Might the job be too big for any normal manager, could a Director of Football figure be required?

Nick 0208 Ldn

News 24
Joined
Mar 10, 2004
Messages
23,721
It is quite possible that Moyes underestimated the demands of managing when part of such a large organisation, and although Fergie kept tabs on most if not all aspects of the he had learn how to delegate too.

Now It may be that Moyes doesn't wish to give up influence in some areas yet could he argue against help being offered so far as recruitment goes?

I was listening to the United We Stand podcast yesterday and they highlighted the sheer scale of the scouting operation at a club like Barcelona, almost like a civil service which remains constant despite changes in the corridors of power. United's system has been centred around personal relationships and contacts although it is unlikely that these were transferred en masse to the Everton scouts Dave introduced.

Any thoughts or strong opinions either way?
 
In Germany pretty much all clubs are run like this. Here the director of football is in a both equal and supervisor of the coach. Especially if you have strong personalities like Sammer (or Hoeneß).

I never really understood the English concept of one person handling both responsiblities, since the club puts all of his eggs in one basket in terms of signings and it probably distracts from coaching.
What especially bothers me about is that coach and club might not have the same long term goals. If your manager sees his club as a stepping stone he might sacrifice long term success for short term successs even though it might be worse for the club in the long run.

Take Mourinho for example, who won Inter the Champions League, but on the other hand left them with an over-aged sated squad that collapsed the second he switched jobs.
 
do.ob said:
In Germany pretty much all clubs are run like this. Here the director of football is in a both equal and supervisor of the coach. Especially if you have strong personalities like Sammer (or Hoeneß).
Click to expand...

Most clubs in the world do it this way. A lot of clubs in the PL as well. WBA doesn't even have a manager. They have a head coach.
 
Moyes is supposed to be replacing that relationship based scouting system with the more scientific and thorough approach he had at Everton though.

Right now I think we have enough problems without adding a DOF into the mix. Personally, I dislike that structure and don't feel it'd suit our club at all.

If the manager requested a DOF (as AVB apparently did) then I might reconsider my opinion but, until that happens, I say no. After all, the manager can already delegate responsibility if he wants to, no?
 
I'm more worried about the coaching and effect our decision has on the pitch, where the actual match is played. There appears to be a sense among some people that being stable will somehow create good results, using some kind of magic.

Moyes appears to have gone the other way to most modern clubs and taken on even more responsibility than Ferguson. To the point of laying cones and bibs out himself. I would be comfortable with this if he was a particularly progressive manager or was clearly implementing fresh ideas. Sponsorship deals aside, as a whole club we seem to be living in 1998. Low transfer bids, unsophisticated tactics and a very stubborn approach to evolution
 
It depends on who is brought in to do the job. It can be a good thing, and usually allows managers to worry about on the field matters. But look at Newcastle where in came Joe Kinnear, wanted to sign his own player who was out on loan and cancelled deals as he "never heard of these players".

You need a good relationship there for it to work.
 
Director of Football, no thanks. I don't understand their use. They go out and splash the cash on players that they'd want to see at the club when the manager may have no desire for the player.
 
I don't suppose that there need be any one definition of the role and a United manager might not want to relinquish quite so much influence, however with Woodward's inexperience thrown into the mix too i could see the merits in some sort of transfer/recruitment supremo. The emphasis being on reducing the burden upon the manager rather than diluting his authority [don't need to bungle matters like Spurs].
 
Kid Cunto said:
Director of Football, no thanks. I don't understand their use. They go out and splash the cash on players that they'd want to see at the club when the manager may have no desire for the player.
Click to expand...


I've heard some people do indeed communicate.
 
TheGame said:
I believe sometimes this causes a rift where the manager does not seem to have much of a say in transfers and players will be signed 'for him'.
Click to expand...


Agreed. I also just in general prefer the idea of the manager - who trains and coaches the players every day - being the one to make decisions on who to sign. I mean, surely he better understands what the squad is missing.
 
do.ob said:
I never really understood the English concept of one person handling both responsiblities, since the club puts all of his eggs in one basket in terms of signings and it probably distracts from coaching.
Click to expand...

If a club employs a superbly capable manager like SAF or Wenger then the system can work extremely well, it also lessens the internal the football politics and general wrangling which a DoF system might fall victim too.
 
DoF offer way too much opportunity for infighting, blame shifting and lack of focus. Even if the manager requested it I'd be reluctant. The manager can appoint someone to handle that side of things without ceding control, a DoF is a challenge to the manager's authority, I think.
 
I think a DoF is a good idea, and increasingly necessary in the modern game as far as big clubs are concerned. But it would have to be clear that such a figure is junior to the manager. Somebody there to assist him rather than govern him.
 
I'm generally a strong believer that the very best managers are ones who can handle all aspects of the game, and at a top club like this it's one of those best managers you want.

No one expects a manager to do everything on their own, but they should be the one with the power. They should have the final say when it comes to a player. The problem with a Director of Football is that when it comes to transfers, they seem to be the ones with more power and they end up undermining the manager. Now, some managers might not be at their strongest with transfers, but any good manager should be respectable enough when it comes to buying players to the point that they're going to have some sort of say in who's being brought in. How can a manager have a future vision for a club, for instance, when they're not even buying the players?

Of course, managers can have help. They have scouts. Clough had Taylor to spot talent for him a lot of the time, but he would've probably had a say in transfers too. It's probably not always the case, but with directors of football it often seems like they undermine the manager and sign who they want, which almost always is going to lead to clashes down the line.
 
I think someone like Ian Holloway is crying out to come into Old Trafford and sort the club out from top to bottom. We have too many yes men about the place.
 
do.ob said:
So one club proves it for everyone?
Click to expand...

Irregardless we don't have the money to be bringing in a Director of Football to be splashing it on players that Moyes may not want. The limited funds we have should be Moyes to solely spend.
 
Nick 0208 Ldn said:
I don't suppose that there need be any one definition of the role and a United manager might not want to relinquish quite so much influence, however with Woodward's inexperience thrown into the mix too i could see the merits in some sort of transfer/recruitment supremo. The emphasis being on reducing the burden upon the manager rather than diluting his authority [don't need to bungle matters like Spurs].
Click to expand...


I think a Director of Football does dilute his authority, thats my issue with it.

In terms of recruitment what's wrong with just a Chief Scout? They can be responsible for directing the scouting and recruitment of the club, so taking away that responsibility from Moyes, but its done through delegation as opposed to a complete transfer of authority.
 
do.ob said:
In Germany pretty much all clubs are run like this. Here the director of football is in a both equal and supervisor of the coach. Especially if you have strong personalities like Sammer (or Hoeneß).

I never really understood the English concept of one person handling both responsiblities, since the club puts all of his eggs in one basket in terms of signings and it probably distracts from coaching.
What especially bothers me about is that coach and club might not have the same long term goals. If your manager sees his club as a stepping stone he might sacrifice long term success for short term successs even though it might be worse for the club in the long run.

Take Mourinho for example, who won Inter the Champions League, but on the other hand left them with an over-aged sated squad that collapsed the second he switched jobs.
Click to expand...


Its an idea but one which can cause a lot of problems. Ideally, I'd want the manager to choose the players he wants as only he knows how he wants the team to play and what kind of players are required for that. Once he gets the targets, the CEO takes over anyways. For the DoF model to work, the manager and the DoF would need great understanding and would need to work together and not let ego get in between, which is a big concern if both are strong personalities. I mean, what's to stop the manager from not playing a player bought by the DoF if he didnt want him? Or the DoF to buy a player the manager doesnt want or vice versa just because he doesnt think it would work?
 
do.ob said:
I never really understood the English concept of one person handling both responsiblities, since the club puts all of his eggs in one basket in terms of signings and it probably distracts from coaching.
What especially bothers me about is that coach and club might not have the same long term goals. If your manager sees his club as a stepping stone he might sacrifice long term success for short term successs even though it might be worse for the club in the long run.
Click to expand...

A) That's why we put so much emphasis on a long term appointment when SAF left, so there'd be no risk of the conflict of interests you mentioned. If you hire a manager who is likely to leave in the short term you have to take those risks.
B) Putting all our eggs in one basket is kind of the point, I think. With our way you have a unified vision between coaching and recruitment. A DoF means a compromise vision has to be found. This can easily lead to conflicts of ego, authority and personality. It also means that, if something goes wrong, there's a tremendous amount of blame shifting. It's not about one person doing two jobs, it's about one person having authority.
 
rednev said:
But it would have to be clear that such a figure is junior to the manager. Somebody there to assist him rather than govern him.
Click to expand...

Agreed, if we were considering it the idea should be to improve the effectiveness of the club's operations as opposed to paving the way for a power struggle. IIRC Jose forced out the sporting director at Real Madrid and it was all rather messy.
 
Kid Cunto said:
Irregardless we don't have the money to be bringing in a Director of Football to be splashing it on players that Moyes may not want. The limited funds we have should be Moyes to solely spend.
Click to expand...

again: you seem to be under the impression that a DoF has to be a complete idiot, who is not capable of communicating with his coach/manager. But if you hire someone halfway competent he's not gonna overrule the manager at every instance.
 
do.ob said:
again: you seem to be under the impression that a DoF has to be a complete idiot, who is not capable of communicating with his coach/manager
Click to expand...

Well some seem to be! Not saying all are though! The point I made in that post is that we don't have unlimited transfer funds, so our manager should be in charge of transfers as he's the one picking the players!
 
Would I want what the English thinks a director of football is? No way.

Implemented in the right way though, it's actually ensuring continuity. What you need is for a club to sit down, choose it's style and philosophy, and sign both players and managers that'll fit into that philosophy. In that case a DOF is a great idea as he can ensure continuity throughout managerial changes.

Would I want a Tottenham-style appointment where they appoint a DOF but then doesn't follow suit with an appropriate manager, but rather the flavour of the month, regardless of style? No.
 
Jose, Mourinho, Capello etc etc would have done fine and not needed to be babysat like it appears, Moyes needs to be.
 
I think its quite clear from the summer that Moyes doesn't have autonomy in the transfer market and that Woodward has significant influence in the spending of the club.
 
smallred said:
Jose, Mourinho, Capello etc etc would have done fine and not needed to be babysat like it appears, Moyes needs to be.
Click to expand...


You mean like this season when he loaned out his best striker and bought Willian and Schürrle for near €60m?
 
As I said I think that Lukaku is good enough to get plenty of minutes on the pitch at Chelsea as well. Of course loaning him out makes sense, but not if you replace him with an Eto'o who is unfortunately past it. And spending €60m on those two guys so you can get rid of Mata is in my opinion pretty ridiculous.
 
do.ob said:
You mean like this season when he loaned out his best striker and bought Willian and Schürrle for near €60m?
Click to expand...


He's indicated that he wanted Lukaku to stay but he demanded a loan move once they signed Eto'o. Cant blame him for that if true.
 
do.ob said:
As I said I think that Lukaku is good enough to get plenty of minutes on the pitch at Chelsea as well.
Click to expand...
Whilst having to compete with E'too (even if he hadn't arrive), Torres and Ba for a starting spot. Rotation was not going to do his progress any good.


do.ob said:
.....And spending €60m on those two guys so you can get rid of Mata is in my opinion pretty ridiculous.
Click to expand...
I see little ridiculous with benching Mata for those 2. Mata isn't suited to playing out wide, most especially in a Mournho system in which he expect his wide men to led counter attacks and track back often with speed. Mata's real problem is a Brazilian lad named Oscar. He is the real reason Mata is suffering.
 
That didn't stop him from playing Willian in the middle and Mata on the right a couple of times.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.