Transfer committee / Recruitment team

[Regulus Arcturus Black]

It appears a tonne of posters on here are unaware that we have now have a recruitment team and that the manager is no longer solely responsible for recruitment at United. I've had to post this a few times and even then it gets questioned, this should almost be a sticky for fans to read and understand how our recruitment now works.

After 4 years of pampering to LVG and Mourinho and signing a smörgåsbord of their favourite players: Depay, Blind, Schweinsteiger, Di Maria, Rojo (even giving up Nani in the process to get LVG his left footed CB), Zlatan, Pogba, Matic, Lukaku, Lindelöf the club changed the recruitment process to take some power away from the manager and into the hands of the experts at the club. Smart move in my opinion, as it should ensure that even without a DoF we have some continuity in our recruitment. What wasn't smart however was renewing Mourinho's contract and then putting this into place as denying him the right to sell Martial, Pogba and sign Perisic, Willian was always going to boil his blood.

Some Woodward comments confirming this and confirming how the new recruitment department and Mourinho clashed in the Summer of 2018:

‘It is true that there was a difference of opinion on one or two players between the manager and the recruitment department,’ Woodward told United We Stand. ‘Sometimes I have to be one who delivers the ‘no’, which isn’t easy, because our natural tendency is to back the manager in every possible circumstance, but we have to listen to the recruitment experts too’.

"The system wasn't set up in the right way [previously]. Twelve scouts reporting to one chief scout was more set up to say no – too many exceptions to the process were made historically while this was being fixed.

“We also have to hold our hands up and say that recruitment wasn't at its best in recent years. We feel that we now know who our best scouts are.

“Judge the recruitment department in the coming windows where hopefully we can get a team to be at the level we want to be.”

Another Woodward quote confirming that the power of recruitment is now shared between manager and the recruitment team/transfer committee:

"The manager has a veto on a player - we would never sign a player the manager wouldn't want because he wouldn't play him. But we also feel the recruitment department, the football experts, should have a veto too."

Woodward then responding to claims that he gets involved in the process:

"The decisions related to recruitment are all taken by football experts. My involvement is signing off the money.

“I don't get involved in recruitment like people think I do. There's a myth that I look at YouTube and choose players. I don't. Having an eye for players is an art. I have no interest in doing that.

The new recruitment team Woodward is speaking of above consists of:
Head Coach (Ole), Assistant Manager (Mike Shorts), Technical Chief Scout (currently Mick Court), Head of Global Scouting (currently Marcel Bout) and Chief Scout (currently Jim Lawlor).

 

[Leftback99]

Related but I thought it was odd the article in the Athletic yesterday that we're only just in the process of hiring an 8 man data analytics team to assist with recruitment. Surely we're not that far behind the curve on that side of things?

 

[andersj]

It appears a tonne of posters on here are unaware that we have now have a recruitment team and that the manager is no longer solely responsible for recruitment at United. I've had to post this a few times and even then it gets questioned, this should almost be a sticky for fans to read and understand how our recruitment now works.

After 4 years of pampering to LVG and Mourinho and signing a smörgåsbord of their favourite players: Depay, Blind, Schweinsteiger, Di Maria, Rojo (even giving up Nani in the process to get LVG his left footed CB), Zlatan, Pogba, Matic, Lukaku, Lindelöf the club changed the recruitment process to take some power away from the manager and into the hands of the experts at the club. Smart move in my opinion, as it should ensure that even without a DoF we have some continuity in our recruitment. What wasn't smart however was renewing Mourinho's contract and then putting this into place as denying him the right to sell Martial, Pogba and sign Perisic, Willian was always going to boil his blood.

Some Woodward comments confirming this and confirming how the new recruitment department and Mourinho clashed in the Summer of 2018:



Another Woodward quote confirming that the power of recruitment is now shared between manager and the recruitment team/transfer committee:



Woodward then responding to claims that he gets involved in the process:



The new recruitment team Woodward is speaking of above consists of:
Head Coach (Ole), Assistant Manager (Mike Shorts), Technical Chief Scout (currently Mick Court), Head of Global Scouting (currently Marcel Bout) and Chief Scout (currently Jim Lawlor).

Did you read yesterdays articles about us hiring more data experts?

https://www.google.no/amp/s/www.dai...a-specialists-identify-transfer-bargains.html

 

[Bilbo]

I'm not sure what the point of this is. Is it designed in some way to also strip Ole of any credit over recruitment?

In any case having a team consisting of our largely our scouts and the manager is hardly revolutionary stuff. If anything its old school, and suggests that the system works exactly how most people probably thought it did. It makes the manager the tip of that pyramid, and it shouldn't give anybody comfort that bringing in a new manager will not disrupt the process in any way, or lead to further squad imbalances in the future.

 

[Skills]

Next stage of the process should be hire a DOF and take the veto away from the manager.

You shouldn't have to worry about the manager not using the players the clubs buying. If he doesn't use them and then fails to get results the club expects from the assembled squad, you just sack the cnut.

 

[Lentwood]

Hi, Manchester United, welcome to 2010

Now let's see if we can actually get AHEAD of the curve for once!

 

[ivaldo]

I'm not sure what the point of this is. Is it designed in some way to also strip Ole of any credit over recruitment?

In any case having a team consisting of our largely our scouts and the manager is hardly revolutionary stuff. If anything its old school, and suggests that the system works exactly how most people probably thought it did. It makes the manager the tip of that pyramid, and it shouldn't give anybody comfort that bringing in a new manager will not disrupt the process in any way, or lead to further squad imbalances in the future.

I don't think RAB is necessarily doing this to discredit Ole, but to highlight that there is a system in place that doesn't give all the power to Woodward/Ole, which seems to be a popular basis for complaints in these parts.

I don't think Ole is the tip of the pyramid. He has the right to veto the signing of a player, much like the scouting team and Woodward has the right to veto.

 

[Regulus Arcturus Black]

I'm not sure what the point of this is. Is it designed in some way to also strip Ole of any credit over recruitment?

Asbolutely not, he's an important part of the team.

The point is, several posters questioned the very existence of this team yesterday when I mentioned it.

 

[Regulus Arcturus Black]

I don't think RAB is necessarily doing this to discredit Ole, but to highlight that there is a system in place that doesn't give all the power to Woodward/Ole, which seems to be a popular basis for complaints in these parts.

I don't think Ole is the tip of the pyramid. He has the right to veto the signing of a player, much like the scouting team and Woodward has the right to veto.

Exactly.

And no-one is tip of the pyramid with these vetos, in fact, there no longer is a pyramid. That’s the entire point of the thread, but sadly I guess some people will still make up their own truth even when it’s spelled out.

 

[Josep Dowling]

Next stage of the process should be hire a DOF and take the veto away from the manager.

You shouldn't have to worry about the manager not using the players the clubs buying. If he doesn't use them and then fails to get results the club expects from the assembled squad, you just sack the cnut.

Why? That is a very dangerous that not many of the top, top managers will agree with. People are blaming our lack of success on no DOF. Just like if we had one and didn't succeed they will blame the fact we have DOF vetoing the manager as the reason why recruitment is so bad.

 

[Skills]

Why? That is a very dangerous that not many of the top, top managers will agree with. People are blaming our lack of success on no DOF. Just like if we had one and didn't succeed they will blame the fact we have DOF vetoing the manager as the reason why recruitment is so bad.

There's only 2 top-top managers in the game who have earned that kind of influence in the game. If we land one of Klopp or Guardiola, I'd say sure relax it a bit.

Not for anyone else though. There's an abundance of very good coaches around, and we can just run through them if necessary.

 

[Josep Dowling]

There's only 2 top-top managers in the game who have earned that kind of influence in the game. If we land one of Klopp or Guardiola, I'd say sure relax it a bit.

Not for anyone else though. There's an abundance of very good coaches around, and we can just run through them if necessary.

Think it’s pretty clear Inter are signing Conte’s players and are being successful. He left over disputes over signings at Chelsea and their recruitment has been terrible since they used a board to make signings. It doesn’t always work that’s all I’m saying. If we suddenly appoint a DOF that doesn’t bring success. Ultimately they still need to sign the right players and manager.

 

[Skills]

Think it’s pretty clear Inter are signing Conte’s players and are being successful. He left over disputes over signings and Chelsea recruitment has been terrible since they used a board to make signings. It doesn’t always work that’s all I’m saying. If we suddenly appoint a DOF that doesn’t bring success. Ultimately they still need to sign the right players and manager.

I think one of the Serie A serial watchers (@giorno ?) said Lukaku was the only Conte signing.

I don't mind managers/coaches eventually earning a seat at the table. But I don't think new managers deserve one from the off. It's a bit like hiring a coach, and him demanding Guardiola/Pep level wage. You'd tell him to feck off, surely.

 

[Rozay]

This has been obvious for a long time. Many people seemed to honestly believe that Woodward was choosing players and signing them, and as a result, needs to have the ‘football decisions taken away from him so that he can focus on the money’. Honestly, it’s a ridiculous notion that would never be allowed to happen at a Championship club probably, let alone Manchester United.

 

[SweetRightFoot]

Next stage of the process should be hire a DOF and take the veto away from the manager.

May as well sack the manager then. Replace him with a psychologist for team talks, an AI program for tactics and a twitter journalist for press conferences.

 

[clarkydaz]

I'm not sure what the point of this is. Is it designed in some way to also strip Ole of any credit over recruitment?

Neil Ashton says hi

 

[roonster09]

Think it’s pretty clear Inter are signing Conte’s players and are being successful. He left over disputes over signings at Chelsea and their recruitment has been terrible since they used a board to make signings. It doesn’t always work that’s all I’m saying. If we suddenly appoint a DOF that doesn’t bring success. Ultimately they still need to sign the right players and manager.

I think one of the Serie A serial watchers (@giorno ?) said Lukaku was the only Conte signing.

I don't mind managers/coaches eventually earning a seat at the table. But I don't think new managers deserve one from the off. It's a bit like hiring a coach, and him demanding Guardiola/Pep level wage. You'd tell him to feck off, surely.

Not all players are Conte signings, ofcourse he is a high profile coach who made demands on few players like Lukaku.

There are rumors that he didn't want Eriksen and wanted Vidal.

 

[Mark Pawelek]

Related but I thought it was odd the article in the Athletic yesterday that we're only just in the process of hiring an 8 man data analytics team to assist with recruitment. Surely we're not that far behind the curve on that side of things?

8-man data analytics team! You only need one person who really knows what they're doing.

 

[Bilbo]

I don't think RAB is necessarily doing this to discredit Ole, but to highlight that there is a system in place that doesn't give all the power to Woodward/Ole, which seems to be a popular basis for complaints in these parts.

I don't think Ole is the tip of the pyramid. He has the right to veto the signing of a player, much like the scouting team and Woodward has the right to veto.

Thats very, very standard though. Woodward would have always had the power to veto a transfer, he just never exercised that right - at least that we are aware of. I strongly doubt that United or any other club for that matter give a manager a budget for a year and wish him well.

 

[Regulus Arcturus Black]

Thats very, very standard though. Woodward would have always had the power to veto a transfer, he just never exercised that right - at least that we are aware of. I strongly doubt that United or any other club for that matter give a manager a budget for a year and wish him well.

Well we never previously had a recruitment team that vetoed our managers so....

I wish we had, would have saved us alot during the LVG/Mou years.

 

[Bilbo]

Exactly.

And no-one is tip of the pyramid with these vetos, in fact, there no longer is a pyramid. That’s the entire point of the thread, but sadly I guess some people will still make up their own truth even when it’s spelled out.

The public are all just poorly informed about how it all works. Knowing who is in a committee is not the same as having any knowledge about how that committee functions, there are infinite variables. There is always a hierarchy in play, and the manager is the most senior person in that room.

 

[Regulus Arcturus Black]

The public are all just poorly informed about how it all works. Knowing who is in a committee is not the same as having any knowledge about how that committee functions, there are infinite variables. There is always a hierarchy in play, and the manager is the most senior person in that room.

If the manager can veto and the committee can veto no one is the most senior. Come on man that’s just common sense.

In my quotes there woody confirmed that our previous manager was denied by the committee so what is “Senior” about that?

 

[Bilbo]

Well we never previously had a recruitment team that vetoed our managers so....

I wish we had, would have saved us alot during the LVG/Mou years.

I'm pretty sure we have always had a structure that was more complex than simply giving a manager a budget and letting him sign anyone he wants. Scouts exist to identify new talent and profile known targets, Then they sit around a table like grown-ups and discuss targets. Having a 'veto' just means that they don't fancy a player for reason X, and they are trusted to make that judgement because otherwise they wouldn't have the role.

 

[Bilbo]

If the manager can veto and the committee can veto no one is the most senior. Come on man that’s just common sense.

In my quotes there woody confirmed that our previous manager was denied by the committee so what is “Senior” about that?

In your example if 4 of our supposed 5-man committee absolutely loved a player but the 5th man didn't, he could veto that signing. It doesn't work like that. You're trying to simplify what is essentially how football has always worked. Scouts find players, profile players, and then they all sit around a table and rank potential targets. If you don't have a 'veto' then you don't have an opinion worth listening to and you shouldn't be in the room.

 

[jem]

Related but I thought it was odd the article in the Athletic yesterday that we're only just in the process of hiring an 8 man data analytics team to assist with recruitment. Surely we're not that far behind the curve on that side of things?

Well it was a bit odd given how The Athletic had previously run an article discussing how United had used all kinds of metrics to whittle down some huge list before deciding to focus on signing AWB. That article would have you believe we were already well on our way with regards to analytics, but then yesterday's article depicts us as still arriving late to the metrics party.

 

[Regulus Arcturus Black]

I'm pretty sure we have always had a structure that was more complex than simply giving a manager a budget and letting him sign anyone he wants. Scouts exist to identify new talent and profile known targets, Then they sit around a table like grown-ups and discuss targets. Having a 'veto' just means that they don't fancy a player for reason X, and they are trusted to make that judgement because otherwise they wouldn't have the role.

If they had that veto earlier many of LVG’s signings would never have been made though.

 

[Regulus Arcturus Black]

In your example if 4 of our supposed 5-man committee absolutely loved a player but the 5th man didn't, he could veto that signing. It doesn't work like that. You're trying to simplify what is essentially how football has always worked. Scouts find players, profile players, and then they all sit around a table and rank potential targets. If you don't have a 'veto' then you don't have an opinion worth listening to and you shouldn't be in the room.

What? That’s not what Ed has confirmed at all man.

You’re the only one making it up as you go along here.

 

[Bilbo]

What? That’s not what Ed has confirmed at all man.

You’re the only one making it up as you go along here.

I'm giving my opinion on this. You just posted - "If they had that veto earlier many of LVG’s signings would never have been made though". Is that based on fact or are you making that up?

The fact is none of us actually have much of an idea on what has to happen before a transfer is made. My opinion is merely that you are looking at this too simplistically. There will always be a hierarchy in these types of scenarios. Ole is the manager of the football team. That will always carry more weight than a head scout.

 

[Regulus Arcturus Black]

I'm giving my opinion on this. You just posted - "If they had that veto earlier many of LVG’s signings would never have been made though". Is that based on fact or are you making that up?

The fact is none of us actually have much of an idea on what has to happen before a transfer is made. My opinion is merely that you are looking at this too simplistically. There will always be a hierarchy in these types of scenarios. Ole is the manager of the football team. That will always carry more weight than a head scout.

But it doesn’t carry more weight, it’s been confirmed by Woody man.

And if you think anyone vetoed managers transfer picks before Summer 2018 (when we clearly did) considering the players we brought in, you’re off your rocker.

 

[Regulus Arcturus Black]

Next stage of the process should be hire a DOF and take the veto away from the manager.

Not for me, I think the manager should maintain that power even with a DoF. Both should be able to veto each other. No point making a manager take a player he absolutely does not want.

 

[Bilbo]

But it doesn’t carry more weight, it’s been confirmed by Woody man.

And if you think anyone vetoed managers transfer picks before Summer 2018 (when we clearly did) considering the players we brought in, you’re off your rocker.

Well, in my experience, a conversation between two people who both think the other is 'off their rocker' is usually not one worth having, so I'm out.

Personally I think this whole thread was something you thought up and decided to run with as a way of trying to convince people that we will continue to recruit well no matter who is in charge. In other words its an agenda thread. I dont know if anyone will buy it, but have at it......

 

[Skills]

Not for me, I think the manager should maintain that power even with a DoF. Both should be able to veto each other. No point making a manager take a player he absolutely does not want.

So what happens in a scenario, where you have a Mourinho type as your manager and would like nothing more than a big fat lump like Lukaku as his striker (or someone of that ilk). But the best player available on the market is someone like an Aguero - someone of a much higher quality but doesn't fit the manager you have at the time. Do you pass up on a quality player, just because it doesn't fit this particular manager? This actually did happen but swap Lukaku/Aguero with Matic/Fabinho.

An ideal structure, should allow a club to be flexible and dynamic not just in terms of recruiting players but also assessing whether the manager you have is the correct one as your squad naturally evolves and changes with each new addition. Quality players are rare commodities, and if you become too fixated on what a particular manager needs you'll end up missing out and passing up on them.

 

[Regulus Arcturus Black]

Personally I think this whole thread was something you thought up and decided to run with as a way of trying to convince people that we will continue to recruit well no matter who is in charge. In other words its an agenda thread. I dont know if anyone will buy it, but have at it......

Hence why you can't seem to understand it's a simple fact thread, about our recruitment team and the changes we made, as confirmed by the club CEO.

I personally think Ole's an important part of that, the man has a veto and he's not vetoed Bruno or Maguire so that's good enough proof for me he's getting it right.

Not every post has a hidden agenda.

 

[Regulus Arcturus Black]

So what happens in a scenario, where you have a Mourinho type as your manager and would like nothing more than a big fat lump like Lukaku as his striker (or someone of that ilk).

Simple that, you employ a manager who shares the values of the club and recruitment team, which is something United have done with Ole in fairness.

 

[Skills]

Simple that, you employ a manager who shares the values of the club and recruitment team, which is something United have done with Ole in fairness.

Then why does the manager even need a veto then? If his vision is in-line with the clubs, surely he'll be fine with accepting the players the club will be bringing in.

 

[Aouer-United]

Regardless of our squad, the board or money. Our recruitment has played the biggest role in the downfall of United, it started around the late 2000s especially 2009s. We didn't improve it until 2016 when we started to overhaul of our scouting network.

Successful recruitment means the club will be more successful on pitches. We can hire any coaches we hope they'd take us back to the top but as long as we have poor ratio successful in recruitment, a coach won't improve us.

 

[Regulus Arcturus Black]

Then why does the manager even need a veto then? If his vision is in-line with the clubs, surely he'll be fine with accepting the players the club will be bringing in.

Not always no, he might see something in a player that he just does not like no matter how highly the team rate him, and he should reserve the right to reject him.

 

[The Irish Connection]

Why did we end up with Fellaini last minute in Moyes’ first window? Why did van gaal say he thought we could sign anyone? Why did we only sign Fred for the first team in Mourinhos last year?
There’s clearly been an issue with our negotiation team and Woodward is responsible for that.
Of course, behind Woodward then is the glazers debt which they have barely reduced at all.

 

[hobbers]

We've had something resembling a transfer committee going back to Moyes. Some people just seem to be very bizarrely adamant we don't despite the overwhelming evidence to the contrary. Often now to try and make Ole look better by claiming our signings were solely down to him when the reality is he played a very small part in most of them.

Did LVG play a big part in us signing Shaw or Herrera in his first summer? No. The work was all done by the 'transfer committee' in whatever form it took back then, and LVG just signed off on the deals. He did however veto Kroos for whatever bizarre reason.

Did Mourinho want Boateng as a cost-effective alternative to Maguire? Yes. Did the transfer committee veto the deal? Yes.

Then we come on to Maguire, AWB and Fernandes. All of whom have been heavily scouted by us over the last 2-3 years. As Woodward said, AWB was chosen from a pool of hundreds of right backs all meticulously analysed. He would have been the RB signed in the summer whoever was manager, unless that particular manager vetoed him. Same is true of Maguire.

The best way to describe our transfer approach post-Fergie is quite simple: too many cooks spoiling the broth. Managers with totally different approaches. Woodward wanting certain players for commercial rather than footballing reasons. A dilapidated scouting team often at odds with the manager's approach. No one constant person tieing everything together into a coherent vision.

 

[Skills]

Not always no, he might see something in a player that he just does not like no matter how highly the team rate him, and he should reserve the right to reject him.

So is that based on the assumption, that we'll have the same head coach for the duration of said players career at the club?

Like I said, quality players are extremely valuable commodities. And secondly, they're not always available - once a top club has hoarded them, they're not going to be available back on the market or will cost a lot more. It's why you need to keep a managers personal bias out of it.