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

[Adnan]

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.

The evidence suggests that the DoF role is a long-term role whilst the headcoach role is short term one. The chances of transitioning successfully with a new head-coach, with a DoF still at the helm are also very beneficial and it provides continuity. It doesn't mean the DoF is infallible, but compared to the head-coach, the DoF role has longevity and is a proven model at the most successful clubs in the world.

 

[ivaldo]

The evidence suggests that the DoF role is a long-term role whilst the headcoach role is short term one. The chances of transitioning successfully with a new head-coach, with a DoF still at the helm are also very beneficial and it provides continuity. It doesn't mean the DoF is infallible, but compared to the head-coach, the DoF role has longevity and is a proven model at the most successful clubs in the world.

The evidence being the common theme? 30 years ago the most proven model in the world was giving managers long periods of time to set up a team, and even suggesting a manager in England should have players bought for him was incredible. That didn't stop teams changing. Ultimately, we are in a climate where managers are the easiest person to replace in a failing set up. That doesn't mean the setup is necessarily the best. Clubs can set up however they want. Getting the right DOF in place is no more easier or difficult than getting the right manager in.

 

[Seven Seas Sardines]

I was hoping for us to sign Bruno this summer since I knew he'd singlehandedly save Ole's job and end the DoF hunt upon arriving..

 

[wolvored]

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

If he is successful he will be here for the next 20-30 years. He wants to emulate Fergie. If not, well the DOF head will arise again.

 

[Adnan]

The evidence being the common theme? 30 years ago the most proven model in the world was giving managers long periods of time to set up a team, and even suggesting a manager in England should have players bought for him was incredible. That didn't stop teams changing. Ultimately, we are in a climate where managers are the easiest person to replace in a failing set up. That doesn't mean the setup is necessarily the best. Clubs can set up however they want. Getting the right DOF in place is no more easier or difficult than getting the right manager in.

I would say getting the right DoF is easier than getting the right head-coach. And then there's the added benefits of continuity and longevity with a DoF. Most top clubs hire a DoF from within the organisation which has enabled them to quickly transition from a position of weakness to a position of strength.

Our club post SAF has one of the biggest wage bills in Europe and one of the highest net spends in Europe with very little to show for the total outlay. We can't even consistently hold a top 4 spot in that period which really begs the question why we continued to give said managers such autonomy in the transfer market. Managers who also had such contrasting styles too, also added to the malaise and we ended up getting rid of some very good players for peanuts and replaced them with players who weren't better. But it was a rebuild and we all bought into it.

And if the current manager flops, do we carry on giving the next manager the same amount of power to shape the team into his image?

Personally I'm hoping the club eventually hires a DoF who will work off the Busby/Fergie mantra which will reflect in our football and decisions when it comes to hiring coaches. A coach getting sacked shouldn't mean we start a new rebuild and decimate the squad, but rather a new one is chosen by the DoF to carry on with the progress being made.

 

[yo@Kirk]

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

So it was Ole who declined to sign Haaland due to the buyout clause and Ole who gave de Gea the huge contract when Henderson is making Sheffield United a contender for a CL spot with his outstanding play. That's disappointing.

 

[0le]

So it was Ole who declined to sign Haaland due to the buyout clause and Ole who gave de Gea the huge contract when Henderson is making Sheffield United a contender for a CL spot with his outstanding play. That's disappointing.

Ole doesn't deal with the negotiations - he ultimately decides who the club should sign but it does not guarantee we sign the player. He may want to sign Messi but it doesn't mean the club can afford him. Ole also does not handle contract negotiations - he only states to the CEO who he wants to keep.

Regarding Henderson, he still has a lot to prove.

 

[yo@Kirk]

Ole doesn't deal with the negotiations - he ultimately decides who the club should sign but it does not guarantee we sign the player. He may want to sign Messi but it doesn't mean the club can afford him. Ole also does not handle contract negotiations - he only states to the CEO who he wants to keep.

Regarding Henderson, he still has a lot to prove.

In post 12295, you stated the manager was responsible for the huge contracts given to incompetent players. And de Gea's blunders this season have cost Utd enough points to have us above Chelsea right now.

 

[ivaldo]

I would say getting the right DoF is easier than getting the right head-coach. And then there's the added benefits of continuity and longevity with a DoF. Most top clubs hire a DoF from within the organisation which has enabled them to quickly transition from a position of weakness to a position of strength.

Our club post SAF has one of the biggest wage bills in Europe and one of the highest net spends in Europe with very little to show for the total outlay. We can't even consistently hold a top 4 spot in that period which really begs the question why we continued to give said managers such autonomy in the transfer market. Managers who also had such contrasting styles too, also added to the malaise and we ended up getting rid of some very good players for peanuts and replaced them with players who weren't better. But it was a rebuild and we all bought into it.

And if the current manager flops, do we carry on giving the next manager the same amount of power to shape the team into his image?

Personally I'm hoping the club eventually hires a DoF who will work off the Busby/Fergie mantra which will reflect in our football and decisions when it comes to hiring coaches. A coach getting sacked shouldn't mean we start a new rebuild and decimate the squad, but rather a new one is chosen by the DoF to carry on with the progress being made.

Based on what? Genuinely curious. As I stated earlier, it's my belief that the failures of a DOF is often erroneously blamed on the manager, mainly due to the transparency and exposure of the latter. How often do we even discuss the competency of a DOF when a club is failing?

For every post-Fergie example there is a Gianluca Nani or Joe Kinnear. Spurs can basically produce an extensive list themselves of failed DOFs.

And if the first manager fails we give the DOF another chance to swing and miss? Do we continue allowing a DOF to pick the wrong managers in the name of consistency? Your default position there is 'progress.' The assumption automatically is the DOF is pushing the club in the right direction.

As I said, I'm not against a DOF, but they're just as likely to be the wrong appointment as a manager is.

 

[Adnan]

Based on what? Genuinely curious. As I stated earlier, it's my belief that the failures of a DOF is often erroneously blamed on the manager, mainly due to the transparency and exposure of the latter. How often do we even discuss the competency of a DOF when a club is failing?

For every post-Fergie example there is a Gianluca Nani or Joe Kinnear. Spurs can basically produce an extensive list themselves of failed DOFs.

And if the first manager fails we give the DOF another chance to swing and miss? Do we continue allowing a DOF to pick the wrong managers in the name of consistency? Your default position there is 'progress.' The assumption automatically is the DOF is pushing the club in the right direction.

As I said, I'm not against a DOF, but they're just as likely to be the wrong appointment as a manager is.

I don't know about Joe Kinnear or the chap you mentioned. I'm talking about clubs who are comparable to us from a prestige and financial level and Spurs aren't in that category. And even then, Spurs have had a plethora of failed managers until they finally achieved UCL qualification in 2010 by defeating City on the final day which changed their fortunes. Spurs also bought both Modric and Berbatov thanks to their DoF at the time which helped in their future success.

You have to give me a example of a incident, where at a comparable club a DoF is blamed for the short comings of a team. I can only think of Henrique at PSG and even then, PSG replaced him with another DoF who had close ties to the club.

If the manager fails it's because of his body of work, which is on the training ground and his efforts can be seen for us all to judge on match days and the league table.

With the DoF it's the same, but his body of work is different to the head coach and must be evaluated in a different way. If the DoF has brought in the right calibre of players that align with the philosophy of the club then he's blameless and the coaching aspect must be looked at. Bayern didn't sack Salihamidzic when Kovac was sacked but rather they have been praising him for his work.

 

[Macedonian Red]

Ferdinand or VDS is my choice. They know the club philosophy, Edwin has even expirience. Think will both fit well with Ole.

 

[0le]

In post 12295, you stated the manager was responsible for the huge contracts given to incompetent players. And de Gea's blunders this season have cost Utd enough points to have us above Chelsea right now.

I thought it would be pretty clear I was specifically talking about the first part of the sentence, "Someone in management is screwing up because Man Utd have too many players that aren't good enough to play at EPL levels", but evidently not.

 

[cyril C]

So it was Ole who declined to sign Haaland due to the buyout clause and Ole who gave de Gea the huge contract when Henderson is making Sheffield United a contender for a CL spot with his outstanding play. That's disappointing.

Put the DDG and Henderson deal into perspective. When was DDG given a new deal? When was Henderson loan to Sheffield ? At the time when DDG was extended, have you or most people heard of Henderson? What was the option available should DDG leaves? I recall it was a debate on Alt Madrid keeper, our own #2, or any current EPL keeper

 

[cyril C]

Perhaps we need to understand the contribution of a DOF first. Unless you say the Head Coach report to a DOF, how would you balance the view between a strong headed coach (LVG, Mourinho) with a DOF and CEO? Can a CEO afford not to listen to LVG's request even though DOF made the opposite advice? We can probably came to the conclusion that LVG made the most wrong procurement, although everyone, Sir Alex included, had their fair share of failings.

If a CEO (and you guys as well?) wants to recruit a high profile Manager, then he must be given a high leverage on who he wants. In hindsight may be given a few ground rules to limit damage, such as

1. you can only recruit one 28+ player each season
2. Any expensive flop must be dealt with before you can proceed with another expensive recruit etc.

Even that won't address the issue of Di Maria, Depay, Lukaku, Pogba, as how they might fit in. In short, if you have a high profile Manager, DOF is very limited as long as CEO have the confidence in the Manager.

A second contribution is to manage your Scouts network better for more Hernandez, Evra, Matic, instead of paying 50m+ for any established players. Again, do you really need a DOF to manage that?

A 3rd contribution is to be the contact point for Agents and market information which is what Matt Judge is doing? Is he doing a good job?

If a DOF is doing great on #2 and #3, I believe he would have the trust of any CEO. Otherwise anyone dare to tell Pep that he can't spend 100m on 2x backup fullbacks?

 

[Rozay]

I don't know about Joe Kinnear or the chap you mentioned. I'm talking about clubs who are comparable to us from a prestige and financial level and Spurs aren't in that category. And even then, Spurs have had a plethora of failed managers until they finally achieved UCL qualification in 2010 by defeating City on the final day which changed their fortunes. Spurs also bought both Modric and Berbatov thanks to their DoF at the time which helped in their future success.

You have to give me a example of a incident, where at a comparable club a DoF is blamed for the short comings of a team. I can only think of Henrique at PSG and even then, PSG replaced him with another DoF who had close ties to the club.

If the manager fails it's because of his body of work, which is on the training ground and his efforts can be seen for us all to judge on match days and the league table.

With the DoF it's the same, but his body of work is different to the head coach and must be evaluated in a different way. If the DoF has brought in the right calibre of players that align with the philosophy of the club then he's blameless and the coaching aspect must be looked at. Bayern didn't sack Salihamidzic when Kovac was sacked but rather they have been praising him for his work.

Who determines whether the Director has bought in the right calibre of player? Especially if those players have underperformed?!! We can apparently say now (presumably because we don’t have a Director of Football) that we have bought in ‘the wrong players’ in recent years, players the same scholars were happy about us signing at the time - but if a DoF identifies a player, then it is the manager’s fault. If long-shot deals like Salah, Robertson hasn’t hit the heights they have done, you would have said ‘well these are clearly the right players, it’s Klopp’s fault?’.

Every advocate in this thread seems unable to see a scenario where we sign bad players or hire bad managers should we have a DoF, which is a ridiculous agenda to push or imply. All I’ve been countered with are utopian DoF set ups. ‘The DoF comes in, he sets out a style of play, he then hires the right manager for this style, then goes and gets him the exact players he needs. He has all the contacts in the game, he restructures the academy and presumably, we win the treble’. If only we got a Director of Football.

I’m sorry but it sounds to me like fans overreaching and probably overestimating their knowledge (massively). I guess we live in an era where a ‘thoughtful piece’ is published every couple of hours of explorative football journalism, and fans can quickly become quite the scholar - but structuring a huge football club, off the field, from top to bottom - I’m not buying that one. The off the field happenings at huge clubs are probably a lot greyer than fans think, and it would probably take one rare 5 minute interview with Ed Woodward to make us say ‘wow, it’s great to see what really happens at that level’. I just can’t buy all this definitive ‘the problem is the club’s structure is all wrong’ from fans.This isn’t personal, it’s more general, so apologies if it seems so, but I think the smart money is on a high likelihood that said fan hasn’t really got a clue what he or she’s talking about, and has put together a picture of how things work based on a few articles.

If United are happy with Nicky Butt leading the academy development and a transfer committee leading in recruitment, I don’t think we’re close to being qualified to call it the wrong set up. We can of course question the ability of the people based on the results that we CAN see - but to be calling for the structure to be changed is a reach.

Spurs bought Modric and Berbatov due to their DoF, as you said, they have also bought every unsuccessful signing due to their DoF too. Every good player we have signed has been down to our own structure I suppose too. We’ve had more of them than Spurs have. That football team, by all accounts, was transformed by Mauricio Pochettino, I don’t see the need to over complicate it. He was a top manager for them and made the team challenge. We need similar.

You say ‘if a manager fails it’s because of his body of work, in the training ground and we can judge based on the table’. So are we not allowed to question whether the players are good enough? Who brought them in? Managers work on the training ground is apparently pre-programmes anyway, given a ‘Director has chosen the manager who has his philosophy and follows his style of play’. In such a set up, surely any failings on the pitch would be just as much the fault of a director?

For the record, I’m not anti-DOF. I’m sure we could get a Director and be a successful football team. It is the implication that we CANNOT be a successful football team if we don’t that I find likely rubbish. Are all of our future signings, youth development condemned to failure then if the model stays as it is? Whatever model we opt for, if that’s how we want to do it, then just do it properly. If we go down the route of a Director, it is highly imperative that we get an effective one, and if we go down this route - then we need effective people working in tandem. The emphasis on the structure sounds far-fetched to me.

 

[Adnan]

Who determines whether the Director has bought in the right calibre of player? Especially if those players have underperformed?!! We can apparently say now (presumably because we don’t have a Director of Football) that we have bought in ‘the wrong players’ in recent years, players the same scholars were happy about us signing at the time - but if a DoF identifies a player, then it is the manager’s fault. If long-shot deals like Salah, Robertson hasn’t hit the heights they have done, you would have said ‘well these are clearly the right players, it’s Klopp’s fault?’.

Every advocate in this thread seems unable to see a scenario where we sign bad players or hire bad managers should we have a DoF, which is a ridiculous agenda to push or imply. All I’ve been countered with are utopian DoF set ups. ‘The DoF comes in, he sets out a style of play, he then hires the right manager for this style, then goes and gets him the exact players he needs. He has all the contacts in the game, he restructures the academy and presumably, we win the treble’. If only we got a Director of Football.

I’m sorry but it sounds to me like fans overreaching and probably overestimating their knowledge (massively). I guess we live in an era where a ‘thoughtful piece’ is published every couple of hours of explorative football journalism, and fans can quickly become quite the scholar - but structuring a huge football club, off the field, from top to bottom - I’m not buying that one. The off the field happenings at huge clubs are probably a lot greyer than fans think, and it would probably take one rare 5 minute interview with Ed Woodward to make us say ‘wow, it’s great to see what really happens at that level’. I just can’t buy all this definitive ‘the problem is the club’s structure is all wrong’ from fans.This isn’t personal, it’s more general, so apologies if it seems so, but I think the smart money is on a high likelihood that said fan hasn’t really got a clue what he or she’s talking about, and has put together a picture of how things work based on a few articles.

If United are happy with Nicky Butt leading the academy development and a transfer committee leading in recruitment, I don’t think we’re close to being qualified to call it the wrong set up. We can of course question the ability of the people based on the results that we CAN see - but to be calling for the structure to be changed is a reach.

Spurs bought Modric and Berbatov due to their DoF, as you said, they have also bought every unsuccessful signing due to their DoF too. Every good player we have signed has been down to our own structure I suppose too. We’ve had more of them than Spurs have. That football team, by all accounts, was transformed by Mauricio Pochettino, I don’t see the need to over complicate it. He was a top manager for them and made the team challenge. We need similar.

You say ‘if a manager fails it’s because of his body of work, in the training ground and we can judge based on the table’. So are we not allowed to question whether the players are good enough? Who brought them in? Managers work on the training ground is apparently pre-programmes anyway, given a ‘Director has chosen the manager who has his philosophy and follows his style of play’. In such a set up, surely any failings on the pitch would be just as much the fault of a director?

For the record, I’m not anti-DOF. I’m sure we could get a Director and be a successful football team. It is the implication that we CANNOT be a successful football team if we don’t that I find likely rubbish. Are all of our future signings, youth development condemned to failure then if the model stays as it is? Whatever model we opt for, if that’s how we want to do it, then just do it properly. If we go down the route of a Director, it is highly imperative that we get an effective one, and if we go down this route - then we need effective people working in tandem. The emphasis on the structure sounds far-fetched to me.

Who determines whether the director has bought in the right players? The football experts at the club can determine if the calibre of players being bought are of the requisite quality and there's one very high profile figure already at the club who has European and English football experience who could make that assessment in Marcel Bout. At Bayern you had ex players at board room level who assessed Sammer in the past and currently Salihamidzic. But ultimately it comes down to results and the honours you win and clubs who have a dedicated person running the football department are far more successful. Top clubs in Germany, Holland, Spain, France, Italy have something in common and you know what that is...

When a club wastes Huge sums of money for several years and doesn't come close to winning the title or even worse in our case struggles to make top 4 consistently then questions will be asked and should be asked because incompetence has played a huge part. There's a reason why Fergie has pointed out the hierarchy at Bayern for praise and admires the way they run the club. And even though I disagree with Gary Neville on many things I agree with him when he says we need a DoF.

Spurs bought Berbatov and Modric due to the work of Damien Comolli who was their DoF at the time but his main role with the exception of about 5 first team signings was to work at academy level. So no, apart from a handful of first team signings he had very little input at first team level when it came to signing players.

That team wasn't transformed under Pochettino. That team was actually transformed way before Pochettino arrived. The work done behind the scenes was coming to fruition and it was under Harry Redknapp they qualified for the UCL for the first time which opened up many doors for Spurs and Levy. Poch did well no doubt, but the work behind the scenes was what laid the foundations for Spurs to have a very competitive team, which really should've seen Spurs win a trophy or two under Poch but he failed IMO.

I have never said the only way to win is via a DoF. I have actually in this very thread said that we can be successful with the manager model of running things, but that manager has to last at least survive 5 years for it to work. Or you end up with a repeat of the shenanigans we've seen in the last 7 years with constant rebuilds. For any set up to work there has to be stability and we've had very little stability post Fergie. And in that time it's also pretty obvious to me at least that Ed Woodward has been very naive in giving too much autonomy to the managers in the transfer market. It's about time the club better managed their money rather than bowing to manager demands which has placed us in this mess which we're trying to get out of now.

 

[lex talionis]

I'm not against a DoF, but having a DoF is in no way a precondition for club success. But bringing in the right man for the job, with everyone in management fully bought into it, especially with what we all have to acknowledge is a relatively inexperienced manager, could help take us to the next level. Up, hopefully!

 

[alexthelion]

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.

What?

How in the name of Hell can you say that without knowing who the DoF/SD was? His signings could be just as bad or worse than the ones we made.

 

[Adnan]

What?

How in the name of Hell can you say that without knowing who the DoF/SD was? His signings could be just as bad or worse than the ones we made.

Because when big clubs hire Sporting directors they hire from with-in the organization. Which in-turn aligns with the philosophy of the club going forward and reflects on the signings made. In such a scenario you don't go from a pragmatic approach to a possession based one and then back to a pragmatic approach again. It's a approach that provides stability hence the most successful clubs in the world use it.

 

[Red Star One]

I’m reading Luis Campos of Lille has requested to leave the club. One of the best directors of football around and I’d be very happy if we were monitoring him.

 

[croadyman]

Maybe if we weren't so stubborn about no Director of Football we would do deals efficiently like our rivals

 

[Adnan]

Maybe if we weren't so stubborn about no Director of Football we would do deals efficiently like our rivals

I don't think our problem has been efficiency, but rather targeting the wrong players which the managers take a huge portion of the blame.

 

[croadyman]

I don't think our problem has been efficiency, but rather targeting the wrong players which the managers take a huge portion of the blame.

Do you think we have made a mistake in not going for Werner and keeping Ighalo.

Who will we bring in this summer in your opinion

 

[Rozay]

Do you think we have made a mistake in not going for Werner and keeping Ighalo.

Who will we bring in this summer in your opinion

DoF’s can’t magic money. We’d still have a budget. Do you think we opted to extend a loan deal of a 30 year old journeyman striker because we objectively looked at both and concluded that Ighalo was simply better at football?

There is huge difference in their valuations this summer.

 

[croadyman]

DoF’s can’t magic money. We’d still have a budget. Do you think we opted to extend a loan deal of a 30 year old journeyman striker because we objectively looked at both and concluded that Ighalo was simply better at football?

There is huge difference in their valuations this summer.

So do you think we will still get Sancho at the end of the season or Chelsea going to steal him last minute

 

[Adnan]

Do you think we have made a mistake in not going for Werner and keeping Ighalo.

Who will we bring in this summer in your opinion

I'm of the opinion that we should focus on vastly improving the supply line to the strikers. A right sided attacker like Sancho will do that, and I do think we will sign him. Sancho, Pogba and Fernandes have the poise and guile to open up stubborn defences and that will hold us in good stead.

I'd personally wait a season to get a new striker because there isn't anyone that really stands out right now. I'm also not the biggest fan of Werner either and feel someone better or with higher potential will emerge next year.

 

[Rozay]

So do you think we will still get Sancho at the end of the season or Chelsea going to steal him last minute

I think we will get him, but that is from a vantage point 2 millions of miles from the situation. Who really knows what will happen?

He may well go to Chelsea - but I imagine that will be down to Jadon Sancho rather than some suit at either club, providing the money is right of course. The player will do what he wants, and despite tonnes of speculative articles - the player hasn’t announced what it is that he wants. If the market presents two viable options to him, he may well go to Chelsea. It will only be seen as them ‘stealing’ him to the likes of Goldbridge who seems to be producing media everyday practically referring to Sancho as a United player. Or by posters who conjure the same scenario every year where they find a way to eliminate every other potential destination for a player except us - due to them working out that club x wouldn’t want him because they have player y, the player himself wouldn’t ever go there because of player y, club x can’t afford it because of z and so on. Then sometimes the other club just goes and signs the player.

If he wants to come here, and we want him to come here - the deal will be done, regardless of whether our club is run by Woodward or Andrea Berta, or if we simply cannot afford him, the deal will not be done - regardless of whether we are run by Woodward or Andrea Berta.

We get this sort of reaction every year whenever our rivals sign a decent player. Now it’s Werner. Summer was Ndombele. We had the same DoF nonsense in January because a football club other than United signed fecking Minamino. There seems to be a simple logic that if a decent club want a player, then Manchester United should want him too, because if he was no good, club x wouldn’t have wanted him. So we are therefore stupid and have a poor strategy in the market. It doesn’t even matter whether that player is a Minamino who the poster had only found out existed 2 weeks prior.

From the sound of things, we have done everything right so far regarding out pursuit of Sancho. If we do the last bit right (offering the right money), it’s out of our hands from there.

 

[hmchan]

Because when big clubs hire Sporting directors they hire from with-in the organization. Which in-turn aligns with the philosophy of the club going forward and reflects on the signings made. In such a scenario you don't go from a pragmatic approach to a possession based one and then back to a pragmatic approach again. It's a approach that provides stability hence the most successful clubs in the world use it.

So what's the philosophy of our club? 4-4-2? Crossing from the wing? Is the manager supposed to stick with that philosophy when it's clearly outdated, or when he's not familiar with that philosophy at all? Is it the DoF or the manager who decides the playstyle and tactic for the team? Which clubs have been successful in maintaining stability with a constant philosophy over the years?

I'm not against the idea of appointing a DoF. He may help out in transfer negotiation, contract renewal etc., which Woodward is not doing so well. But I doubt a DoF is really that magical and capable of providing stability to the team. The ultimate reason why we can't achieve higher is because of the lack of ambition from the owner, and I doubt hiring a DoF is an answer to that.

 

[KM]

I'm closing this thread, there's no concrete news right now regarding it and people keep on bumping it just to have a moan. It's serving no purpose.