes to his view even when evidence at other clubs disprove this. However, it's impossible for them to change their mind because no matter how bad a manager performs, they can simply fault the players and the idea that the manger wasn't properly backed. No matter how bad the manager performs, if anyone above the club is outperforming United, they'll point to those other managers having better players to work with.
 

Skills

Snitch
Joined
Jan 17, 2012
Messages
29,784
I think this is a valid point however for me this is the first year we haven’t backed the manager to the hilt and have been more careful in our transfer dealings.

It must be frustrating if you’re Woodward and each time you fire a manager, the next one comes in and says the players the previous manager bought aren’t up to it and there’s a job on to dispose of players.

I felt in summer there was some actual longer-term thought applied to our transfers.

Should Ole be fired any time soon, any manager coming in would have less of a mess from the previous regime to clean up.
Surely that just means you've hired the wrong manager and your manager recruitment process was shit.

If I was in a position to hire a manager, the first question I would ask a candidate is what does he think of the squad of players already at the club and what does he think he can achieve with them? If the answer you get, is not in-line with what you're expecting you know you're interviewing the wrong guy.
 

VorZakone

What would Kenny G do?
Joined
May 9, 2013
Messages
17,833
It's a valid point. About time the coach does some actual fecking coaching such as improving the players he already has.
 

ottosec

Full Member
Joined
Nov 14, 2012
Messages
6,460
True, this was our main issue, we gave everyone leeway like they are Sir Alex Ferguson. And there is no other SAF.

We should have appointed a DOF with a clear strategy of squad building. Let the managers prove themselves with the squad the DOF build and if he does that for a couple of years, give him free rein.

And it's not only the transfers. Moyes was given free hand and the first thing he did was sack all the staff left by Ferguson. Top class staff gathered by Fergie for years, only to be sacked by a moron and replaced with Everton staff. Since SAF left, no player improved at United. They all start well then become shit as soon as they get used to the United "training".
 

Josep Dowling

Full Member
Joined
Aug 17, 2014
Messages
3,663
We don’t seem to have that autonomous structure at other big clubs around Europe, where theres no ‘manager’ and it’s ’head coach’ supported by a DoF/technical directors. The latter of the partnership is arguably more important than the former.

Were still stuck in an antiquated structure where manager is king, and we havent changed that. I don’t know whether thats because Ed Woodward thinks of himself as some kind of Adriano Galliani figure, and thinks a non-football figure can make great footballing decisions, or whether they cannot be bothered to appoint one because they lose power, or they cant be bothered to spend money to get one, or they’re deluded to think Sir Alex Fergusons just grow on trees.

When Real, Barca, Juve and Bayern sack head coaches, it’s really no big deal as the club will continue to work, life goes on and new guy can come in and pick the team up briefly until a permanent appointment is made. When we sack a manager, the season may as well be a fecking write off.
So true. All down to Ferguson’s success I’m afraid. Because we had success with that structure, the United board think as a club this is how things are done. The problem is Ferguson was a one off and the club hasn’t learnt to adapt and change.
 

RedWat

New Member
Newbie
Joined
Sep 12, 2017
Messages
73
This is why we need a DoF

But this time I think there is at least a long term plan to bring in a certain type of player whereas in the past it was very much reliant on each manager
But what can you do if the board/Ed does not want a DOF at Utd ??. If the board really wanted to pull all stops out for United to be successful on the pitch from the start they would have recruited a DOF who has the motivation
as them for the the club to be successful, the DOF would help pick the right “Head coach” and the right players if they did that then Ole would not have been selected even as caretaker manager as he didn’t fit the required criteria(not good enough). Even managers such as Jose wouldn’t have been recruited because even though he is one of most successful Managers of his generation, he doesn’t “build” teams long term and has a short shelf life as he can’t help himself in wagIng war in the dressing room on season 3, as he has done at Madrid, Chelsea (to a lesser extent Inter) and “shock and horror” at Utd. A decent DOF would see all these pitfalls and would try to avoid them. We would look to get a progressive talented ambitious manager rather than post Fergie 4 pragmatic managers of varying ability. More of a Klopp than a Jose/LVG

But alas the priority of the board is not a DOF or we would have had one a long time ago. As I mentioned in another thread it would either take a change of ownership or a change of vision from the owners (due possibly to a scenario like Utd shares value falling off a cliff).

We shall see.
 
Last edited:
  • Like
Reactions: Rood

arthurka

Full Member
Joined
Jan 20, 2010
Messages
11,197
Location
Rectum
The problem we have is that our owners will happily wait as the brand will just keep on getting bigger. Just see brands like NY Knicks they haven't won shit for a billion years but they are worth as much as Utd. The brand will just keep on getting bigger and bigger even if we win nothing. So there is nothing that will push the Glazer's to sell, they brought 200m into this when they bought us for 700m years back and will get at least 3 billion if they sell today. Utd won't lose value it will just keep adding to it but it won't happens as quickly due to our lack of progress on the field. But the sad truth is that they are in no need to change anything.
 

Josep Dowling

Full Member
Joined
Aug 17, 2014
Messages
3,663
Look at what Bielsa is doing at Leeds. That team has not changed that much since he took over and he’s making them the best footballing team in the Championship.
 

passing-wind

Full Member
Joined
Oct 20, 2013
Messages
1,238
Supports
Pass & Move
Leicester finished 9th last season 14 points behind us, now they are 14 points ahead of us in second spending next to nothing and losing their prolific defender. Rodgers didn't require 3 transfer windows and deluded fans behind him, he coached the first team into success and because he's astute tactically they have performed consistently.

The whole "this manager needs to spend big" is nonsense. Solskjaer is one of the worst managers not only in the league but in Europe. Anyone who thinks he's going to succeed here is absolutely mental, on what basis has Ole shown he deserves time here ? Him being a legend of the club has absolutely no merit to his capabilities as a manager, that's where the buck stops.
 

SAFMUTD

Full Member
Joined
Mar 14, 2018
Messages
1,526
The problem we have is that our owners will happily wait as the brand will just keep on getting bigger. Just see brands like NY Knicks they haven't won shit for a billion years but they are worth as much as Utd. The brand will just keep on getting bigger and bigger even if we win nothing. So there is nothing that will push the Glazer's to sell, they brought 200m into this when they bought us for 700m years back and will get at least 3 billion if they sell today. Utd won't lose value it will just keep adding to it but it won't happens as quickly due to our lack of progress on the field. But the sad truth is that they are in no need to change anything.
I partly agree, while we haven't lost any value as a brand we do resent the poor results. It was showed in this year revenue that while it didn't decreased it didn't increase either. We were the top club regarding revenues, now we are the third.

United is a global brand, unlike american teams which base relies on the United States, Manchester United fans are worldwide. The US fans for basketball or NFL teams rely on a solid base that wont change much since most of their fans are locals, its rare that a local supports a foreign team, thats why even they don't win titles they keep producing supporters.

But our fan base will slowly but steadily decrease, we for sure won’t stop generating fans in the UK but in foreign countries fans don't have anything linking them to the team besides their personal election and what kid will choose to support United when there are better teams around?

I started supporting this club because I saw them winning year after year, not because I loved our principles or knew our history, that comes after. As a kid you fell in love with a club because of its players and their achievements which we are failing to deliver.

At least here in my country I have start seeing kids with ManCity and Liverpool jerseys, which you wouldn’t see 5-10 years ago.
 

SAFMUTD

Full Member
Joined
Mar 14, 2018
Messages
1,526
Leicester finished 9th last season 14 points behind us, now they are 14 points ahead of us in second spending next to nothing and losing their prolific defender. Rodgers didn't require 3 transfer windows and deluded fans behind him, he coached the first team into success and because he's astute tactically they have performed consistently.

The whole "this manager needs to spend big" is nonsense. Solskjaer is one of the worst managers not only in the league but in Europe. Anyone who thinks he's going to succeed here is absolutely mental, on what basis has Ole shown he deserves time here ? Him being a legend of the club has absolutely no merit to his capabilities as a manager, that's where the buck stops.
Yes agree with all that, but you forgot something. Leicester has better players in every position (dont ask me to justify this they just do) and have a way better board (again Im stating this based on nothing just because our board is shit theirs should be better) thats why he can do it. If Ole was under the same circumstances he would manage even better results.

You see? Its never Ole’s fault is always something else.
 

jem

Full Member
Joined
Jan 14, 2010
Messages
6,288
Location
Toronto
This is why we need a DoF

But this time I think there is at least a long term plan to bring in a certain type of player whereas in the past it was very much reliant on each manager
But even that long-term plan seems to have been arrived at very hastily, and it's not exactly cheap either, given that English players seem to have a premium value placed on them. I think we are still as rudderless as ever.
 

Josep Dowling

Full Member
Joined
Aug 17, 2014
Messages
3,663
Yes agree with all that, but you forgot something. Leicester has better players in every position (dont ask me to justify this they just do) and have a way better board (again Im stating this based on nothing just because our board is shit theirs should be better) thats why he can do it. If Ole was under the same circumstances he would manage even better results.

You see? Its never Ole’s fault is always something else.
Leicester have some good players but I don’t think the quality difference is that much. They also have the luxury of one game a week which is massive in the league these days.

They definitely have a better board and their recruitment is fantastic. To sell Maguire for a world record fee and then end up with a better defence is quite something.
 

SAFMUTD

Full Member
Joined
Mar 14, 2018
Messages
1,526
Leicester have some good players but I don’t think the quality difference is that much. They also have the luxury of one game a week which is massive in the league these days.

They definitely have a better board and their recruitment is fantastic. To sell Maguire for a world record fee and then end up with a better defence is quite something.
I was being sarcastic, I think I made it pretty obvious.

Regarding the one game per week I would agree if we were playing in the UCL facing strong opposition and having the main players playing week in and week out.

We play the freaking europa league with second choice players against pretty poor opposition unless we want to attribute jetlag I dont think it really makes a difference in fitness.
 

In Rainbows

Full Member
Joined
Apr 17, 2014
Messages
4,524
Leicester have some good players but I don’t think the quality difference is that much. They also have the luxury of one game a week which is massive in the league these days.

They definitely have a better board and their recruitment is fantastic. To sell Maguire for a world record fee and then end up with a better defence is quite something.
That's the point of his post though. The Ole in folks will always use the better performing players as being better players than United's players. How much of it is down to coaching? Doesn't matter because whichever team is performing better is bound to look better than United's players. Any club performing better than United could be argued as having the better players.

Point out that Leicester weren't performing this well under another manager, but with the same board and same players, with having to sell their best defender, etc...? Doesn't matter because Leicester players are better based on how they're performing under a better manager.

Point out that Chelsea had a transfer ban and sold their best player, they have the better players based on their side performing better under a new manager.

Point out that these same posters argued that United were going to perform well at the start of the season? Doesn't matter because to them those same players they predicted to be top 4, are no longer top 4 because United aren't close to being top 4.

No amount of logic can win against them. Everything is down to player quality and player quality is judged on position on the table.