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

I don't know about a director of football - although I do see the positives if implemented correctly, and not as someone who is above the manager - but if Moyes is still taking the training sessions himself daily and also as we've seen recently does a lot of traveling for his own scouting, it might be a little too much. Maybe he needs some time to look at the big picture of the job rather than dealing with everything by himself.

In September he was asked about Vidic's contract and said he didn't know it was ending at the end of the season. Now that is something the manager does need to know. ABC of the job, really. Maybe it just slipped through the crack of everything he's been trying to do.
 
If we keep Moyes for a second season, I'd like to see a DoF brought in for many of the reasons already stated here.

This job in particular is a massive one, probably too big a job for all but the very best football minds in the business.

And who here would trust Moyes to have sole discretion over whom to buy this summer or the next?
 
Adebesi said:
To be fair though, wasnt part of the appeal of Moyes that he had a similar deal at Everton? Total control? Some (many) manager are just coaches who pick the team but that doesnt describe Moyes at Everton.

I agree with you (hang on, you agreed with me) there is more work at United in absolute terms. But I was struggling to put my finger on the specifics of what that extra workload might entail. We play more games, so there is more preparation to do for them. Better players might require more one-on-one or specially tailored training, perhaps. Certainly the greater resources of the club would add an additional workload, managing the extra expenditure, more staff, a wider scouting network as I suggested before.

Intuitively it does feel obvious that the workload would be greater at United than Everton.
Click to expand...

Yes I do think that is a big part of the reason why Moyes was chosen - in theory I can see the logic, however having total control at Everton is a completely different scenario than at United.

As we know he had virtually no experience of Europe and fighting on 4 fronts - as you note we have more matches (so less prep time for each game), bigger squad (he never had this many option at Everton) with big egos to deal with, bigger budgets (mo' money, mo' problems!), numerous players out on loan that need to be monitored etc- in fact pretty much everything he does is going to be more difficult and time consuming.

It is obvious that the workload will be greater and vastly higher pressure of the job.



Pogue Mahone said:
Of course it's bigger in scope. Nobody is arguing otherwise, so I'm not sure what you find so bizarre. The question is whether or not the day to day duties of managing United will take up more of the manager's time than the day to day duties of running Everton. A lot will depend on the number and competency of the team he has supporting him and how they compare at the two clubs.

The rest of your post is kind of stating the obvious too. Fergie took a long time to get United set up the way he wanted. Which presumably explains why he is so keen to give Moyes as much time as needed.

There's definitely a debate to be had about whether a DoF model is the best way for any modern club to be set up but if that's not the model to be used at United, Moyes would be very well suited to it having run Everton the same way for a decade.
Click to expand...

The day to day duties are United are going to be a world away from Everton - see above.
Add to that the pressure of increased media scrutiny and the whole sporting world watching your every move.

Even if Moyes kept everything as it was, it would be a huge step up - that he has come in and is trying to change things as well makes the transition even more difficult.
And did it all even need changing that much or so quickly? Thats a whole other thread.

There is info out there about how Moyes has completely revamped our scouting system with a new and improved version of his famous transfer bunker (the transfer muppets dream)- obviously things like that are going to leave less time for other tasks and perhaps things like the coaching side are suffering as a result, I really think he needs better/more experienced people in that department. Neville and Giggs are virtual novices and I have no idea about the credentials of Steve Round.
 
There are plenty of ways leadership can be implemented successfully, there is no right or wrong;

SAF got by without a DOF, but he had built a legacy over decades based purely around himself as the Head Honcho. A new manager coming in doesnt have that same legacy and thus may struggle to take on all elements of control straight away.

Having said that, SAF did delegate a lot of tasks - he was rarely involved directly in training, and (key point here) our transfer dealings have always recently been conducted by our Chief Executives (Gill/Woodward). Frankly people scoff at the DOF idea but we have had a very similar system in place for years now. The manager identifies potential targets, the CEO goes out and tries to buy them. That is our model and it has worked for us because SAF was here for such a long time that he could oversee the evolution of the team. For us, David Gill was not a footballing man and so was never going to be deciding who to sign, same applies to Woodward. Our model is that the Manager is in charge of the long term plan, the DOF/Scouts etc are the ones who enable him.

Ultimately what you want is for someone to have a long term goal and vision for how the club plays its football. A man with a plan. Whether that person is then called Manager, Director of Football or Bob the Builder, is irrelevant. SAF was that person when he was here - he had the long term plan, and had others in place to make it happen. A "true" Director of Football is only (in my opinion) required when there are frequent changes or manager, in which case the DOF becomes responsible for looking after the long term vision for the club, and the Manager becomes the one who deals with the tactics and training etc, on a day to day basis - effectively the Head Coach.

I actually think the latter model of Director of Football/Head Coach is the most effective, broadly speaking. You have a tactical mastermind (who is on board with the DOFs ideas) to pick the team, train and observe the players on a day to day basis, and be the motivational guy in the dugout. The Director of Football is the one more in the background, signing the players. In this model it is important that the DOF is there for the long term though, to implement his vision.

I dont think a DOF/"Manager" combination works as well, because most Managers will want to have control over the longer term vision, which then clashes with the DOF. If the manager wants more control over the longer term dealings then Uniteds model of Manager/CEO is the way to go (ie the footballman and the businessman). You could argue that a combination of Fergie/Gill was our Director of Football, with things like training then delegated out to the likes of Phelan and Meulensteen. Fergie was always the frontman however.


Basically the one signing the players has to be the one with the long term goal, vision and plan - what you then call that person is largely irrelevant. If you are going to have another figure at the top, that person then needs to be the shorter term person, tasked with implementing the DOFs vision on a day to day/match by match basis.


Going back to Moyes, I wouldnt want a DOF brought in with Moyes in as manager. If there was a clear distinguishment in responsibilities -that Moyes would run the day to day training, tactics, team selection etc, and the DOF was responsible for the longer term building the team, buying/selling etc then fair enough, but in that case I would argue Moyes isnt so much a manager as a Head Coach.
 
Pogue Mahone said:
Fergie took a long time to get United set up the way he wanted. Which presumably explains why he is so keen to give Moyes as much time as needed.
Click to expand...

Or, more likely, it's explained by Ferguson's ego, in that having publicly chosen Moyes, backed him, talked him up in his autobiography, and then scolded the sacking mentality in the media, he's not now going to be shown up by Moyes being dismissed.
 
Whilst Van Gaal's starring point in such a debate is not directly comparable to Moyes' last season, i do as things stand presently struggle to be as sanguine as some others on here at the prospect of him leading yet another "big spend" this summer. People are referring to it as if 100-150m of investment in consecutive years is perfectly routine, this simply can't be so even with our resources.

To be quite frank about it, i don't believe that i entirely trust Louis with the purse strings based upon the current evidence. Additionally, if 3-5-2 is in anyway integral to a wider strategy i wonder if we oughtn't have another figure determining policy. Hundreds of millions of pounds over a 2-3 year period and then he's off to enjoy his retirement? Is that a prudent course.

The short-termist ambitions of the current managerial structure are not fit for the long term i wouldn't say.
 
Last edited:
Was all for a DOF during the pre-LvG era as it takes a lot of busy work away from the manager so he can concentrate on what actually happens on the pitch.

Now with LvG and his records of falling out with everyone who has a say at a club I'm not sure it would be a good idea atm.
 
Godfather said:
Was all for a DOF during the pre-LvG era as it takes a lot of busy work away from the manager so he can concentrate on what actually happens on the pitch.

Now with LvG and his records of falling out with everyone who has a say at a club I'm not sure it would be a good idea atm.
Click to expand...

Not for him perhaps.

Sir Alex could quite merrily build one successful team whilst simultaneously plotting its evolution for the future (sustainably so), Van Gaal and Woodward are not fulfilling that requirement.
 
Nick 0208 Ldn said:
Whilst Van Gaal's starring point in such a debate is not directly comparable to Moyes' last season, i do as things stand presently struggle to be as sanguine as some others on here at the prospect of him leading yet another "big spend" this summer. People are referring to it as if 100-150m of investment in consecutive years is perfectly routine, and simply can't be so even with our resources.

To be quite frank about it, i don't believe that i entirely trust Louis with the purse strings based upon the current evidence. Additionally, if 3-5-2 is in anyway integral to a wider strategy i wonder if we oughtn't have another figure determining those things. Hundreds of millions of pounds over 2-3 year period and then he's off to enjoy his retirement? Is that a prudent course.

The short-termist ambitions of the current managerial structure are not fit for the long term i wouldn't say.
Click to expand...
This really hinges on whether he led last summer's big spend. I find it hard to believe he did to be honest, though it is hard to make the case either way. It looks to me like Blind and Rojo were "his" acquisitions, people he identified and requested we bought himself. Herrera was clearly a target he did no more than rubber stamp, so whether he is a success or not, the credit or blame does not accrue to Van Gaal - at least not for "leading" the purchase, which is the crucial word here.

Di Maria and Falcao are much more ambiguous in terms of who pushed for the deals but to me they look like Woodward deals. Why? Because of Van Gaal's uncertainty about how best to use the former (that isnt clear evidence, but IMO if he had really identified and pushed for this one himself he would have been more consistent in the way he used him, having had an idea about how it would work in his head which he would stick to for at least a period of time to try and make it work, until it proved unworkable) and his evident lack of enthusiasm for the latter.

For me our experience this season has only made me more ambivalent about a DOF if it leads to more players on the books who Van Gaal is lukewarm about or who dont fit into the plans he has for how we should play.

Having said that nobody has ever said transfer dealings are one of Van Gaal's strong suits, so handing the whole responsibility over to him doesnt seem that attractive a proposition either. At this stage the best I dare hope for is that the understanding and communication between Van Gaal and Woodward will be improved this summer, if for no other reason than they have spent more time talking to each other. So hopefully Woodward will have a better idea of what Van Gaal wants - and therefore our business will be better.

I cant disagree with the gist of your point though, that last summer's transfer business has not looked that great, at least not yet. But there is still time for the ones who have struggled to really establish themselves.
 
Think Blind and to lesser extent Rojo are the only 'Van Gaal' transfers this year. You have to talk about percentages, with more than 50% meaning they're 'Van Gaal transfers'. My breakdown of last summer would be:

SAF commented the club had been following Shaw and Herrera for years and deals were in the making at the end of last season. If Giggs was still our manager I'd say it is likely we would've also gotten Shaw and Herrera. Van Gaal could've said no though, so they're 50% United transfer - 50% Van Gaal transfer.

Would we have signed Blind if Van Gaal had not come to us? I highly doubt it, so Blind is 95-100% a Van Gaal transfer.

Rojo wasn't mentioned much and Van Gaal made comments about liking him when analysing Argentina: at least 75% Van Gaal transfer, Argentina were prolific because of the WC final, there is a small chance we would've gotten him even if Giggs was our manager this season.

Di Maria struck me as a case of getting our hands on whatever 'world class' player was available. I think it's very likely we would've been interested in him if Giggs was still our manager. But again, Van Gaal liked him for sure and could have said no. So 50% United transfer - 50% Van Gaal transfer.

Welbeck was never going to be first choice striker and wanted out. So we replaced him with Falcao on deadline day. But we haven't signed him, so it's not a real transfer yet. I assume most other managers than Van Gaal wouldn't say no to replacing Welbeck with Falcao though.

The percentages I used are also vey much worse case scenario, for instance it wouldn't surprise me if a better guess for Shaw and Herrera would be 70% United and 30% Van Gaal.


At Bayern he didn't even want any transfers after winning the double + Champions League final, because Alaba was coming through, Kroos came back from loan. Only area they needed players was defense, and his 'the new transfers have to be better players than we already have' mantra applied to that summer, because there were not really any world class defenders fore sale. People obviously now use this as a stick to beat Van Gaal with, they say he failed to strengthen the defense, but that's not really what happened.

Woodward has had 4 transfer windows and he's not made any particularly good deals in terms of quality compared to price, except for Blind (who is a 100% Van Gaal transfer) and maybe Rojo (who is at least 75% Van Gaal transfer I think). The rest were 50% or less Van Gaal's signings, high quality players for an insane price, like Mata, Shaw and Di Maria. Or medium quality players like Herrera and Fellaini, again for way too much money compared to other (sub)top clubs and their transfer dealings.

Even though Woodward has not done well, it's a very difficult job. This summer was not really good, but better than his first one where he let Moyes get Fellaini. So maybe we get it right the first time.

A DOF is a good idea to protect a club's long term plans. But Van Gaal has not been a coach who's only interested in transfers for the short term, and in all his other jobs he definitely kept the long term in his mind. Combine that with the fact that I've seen some truly terrible DOF's over the year, respected football people who made the same shambles as Moyes&Woody did last summer, or worse. So unless we can sign one of the two or three best DOF's walking this planet, I don't see the need for it.
 
Last edited:
The trouble with any conversation about a DOF role is that it always assumes that we'd just get this perfect DoF, who would have a clear long term vision for both playing style, and player development and recruitment, and would dovetail perfectly with every manager we ever employ.

In reality all you're doing is sticking another variable into the equation. It can be good or bad.

You may get a good one, you may not. You may get a good one, but find he can't work with the manager you want, so you get a great DOF but a second choice manager. You may get one who leaves before the manager anyway. You may get one who bends at the first sign of pressure & panic buys. You may get one who buys players based on the individual not the team. You may get one who's more worried about the bottom line than what happens on the pitch. You may get one with a shit eye for a player, or who's too close to agents. You may get one who's wedded to a style of football that few managers go for. And so on.

A DOF can work, or not. Its no panacea.
 
Somehow, I just don't see Louis working well with any DOF, regardless of how brilliant he might be. The man is stubborn, he likes to do things his way no matter what and has a massive ego.

This is probably a more relevant discussion for Louis's successor, especially if we go with a less experienced manager.
 
Nick 0208 Ldn said:
Not for him perhaps.

Sir Alex could quite merrily build one successful team whilst simultaneously plotting its evolution for the future (sustainably so), Van Gaal and Woodward are not fulfilling that requirement.
Click to expand...
In my opinion, one of the key foundations of ferguson's genius was his planning for the future while sustaining present success.
 
bishblaize said:
The trouble with any conversation about a DOF role is that it always assumes that we'd just get this perfect DoF, who would have a clear long term vision for both playing style, and player development and recruitment, and would dovetail perfectly with every manager we ever employ.

In reality all you're doing is sticking another variable into the equation. It can be good or bad.

You may get a good one, you may not. You may get a good one, but find he can't work with the manager you want, so you get a great DOF but a second choice manager. You may get one who leaves before the manager anyway. You may get one who bends at the first sign of pressure & panic buys. You may get one who buys players based on the individual not the team. You may get one who's more worried about the bottom line than what happens on the pitch. You may get one with a shit eye for a player, or who's too close to agents. You may get one who's wedded to a style of football that few managers go for. And so on.

A DOF can work, or not. Its no panacea.
Click to expand...
This is very true indeed. I find that the problem with a lot of people is a very flawed perception of the success rate of transfers, especially transfers of established players for big sums of money. Fans criticize their DoF, manager, board and everyone involved when transfers aren't a great success but if we look at last summer for example. Only 3 or 4 transfers have been an unquestionable success among the big clubs; Kroos, Fàbregas, Sanchez and Costa. Yes, there have been a lot of decent transfers like our own Blind, Rodriguez, Lewandowski but truly successful great transfers are the minority. This to me suggests that it is not the case of incompetence or that one system is clearly better than the other. It is simply the case that it is a very a low percentage business whatever way you look at it which is why the best teams in the world have been built from within and complemented by established players through transfers like our team from from the last decade as well as Barcelona and Bayern later on. The point is even though it is not as exciting, we have to accept that transfers are not the main difference between success and failure, it is a complement, an important one that is but the main influence is the work from within; coaching players, developing them, finding talented youngsters and building a mentality.
 
Can someone please post a link to that Gary Neville article "The era of the gaffer is over" from the Jan 23 Telegraph. Heck, start a thread in Football forum with it PLEASE.
 
DOF or not, what I feel lacking is the lack of a massive authority figure sitting in a position above the manager and yet will be the element of credibility about the club's aspirations and politics. The best example I can find is Karl-Heinz Rummenigge at Bayern Munich; he gives the impression of not fecking around when it comes to club ambitions and we clearly know what the plan is.

I'm really surprised we don't have more former legends working in such an administrative position and yet understand what football is first and foremost at the same time. We could benefit a lot from a former legend taking up a high position and then add credibility about ambitions.
 
What is the point of a director of football really? Its the manager who goes to him and says "I need a right back and these are the qualities id like". The director of football then goes and finds one and seals the deal?

If its his opinion which right back we should sign then at the end of the day its just another mans opinion on a player, unless a potential candidate had an extensive history of finding world class talent then a club might as well trust someone (like Van Gaal in our case) who knows the market pretty well? We also have a chairman who completes the business side of the deal. Having a third man in there makes little sense for me, especially if the club has an extensive scouting network already.

I heard Spurs have stopped scouting players for the moment, Im guessing because Baldini has his own network under him?
 
I believe Sir Alex is a genius in economic efficiency and it will be almost impossible to replace his role. He realised the importance of time as a limiting factor to what a man can achieve and used comparative advantage within the organisation to make sure that the performance output was efficient. He surrounded himself with the right people and restricted himself from hands on approach if he knew his time was more efficiently used doing something else.
The entire organisation was uniquely set with Ferguson as a centerpiece.

If someone takes on his role with more hands on approach to everything it is reasonable to think there will be a decrease in accumulated performance output from different areas. The result is a United with more variance in success. Well that is my theory anyway.
 
It's very funny that this is somehow considered revolutionary. German clubs have been operated like this for as long as I can remember and I think Spanish clubs have similar positions, though I'm not sure about that.

SAF and Wenger are not the norm. Coaches come and go (it's not that easy to find someone who stays longer than three years), all of them have their own ideas and goals. A DoF makes sure that the mid to long term consequences (especially young players) aren't left out of the equation. It's also easier to find the right coach if he's appointed by someone who is involved in the daily work.
In Germany directors of football also handle transfer talks and scouting, freeing up coaches to focus on their coaching.
 
After the Moyes debace, we really should have gone for a DOF however given LVG's experience I can understand why the club felt it unnecessary. It is something that we really should institute in the next year or two for continuity's sake as LVG will not be here forever.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.