I can see why they felt they could promote him
Manchester United name John Murtough as Football Director and Darren Fletcher as Technical Director
- Thread starter Tom Van Persie
- Start date
Yet we still buy from the manager's shopping list as we've always done. We still buy players in their 30s on silly money with no regard of their position (DM is hugely dependent on legwork so buying a 30 year old is stupid, surely Murtough's data analysts must have known that) and injury record (ex Varane). We still overpay in terms of salaries and fees. We still have waves upon waves of injuries, we still have leaks, we still have petulance (ex Sancho) and our squad is possibly the least fit squad in the EPL. Murtough was also involved in some of the silliest decisions made like for example bringing Rangnick and giving him near no support whatsoever (we even rescinded the offer we gave him so he would remain involved in the club) pursuing De Jong for the entire summer only to buy a 30 year old DM on silly money/salary whose completely different to him, spending 100m on Anthony and going to Barcelona and Turin only to come back with a packet of crisps. I wonder if data analysis would unearthed that as silly.
Regarding rebuilding well all we did was sacking managers. In terms of higher ups we replaced one CEO from PWC and Uni of Bristol with another CEO from PWC and Uni of Bristol and we kept hiring from within (Murtough, Fletcher etc) all of whom are still at the club.
Regarding Mitchell he's been around since 2010 when he became head of recruitment of MK Dons. So he's hardly the latest fad.
Mitchell as sporting director and Freedman as head of recruitment?
Mitchell appointment makes sense. He's a Manchester lad who went up to the top from MK Dons to Southampton right to Spurs. Thus he had built contacts at every level in English football. He then went abroad were he worked with Rangnick in Germany. Finally he moved to Monaco. There's rumors out there that SJR wanted him at NICE only for Mitchell to turn him down as he wanted to return home. So we've got a Manchester lad who gained experience and had built contacts both in England and in two of the most exciting leagues in the world. He wants to settle in Manchester and he knows the culture and the expectations very well. On top of that his former mentor Rangnick is just a phone away. The German can provide him with quite some good information of what's wrong at the club
It doesn't make sense to me because why either of them will accept this ?
Why Freedman will take a job of head of recruitment when he's a DOF ? Why Mitchell would want him and not bring his own people ?
All these role definitions are quite fluid, it's not like "Director of Football" is a specific job description that is the same for every club.
So why would Freedman accept? Probably more money, also he might prefer focusing on this aspect of the job.
And why would Mitchell want him? Probably because he is quite good at this job.
And it makes sense NOT working together with all the same people all the time, you need a bit of a mix over time to get new impulses and prevent building an echo chamber that misses developments in the rest of the football work. That does apply to any career that has some creative/development aspect.
Mitchell had one stint as sporting director and that was 1 year at Monaco. Prior to that he was head of recruitment in most jobs (Mk dons, Saints, Spurs, Leipzig) and technical director at Red bull. The sporting director role is more senior then Head of Recruitment and Technical director. Thus Mitchell probably have no 'own people' in that role to start with. His experience in football is great but not as a sporting director. Thus it makes sense to hire a person under him whose more experience in the job then the average guy. Freedman has been Sporting Director at Palace for 5 years. Its his first role in it which makes him not exactly a seasoned Sporting director but he's certainly more then experienced to be Mitchell's no 2 in all but name. On top of that he's SAF' s former neighbor which means that the two probably have good relations. Maldini is also mentioned whose the Cadillac of Technical directors having done an exceptional job at AC Milan. It seems that INEOS want to bring a stellar team all of whom with experience in buying and developing gems
Manchester United are massive. SAF had no 2s who could have easily been no 1s (Mclaren, Smith and Queroz), the latter covered roles at Real and Portugal. So this would not be the first step down in United's history.
Mitchell has been after a role above DOF for some time, it wouldnt shock me if he was a sporting director and Friedman was a more traditional DOF or head of first team recruitment - basically what darren fletcher is supposed to be doing.
Yep spot on, exciting to have an actual structure in place.
on the flip i dont think Qatar would have been as pragmatic. It would have been "whos a name and how much"
I don't want to return talking about Qatar simply because it has zero relevance at this point. However since you've asked I think that the scenario would be different if Jassim took over
First of all he would have gotten rid of the Glazers. That's a huge moral boost for them as opposed to SJR whose keeping them here. The 92 foundation would probably engage themselves into huge infrastructure work which will earn them more brownie points among fans and would take most of their focus. That's less pressure on them as opposed to INEOS. On the other hand INEOS has the luxury of being experienced in football and therefore having a number of people either employed with them (ex Blanc) or in their radar (ex Mitchell). That's something the 92 foundation didn't have. The 92 foundation would probably take more time to settle down/learn the ropes and would probably let the current football people on board for longer. Thus rumors of Arnold preferring them to INEOS makes sense.
Fletcher's job is not in recruitment. His job is to help academy players integrate with the first team. He's got a reduced version of the role that Maldini had at Milan (Maldini had a toe in transfers as well)
I agree.
It’s not what Fletcher is supposed to be doing. His job is helping kids transition to the 1st team. Nothing to do with recruitment. Another one falling for the shitty job title.
He is somewhat involved in recruitment though, although not remotely a head of recruitment. The transitioning of academy players with the first team is only a part of his job, not its entirety.
He was heavily credited with convincing Varane to join. His role involves giving his opinion on the technical requirements of the first team to the board and being a link between ETH and Murtough. He also is involved in recruitment by being involved in discussions with potential players.
People complained incessantly about us not having football people to convince new signings when Evra or someone mentioned it. Fletcher now does that. Similarly everyone complained about the disconnect between the manager and the board/Woodward. Fletcher is now the link, this is why he is involved in training and the day to day football side, to evaluate and report to Murtough.
Yes he sometimes gets involved in “selling” the club to prospective joiners talking about his own experiences, history and culture of the club.
But let’s draw the line at that before people start blaming him for recruiting or for high salaries. That’s not on him at all.
Pretty sure Murtough has one and ETH has one. That's why we didn't go for Kane. The club vetoed that move.
You're right about what Murtough should have been doing but I wonder if he was empowered to do that or only when like Kane and Antony initially, the Glazers backed him? Fine with him being fired but wouldn't be surprised if behind the scenes it was Joel who authorized the amount of control ETH had and not Arnold/Murtough.
Yeah we don't want a Chelsea situation where there were too many cooks and one of them got removed in the summer I think?
Fletcher's job in recruitment is supposed to be giving an opinion. He's not making decisions on bringing in transfers.
Yes, this.
The winds of change are a'comin. I am fecking excited.
That cant be entirely right. From the start the general consensus was that we were over manager subservient team building. It was even a huge part of the hype for his appointment. This was well foreseen from the start, no hindsight.
Finally gone/going
1. Ed
2. Arnold
3. Murtough
We need to start a new era with proper football structure. We can't be going round and round on spending 0.5B and 3 years for every manager and end up worse each and every time.
1. Ed
2. Arnold
3. Murtough
We need to start a new era with proper football structure. We can't be going round and round on spending 0.5B and 3 years for every manager and end up worse each and every time.
I could definitely get on board with more than one appointment in recruitment,however until I hear that from a stronger source than Crook I'm skeptical. Don’t think there is any legs to Maldini stuff it's just throwing names out for attention.
About time the club acts like a giant successful organization where good enough or decent is not enough and keep looking for the best people for the job.
I think what we need to consider is what level of authority we are willing to give to our director of football.
Some clubs have their DoF at the top of the pyramid, they choose the style of play, they have the final decision on transfers and even youth team integration.
For this role, you’d want someone like Rangnick.
Then you have the likes of Paul Mitchell and Micheal Edwards who excel at recruitment, youth team integration and working towards a long term strategy but without being as involved with the style of play.
Some clubs have their DoF at the top of the pyramid, they choose the style of play, they have the final decision on transfers and even youth team integration.
For this role, you’d want someone like Rangnick.
Then you have the likes of Paul Mitchell and Micheal Edwards who excel at recruitment, youth team integration and working towards a long term strategy but without being as involved with the style of play.
I would how long it will be before we see any (hopefully) benefit from this new structure?
January
I'd like to think Mitchell will come in with a big fat list of players that we probably haven't even heard of.
Maldini would immediately make us cooler. But he’s the definition of the one club man and will probably never leave Milan.
Id prefer Mitchell over Freedman if they are indeed the top 2 candidates. I’m not sure if I’d consider Palace a hugely successful project, plus I think to really be considered great at what you do, you’ve got to have proved it at more than one club.
Id prefer Mitchell over Freedman if they are indeed the top 2 candidates. I’m not sure if I’d consider Palace a hugely successful project, plus I think to really be considered great at what you do, you’ve got to have proved it at more than one club.
Maldini had a different role to Mitchell and Freedman though. He was a technical director and tbf he was quite great in it. Also think about the name. If the next Haaland is on the market whom would you prefer to have him persuading him a 5 CL winner medal or a former United squad player? The guy won more CLs then our club
Looks like some competent people are finally taking over. I am all for a clear out
Literally hasn’t taken office yet so has no power to do anything. Let’s wait before passing judgement.
Arnold has jumped before he was pushed and Murtough hasn’t left yet, so be interesting to see if he too jumps before he is pushed or is moved elsewhere within the club. (Once INEOS takes over)
To give INEOS credit for this is just downright rose tinted celebratory nonsense
He hasn’t gone yet, but be interesting to see who the next guy is & what they’ll do & of course I’ll defend them relentlessly too. Haha!
He was sacked in the summer.
I think Murtough will be the test. If he's not on his way fairly soon we will know it's the same old, same old.
He’s already been let go
I think Fletcher's job is safe. However I won't be surprised if Maldini is brought in as technical director.
A- INEOS seems to go for the very best (Blanc as CEO, Mitchell as DOF etc. There aren't many technical directors who did as well in their job as Maldini did with Milan. He was a key member in their Serie A winner campaign and when he was sacked the Milan fans were at arms
B- Maldini is a football icon. Schmeichel called him football royalty and you can see the likes of Schmeichel, Henry, Carra and Richards acting like 12 year old teenagers at his presence. That's an aura that very few players have.
C- Maldini knows what winning is all about. The guy won 26 trophies including 5 CL titles.
D- His experience is amazing. A son of a top player and a decent manager himself. Maldini was literally raised in football. He was a top talent into a world class academy, he played in one of the earliest Galactico type teams (in my opinion it was better then Pep's Barca), he saw Milan's transition into a cash strapped one who kept punching above its weight and when he returned to AC Milan as technical director they won the Serie A title despite being cashed strapped.
E- Maldini is vocal and will challenge the system. Berlusconi kept him out for that reason and it was one of the reasons why Cardinale wants him out. Ineos seem to love people with character who think out of the box (Brailsford, Mitchell etc)
F-Maldini seem to have had a more senior role then the one covered by Fletcher. He was more involved in transfers for example
G- United look set to have a very British football setup with Mitchell, Freedman and possibly SAF acting as advisor. Now Mitchell brings to the table his contacts from the German league + EPL league, Ineos and Blanc has great contacts in France while SAF is the don in the UK. Maldini on the other hand brings a huge wealth of knowledge and contacts in the Serie A and beyond. Every one idolize this guy from Puyol to Pep right to Ibra, Henry etc.
Personally I wouldn't want Maldini as our DOF. He's not experienced enough for the role. However as said as a technical director he would be mint
A- INEOS seems to go for the very best (Blanc as CEO, Mitchell as DOF etc. There aren't many technical directors who did as well in their job as Maldini did with Milan. He was a key member in their Serie A winner campaign and when he was sacked the Milan fans were at arms
B- Maldini is a football icon. Schmeichel called him football royalty and you can see the likes of Schmeichel, Henry, Carra and Richards acting like 12 year old teenagers at his presence. That's an aura that very few players have.
C- Maldini knows what winning is all about. The guy won 26 trophies including 5 CL titles.
D- His experience is amazing. A son of a top player and a decent manager himself. Maldini was literally raised in football. He was a top talent into a world class academy, he played in one of the earliest Galactico type teams (in my opinion it was better then Pep's Barca), he saw Milan's transition into a cash strapped one who kept punching above its weight and when he returned to AC Milan as technical director they won the Serie A title despite being cashed strapped.
E- Maldini is vocal and will challenge the system. Berlusconi kept him out for that reason and it was one of the reasons why Cardinale wants him out. Ineos seem to love people with character who think out of the box (Brailsford, Mitchell etc)
F-Maldini seem to have had a more senior role then the one covered by Fletcher. He was more involved in transfers for example
G- United look set to have a very British football setup with Mitchell, Freedman and possibly SAF acting as advisor. Now Mitchell brings to the table his contacts from the German league + EPL league, Ineos and Blanc has great contacts in France while SAF is the don in the UK. Maldini on the other hand brings a huge wealth of knowledge and contacts in the Serie A and beyond. Every one idolize this guy from Puyol to Pep right to Ibra, Henry etc.
Personally I wouldn't want Maldini as our DOF. He's not experienced enough for the role. However as said as a technical director he would be mint
Last edited:
I wouldn't be too bothered with the style, that will change with the coach, I'd be more concerned with the technical, tactical and physical level of the said players because at the end of the day football is still football and its about being stronger, faster and good with the ball as well as the mental aspects. Roy Keane wouldn't have flopped in a Cruyff team and Sir Alex had Carrick, the closest version to Busquerts or Guardiola himself you'd ever find anchoring his midfield for 7 to 8 seasons.
Wow...still can't believe that we are finally trying to get real football people in. Its unbelievable that we are now link with people like Mitchel, Maldini, Freedman, Edward and etc.
I think the final step in the process will be the manager. As it stands now, we are nowhere good enough and no proper style of play. We need to modernize everything in the club.
I think the final step in the process will be the manager. As it stands now, we are nowhere good enough and no proper style of play. We need to modernize everything in the club.