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

[Adisa]

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

The club itself should have a footballing ethos or blueprint it wants to follow and hire a manager that suits that style. I am not advocating building a less technically but physical team then hiring Guardiola. A competent DoF does not make that kind of decision.
The vast majority of managers aren't responsible for team building and have very little experience with it or do not want that responsibility. So followinhbthat strategy seems foolish to me.
Furthermore, on a footballing and financial sense, it seems like a fools errand to me. Good managers are very rare these days and chances a manager will be successful even more rare.
Have a team responsible for recruitment then get the best possible coach to get the best out of those players. To me, it is a much better strategy then rebuilding the squad every time you sack a manager.

 

[JPRouve]

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.

Not having a veto doesn't equate to having no say though, unless I'm missing something?

 

[Grande]

It’s a tough one, because Woodward has a very bad track record as a director for a sporting enterprise, so a DoF/Sports director seems a necessary way of alleviating him from that kind of responsibility. Then again, the recruitment/squad building side of things seems to have taken a serious turn for the better the last year and a half - players rid, players in, youth, the academy, staff - it just seems that everything that happens now, happen for a reason, with a goal, and that different sides of the club now are cooperating. The signals from academy staff and recruitment staff implies that everyone feels things are better coordinated and going in the right direction now. So maybe Solskjær has a way of involving people that makes the need of a DoF less now? Maybe Woodward turning away from random star names and towards people who knows what have worked at United before has anneffect?

One thing some people underestimate in success culture at a football club, is that the tactical know how is only a part of it. Tactics have developped since 2010 to the extent that Ferguson for instance, is not tactically up to date. But that doesn’t mean that the ways of running a succesfull football club have changed as much on all fronts. Getting people to work along the same work ethics and cultural privioles we had before, can be a very effective base for a manager to work from when working with his chosen 11 before a Saturday game.

So maybe Solskjær gets his run as a manager, and if it goes pearshaped, he is moved over to a DoF position. Or maybe Paul Ince will get it (please lord don’t).

 

[passing-wind]

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.

Pretty much sums up the entirety of the problem. One immediate issue I had with Ole's appointment was the article that came out saying he was perfectly happy with the structure of the club.

I don't think fans take how tender the situation with Solskjaer as the manager is, we have had an appalling season but the weakness of the other teams within the league has papered over the cracks with our table positioning. If Ole is sacked within the next few years all of his youth ideology is out the window and it will be Woodward spearheading everything again.

 

[charlenefan]

The club itself should have a footballing ethos or blueprint it wants to follow and hire a manager that suits that style. I am not advocating building a less technically but physical team then hiring Guardiola. A competent DoF does not make that kind of decision.
The vast majority of managers aren't responsible for team building and have very little experience with it or do not want that responsibility. So followinhbthat strategy seems foolish to me.
Furthermore, on a footballing and financial sense, it seems like a fools errand to me. Good managers are very rare these days and chances a manager will be successful even more rare.
Have a team responsible for recruitment then get the best possible coach to get the best out of those players. To me, it is a much better strategy then rebuilding the squad every time you sack a manager.

Again it comes down to hiring managers, you bring in a manger who compliments the playing squad and that's been our problem previously, hiring Mourinho once we'd spent money on technical players like Blind only to rip up that squad and go for Mourinho's giants with the likes of Lukaku to rip that squad up and go back to SAF's philosophy which Ole is obviously basing his tenure on

Hire the right manager, one who fits with the clubs long term vision and then once he does leave you hire another in the same vein. Our problem has been flip flopping from one style of manager to another

The managerial appointments are my only concern about not having a DOF and leaving those decisions to Woodward

 

[Ali Dia]

It seems to me that the power has already been taken away from the manager somewhat after all our disastrous signings post Fergie. All the right noises are coming out of the club about upgrading scouting, analytics and the youth setup. It seems the club decided before Ole even came in that they weren’t going to just go out and buy whoever the manager wanted or chase whichever ageing galactico was looking for a new deal and Jose flipped out.

If the last signings are anything to go by: Fred, Maguire, Bruno, AWB, James and Ighalo (plus the higher profile of youth player we seem to be after) then that implies there’s been a needed shift in our focus. We are now looking for improving players with lots of miles still on the clock instead of a quick fix. That’s where most of the waste has occurred looking for a quick fix. I also think we are finally now only looking at players who have steady hard working and driven personalities that won’t get ahead of themselves or constantly portray the club in a negative light in the media.

The new approach (which I’ve been advocating for years now) is starting to work out well. If we are really looking at Sancho Bellingham and Camavinga then what else can anyone say apart from that the future looks genuinely exciting. This profile of player should help us become relevant again. Any attack minded manager would be delighted to come in here after Ole. The same cannot be said for any other manager post Fergie with each manager passing on an unhappy and unbalanced squad with ageing and underperforming players who thought they were better than they were. The organisation above was clearly struggling too. We could have started all this in 2013 and I believe we’d be way better off by now. We certainly wouldn’t have totally wasted 500 million quid anyway.

if you categorise the failed signings into manager signings/Ed’s ego signings/well thought out and properly scouted signings by the club you can clearly see which have worked out best of all. Off the top of my head.

Blindly following Manager signings
Moyes: Fellaini, Mata
LVG: Morgan S, Depay, Bastian, Rojo and so on. awful awful transfer record and the worst football ever to boot.
Jose: Lukaku, Miki, Dalot, the jury is still out on the center backs. Zlatan was a good signing.

Ed’s Ego signings: Di Maria, Falcao, Sanchez and to a lesser extent Pogba who’s never really fully settled here but is clearly a cracking player. All the rest have pretty much been terrible business.

which finally leads me to the signings the club scouts had spotted and were going to bring in whoever the manager was:
Ander Herrera, Shaw, Martial, Fred who all worked out better than any of the above players apart from maybe Pogba. We were also supposed to be in for Kroos and Thiago before Moyes came in and dithered. Both or either of these players would have improved us instantly and for years to come. I think the problem arises when it’s just Ed blindly backing the wrong manager (while still thinking he’s doing the right thing) or making the footballing decisions based on a big name becoming available or the financial implications rather than doing proper due diligence and thinking medium to long term.

Our last signings show that the scouting team are really stepping it up and becoming vital again and that can only be a good thing. To summarise I don’t think we need a DOF anymore as it would be overkill and what if we hire the wrong guy? It’s working at the moment and if it ain’t broke and all that...

 

[Rozay]

It’s a tough one, because Woodward has a very bad track record as a director for a sporting enterprise, so a DoF/Sports director seems a necessary way of alleviating him from that kind of responsibility. Then again, the recruitment/squad building side of things seems to have taken a serious turn for the better the last year and a half - players rid, players in, youth, the academy, staff - it just seems that everything that happens now, happen for a reason, with a goal, and that different sides of the club now are cooperating. The signals from academy staff and recruitment staff implies that everyone feels things are better coordinated and going in the right direction now. So maybe Solskjær has a way of involving people that makes the need of a DoF less now? Maybe Woodward turning away from random star names and towards people who knows what have worked at United before has anneffect?

One thing some people underestimate in success culture at a football club, is that the tactical know how is only a part of it. Tactics have developped since 2010 to the extent that Ferguson for instance, is not tactically up to date. But that doesn’t mean that the ways of running a succesfull football club have changed as much on all fronts. Getting people to work along the same work ethics and cultural privioles we had before, can be a very effective base for a manager to work from when working with his chosen 11 before a Saturday game.

So maybe Solskjær gets his run as a manager, and if it goes pearshaped, he is moved over to a DoF position. Or maybe Paul Ince will get it (please lord don’t).

What responsibilities does he have now that you would like a Director of Football to alleviate him from?

 

[Adnan]

I completely agree with @JPRouve

The most successful clubs in world football have a dedicated person running the football side, with multiple league and European titles to show for their efforts. Having a DoF isn't 'fashionable' as one poster put it, but rather the norm at most top clubs who are very successful. It's a winning formula that has been adopted by the most successful clubs..

 

[Dve]

From the way Ole has answers questions about a DOF in the past, I´m left with the impression that Ole does not want a DOF, and likely, he is an important reason why no DOF is appointed now. I think Ole has Woodward in his pocket, and pretty much gets what he wants, to be honest. Who said he´s weak.

We´ll see how it goes, and so far so good. But I´m convinced Ole is the last manager at United working without a DOF. If the story is true.

 

[Grande]

What responsibilities does he have now that you would like a Director of Football to alleviate him from?

Hiring managers. Idetifying developmental paths and needs for the entire sporting organisation. Weighing the recruitment needs against the wishes of the manager and against the short and long term economy.

 

[Rozay]

I completely agree with @JPRouve

The most successful clubs in world football have a dedicated person running the football side, with multiple league and European titles to show for their efforts. Having a DoF isn't 'fashionable' as one poster put it, but rather the norm at most top clubs who are very successful. It's a winning formula that has been adopted by the most successful clubs..

I think that beneath all the paragraphs, this seems to be the crux of most people’s reasoning for wanting a Director.

You have said here that it has nothing to do with it being ‘fashionable’, yet your qualifying of this is saying that ‘everyone else is doing it’.

 

[Adnan]

I think that beneath all the paragraphs, this seems to be the crux of most people’s reasoning for wanting a Director.

You have said here that it has nothing to do with it being ‘fashionable’, yet your qualifying of this is saying that ‘everyone else is doing it’.

Having a Sporting Director is the norm for big clubs who have gone on to win the biggest prizes in the game. It's not something that has recently come into fashion like you have mentioned in one of your earlier posts.

 

[Rozay]

Having a Sporting Director is the norm for big clubs who have gone on to win the biggest prizes in the game. It's not something that has recently come into fashion like you have mentioned in one of your earlier posts.

That explains it.

 

[yo@Kirk]

Someone in management is screwing up because Man Utd have too many players that aren't good enough to play at EPL levels but are so overpaid they can't be sold unless Utd pay a huge portion of their remaining contracted salary. I don't see how Utd compete for major trophies as long as that someone is making consistently terrible business decisions that hinder efforts to acquire players that can play at a high level in the EPL.

 

[0le]

Someone in management is screwing up because Man Utd have too many players that aren't good enough to play at EPL levels but are so overpaid they can't be sold unless Utd pay a huge portion of their remaining contracted salary. I don't see how Utd compete for major trophies as long as that someone is making consistently terrible business decisions that hinder efforts to acquire players that can play at a high level in the EPL.

That "someone" has typically been the manager at the time.

 

[Adnan]

Someone in management is screwing up because Man Utd have too many players that aren't good enough to play at EPL levels but are so overpaid they can't be sold unless Utd pay a huge portion of their remaining contracted salary. I don't see how Utd compete for major trophies as long as that someone is making consistently terrible business decisions that hinder efforts to acquire players that can play at a high level in the EPL.

That is due to the hierachy giving too much control to the managers post SAF which has seen us waste vast sums of money. We completely lost our identity as a football club for a period due to the above reasons.

A DoF would at the very least have enabled us to stay competitive and would've done a better job when it comes to player turnover, which IMO would've saved the club alot of money in the process.

 

[Rozay]

The fact is that decisions need to be made in football. What is important is that those decisions are correct. Whether the decision is taken by a Director of Football, a Transfer Committee, a Head of Youth Development is not the point. Whenever it comes, whoever is responsible for making that decision needs to make it, and it needs to be right. That’s it. A job title is irrelevant. So long as we have people employed to make these decisions, then the issue is down to the quality of them. There’s no point anyone listing off all the decisions we have gotten wrong in recent years as why we require a Director. That would only make sense if you can guarantee that the director would have gotten them right. Because a director at another club got it right means little, and if your argument for having one is because ‘all the cool kids are doing it’, it doesn’t explain anything. The bottom line is, Liverpool have gotten more football decisions right in recent years than us. If our ‘recruitment team’ signs Salah instead of their Director, should they change systems too? All you have is a right and wrong call. In theory, we could just have a better ‘recruitment team’ who got things right in recent years just as we could have had a Director who got things right in recent years. It isn’t the job title that guarantees success.

 

[Rozay]

That is due to the hierachy giving too much control to the managers post SAF which has seen us waste vast sums of money. We completely lost our identity as a football club for a period due to the above reasons.

A DoF would at the very least, enabled us to stay competitive and would've done a better job when it comes to player turnover, which IMO would've saved the club alot of money in the process.

How on earth can anyone possibly say that? Because his job title was ‘Director’? We would have been competitive, signed the right players etc ‘if we had a director’. At this stage it seems to matter little whether or not that director is any good at his or her job. Just so long as they can pin a badge on their suit that says ‘DoF’, everything just works.

What do you make of the goings on at Barcelona? Do they need a ‘Recruitment Team’? Why hasn’t their DoF guaranteed them successful signings? Because it seems people are saying ‘everything just works better if you have a director’. Whatever your system, if the people in charge of making the decisions make bad ones, it will have a negative effect, and if they make good ones, it will have a positive one, surely?

 

[He'sRaldo]

How on earth can anyone possibly say that? Because his job title was ‘Director’? We would have been competitive, signed the right players etc ‘if we had a director’. At this stage it seems to matter little whether or not that director is any good at his or her job. Just so long as they can pin a badge on their suit that says ‘DoF’, everything just works.

What do you make of the goings on at Barcelona? Do they need a ‘Recruitment Team’? Why hasn’t their DoF guaranteed them successful signings? Because it seems people are saying ‘everything just works better if you have a director’. Whatever your system, if the people in charge of making the decisions make bad ones, it will have a negative effect, and if they make good ones, it will have a positive one, surely?

The job description is important. If we had a recruitment team which in the end wasn't able to get Kroos, Thiago, etc even after identifying them, simply because the manager had the ultimate say, then the job description needs to change.

The story goes that Moyes needed more time to look at Thiago personally, and thus the transfer fell through. If there was a figure at the club with the knowledge and authority to go through with the transfer regardless, that would be a benefit to us. That's the difference between a team of scouts and a DOF.

 

[Web of Bissaka]

The fact is that decisions need to be made in football. What is important is that those decisions are correct. Whether the decision is taken by a Director of Football, a Transfer Committee, a Head of Youth Development is not the point. Whenever it comes, whoever is responsible for making that decision needs to make it, and it needs to be right. That’s it. A job title is irrelevant. So long as we have people employed to make these decisions, then the issue is down to the quality of them. There’s no point anyone listing off all the decisions we have gotten wrong in recent years as why we require a Director. That would only make sense if you can guarantee that the director would have gotten them right. Because a director at another club got it right means little, and if your argument for having one is because ‘all the cool kids are doing it’, it doesn’t explain anything. The bottom line is, Liverpool have gotten more football decisions right in recent years than us. If our ‘recruitment team’ signs Salah instead of their Director, should they change systems too? All you have is a right and wrong call. In theory, we could just have a better ‘recruitment team’ who got things right in recent years just as we could have had a Director who got things right in recent years. It isn’t the job title that guarantees success.

Spot on.

Just having a DoF doesn't guarantee success, it's the efficiency and quality of the system surrounding the decisions making (with or without a DoF in it) that is the real decider of success.

Do we have one good and efficient decisions-making system at the moment though...?
Tough to say for certain.

 

[He'sRaldo]

The fact is that decisions need to be made in football. What is important is that those decisions are correct. Whether the decision is taken by a Director of Football, a Transfer Committee, a Head of Youth Development is not the point. Whenever it comes, whoever is responsible for making that decision needs to make it, and it needs to be right. That’s it. A job title is irrelevant. So long as we have people employed to make these decisions, then the issue is down to the quality of them. There’s no point anyone listing off all the decisions we have gotten wrong in recent years as why we require a Director. That would only make sense if you can guarantee that the director would have gotten them right. Because a director at another club got it right means little, and if your argument for having one is because ‘all the cool kids are doing it’, it doesn’t explain anything. The bottom line is, Liverpool have gotten more football decisions right in recent years than us. If our ‘recruitment team’ signs Salah instead of their Director, should they change systems too? All you have is a right and wrong call. In theory, we could just have a better ‘recruitment team’ who got things right in recent years just as we could have had a Director who got things right in recent years. It isn’t the job title that guarantees success.

I feel like this only works in theory.

It's like saying a manager isn't important, as long as the right decisions are implemented on the pitch. There needs to be some leadership, especially in a case such as ours where Ed Woodward is the one left evaluating the manager's on the pitch decisions. We need someone who is actually knowledgeable in those areas to make the right calls, and not just a committee, but strong leadership behind it.

 

[Slysi17]

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.

How about when Ole goes or gets sacked. The board/Ed Woodward are so clueless that they will for a different type of manager. Then you yet again have a mishmash of players in terms of style. That's my worry about a lack of director of football and why I am annoyed at the latest developments.

 

[Rozay]

I feel like this only works in theory.

It's like saying a manager isn't important, as long as the right decisions are implemented on the pitch. There needs to be some leadership, especially in a case such as ours where Ed Woodward is the one left evaluating the manager's on the pitch decisions. We need someone who is actually knowledgeable in those areas to make the right calls, and not just a committee, but strong leadership behind it.

Woodward is as qualified to evaluate the manager’s success as any other CEO of any other company. It’s a results business.

If Woodward is not fit to evaluate the success of a manager, then he certainly isn’t fit to evaluate the success of a Director of Football, and ultimately, someone needs to. People keep saying ‘we need a Director of Football to hire the managers, sign the players etc’. What qualifies him to do all that? In my opinion, any regime’s failure should include that of the DoF, otherwise how do you assess his own work? It seems ridiculous to hire someone to make the decisions on managers and players, and simply say that he has licence to replace the management or players as he sees fit. How is he performance managed himself? If you hire a manager and he fails, why should you just get to hire another one? Is it because the fault can’t possibly be at DoF level because he is, after all, a DoF (so clearly can’t possibly be the problem!).

I don’t see what is wrong with us having a committee to rule over transfers for example. I think it is odd to dismiss it as a model, without that dismissal seemingly applying any relevance to the actual quality of the committee. It doesn’t seem to matter here how good they are at identifying a player. People just want it to come from a Director.

Can anyone even say, with confidence how directors go about their duties from club to club? That there isn’t huge variation in how the model is applied at say Spurs and how it’s applied at Barcelona? I just think when it comes down to it, there isn’t much beyond ‘x club has a director’. Clubs probably have a number of roles that each other don’t. Some may have a head of fecking meditation while others don’t, some may have fingernail specialist while another doesn’t. How does anyone know which is the one making the real difference?

 

[Rozay]

How about when Ole goes or gets sacked. The board/Ed Woodward are so clueless that they will for a different type of manager. Then you yet again have a mishmash of players in terms of style. That's my worry about a lack of director of football and why I am annoyed at the latest developments.

The concept of ‘needing a Director to keep continuity when replacing managers’ is flawed based on the simple fact that successful managers shouldn’t keep getting sacked! And if this Director needs to keep sacking managers, then why the feck is he apparently so qualified at hiring them?

Aside from some romantic fan ideology, each manager of a football club doesn’t need to be a replica of the last one. More especially when you just had to sack the last one!

 

[Adnan]

How on earth can anyone possibly say that? Because his job title was ‘Director’? We would have been competitive, signed the right players etc ‘if we had a director’. At this stage it seems to matter little whether or not that director is any good at his or her job. Just so long as they can pin a badge on their suit that says ‘DoF’, everything just works.

What do you make of the goings on at Barcelona? Do they need a ‘Recruitment Team’? Why hasn’t their DoF guaranteed them successful signings? Because it seems people are saying ‘everything just works better if you have a director’. Whatever your system, if the people in charge of making the decisions make bad ones, it will have a negative effect, and if they make good ones, it will have a positive one, surely?

How can I say that? Because when a club hires a DoF, they have a set criteria on how they want the footballing side to evolve over time. Barca have their criteria, Ajax have theirs and so does Bayern etc. They wouldn't sign players who are incompatible with their way of playing but we've done that in spades. And I don't believe they'd hire managers like Moyes or Mourinho either who are are a complete anti-thesis of the way they play. Under a DoF we don't sign half the players we've signed post SAF because they wouldn't meet the criteria of a experienced DoF due to the criteria of the club and how we want to play.

Barca have been racking up titles aplenty at the Camp Nou since SAF retired. They do have issues at board room level which have been discussed numerous times by the Barca faithful from what I've read, and it's at Presidential level where many Barca fans feel the problem lies.

A Sporting Director role isn't just about signing players either. A person in such a role also helps with keeping harmony in the Camp. He also has a network of contacts around the globe which opens up many opportunities to sign top quality players for bargain prices.

And as far as decision making goes. I'd rather have one person with a track record of making the right calls than keep persevering with having a list handed to Woodward by the manager which has seen us waste vast amounts of money and we still see the likes of Lingard, Jones, Rojo etc still at the club.

 

[He'sRaldo]

The concept of ‘needing a Director to keep continuity when replacing managers’ is flawed based on the simple fact that successful managers shouldn’t keep getting sacked! And if this Director needs to keep sacking managers, then why the feck is he apparently so qualified at hiring them?

Aside from some romantic fan ideology, each manager of a football club doesn’t need to be a replica of the last one. More especially when you just had to sack the last one!

Burnout. Even the most successful managers don't last that long at a single club, and their replacements need to be planned well ahead of time.

It's possible to have multiple successful managers lose the dressing eventually and be replaced by the same director. It happens all the time.

 

[Adnan]

Burnout. Even the most successful managers don't last that long at a single club, and their replacements need to be planned well ahead of time.

It's possible to have multiple successful managers lose the dressing eventually and be replaced by the same director. It happens all the time.

Good post.

Fabio Capello mentioned the same thing not long ago.

 

[Rozay]

How can I say that? Because when a club hires a DoF, they have a set criteria on how they want the footballing side to evolve over time. Barca have their criteria, Ajax have theirs and so does Bayern etc. They wouldn't sign players who are incompatible with their way of playing but we've done that in spades. And I don't believe they'd hire managers like Moyes or Mourinho either who are are a complete anti-thesis of the way they play. Under a DoF we don't sign half the players we've signed post SAF because they wouldn't meet the criteria of a experienced DoF due to the criteria of the club and how we want to play.

Barca have been racking up titles aplenty at the Camp Nou since SAF retired. They do have issues at board room level which have been discussed numerous times by the Barca faithful from what I've read, and it's at Presidential level where many Barca fans feel the problem lies.

A Sporting Director role isn't just about signing players either. A person in such a role also helps with keeping harmony in the Camp. He also has a network of contacts around the globe which opens up many opportunities to sign top quality players for bargain prices.

And as far as decision making goes. I'd rather have one person with a track record of making the right calls than keep persevering with having a list handed to Woodward by the manager which has seen us waste vast amounts of money and we still see the likes of Lingard, Jones, Rojo etc still at the club.

I’ve read this article before, numerous times. None of it describes what a Director of Football does, it simply describes what a successful Director of Football would do. Su can be achieved in more than one way, and the bottom line is getting it right in the way you choose.

Barcelona have signed a number of players who apparently don’t fit with their style’. And a football club/team is not required to play the same way for generations. It’s romantic, but not worth much else beyond that. The much fabled Barcelona will likely start signing different players over the coming years because their style isn’t as effective as it was already, and will be less so once Messi goes. Should they be stuck in some sort of box of only being able to sign players who played like their last great team? What about availability on the market? What if we get a director who believes we need to play like Barcelona, with the only flaw being that the best versions of those player all play at Barcelona? How are we then supposed to beat them? Should we dare to disobey our director and try a different style?

Since Fergie, we have signed a number of quality players who haven’t worked out, for a number of reasons. That they are different in style is fine. We have tactical flexibility for a start. This notion of sounds like Cruyff idealism that not everyone is compelled to subscribe to.

Also, would you feel more comfortable at us going after a certain profile of player like Maguire, Bissaka, James, Sancho and Grealish if it came from a Director of Football instead of a team of people? Would you then be able to see that we are not throwing darts at a wall, and it is possible to have a plan without a DoF? Or do we still need one at all costs?

 

[Rozay]

Burnout. Even the most successful managers don't last that long at a single club, and their replacements need to be planned well ahead of time.

It's possible to have multiple successful managers lose the dressing eventually and be replaced by the same director. It happens all the time.

Majority of managers leave their post due to failure. If a successful manager leaves by others means, due to wanting a change/break perhaps, then why are the people who hired him not qualified to hire his replacement?

 

[cyril C]

It seems to me that the power has already been taken away from the manager somewhat after all our disastrous signings post Fergie. All the right noises are coming out of the club about upgrading scouting, analytics and the youth setup. It seems the club decided before Ole even came in that they weren’t going to just go out and buy whoever the manager wanted or chase whichever ageing galactico was looking for a new deal and Jose flipped out.

If the last signings are anything to go by: Fred, Maguire, Bruno, AWB, James and Ighalo (plus the higher profile of youth player we seem to be after) then that implies there’s been a needed shift in our focus. We are now looking for improving players with lots of miles still on the clock instead of a quick fix. That’s where most of the waste has occurred looking for a quick fix. I also think we are finally now only looking at players who have steady hard working and driven personalities that won’t get ahead of themselves or constantly portray the club in a negative light in the media.

The new approach (which I’ve been advocating for years now) is starting to work out well. If we are really looking at Sancho Bellingham and Camavinga then what else can anyone say apart from that the future looks genuinely exciting. This profile of player should help us become relevant again. Any attack minded manager would be delighted to come in here after Ole. The same cannot be said for any other manager post Fergie with each manager passing on an unhappy and unbalanced squad with ageing and underperforming players who thought they were better than they were. The organisation above was clearly struggling too. We could have started all this in 2013 and I believe we’d be way better off by now. We certainly wouldn’t have totally wasted 500 million quid anyway.

if you categorise the failed signings into manager signings/Ed’s ego signings/well thought out and properly scouted signings by the club you can clearly see which have worked out best of all. Off the top of my head.

Blindly following Manager signings
Moyes: Fellaini, Mata
LVG: Morgan S, Depay, Bastian, Rojo and so on. awful awful transfer record and the worst football ever to boot.
Jose: Lukaku, Miki, Dalot, the jury is still out on the center backs. Zlatan was a good signing.

Ed’s Ego signings: Di Maria, Falcao, Sanchez and to a lesser extent Pogba who’s never really fully settled here but is clearly a cracking player. All the rest have pretty much been terrible business.

which finally leads me to the signings the club scouts had spotted and were going to bring in whoever the manager was:
Ander Herrera, Shaw, Martial, Fred who all worked out better than any of the above players apart from maybe Pogba. We were also supposed to be in for Kroos and Thiago before Moyes came in and dithered. Both or either of these players would have improved us instantly and for years to come. I think the problem arises when it’s just Ed blindly backing the wrong manager (while still thinking he’s doing the right thing) or making the footballing decisions based on a big name becoming available or the financial implications rather than doing proper due diligence and thinking medium to long term.

Our last signings show that the scouting team are really stepping it up and becoming vital again and that can only be a good thing. To summarise I don’t think we need a DOF anymore as it would be overkill and what if we hire the wrong guy? It’s working at the moment and if it ain’t broke and all that...

I would say jury is still out on Lukaku. He doesn't meet Ole's requirement doesn't mean he is a poor player. But fully agree with you that LVG had the worst possible record.

Expensive flop meant expensive mistake, meant more money to replace. In hindsight Veron and Di Maria weren't that bad because they were sold at some value, just a minor loss. Same for Fellaini. So some mistake could mean opportunity loss + minor financial loss. Mistake like Anderson, Schwestiger or Sanchez meant total loss, in every angle you look at.

Then how about RVP? Played 1 great season, 1 average season, then as good as total loss.

What about the like of Tosic, Delot, Obertan, Djembar. Yes they were inexpensive, but 100% bench warmer. In fact, half of the time they couldn't even get their name on the Sub list.

 

[He'sRaldo]

Woodward is as qualified to evaluate the manager’s success as any other CEO of any other company. It’s a results business.

If Woodward is not fit to evaluate the success of a manager, then he certainly isn’t fit to evaluate the success of a Director of Football, and ultimately, someone needs to. People keep saying ‘we need a Director of Football to hire the managers, sign the players etc’. What qualifies him to do all that? In my opinion, any regime’s failure should include that of the DoF, otherwise how do you assess his own work? It seems ridiculous to hire someone to make the decisions on managers and players, and simply say that he has licence to replace the management or players as he sees fit. How is he performance managed himself? If you hire a manager and he fails, why should you just get to hire another one? Is it because the fault can’t possibly be at DoF level because he is, after all, a DoF (so clearly can’t possibly be the problem!)

Those are two different jobs with different things to look for. It's more like Woodward hiring an expert to take that decision-making from his hands. And if the expert fails at the job, he shouldn't just do it himself. He should find another one, as that's their area of expertise, not his.

I don’t see what is wrong with us having a committee to rule over transfers for example. I think it is odd to dismiss it as a model, without that dismissal seemingly applying any relevance to the actual quality of the committee. It doesn’t seem to matter here how good they are at identifying a player. People just want it to come from a Director.

It depends on the structure of the committee. If it's one where the manager makes the final call, then we're back to the drawing board as the manager is very dispensible in this day and age. If someone else makes the final call, then that person is effectively the DOF. If everyone gets a veto, then it seems a bit chaotic. It depends.

Can anyone even say, with confidence how directors go about their duties from club to club? That there isn’t huge variation in how the model is applied at say Spurs and how it’s applied at Barcelona? I just think when it comes down to it, there isn’t much beyond ‘x club has a director’. Clubs probably have a number of roles that each other don’t. Some may have a head of fecking meditation while others don’t, some may have fingernail specialist while another doesn’t. How does anyone know which is the one making the real difference?

There is variation, but the key aspects we need are fairly consistent I feel. Vision and direction with regards to managerial hirings, player signings, and on the pitch style. It doesn't matter so much how they go about it, since they're the experts and will have different methods. What does matter is that they do manage to achieve these things we've lacked.

I understand your position is that our committee could do the same, but I'm not sure. I don't think it's a coincidence that as soon as a manager like Ole comes to the club, we change our tune to the youth and rebuilding rhetoric. I think the manager is still setting the overall direction at the club and, while it isn't bad if you land gold like Klopp, it will be damaging once you (inevitably) need to replace him. Or if the manager isn't good enough in general.

 

[Adnan]

I’ve read this article before, numerous times. None of it describes what a Director of Football does, it simply describes what a successful Director of Football would do. Su can be achieved in more than one way, and the bottom line is getting it right in the way you choose.

Barcelona have signed a number of players who apparently don’t fit with their style’. And a football club/team is not required to play the same way for generations. It’s romantic, but not worth much else beyond that. The much fabled Barcelona will likely start signing different players over the coming years because their style isn’t as effective as it was already, and will be less so once Messi goes. Should they be stuck in some sort of box of only being able to sign players who played like their last great team? What about availability on the market? What if we get a director who believes we need to play like Barcelona, with the only flaw being that the best versions of those player all play at Barcelona? How are we then supposed to beat them? Should we dare to disobey our director and try a different style?

Since Fergie, we have signed a number of quality players who haven’t worked out, for a number of reasons. That they are different in style is fine. We have tactical flexibility for a start. This notion of sounds like Cruyff idealism that not everyone is compelled to subscribe to.

Also, would you feel more comfortable at us going after a certain profile of player like Maguire, Bissaka, James, Sancho and Grealish if it came from a Director of Football instead of a team of people? Would you then be able to see that we are not throwing darts at a wall, and it is possible to have a plan without a DoF? Or do we still need one at all costs?

Barca play a possession based game to dominate the opposition. It doesn't mean we should adopt a possession based style, but rather we should look to impose our style on the opposition, and the players we sign should reflect that way of thinking and it has nothing to do with 'Cruyff idealism'

And my answer to your question is yes, because I wouldn't have signed any of the players you listed apart from Sancho because I believe a competent DoF would make better use of the funds available. It's not just about throwing the darts, it's about throwing them where and for how much.

 

[He'sRaldo]

Majority of managers leave their post due to failure. If a successful manager leaves by others means, due to wanting a change/break perhaps, then why are the people who hired him not qualified to hire his replacement?

They are.

My point was that it's possible for a director's appointment to be successful, and still need to be replaced. And in such a case, the person who hired the successful manager would indeed be qualified to hire his replacement.

 

[red thru&thru]

The more I was opposed to it, it seems as though Ole will become our DoF. You can't deny that recent signings etc have been good.

I feel someone like Nagglesman will be drafted in around the 21/22 season.

 

[Skills]

From the way Ole has answers questions about a DOF in the past, I´m left with the impression that Ole does not want a DOF, and likely, he is an important reason why no DOF is appointed now. I think Ole has Woodward in his pocket, and pretty much gets what he wants, to be honest. Who said he´s weak.

We´ll see how it goes, and so far so good. But I´m convinced Ole is the last manager at United working without a DOF. If the story is true.

Most managers don't want a director of football. Half the guys job is to assess the managers performance and hold him accountable for delivering.

 

[Skills]

They are.

My point was that it's possible for a director's appointment to be successful, and still need to be replaced. And in such a case, the person who hired the successful manager would indeed be qualified to hire his replacement.

Nah any manager who doesn't retire at a club is a failure.

 

[Slysi17]

The concept of ‘needing a Director to keep continuity when replacing managers’ is flawed based on the simple fact that successful managers shouldn’t keep getting sacked! And if this Director needs to keep sacking managers, then why the feck is he apparently so qualified at hiring them?

Aside from some romantic fan ideology, each manager of a football club doesn’t need to be a replica of the last one. More especially when you just had to sack the last one!

Well that argument is flawed. This is due to the person who have hired our managers which is probably Ed Woodward getting it wrong everytime. I am also not convinced Ole is the right choice either even though he was showing promise recently which unfortunately the coronavirus pandemic halted. Footballing decisions have been completely wrong over the past 7 years too. I can think of many but the 2 that come to my head is giving Mourinho a contract extension and signing Alexis Sanchez to that ridiculous contract. Pretty much shows we need a new person running the football side of things which shouldn't be the manager whether that's a director of football or not.

 

[Adisa]

It's not even as if ole is our manager by design. We don't even know how he will perform. As I said I am yet to see a convincing argument.
As it stands if Ole fails to perform, we are looking at another squad revamp.

Most managers don't want a director of football. Half the guys job is to assess the managers performance and hold him accountable for delivering.

You have no evidence of this. How many top managers have good experience building squads?

 

[ivaldo]

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.

And what if we bring in a director of football we end up sacking? It's strange that no one ever seems to consider that the DOF is just as susceptable to failure as the manager. Either way we would be back to square one. I'm not necessarily adverse to a DOF, but they aren't infallible. In fact, failings of the DOF can often be misconstrued as that of the manager.

 

[POF]

United are in an very fortunate position with Ole where he is extremely cognisant of the club's long term success. The club put him in a terrible position in the first half of the season where his squad was disgracefully short of quality under the guise of a long term recruitment strategy. He didn't complain and just sucked it up.

In normal circumstances, if you entrust the manager/first team coach with squad building, there is a conflict between the manager's objective of immediate success and long term squad building. That's when you end up with players like Sanchez, Matic, Rooney, Schweinsteiger, etc. Ageing superstars past their best on huge wages.

It's definitely a role that needs to be separated from the manager. Even in Ole's case, he has a long term outlook but, he simply can't be across the whole market.

There are signs that there is an improvement in the internal structure at United. They seem to finally have a common direction but it's hard to see it working as well with another manager.