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

I'm on the fence. They seem to have a negative effect in English football, but to have someone alongside Moyes to remind him that not every transfer target has to be "Premier League proven" could be positive.
 
My main problem is that if taking Alex Ferguson's place wasn't hard enough, we went ahead and brought in a manager who never worked at the levels we operate. That took a tough situation as it is, and made it tougher.

I'm not keen on the DoF role, though obviously it can work as so many clubs in Europe do that. I'll always Remember Tottenham bringing in Arnesen and Santini, and Daniel Levy explaining that even if the coach goes, the philosophy and strategy remain. Well, it seemed right, and Santini did leave within a couple of months. But then Arnesen went to Chelsea after a year. Even DoF's can pack up and go.

I don't think we really need the normal DoF model, in which he operated above the manager, who simply has to work with that he's given. But a DoF who's there to help the manager (maybe take on some of the more football-related issues Woodward has to deal with) could be OK. It depends on the manager and whether he feels he needs that kind of extra help, if it will give him something the CEO, Chief scouts and coaches can't.

It's no miracle solution, anyway.
 
Someone to help Ewar Woowar out with the football side of his job might be a good shout actually. So long as the manager is the man identifying targets still. I don't like the idea that the manager is just a "coach" and has to work with what he's given.
 
If it is implemented rightly (like Bayern, or Barca) than a DOF may be a good thing. If it is done the same way as Spurs did than not.
 
Nick 0208 Ldn said:
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?
Click to expand...
Absolutely not. Although agree there should be some continuity in scouting if you take over a new club
 
do.ob said:
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...

This was an excellent first reply to the thread. That's exactly the reason why in Portugal it's very rare that coaches are heavily involved in transfers. I assume it's the same for many clubs in which managers aren't usually for the long haul. They give their suggestions, obviously, but these only materialize if the president and board agree. In Mourinho's case here he actually did excellent in that regard at Porto. He only suggested signing relatively cheap players, was intelligent enough to sell that idea to the club, and they all turned out great.

It can't be any other way at a club like ours. We never know how long we can keep a manager, as if he's too good he'll leave quickly, if he's average he'll become underwhelming after a couple of seasons.
 
SAF should have been DOF, Bourinho the manager and Moyes as an assistant. After a few years, Moyes could manage own his own. Perhaps.
 
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...


To be fair we keep signing sponsors when what we need are new players.
 
I dunno, don't think I much like the idea of a DoF, a manger should have a clear idea of what way he wants to play, and with what style of player. WHich of course means he should be the one picking the players he wants to play his system, rather than trying to work the DoF's choices into his system, or building a system around players he wouldn't have chosen. Of course, on the other side, a manager always has to build with what he's got when he joins a club, so it shouldn't be that foreign a prospect.
 
http://www.mirror.co.uk/sport/football/news/fulham-transfer-news-west-ham-3013508

This type of disagreement can't but contributes to the scepticism of such an overarching role, although i must wonder how well defined this new structure at Fulham actually is to be hitting snag so early on in its existence.

I can see the merits in both signings as it happens however it would likely be Rene given the elbow if things go awry this season, therefore there has to be a sense of "on your head be it" to the decision.
 
I think it is a good modal. They would have to be equal in rank but clearly defined roles as some activities would overlap.

Manager would have complete control of first team and reserves wrt to players, formations etc. DoF would have control over scouting set up, youth development etc. The overlap would be in transfers where they both work together with the CEO to select players (manager to select, DoF to support and CEO to get the money)
 
It undermines the manager, for me. I don't like the idea and I don't ever see United adopting this approach.
 
Kid Cunto said:
It undermines the manager, for me. I don't like the idea and I don't ever see United adopting this approach.
Click to expand...

So does it undermine for example Klopp that he has in Michael Zorc an equal partner, who oversees the scouting network, handles negotations and signs players in communication with the coach?

This model can cause problems like in Tottenham, especially if the DoF has little knowledge about the actual game (it is no cooincedence IMO that the three most successful DoF´s in Germany are ex professionals) and if there is friction and no communication between them, but if the chemistry is good, it is way more efficient than the usual EPL model.

I´m certain that Dortmund would have missed out on talents without Zorc, because the workload is simply too much for one person alone and he is ought to miss things.
 
What I'm always wondering about, when people dismiss that model, would you really want someone like Bielsa or van Gaal or Guardiola to spend less time on the team's development, tactics, studies on the opponent? You can't work more hours than they do, it's really that simple. So if you want them to overlook everything, someone else needs to take some of that work of them. I very much prefer that Guardiola focus solely on the team and isn't involved in everything. He can bring his ideas in on transfers, on youth development, he can veto against transfers and suggest certain players he like, but he really doesn't need to be the one overseeing all the organisational work, let alone doing it himself. That's a waste of his time, really.

You could say exactly the same for Klopp, who's certainly happy to have Zorc next to him like Sphaero already wrote. Also isn't the main problem at clubs like Chelsea or Tottenham the owner and not the director of sports? It usually becomes a nightmare if someone who has no clue of football starts to interfere.

/edit:
I simply can't imagine that you can have one of the great visionaries as the manager with the English model. You won't get someone to do what Cruyff did at Barca or Sacchi at Milan or Guardiola at Barca. Not sure if it's worth to miss out on something like that, just to have more stability in the manager position.
 
Very good posts from Sphaero and Balu. By that I meant if it is implemented correctly.

Spurs is exactly the wrong implementation of DoF. You should not sign players without consulting the manager. Never! On the other side I don't know why manager has to lose his time with the scouting or the academy. Sure, he should have something to do with that and of course right in Pep's case to have the right of verto against transfers and ask the club to bring certain players like he did with Alcantara, but still that's not that much of work compared to managers in England. Also, I always liked the Barca youth systems that isn't depended on the manager at all which means that they all play from the beginning in the same system, and regardless who is the manager, the system continues.

I would really like if we implement such a system although it will also depend on who is the DoF. Barca, Bayern and BVB are excellent of implementing correctly DoF or something like that, while Spurs, Madrid and Chelsea (well Roman and Perez do some of the DoF things) aren't.
 
I agree with our German friends.

If we had a DOF then last summer wouldn't have been an absolute abortion. If you get the right man/men on the job then it can only be a positive thing.

Barcelona and Bayern have shown that the 'manager' is not the be all and end all, it is the continuity behind the scenes of philosophy and personnel that really matters.

Talking about getting the right man on the job: we now have 'dithering Dave' taking on all areas of responsibility at a leviathan of a club. Sounds like a recipe for disaster to me.

Fergie was a one off who was with the club every step of the way as elite level football grew into the commercial monster that it is today. We are looking to the past for a template of success and I think that can be very dangerous.
 
It very much seesm that we expect to get another Alex Ferguson. Maybe even hope that Moyes will be that.

It's not going to happen. As Jimy says above, Fergie was a one-off; now the club is such a huge monster that one man simply cannot maintain control over every aspect the way he did. And nobody will ever really have the authority to do so.
 
Well isn't Woody something like a DoF? I mean he takes care of transfers and stuff like that, tries to bring in the players Moyes wants and takes care of the business side of things. That's not all too different from what a DoF does imo.
 
a DOF should be a long term position held by someone with a clear idea of the clubs identity (and budget of course) who looks to find players that best fit those demands. These are then put forward to the manager who assess' their abilities and makes a judgement as to whether they'd fit into the squad and improve it. And should the manager feel he has a particular need it would work vice versa too. Its effectively a scouting position with contract negotitations thrown in, he should also handle departures including finding good clubs shfor youth players should they be moved on. I see no problem with a position like this and given our wealth of top class former players/managers that we have in ambassadorial roles and such it shouldn't be hard to find a suitable candidate that understands the needs of the club. Ultimately though its a support position answering to the manager not the other way round

The problem with a lot of DOFs nowadays is they are becoming big names in their own right. They flit from club to club dragging their preferred agents and players along with them, you'd have people on here looking enviously at the latest up and coming DOF at some european club and asking why are we stuck with that stuffy old Bobby Charlton when we could have Gola Mucha Rodriguez instead. The transfer forum would need expanding at least
 
Instinctively im not a fan of DOF positions but I can see a strong case can be made for them and clearly there is an issue about the size of the manager's job, anything that allows him to focus on his most important responsibilities has to be a good thing. At the end of the day though I dont see why the DOF responsibilities cant be taken on by someone in a position that is subordinated to the manager and even chosen by the manager, reporting into him, with the title of head scout or head of player development or something like that. I dont like the idea of anything that undermines the manager's position or marginalises his influence in any matter he takes an active interest in. It seems to me the success of failure of these types of arrangements often comes down to the personal dynamics of how well two people work together, giving Moyes a say, or even the say, on who he delegates that stuff to would give that working relationship the best chance of working.

Ultimately it all comes back to the whole issue of Moyes finding his feet and giving him time. Obviously the Manchester United job is much bigger than what he was used to at Everton and it may be his is now getting a better sense of what it entails and where best to channel is energy. For me it is down to him to judge what is best in that respect. So I still wouldnt decree that he must work alongside a DOF, I would just hope he is able to assess what support he needs to make sure everything that needs to be done is being done and get the right people in to provide that support. I still like the idea of the manager being in ultimate control of everything on the football side, without expecting him to actually do everything himself. I think it takes confidence to effectively delegate, I am sure as he becomes more accustomed to his new role he will find the right people to delegate different responsibilities to so he is confident everything is being done in the way he wants it done.
 
Adebesi said:
Instinctively im not a fan of DOF positions but I can see a strong case can be made for them and clearly there is an issue about the size of the manager's job, anything that allows him to focus on his most important responsibilities has to be a good thing. At the end of the day though I dont see why the DOF responsibilities cant be taken on by someone in a position that is subordinated to the manager and even chosen by the manager, reporting into him, with the title of head scout or head of player development or something like that. I dont like the idea of anything that undermines the manager's position or marginalises his influence in any matter he takes an active interest in. It seems to me the success of failure of these types of arrangements often comes down to the personal dynamics of how well two people work together, giving Moyes a say, or even the say, on who he delegates that stuff to would give that working relationship the best chance of working.

Ultimately it all comes back to the whole issue of Moyes finding his feet and giving him time. Obviously the Manchester United job is much bigger than what he was used to at Everton and it may be his is now getting a better sense of what it entails and where best to channel is energy. For me it is down to him to judge what is best in that respect. So I still wouldnt decree that he must work alongside a DOF, I would just hope he is able to assess what support he needs to make sure everything that needs to be done is being done and get the right people in to provide that support. I still like the idea of the manager being in ultimate control of everything on the football side, without expecting him to actually do everything himself. I think it takes confidence to effectively delegate, I am sure as he becomes more accustomed to his new role he will find the right people to delegate different responsibilities to so he is confident everything is being done in the way he wants it done.
Click to expand...
Because if that's the case, the manager still needs to make the decisions and has to be responsible, therefore needs to spend a lot of time to look into all the details concerning the work of the DoF. If both are equal and report to the owner/board, it's much more a case of taking the manager out of that time-consuming part of managing the club. Both need to work together, share ideas anyway to make it work. For example, if the manager still has final decision on transfers, he needs to know and fully understand everything about the financial side of the club, all the side effects of a transfer when it comes to wages and transfer budget. That alone takes up so much time and even if he invests a lot in it, it's still questionable that he's able to fully understand the consequences. I'm sure every manager at a top club already has a scouting team that he controls. The question is still, who makes the final decision, because that's what takes a lot of time.
 
Im not so sure. If you delegate something then you dont necessarily need to go through checking it, line by line. If you trust the person you have delegated it to you can let them get on with it and trust them to do their job, you only have to spend time on it if there is something you disagree with or want to be more involved with. If my boss delegates something to me he expects me to get it done, trusts me to get it done, and assumes when I have done it that itll be to a certain standard. He doesnt then do it himself to check what I did was right. That is how delegation works.

Having the DOF role subordinate to the manager at least gives the manager that option, where parity can lead to confusion, inconsistency and resentment. But this is all just me thinking out loud really, I dont know the ins and outs about how these things work in practice or what kinds of arrangements are normal in different places.
 
NoLogo said:
Well isn't Woody something like a DoF? I mean he takes care of transfers and stuff like that, tries to bring in the players Moyes wants and takes care of the business side of things. That's not all too different from what a DoF does imo.
Click to expand...

Except Woody hasn't a clue regarding football, while a DoF in a lot of clubs will also CHOOSE the players he brings, or at least decide together with the manager.
 
NoLogo said:
Well isn't Woody something like a DoF? I mean he takes care of transfers and stuff like that, tries to bring in the players Moyes wants and takes care of the business side of things. That's not all too different from what a DoF does imo.
Click to expand...
No. The DoF is also involved in the football side of things. Plus Woodward is way too unknown in Europe to be a DoF. You'd need someone who's been in football a while with connections, a football philosophy that meshes, the right personality and with coaching and/or playing experience preferably.
 
Also not sure why the manager would have to spend loads of time reviewing the DoF's work. Surely there would be constant communication and there's some report to the manager either physically or verbally on the pros and cons of the deal and then the manager decides whether to sanction it and it goes to the CEO. All that review and sanctioning can surely occur in less than an hour while the DoF's work would be multiple days.
 
I don't like the idea that the DoF should report to the manager (or wise versa). They should coordinate the job and talk about things but neither of them should report to other. One of the best aspects of having a DoF is that it ensures a bit of stability even when the club loses the manager (for whatever reasons). If he is chosen by the manager and report to him, this property goes away. Ideally the manager should be in charge of the squad and propose the players he wants which might be not accepted by DoF. Similarlily the DoF should be in charge of scouting, academy etc and propose the players to the manager. Again the manager should be able to veto them. The good point is that this will not let it happen the scenario when the manager chooses wrong players and then if he gets sacked the club has a lot of expensice deadwood. So, unless both of them are a bit bad this scenarion won't happen.
 
NoLogo said:
Well isn't Woody something like a DoF? I mean he takes care of transfers and stuff like that, tries to bring in the players Moyes wants and takes care of the business side of things. That's not all too different from what a DoF does imo.
Click to expand...

Nope. Woody is more a Ceo (Hoeness/Rummenige, Perez, Levy, Laporta/Rosell) than DoF (Sammer, Begiristain, Baldini).
 
A very good point Revan, I can see this argument makes a lot of sense as to why it makes sense to have the roles separated.

Still, with Moyes it appears we have made an appointment in the hope it will be a relatively long term appointment. Whether it works out that way or not remains to be seen but clearly the idea was to continue with a manager that had demonstrated a willingness to stick around at one club for a long time. So creating a position that is designed to provide continuity while changing managers is at best a distraction from this / an admission that things might not pan out as we hoped (nothing wrong with that, sometimes things dont) but at worst sends out the wrong message and may therefore undermine the manager.

Maybe it is a good idea, maybe that kind of separation of powers is ultimately the best way to go for the reasons others have mentioned. Clearly it has some advantages in theory and works well in practice in various places. I just think for me having the manager as unambiguously in charge of everything on the football side outweighs those advantages. Maybe if things dont work out with Moyes we have to come to terms with the possibility of more chopping and changing of managers that calculation will change, that continuity from the DOF will look more important. As things stand however I just think it would be another distraction. Weve changed managers and backroom staff already and we're dealing with the fallout from that, not sure a potential power struggle behind the scenes with who we want to bring in and how best to take the football forward is going to make life any easier.

Give things a chance to settle down and when we have a better idea about how Moyes is adapting to the role maybe reopen this conversation then.
 
Revan said:
I don't like the idea that the DoF should report to the manager (or wise versa). They should coordinate the job and talk about things but neither of them should report to other. One of the best aspects of having a DoF is that it ensures a bit of stability even when the club loses the manager (for whatever reasons). If he is chosen by the manager and report to him, this property goes away. Ideally the manager should be in charge of the squad and propose the players he wants which might be not accepted by DoF. Similarlily the DoF should be in charge of scouting, academy etc and propose the players to the manager. Again the manager should be able to veto them. The good point is that this will not let it happen the scenario when the manager chooses wrong players and then if he gets sacked the club has a lot of expensice deadwood. So, unless both of them are a bit bad this scenarion won't happen.
Click to expand...


That's the idea behind it I think. DoF is responsible for the long-term strategy while the manager handles day to day stuff. I think it's a great idea to have a DoF as long as you can find someone with proper vision for club's development.
 
@Adebesi

To be fair, my point was more on general rather that in our specific case (United/Moyes). A DoF I think is a great idea cause pretty much limits the manager to make retarded signings (well at-least theoritically, we saw what happened on Liverpool's case when both Comolli and Kenny were a bit daft), controls the scouting aspects and pretty much controls the academy/reserve players. On signings I think that the manger should propose players, and the DoF to approve them. It doesn't make sense if DoF signs them without manager wanting those players. This shouldn't happen. Also, he shouldn't never be allowed to interfere with the first team, like tactics or formations.

On our case - at least for now - we wanted Moyes to do pretty much what SAF did for us. Which makes a DoF unnecesarily and contradicts what we were expecting/wanted. But if this changes - with or without Moyes - I think that it might be a good idea to implement a DoF/manager system when both have their responsibilities divided (though in constant communication) and both are equal when it comes to few things (like signings), and of course both report to the board. Especially this will be great if Moyes doesn't work out and we go into a process when changing the managers constantly isn't more alien to us.

Of course, the best thing is if Moyes experiement to be succesful, but if that doesn't happen looking even to radical changes in structure might be a good thing.
 
Sarni, by that definition SAF had almost become a DOF by the end, no? If Rene was responsible for the training and stuff like that, SAF mainly just oversaw what he was doing. But he seemed far more involved in identifying young players and looking after strategy.

I guess he was also the man manager, the "arm around the shoulder" guy, that was always his biggest attribute and that is a very day to day responsibility.
 
Adebesi said:
Sarni, by that definition SAF had almost become a DOF by the end, no? If Rene was responsible for the training and stuff like that, SAF mainly just oversaw what he was doing. But he seemed far more involved in identifying young players and looking after strategy.

I guess he was also the man manager, the "arm around the shoulder" guy, that was always his biggest attribute and that is a very day to day responsibility.
Click to expand...

SAF was both manager and DoF. Personally I think that the manager should make the trainings/tactics and other stuff. The likes of Pep/Bielsa spend essentially all day either working with the players or analyzing opponents. It would be a shame if they had also to control the other aspects of the club cause that surely would affect the job they do with the team.

SAF found an even more strange way, when he delegated many managerial things to other people (Rene/Carlos) but practically was a DoF too. Pretty much the other extreme.
 
Adebesi said:
Sarni, by that definition SAF had almost become a DOF by the end, no? If Rene was responsible for the training and stuff like that, SAF mainly just oversaw what he was doing. But he seemed far more involved in identifying young players and looking after strategy.

I guess he was also the man manager, the "arm around the shoulder" guy, that was always his biggest attribute and that is a very day to day responsibility.
Click to expand...

You could say that. He didn't completely leave out the traning/tactics part out of it though, I doubt Phelan did that much tactics work (as opposed to Queiroz who I imagined did), Rene was responsible for training most of the time though.
 
The main thing is, SAF was ultimately in charge of everything, but identified people who were well equipped to take specific things off his hands and trusted them to get on with it. Always monitoring them, analysing what they were doing (presumably), but letting them do it. And that is what I like at the end of the day, though maybe Moyes will never have the political capital to command the same kind of control and respect. Having one person with ultimate responsibility, for me, provides coherence. Its like the old adage about benevolent dictatorship being the best political system, the rub is finding someone truly benevolent, given the other universal truth about politics: power corrupts. In the same way, having a single person in control of strategy and the day to day ensures everyone is pulling in the same direction. And to ensure nobody is stretched too thinly, you delegate the things you arent the best at to people who are better than you at them, while ensuring they understand what you expect of them and that they are doing their job as you want them to.

Anyway, we'll see. Its an interesting idea and I wouldnt completely dismiss it, even though I have reservations.
 
It reminds me of another classic topic for discussion that used to come up time and again in the old days, when things were not going so well under SAF, which was whether he was someone who really needed an effective assistant. I remember after CQ left and we went for a while without an assistant and things werent working out that well, it lent some credibility to that argument and for some people called into question SAF's tactical nous, the thinking being that CQ, McClaren and others were the tactical driving forces behind our success and that without that kind of input SAF didnt have what it took to compete with someone like Mourinho. Its justa bit of nostalgia recently but it is interesting (and inevitable I guess) that these conversations gain so much traction when we are doing badly. What came across in those conversations, and now looking back in retrospect, that one of SAF's real strengths was his ability to delegate, to identify people who could be trusted to take on certain responsibilities but also to know how best to use his own time, and what to NOT do, as much as what to do. I reckon that is a big part of the learning curve Moyes is currently on and again explains partly the bumpiness of our current transition.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.