Of course we shouldn't but when we do finally get rid of them the sensible thing would be to bring in a lot better players than them, no? Don't you think Haaland, Sancho, Grealish, Ndidi, Kounde would do a better job than these players? Why should it be different in the managerial positions?
Manchester United name John Murtough as Football Director and Darren Fletcher as Technical Director
- Thread starter Tom Van Persie
- Start date
Of course we shouldn't but when we do finally get rid of them the sensible thing would be to bring in a lot better players than them, no? Don't you think Haaland, Sancho, Grealish, Ndidi, Kounde would do a better job than these players? Why should it be different in the managerial positions?
If Murtough fails we can give it to Riggs until the end of the season.
Teams tend to play with at least two CB’s in fairness.
You do know that most teams play with (at least) 2 CB's, right?
Not to mention that in the summer when the window opens he'll have played 2 full seasons here.
That's not us just having bought one recently.
Plus having sold 3 CB's since, with another 1 or 2 possibly going (Jones / Tuanzebe).
Atm we essentially have 1 starting CB and 2 other who keeps swapping on who's injured at the moment.
Not really that weird we might be looking to add another CB to partner that 80m signing and in general give us more options when the games come tight.
Murtaugh in his 46th day negotiating with Raiola over Haaland transfer.
One day after talking with Ed about his plans.
Sorry, I didn’t answer a post about quality, I answered a post about experience. I would have Haaland and Sancho in a jiffy, because of their quality, and in spite of their lack of experience.
As for Murtoughs qualities for being football director at United compared to, say, Paratici, I really couldn’t say. Those who have seen him work at Everton, the FA and at United probably know more about that. it seems they have all been impressed.
Have I said anything about that? Meaningless post just trying to be clever. It says a lot of the state of our CBs but according to everyone, United is best!!!!!!½! Ole is king!!!!!!!
So if things don't go well you just keep sacking the coach whilst keeping the bloke that's actually in charge?
I get that it could be advantageous to have someone other than the manager advising the board on long-term strategy, but for that person to be dictating things and controlling the coach, yeah, I'd be against that.
Pep got 100 points with Fabian Delph and Stones as regulars in his team. Maguire and AWB can 100% be part of title winning teams. Walker was his starting RB as well and his profile is very similar to AWB but he`s a little better going forward
Yeah our defence has gotten worse this season no lie but context is important this hasn`t been a regular season and our lack of pre season affected us for a big part of the first half of the PL season and the City game alongside other big games have shown solidity is still there in our defence albeit in a different tactic but with a new CB it will only get better.
Not necessarily, if things aren't going the way they were supposed to it's the job of decision makers to evaluate the situation and determine why and take the measures that will fix it with the best efficiency possible. If the CEO believes that the DoF is responsible then he may lose his job.
You for real? You're claiming Phelan is the main coach in training?
He was put on a Manchester United Grad scheme. Where you spend a whole year going through different departments. But at the end of it you are 90% guaranteed to get a job. Lucky for him he got technical director.
So enlighten me, what’s the difference between chief scout, technical scout and head of global scouting?Club Hierarchy according to the Athletic
Is it the shorts they wear?
Only his performances will ensure he's in it (as manager) for the long run. Nobody can put in place structure to keep themselves Manchester United manager. Other positions, maybe. Not the manager, it's too dependent on success.
The last two have not impressed me one bit but everyone raves about them.
Forget Haaland he’s on his journey to world superstardom and we’re not going on it with him
These things need time. Next 3 PL games should tell us everything.
The West Ham game is the first real test
Even with experience I think it says that sometimes no matter how long you get people just don't make the grade which is my major beef with the new shakeup. If we already had experience in place then we can afford to take a little more risk but having inexperience at so many levels of our club for me is going to be detrimental on our long term and Eds answer to it will probably be to bring in another "he gets the club" type person instead of getting rid of ineffective personal.
To me the common denominator with all these posts is not one of them are going to shake the tree which is basically all that Ed wants and at the same time has taken himself out of the firing line. Win win for him but will it advance the club?
Fair points but my argument was if we get rid of players we should be expected to bring in better ones so insert your own favourites, not buy inexperienced ones and hope they become good which is basically what's happening with our managerial hierarchy.
If this doesn't work the person who should be replaced is Ed and to be honest his pal Matt can go too.
I've no doubt both of these appointments will benefit us though.
I've no doubt both of these appointments will benefit us though.
I went with the "Trailer Park Boys" reference over "The Office". I am Canadian after all
I don't understand how our recruitment is terrible if we've got a great squad.
I think you are too preoccupied with Ed if your focus is to shake up the tree and put Ed in the firing line. Our fall from grace has been synonymous with treeshaking and Ed in the firing line, whereas the last years have seen a growth in continuity on several levels, and Ed relinquishing responsibility for football task to those more suited. And as a result we now look better both as a team and as a club, and we seem to be on a path of gradual steady improvement.
John Murtough is not inexperienced, and the more I read about him from behind the scenes, the better he looks. He is creditet with a brilliant job as Head of Development at Everton. He was singled out by the FA as a special talent and was Head of Development in the middle of a big push by the FA to lift English player development to the levels of Spain and Germany. He has been responsible for the grand upheaval of our own Academy system which had declined beyond recognition and is now one of the most impressive. He has overseen the buildup of the women’s side that has gone from zero, to Championship, to breaking into the Big Three within three seasons. He has been credited with building a data sports science department soon to be launched, bringing United up to speed with City, Liverpool and Leicester in that department. Everyone who has worked with him or met him seem to be full of praise. He seems modern, inventive, thorough, goal achieving, visionary and hands on, and has a lot of relevant experience on top of a degree in sports science. I think he sounds like exactly the type of person we should remove Ed from the firing line for, and more importantly, whome Ed should relinquish his gun to.
The fact that you say not necessarily means you think a DoF who, in your words, should control and dictate the coaches, the team and who plays in the team, should have more power than the manager, but less accountability. Can't agree with that.
I've no great faith in the origin of the chart published in the press, but if it is reasonably accurate it looks about right to me. The football director would have a very significant role, but not be in immediate charge of the manager.
Last edited:
This is going to create loads of new roles in FM22. They currently have Nicky Butt as TD & bugger all else really.
We have a great squad mostly thanks to our academy and some earlier buys that were hits: Shaw, Rashford, Greenwood, Martial, Bruno, Pogba etc. Maybe time to include McTominay there as well.
A DoF generally controls the football side of a football club. People complain about the fact that someone like Woodward isn't a football man and then also complain when a role put a football man in control of the football side. Director of Football is supposed to be a major role in the structure, he isn't the equal of the head coach, he is the one hiring the head coach while the CEO for examples hires and manages the DoF, CFO and COO.
The DoF is accountable to the CEO, that's why I said that it depends on what the CEO thinks of the situation. A DoF could be sacked for reasons that aren't linked to the head coach and his performances.
I think this is about evolution rather than revolution. I'm sure this guy is a safe pair of hands who will help continue our progression. But that's not what everyone wants. They want a DoF who seen it and done it. Someone with a track record of doing great deals and an amazing contacts list. Someone who can transform us into a world force. This appointment suggests that we're not going to be suddenly getting in any great signings this summer. Because had we got a big hitter, Ed knows that would have been the expectation. Too dangerous. Too hard to spin if our shiny new DOF with a track record of being amazing suddenly failed in his first season at United. So this way, he puts in someone whos safer, who won't rock the boat or make the waters too choppy. Which is underwhelming, to say the least. I'm happy this position has been created. It just speaks volumes of where our club is at regarding ambition. It's not that they don't have it, it's simply that they're taking the long, more sustainable route to get it. More of a Bayern approach. But not one that will make us competitive anytime soon. So, because of that, it's rather disappointing and confirms all the fears we have about the Glazers and Woodward. As for Judge, that's the most disappointing of all.
I was talking shit, and I'm terrible at passive aggressive sarcasm on the internet.
My initial post cited me as finding them uninspiring and having no clue what the players feel. Me, a random poster on an internet forum who's opinion really matters nada yet struck a nerve because I do not find these current names inspiring. If the players do that's all that truly matters.
It's subjective to those names being more qualified than Queiroz who apparently had a high grade amongst those in the game during that time and had been a manager at numerous levels and regions, which I'd argue makes him more qualified to be a top assistant. Frank Lampard is more qualified in your estimation. David May would be as well if wanted to coach at the club. The list is endless in such view. It came off as gotta defend Carrick et al, top red stuff.
Queiroz was rated high enough for SAF of all persons to bring in as his top assistant, with perhaps talks of potentially succeeding (which never materialized obviously). SAF also rated Queiroz high enough to anoint him ahead of Phelan and Ryan, both of whom you argue were more proven and inspiring in 2002. I disagree but ultimately don't care.
I disagree, if they wanted to have a subpar window in terms of I comings then why not wait until after the window before appointing him? They can then state they weren't happy with the window and this is how they aim to fix it.
I expect us to sign at least 1 WC talent this summer, and then plug 2-3 gaps in the team to get him off to a good start. Woodward is still human and the criticism he has received won't have gone down well with him, and he'll know that if he can help us get back to being successful that a lot of that criticism will subside.
Queiroz had managed SCP and then national teams, he was a lot more proven than Phelan who had very little reputation in 2002.
Indeed. More power but less accountability, as I said.
I don't think anyone is in too much doubt about the role of a DoF, the disagreement is whether we want it or not. As it happens it looks like that's not what we're getting, but it's only newspaper reports, the reality might turn out to be what you want after all, who knows.
This DOF role discussion... I've always presumed it's similar to a General Manager role in US sports. The GM is over all facets of the sports side of things - coaching, scouting, player personnel, etc. Everyone reports to the GM although some coaches are such high profile they sometimes wield more power than a GM (or hold both titles).
So fletcher not coaching with the first team anymore then?
Why less accountability? Do you use the same logic for an accountant and the CFO or the head coach and his assistants?
Thanks for the links. Yeah, good job, and that does look sensible to me.
I can't say I have read on this too-too much, but my impression is that, while DoFs at other clubs are often heavily involved in the long-term of the actual on-the-field direction of the club (e.g., we want to play possession football, so we'll hire coaches and players compatible with that), that won't be Murtough's direct responsibility. My impression is that he's the overall manager, making sure things move along within his 'department', and that on-the-field direction is rather delegated to the Technical Director (long-term; Fletcher) and the Head Coach (short-term; Solskjær). I might be wrong, and I am unsure about Fletcher's role specifically (does he get those more practical DoF responsibilities?), but it sounds like a sensible setup to me and a good fit for Murtough's skills.
I have no issue with the setup, it's just a stretch to call it DoF if he is a just a glorified negotiator and it's not comparable to other clubs. The only thing we can do is give it time and see how it works.
You know the answer, it's been said many times. If things don't go well the coach is sacked and the DoF carries on, it could be several coaches sacked before he is held responsible.
Again, I don't think anyone fails to understand the role of DoF, we just don't want it.