Man Utd set to appoint Director of Football (when hell freezes over)

Status
Not open for further replies.
Of course there's no plans, Ole has had decent results lately.

The DOF talk is just spin to distract the fans and make it look like the club is taking decisive action - this will rear its head again when our results slump or it looks like top 4 is a no-go.
 
AneRu said:
All major decisions require the yay or nay of the board anywhere, even at City or Liverpool.
Click to expand...

This. We have a DOF, it just isn’t one guy. It’s a group of people doing all the functions of a DOF. As long as they’re doing the job well it shouldn’t matter since as you say, decisions are made at the top at every club.
 
I'm very pro DoF, but I do believe it's not the only way to build a winning formula. It seems like the club have adopted a strategy when it comes to recruitment and will be sticking by it for the foreseeable future. So let's get behind the lads and maybe we might actually see the plan come to fruition.
 
clarkydaz said:
I thought this was all done since bragging about 800 right backs and backslapping themselves on the summer window
Click to expand...
I believe that was done, but purely focussing on scouting and not necessarily data driven. It does sound like a big over though.
 
There must be a reason why the Glazers don't want a DoF.

Surely it's in their interest to minimise all the wasted money and ridiculous contracts we've spaffed over the past seven years.

Perhaps they feel they've already got someone fulfilling this function and there's no need to add an extra body, just to fill a certain title.
 
clarkydaz said:
I thought this was all done since bragging about 800 right backs and backslapping themselves on the summer window
Click to expand...

That just means we have collected a lot of data, this new team will be responsible for developing the algorithms that process and analyse that data (and data on our own players) so we make properly informed decisions on recruitment and retention, plus other things like injury prevention.
 
The optimist in me says we're waiting for Van der Sar to be available.

The realist in me says we've laid a copy Liverpool plan, but without the same team of professionals behind it.

The signs are there, we're buying young and long term players that dont have too much ego/sign for the wrong reasons. Copying it in way that these young players can also be sold again, and they're not just expenses. Just don't think we have the same eyes and skills in both the negotiating room or the analyse room - certainly not the same skill in the managers position, but we do still have financial power and traction as a club
 
Buchan said:


Interesting.
Click to expand...


I was waiting for someone to post this all morning. I doubt anyone cares anymore seeing as things aren’t going so badly. Was always fashionable nonsense to me personally.
 
The Van Der Saar thing is so strange. Fans would rather we took the power away from the people we currently have making football decisions , who have experience at this, and give it to vds who has no experience of making football decisions ...
 
Crashoutcassius said:
The Van Der Saar thing is so strange. Fans would rather we took the power away from the people we currently have making football decisions , who have experience at this, and give it to vds who has no experience of making football decisions ...
Click to expand...

They like the way Ajax pass and move.
 
Rozay said:
I was waiting for someone to post this all morning. I doubt anyone cares anymore seeing as things aren’t going so badly. Was always fashionable nonsense to me personally.
Click to expand...

100% agree

Get the right manager in and the rest will follow, get the wrong manager in and go figure

The only problem I see is when Ole does need replacing and what happens next then
 
I believe squad building should not be left the the manager. That's Why wanted and still want a DoF or something similar to Liverpool. I have not seen a good enough argument to convince me otherwise.
Who's to say Ole isn't going to bomb next season? So what happens...we start all over again? By all means hire the best possible coach but he shouldn't build the squad.
 
Adisa said:
I believe squad building should not be left the the manager. That's Why wanted and still want a DoF or something similar to Liverpool. I have not seen a good enough argument to convince me otherwise.
Who's to say Ole isn't going to bomb next season? So what happens...we start all over again? By all means hire the best possible coach but he shouldn't build the squad.
Click to expand...

And do you think a manager would have a higher or lower chance of bombing with a squad he built or one someone else did?

Also, unless you are proposing a manager has no say at all in his signings, how is it any different from our current model? My main issue with this whole week need a DOF’ stuff was I saw it as an attachment to the job title more than the function. We have a team who, alongside the manager, identify players. What I believe you are proposing is a Director, who alongside the manager, identifies players. The only difference is that we would be able to say ‘we have not been left behind, we too have a Director’.

There is no function of a Director or Football, as far as I know, that we do not already have people in charge of. And that has always been the case. Some clubs prefer one person to run it, we prefer a team of people. The jobs still get done. If people are unhappy that they are not being done well enough, we could just as easily get new people as we would get a new director. To me, a lot of fans are fixated on the title, have read some long articles on the ‘brilliance of Berta’ and other apparent geniuses of the game and feel we need one without real knowing why. This has also led to a lot of anti-Woodward nonsense I feel. People don’t even know what he does, and there were ridiculous claims like ‘he will never get a director because he wants all the power for himself’. It’s embarrassing stuff. Any director would report to him anyway, just as the current people doing the functions report to him.

What happens if a team has a director and is unsuccessful? Who is held accountable? Do we just sack the manager, because of course, directors are the real geniuses of the game so a new manager is required? Do we sack the director, or both, and get a new director to come in and ‘build us a new squad?’.

To quote Kanye, ‘no one man should have all that power!’.
 
Rozay said:
I was waiting for someone to post this all morning. I doubt anyone cares anymore seeing as things aren’t going so badly. Was always fashionable nonsense to me personally.
Click to expand...

Pretty much. A Sporting Director is only as good as... the Sporting Director you employ. There are people within the fanbase, and on this forum, who seem to think that hiring one is a panacea for all of our problems. Muppets who genuinely believe that bringing in some fancy Dan from Italy and Spain (who might never have stepped foot in Manchester, let alone understand the fabric of the club) will solve everything, simply because they’ve been in charge of a club when they brought in some exciting kid from River Plate or Santos.

Have we made poor decisions over the years? Yes. Does that mean a Sporting Director will solve everything? Absolutely not. A bad one might multiply the problems considerably.

It may not be evident through results just yet, but we’re closer to getting it right now than at any point since Ferguson retired. We’ve invested significantly in the academy, which is really bearing fruit. Our signings under Ole (and the surrounding team of Bout and Lawlor, plus others) have been sensible and in positions of clear need. We’re signing the right kind of characters. We’re rumoured to be targeting the right sort of players. We’ve reduced the age of the squad by quite a way. We’ve actually got a proper captain in the first team for the first time since Rooney.

Getting the manager right goes a long, long way. The much-heralded Liverpool committee was frequently ridiculed prior to the arrival of Klopp. Some great coaching and a Van Dijk or two later, the clamour to laud anything and everything is clear.

Am I saying that we shouldn’t bring one in at all? No, I’m not. But they need to fit into what we’re trying to do here. They need to get it. And that doesn’t mean it needs to be an old boys’ club either; it’s about getting in the right people, relative to their skill set. Darren Fletcher, for example, always impresses me. Nicky Butt is generally considered to have done a great job with the academy. Edwin Van Der Sar has directorial experience at Ajax and is an example of a person who would appear to understand and embrace the direction the club is taking. But even then, I’m speculating based on pre-conceived impressions I have. The reality is that I don’t know, so why people pretend to know than an even more unknown Sporting Director is the answer is somewhat beyond me.

But yeah, Andreas Berti, or something. Get him.
 
Adisa said:
I believe squad building should not be left the the manager. That's Why wanted and still want a DoF or something similar to Liverpool. I have not seen a good enough argument to convince me otherwise.
Who's to say Ole isn't going to bomb next season? So what happens...we start all over again? By all means hire the best possible coach but he shouldn't build the squad.
Click to expand...

Of course building the squad should be down to the manager, why put him in an environment having to manage players he doesn't want or need to implement his style? You're setting him up fail. You use Liverpool as an example but do you really think Klopp would put up being given players he doesn't want? He'd be straight out of the door, the same with Pep
 
charlenefan said:
Of course building the squad should be down to the manager, why put him in an environment having to manage players he doesn't want or need to implement his style? You're setting him up fail. You use Liverpool as an example but do you really think Klopp would put up being given players he doesn't want? He'd be straight out of the door, the same with Pep
Click to expand...

I don't really follow this.

The person that hire Klopp, knows the type of head coach that Klopp is and the type of player that will match with him, so there is no reason to assume that someone competent would bring players that a managers doesn't want or that don't fit with his style. Also many head coaches, Klopp being one of them don't really want to be deeply involved in that side of a football club, that's why he requested to have someone to do it and why they now have Edwards.

If you have an actual manager who is good at his job, you don't need or want a DOF but these managers are extremely rare. The vast majority of names that people mention are head coaches with zero experience in team building and little interest in it.
 
JPRouve said:
I don't really follow this.

The person that hire Klopp, knows the type of head coach that Klopp is and the type of player that will match with him, so there is no reason to assume that someone competent would bring players that a managers doesn't want or that don't fit with his style. Also many head coaches, Klopp being one of them don't really want to be deeply involved in that side of a football club, that's why he requested to have someone to do it and why they now have Edwards.

If you have an actual manager who is good at his job, you don't need or want a DOF but these managers are extremely rare. The vast majority of names that people mention are head coaches with zero experience in team building and little interest in it.
Click to expand...

Unless you are proposing that the manager should have no say/veto in the players we bring in, then that is no different to the model we have currently, just with a DoF being replaced in the process by a bunch of guys with a less fashionable title.

Also, what happens if Klopp is not a success? Who needs to be sacked? Edwards or Klopp, and why?
 
JPRouve said:
I don't really follow this.

The person that hire Klopp, knows the type of head coach that Klopp is and the type of player that will match with him, so there is no reason to assume that someone competent would bring players that a managers doesn't want or that don't fit with his style. Also many head coaches, Klopp being one of them don't really want to be deeply involved in that side of a football club, that's why he requested to have someone to do it and why they now have Edwards.

If you have an actual manager who is good at his job, you don't need or want a DOF but these managers are extremely rare. The vast majority of names that people mention are head coaches with zero experience in team building and little interest in it.
Click to expand...

You just re-emphasise my point, the need for a DOF is to hire the right manager rather than the players
 
Rozay said:
Unless you are proposing that the manager should have no say/veto in the players we bring in, then that is no different to the model we have currently, just with a DoF being replaced in the process by a bunch of guys with a less fashionable title.

Also, what happens if Klopp is not a success? Who needs to be sacked? Edwards or Klopp, and why?
Click to expand...

Outside of the owner no one should have a veto. And the problem with our current model is the lack of continuity, one of the good thing with having a competent director of football is that you don't end up with a succession such as Moyes to LVG to Mourinho to Ole, there is no logic in that it has led to a lot of wasted money due to continuously chopping and changing the team to fit with the new manager. That's highly inefficient from a football and money standpoint. But in all situations everyone needs to work together and find a common ground, no one should purposely ignore the other.

Who needs to be sacked? The one that believe isn't doing his job properly, if you have an issue with the way the football side of the club is organized and if you have doubt about personnel acquisition then the DOF is your target, if you believe that the club is well organized and the correct personnel has been brought but that the on-field performances are subpar due to poor tactical or man-management decisions then the head coach is your target.
 
Last edited:
charlenefan said:
But you don't need to do the players if you have the right manager

I fear we're now just going round in circles so I'm tapping out now
Click to expand...

You always need to do the players for two reasons, the first reason is that your scope is limited to the length of currently signed contracts, the current manager and players may want to leave at the end of their contracts which means that you need to have a plan on how to replace them and know which type of players you will have or which type of managers will fit with it, you don't start with a blank page. So you have to take decisions that are to some extent independent to the current manager.
The second reason is that even if you have the right manager, which I interpret as a competent coach, he won't have enough time to dedicate to player scouting and networking, if we use SAF as an example he used his brother to do that job, even though we already had a chief scout.
 
We haven't given up on hiring a director of football, Ole is basically performing that role under a different title, the same as Sir Alex did. Sir Alex delegated a lot of training to his assistant and coaches but had overall responsibility for everything including picking the team. That is seems to be the role Ole is in and the role Woodward is comfortable with.

There is an argument to be made for having the person who signs players pick the team, but the big problem arises if things don't go well as it's the person who picks the team with their head on the block, then all the long term plans go out the window for next guy.
 
According to the article we have over the course of the process 'held varying levels of dialogue with experienced administrators', including Steve Walsh (ex-Everton director of football), Paul Mitchell, Ralf Rangnick, Stuart Webber (Norwich), Edwin van der Sar.

We also talked to Rio Ferdinand, Patrice Evra, Nemanja Vidic and Darren Fletcher, "but it became apparent the ex-players were providing valued opinion rather than anything more formal."

Article mentions we were linked to Luis Carlos (Lille DoF) without specifying whether talks were held, and comments that the links to Antero Henrique were overstated, and could be compared to agents drumming up interest for players. Really glad we were not in for Antero.

Also, as far as Rangnick goes, an earlier article by The Athletic said we held a lengthy meeting 'ostensibly to question him about his experience in setting up the RB Leipzig academy and coaching network.' So it sounds more like a consultant type of meeting.

Not familiar with Stuart Webber's work, but the rest of the names linked seems to be mostly names I would want us to have a look at for this type of role. That's nice too see. Substance over glamour.



Also, the article goes on to explain a bit more why we are not in for a Director of football any longer. I'm not sure how much I can quote, but here's the crux of the matter:

"Recruitment was the driving aspect to the proposed job when first mooted during Jose Mourinho’s tempestuous final transfer window in the summer of 2018. But it is safe to say that such a precise role is not on the agenda anymore. United do not seek a guru to lead policy for signings, nor will anybody come in to take ownership of who sits in the dugout.

At other clubs, a director of football — or sporting director — has great influence over those twin areas of performance. They are ultimately responsible for picking players to add to a squad and choosing managers.

At United, the structure is different. Principally, the status of the manager is paramount and the club want to stay close to the level of authority Sir Alex Ferguson maintained. Ole Gunnar Solskjaer’s line to Ed Woodward will always be direct, rather than bisected by another individual. Their relationship is described as “vital”.
 
charlenefan said:
100% agree

Get the right manager in and the rest will follow, get the wrong manager in and go figure

The only problem I see is when Ole does need replacing and what happens next then
Click to expand...
Shame on you, Ole won't need replacing! ;)

I do agree though that we should appoint a DOF that shares our vision, tailor the appointment to work with the existing ethos which seems to be working well and is in line with the clubs traditions of promoting youth.
 
Isnt this dangerous? Ole is nowhere near Sir Alex in terms of job security. If we end up sacking him, we will back to same situation. DOF would have ensure continuity between managers.
 
Adisa said:
I believe squad building should not be left the the manager. That's Why wanted and still want a DoF or something similar to Liverpool. I have not seen a good enough argument to convince me otherwise.
Who's to say Ole isn't going to bomb next season? So what happens...we start all over again? By all means hire the best possible coach but he shouldn't build the squad.
Click to expand...
NWRed said:
We haven't given up on hiring a director of football, Ole is basically performing that role under a different title, the same as Sir Alex did. Sir Alex delegated a lot of training to his assistant and coaches but had overall responsibility for everything including picking the team. That is seems to be the role Ole is in and the role Woodward is comfortable with.

There is an argument to be made for having the person who signs players pick the team, but the big problem arises if things don't go well as it's the person who picks the team with their head on the block, then all the long term plans go out the window for next guy.
Click to expand...

United have divested responsibility into the football management side, led by Solskjaer and Mike Phelan, and the recruitment side, headed by Marcel Bout (head of global scouting), Mick Court (technical chief scout) & Jim Lawlor (chief scout). Stephen Brown links the scouts and science & data.

All new targets are vetted through sight and statistics, and both the football management side, and the recruitment department hold the power of veto. This is in place specifically with the ambition of 'establishing consistent player profiles beyond each manager.'

Matt Judge becomes involved from the economic side of things. He overlays his work on to the lists recruitment make, and presents the financial realities of each target, before engaging in talks with clubs and player representatives.
 
pratyush_utd said:
Isnt this dangerous? Ole is nowhere near Sir Alex in terms of job security. If we end up sacking him, we will back to same situation. DOF would have ensure continuity between managers.
Click to expand...

I'd say it's more stupid than dangerous, but yes, you are right.
 
JPRouve said:
Outside of the owner no one should have a veto. And the problem with our current model is the lack of continuity, one of the good thing with having a competent director of football is that your don't end up with a succession such as Moyes to LVG to Mourinho to Ole, there is no logic in that it has led to a lot of wasted money due to continuously chopping and changing the team to fit with the new manager. That's highly inefficient from a football and money standpoint. But in all situations everyone needs to work together and find a common ground, no one should purposely ignore the other.

Who needs to be sacked? The one that believe isn't doing his job properly, if you have an issue with the way the football side of the club is organized and if you have doubt about personnel acquisition then the DOF is your target, if you believe that the club is well organized and the correct personnel has been brought but that the on-field performances are subpar due to poor tactical or man-management decisions then the head coach is your target.
Click to expand...

It’s not that simple. How do you discern? And what even qualifies you to discern? You have referenced Liverpool. What if signings like Milner, Robertson, Salah and other less heralded players simply didn’t work? Does an exec say ‘well, we have clearly bought top players for the manager, so he has to go’. That model makes a little sense if you are Madrid and you give your manager Benzema, Ronaldo and Kaka in one summer. But for most teams, a good and bad player is determined by how he is integrated in a team. The difference is harder to spot. You could just as easily blame a director for buying a rubbish LB from a relegated Hull City instead of a proven top one. If you sacked him because of that, you may never know that Klopp could have turned that same player into one of the best.

Ultimately, even if the functions you mention are necessary, I don’t understand why they cannot be carried out in the manner they are being carried out. Ole doesn’t scout the players. They are recommended to him. He has a say. You are proposing he has no say. Why should all of that power be given to a Paul Mitchell? He’s just some self-titled ‘***********’ basically. I don’t think it is necessarily the wrong way to go to get a director- but it certainly isn’t a necessary way to go in my opinion.
 
Rozay said:
It’s not that simple. How do you discern? And what even qualifies you to discern? You have referenced Liverpool. What if signings like Milner, Robertson, Salah and other less heralded players simply didn’t work? Does an exec say ‘well, we have clearly bought top players for the manager, so he has to go’. That model makes a little sense if you are Madrid and you give your manager Benzema, Ronaldo and Kaka in one summer. But for most teams, a good and bad player is determined by how he is integrated in a team. The difference is harder to spot. You could just as easily blame a director for buying a rubbish LB from a relegated Hull City instead of a proven top one. If you sacked him because of that, you may never know that Klopp could have turned that same player into one of the best.

Ultimately, even if the functions you mention are necessary, I don’t understand why they cannot be carried out in the manner they are being carried out. Ole doesn’t scout the players. They are recommended to him. He has a say. You are proposing he has no say. Why should all of that power be given to a Paul Mitchell? He’s just some self-titled ‘***********’ basically. I don’t think it is necessarily the wrong way to go to get a director- but it certainly isn’t a necessary way to go in my opinion.
Click to expand...

On your first paragraph, you simply make a judgement call, there is no absolute truth. And the second paragraph, there isn't a moment where I suggested that the head coach has no say, you quoted a post where I wrote this:
But in all situations everyone needs to work together and find a common ground, no one should purposely ignore the other.
Click to expand...

There isn't a point where I told you that a DOF was a necessity, the first post that you quoted literally makes that point in the last sentence but you just want to ignore everything and go into an argument with an extreme view that I haven't expressed.
If you have an actual manager who is good at his job, you don't need or want a DOF but these managers are extremely rare. The vast majority of names that people mention are head coaches with zero experience in team building and little interest in it.
Click to expand...
 
JPRouve said:
On your first paragraph, you simply make a judgement call, there is no absolute truth. And the second paragraph, there isn't a moment where I suggested that the head coach has no say, you quoted a post where I wrote this:


There isn't a point where I told you that a DOF was a necessity, the first post that you quoted literally makes that point in the last sentence but you just want to ignore everything and go into an argument with an extreme view that I haven't expressed.
Click to expand...

Not even, my initial post asked you whether you thought a manager should have a veto in recruitment, and you replied that outside of the owner, nobody should. So I was responding to that.

The second part was me speaking more generally on my views on the matter.
 
When you look at how Ole actually operates, we do not need a DOF as he delegates enough to take other responsibilities. He is the figurehead of the coaching staff rather than the end all and be all for our team tactically. The goal with us should be to ensure another coaching addition to replace Phelan when he leaves, who has the tactical knowhow to implement the shapes and tactics that Ole wants to play. For example, getting an assistant manager with the experience of effectively implementing a diamond, 3 at the back or even a 433...systems Ole is working on yet hasn't had too much experience in the past with. Personally i believe the issue of breaking teams down has to do with our past lack of quality/depth in some fundamental areas, but if we can get a coach in to support Ole that is a mastermind at breaking down deep defences it would not hurt us.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.