I am yet to come across one tangible positive that has come from having him in his post. He shouldn't be there.
John Murtough Sack Watch
- Thread starter luke511
- Start date
Theres always two sides of the argument. If he has no power and is only the figurehead, as in parasites have to assess every decision before yay or naying it, then as a patsy can you blame him? Got to be on £2/3 mill a year I bet.
If he does have power, then hes on a steep downward curve with his actions so far. I read Antony already had women issues that Utd knew about before we signed him. After Giggs and Greenwood, this should have been a big red flag.
If he does have power, then hes on a steep downward curve with his actions so far. I read Antony already had women issues that Utd knew about before we signed him. After Giggs and Greenwood, this should have been a big red flag.
That is not the idea. You bring someone in who creates the right culture and has a long term vision. He employs a manager who is on the same page.
The issue we have is Murtough seems to have fallen into the job and does not seem to have a plan or any strategy for how he wants the club to operate. Everything we do seems to be ad hoc. The emergency signings of Cashmere and Anthony are two of the best examples.
All this talk of firing him from his job only makes sense if Glazers are disappointed by his actions. That is if they care.
There is the potential that his job description just doesn't align to what's typically expected of a DOF and we're judging him by those standards rather than what he's employed to do (effectively supporting the manager, rather than leading). This would however be a bigger problem than Murtough himself though.
I suspect Murtough may have promised ETH so much control in appointing him that he's cornered himself into a tricky position where he might piss of ETH for breaking promises, who was his first permanent managerial appointment.
I would agree. I dont think Murtough is capable of being the more traditional DOF. He has handed control to Ten Hag.
And thus must go, as he hasn't got the balls to piss off the manager for the better good.
I would look more into the journalist deep dives into him rather than PR narratives from the club. They will dress up any appointment with hyperbole.
In reality he has actually been behind some good things at the club.
Said this many times when people were speaking as if hiring a DoF was some sort of silver bullet. ‘The DoF sets the style of football, hires the manager, chooses the players’ I was told. Well, in the words of Kanye West, ‘no one man should have all that power’. What happens when the DoF turns out to be not very good at running the entire fecking football club? What happens when managers fail, do we just hope the DoF sacks the manager or do we sack the DoF?
Job titles will always be far less relevant than having competent people in their respective posts, however you choose to structure the club.
Job titles will always be far less relevant than having competent people in their respective posts, however you choose to structure the club.
Then we get rid of him and replace him with someone else. The point isn't that the DOF is a silver bullet. The point is that a structure needs to be in place with specialists in specialized positions, rather than deferring to the manager on every footballing decision.
The owners should be taking action if they are not happy with the performance of the club / team. But ours dont seem to care as long as the CEO and his team are bringing in record sponsorship deals.
Right so the issue is still the Glazers then isn't it? How can Murtough be anything other than a yes man if the Glazers give him no freedom to be anything else?
The situation isn't as easy as this, it certainly isn't a case of "The Glazers set the budget and then they are hands off" this is categorically untrue. It's already been well reported by multiple people that the Glazers, Joel specifically, has to be consulted and contacted about every little decision, genuinely whenever we send in an offer for a player, it takes us a while because we have to run it by Joel, every second, third, fouth offer, all run by Joel.. this is why our pursuits take ages. It's Joel Glazer's fault that we didn't sign Caicedo for pennies, it's Joel Glazer's fault on multiple deals we didn't see through, including Thiago too. The budget often fluctuates, it's often the case that we don't know what the Glazers will allow us to spend on players at any given point during our transfer windows especially now that the club finances are basically in the toilet. I'm not saying we don't judge Arnold or Murtough but you are not laying as much blame on the Glazers doorstep for the transfer windows as you should be here, more so than Murtough who's been hired to do an extremely difficult job with parasites who's only interest is money and financial assets, not footballers.
So how is it Murtough's fault then? The onus is still on the Glazers for not allowing this man to be anything other than a "yes man" or "inept" the man is not our Director of Football but Football Director I believe, there's a distinction, because the Glazers don't want someone just doing what they want with the clubs finances to make the team better, they want control control control.
Again, i'm not absolving Murtough of any blame but if you can't notice the same pattern between Murtough and those who have come before him then you're blind - the only thing that hasn't changed is the Glazers.
Assuming that Ten Hag has been given a broader scope than most Premier League managers, how would the club now remove Murtogh?
Any new DOF would want to take back control of some of the responsibility that Ten Hag seems to have been afforded. Is he going to want to do that? Especially at a time when the team is underperforming.
Any new DOF would want to take back control of some of the responsibility that Ten Hag seems to have been afforded. Is he going to want to do that? Especially at a time when the team is underperforming.
Well that is more MY point actually, and has been throughout the whole DoF debate on here. The fact is, we obviously don’t have 3 employees, one of them being a manager. Every function of a DoF already has someone employed to carry it out, and has done for years. We’ve had an army of scouts, head of recruitment, head of youth development - all of it. If all of those people did their jobs brilliantly, it would matter not one bit that we don’t use a DoF.
A football club can be run effectively without a DoF, and can be run poorly with one. People put way too much stock in our need for a director because they were watching other clubs sign cool players and make good decisions and thought that if we had our own director, we’d be the same. The fact is, the decision on a player is made, whether at this club or that club. A DoF isn’t required for that decision to be the right one, but the right people are.
How has hiring Ragnick - by the far the worst managerial appointment from a top club I’ve ever witnessed - not on the list?
It’s not PR it’s what he did, if you want to believe e the one sided briefings instead then that’s fair enough but the idea Murtough’s fingerprints aren’t all over the current and previous failings is just naive.
Most of what the post contains is a consequence of what happened under Woodward, Judge, Bout, Lawlor and the previous manager who bought players that were not suited to playing the high octane, high technical level the EPL is demanding from the top teams. Over the years I've been very critical of the signings that were made by the previous managers (Mourinho/Solskjaer) where I said the players signed didn't suit the football that was being talked about being implemented.
And as far as a DoF is concerned, I'd like to know who people want as DoF and how said DoF has structured the football side of the club at his previous clubs and how that has then correlated to success. The DoF at most successful/well run clubs isn't a scout who identifies which players to sign because the DoFs role doesn't just revolve around the recruitment department when there's numerous other departments on the football side of the club to oversee.
Paul Mitchell went to Monaco and the Monaco fans wanted him gone after the first season. He managed to stay another season and did even worse where Monaco finished 6th.
Luis Campos ends up at PSG and is given total control of signings and most of his signings have been failures with the head coach he hired (Galtier) sacked after one season. Now I'm hearing from the PSG fans about their recruitment under Luis Campos being at odds with the new head coach Luis Enrique.
I can also go on about Paratici at Spurs who appointed managers then signed players that didn't suit the managers he hired. And those players he signed especially from Juve, were players that were identified by the Italian club's head of recruitment Matteo Tognozzi. And before Tognozzi, it was Javier Ribalta who was the recruitment director up until 2017.
The biggest issue by far is that our DoF has ceded all control of transfer strategy to the manager, begging the question what is the actual purpose of his role? He seems to get involved in negotiations, as far as I can tell - but we already have someone employed for that (Tom Keane)
He's always happy to pop up with the odd quote whenever we sign a player or to get a transfer over the line (again not his job) to serve the illusion that he has any semblance of control, but in reality he's probably wondering how on earth he landed this sweet job and is riding his luck as long as he can.
So that's the broader big issue, but the second biggest single feck up was:
1. employing Rangnick as Manager, even though he wasn't qualified to do the job, on the basis that he could help lead our transfer strategy after his stint as interim
2. having allowed Rangnick to deliver one of our most awful seasons ever and further destroy whatever confidence and morale was left in our squad, he then u-turned on the original plan he had (which was the sole justification for taking someone unqualified to manage us as interim manager)
It's clear Ten Hag calls all the shots, and maybe that's the only reason he agreed to take the job. I'd argue that a more experienced DoF would have negotiated more successfully with Ten Hag to get him to still take the job while not having complete carte blanche on transfers.
Consistency of squad building and long term footballing strategy is the one single purpose of having a DoF but we're operating exactly as we did when we had Woodward in charge - ie. the manager makes all the calls, and then when he leaves it's back to square one again of rebuilding the squad and shifting all the unwanted players, thus we never progress.
Sure, a journalist insight into Murtough is one sided but a club PR statement isn't.
Anyway, Adnan explains it well below and poses a very valid question. If you want a DoF who doesn't make equally bad errors then who is it?
So what does Murtough do? ETH was desperate for FdJ when he was never coming, then we make a late desperate move for Casimero, whose legs are now gone. Then we overpaid for Antony, was that the only right wing option? He has allowed ETH to sign the players he wanted, over 70% of his signigns are from Dutch league, a damning statistic for United
Listing some failed DoFs doesnt change how the best clubs work, whether Liverpool, CIty or even Brighton and more recently Newcastle. None give free reign to the manager to sign. Nor do continental clubs. They should also ensure players fit a style that will survive a change in manager. We continue to overpay for players and get conned in taking players on the decline, and not identify younger promising players. Thats all on Murtough. His background is a sports scientist, not sure that really makes him qualified.
Have you got sources for this? Genuinely curious. Was it the Glazer’s choice to sign Mount for £55 million? Was it their choice to sign Antony for £90 million? Or was it the personnel in charge of football recruitment? Just because they have to sign everything off doesn’t mean the onus is on them, they are trusting the people in charge of those choices. We’re now holding those people accountable for their consistently bad choices. It all boils down to the Glazers having these under-performers in charge, but they are the least likely to be shifted in the entire hierarchy, so the next best option is to criticise the under-performers.
Most of the points? Can you list the points that were down to Woodward, Judge, Bout, Lawlor and the previous manager? That’s only plausible up until 2022, before that only counts for 4 points out of the 12.
That post just proves my point about the naivety, blames everyone but Murtough so it’s a poor explanation. The club told us he was part of those errors just like Woodward and numerous others. It was widely reported that Murtough was heavily involved in the ‘successful’ overhaul of our recruitment department at the time he was officially appointed and even prior to that. Murtough is reaping what he helped sow.
We know the guy has failed repeatedly yet he still gets more attempts just like Woodward because failure doesn’t matter at Utd. The worst DOF is someone like Murtough who can fail consistently and get rewarded rather than sacked. The idea that some people on here have that he effectively dropped out of the sky when Woodward left and is absolved of all blame is comical, his fingerprints are all over the failings of the previous regime he was a big part of.
Last edited:
Every single point you made was either to do with the previous regime or was knock on effect from that regime. You also mentioned not signing a CDM for Rangnick as a issue when no sensible club would sign a player for a placeholder.
Okay
no accountability for Murtough up until post summer 2023 even though he was hired as DoF in March 2021. Good one.It wasn’t about signing a CDM for Rangnick, it’s about signing one for the club to give us the best possible chance of winning, permanently or on loan.
Isn't this something a structure is actually supposed to address, though? That you sign players that your recruitment staff say are good and fit the type of football you want to play, not just players tied to a manager?
Why would a signing have to be for a manager specifically though? If it's a structural issue within the squad, it needs to be fixed regardless.
This makes zero sense, the whole point of having a DOF and a structure is that you sign players for the club and not the current manager
Well, hopefully the club understands that ten Hag works for club rather than the other way around. And if ten Hag does not like that, the door should always be open.
‘No one is bigger than the club’ should mean no one, not no one except the manager.
I don’t actually have much of a problem with transfers like Sancho to be honest. He was hot property in Germany and looked like one of the brightest young talents in Europe, not signing him because we have Amad and Pellistri who are still years away from being ready seems far fetched. Greenwood was a valid point though, that spot should have been his, however I can still get behind an idea of signing a young, talented English player that succeeded greatly in another league. He has been mismanaged and hasn’t done himself any favors since coming here but the concept was not incorrect.
It’s signings like Antony, Ronaldo, Casemiro or even to an extent Varane (despite his success) that I can’t get behind. Players of either very limited potential or at the stage of career that just doesn’t suit our timeline. We are looking to build a team that could maybe compete with the best in 3, 4 years yet we pack our team with players who won’t even be playing professional football in Europe in 4 years.
It’s signings like Antony, Ronaldo, Casemiro or even to an extent Varane (despite his success) that I can’t get behind. Players of either very limited potential or at the stage of career that just doesn’t suit our timeline. We are looking to build a team that could maybe compete with the best in 3, 4 years yet we pack our team with players who won’t even be playing professional football in Europe in 4 years.
Okay
It wasn’t about signing a CDM for Rangnick, it’s about signing one for the club to give us the best possible chance of winning, permanently or on loan.
It’s absolute nonsense, people always ignore the context of when he was appointed in 2021. It was at a time when the club were happy with their recruitment, the culture, the structure etc etc so understandably from their perspective they appointed someone who was a big part of that.
What we’re supposed to believe is in the midst of all this apparent success they decided, let’s appoint a DOF despite avoiding do so for years, and let’s appoint one who has played no part in any of our apparent success, who we haven’t let be part of any of it or anywhere near the first team despite him already being at the club.
The idea Murtough is not part of years of failure is laughable.
Last edited:
What a negative narrative, 2 games into a players move
neglecting the fact that all of Chelsea bar none were playing rubbish under various coaches during last year
neglecting his previous years where He was considered one of Chelsea’s best players
He's not going anywhere unless we get new owners which doesn't look like happening.
In an ideal world you'd want the manager and DOF to be something of a package deal, so you know they're in lockstep. You keep changing one or the other and you have guys on different timelines, different priorities. Have seen it a million times in a million sports with a million teams.
He should be sacked to be honest.
The wages that our players alone are on are ridiculous and one of the main reasons we cant move them.
We are slow at transfers and we have shitty owners that dont care about the club only their pockets.
The wages that our players alone are on are ridiculous and one of the main reasons we cant move them.
We are slow at transfers and we have shitty owners that dont care about the club only their pockets.
Quite simply there are no consistent DoFs, or very few out there who get decision after decision correct. I would love to hear the suggestions too.
unfortunately I think people won’t realise that the grass isn’t any greener until JM is gone and replaced by someone else
That's the idea. Ten Hag needs to have his transfer autocracy reduced. We gave it a shot, he tried but his team building Director skills look limited at best. He didn't have this degree of absolute power in Ajax. By fan accounts his transfers were also bad and it was capable Directors who built their team. It's the manager version of signing a player to play the wrong position
Last edited:
It’s the truth. There’s a reason top clubs sign players when they’re at the top of their game, and stay away from out of form players. That’s not even factoring in him having a year left on his contract, It’s terrible value for money. Compounded on top of that is he’s being played out of position whilst we have Bruno as a 10. It’s an awful fit for our midfield and a bad transfer all round given the context. We went through this in the summer but the penny hasn’t dropped it seems.
If the placeholder had been Phelan, or even Carrick, that would have made sense.
But it wasn’t. It was someone with little recent coaching experience but a great reputation as a recruiter.
So why not let him have a go at something he was known to be good at?
He was around when Woodward was indulging LVG, Jose and Ole over recruitment yet the first thing he did with his first managerial hire is do the same and abdicate his fudiciary duty to the club. That's unforgivable and for that he must go.