Our new upper management structure

VorZakone said:
What is the difference between a technical director, sporting director and director of recruitment?
Click to expand...

It's in the name.

Technical for style of play, squad management etc
Recruitment is self explanatory
Sports director is overarching manager, like a CEO for football related stuff.
 
This is what many United fans have been crying out for. A proper sporting structure led by experienced people.
Hopefully the reset has started and will lead us back to the top.
 
pcaming said:
It's in the name.

Technical for style of play, squad management etc
Recruitment is self explanatory
Sports director is overarching manager, like a CEO for football related stuff.
Click to expand...
I think technical director handles footballing staffs like logistic people, general staffs, coaches and data analysts.
 
We’ve all been crying out for this since Fergie left - no more accountants or purely commercially focused people in key football decision making roles. It will take time to all come together properly but I’ve faith that the club is taking itself seriously again, and is refocused on football, finally.
 
pcaming said:
It's in the name.

Technical for style of play, squad management etc
Recruitment is self explanatory
Sports director is overarching manager, like a CEO for football related stuff.
Click to expand...

Just so I wrap my head around this, it's:
Berrada replacing Arnold (or Woodward previously)
Ashworth in a newly created role (I know we had Murtough in a titular role but not really sure if he had over arching reach over footballing activities?)
Wilcox role is newly created (quite sure neither Murtough nor Fletcher influenced our style of play etc)
Vivell replacing Murtough + Judge

Is this sort of right?
 
Nevilles.Wear.Prada said:
Upper management looks good. Lets see what they do with ETH now.
Click to expand...
Their job will be to support him, get him the players he wants/needs, improve backroom staff and ensure he has everything he requires to succeed. In theory he should be supported much better than he was under previous structure which clearly let him down at many of these aspects.
 
IrishRedDevil said:
Is that everyone in place now?

Andy O Boyle isn't a new recruit, as he has been around since May 2022, but listing him here for completeness.


CEO: Omar Berrada

Sporting Director: Dan Ashworth

Technical Director: Jason Wilcox

Director of Recruitment: Christopher Vivell.

Sports Coordinator / Deputy DOF: Andy O'Boyle
Click to expand...

On paper it’s very very good. Elite.

Hopefully they gel and work together well.
 
The Irish Connection said:
Great stuff.
Let’s hope they can execute a great transfer window now.
Still think we need a goal scoring winger and that’s gone a bit quiet after the news came out that Olise was likely to go to Bayern.

Lets see what happens.
Click to expand...

Why are we not going all out for nico Williams? Absolute class that kid.
 
Daengophile said:
This is, perhaps, more exciting than new players.

It'll take 2-3 seasons to get to fruition but after 10 years of seeking the new Messiah this structure seems much more the solution to get us where we rightfully belong
Click to expand...

Completely agree, and that says something coming from a transfer muppet like myself!

I've basically written of next season in my head, but I'm genuinely optimistic moving forward now that the club FINALLY has decided to join modern football. It'll take a couple of years, but they will get there.
 
SirAF said:
Completely agree, and that says something coming from a transfer muppet like myself!

I've basically written of next season in my head, but I'm genuinely optimistic moving forward now that the club FINALLY has decided to join modern football. It'll take a couple of years, but they will get there.
Click to expand...

I like the idea that we will buy promising young players and produce our own stars rather than getting "galacticoes" at whatever age and cost

EtH may have made some mistakes, no doubt about that, but he has brought youngsters on and improved players
 
Rolaholic said:
Click to expand...


This concerns me

As part of United’s recruitment structure, Ten Hag and the wider recruitment department each have a veto over potential signings. It was written into Ten Hag’s first contract and remains in his new one. It is the legacy of a philosophy defined in the wake of Sir Alex Ferguson’s retirement as manager in summer 2013, which not unreasonably saw an inherent risk in signing players recommended by the recruitment department that the manager may not want.
 
devilish said:
This concerns me

As part of United’s recruitment structure, Ten Hag and the wider recruitment department each have a veto over potential signings. It was written into Ten Hag’s first contract and remains in his new one. It is the legacy of a philosophy defined in the wake of Sir Alex Ferguson’s retirement as manager in summer 2013, which not unreasonably saw an inherent risk in signing players recommended by the recruitment department that the manager may not want.
Click to expand...

Why does this concern you?
 
Rozay said:
So managers should just manage whoever they are given?
Click to expand...
they should have a huge say on transfers but ultimately the transfer people should have the final say. They are the experts on transfers and had followed the player not him. If Liverpool left klopp with a veto then they would have gotten Brandt rather then salah
 
I know actual management of the team should be left to the manager, but I do hope they can impress upon EtH to rotate and use the squad better than in the 22/23 season, especially considering the avalanche of injuries we had to contend with last term.
 
devilish said:
they should have a huge say on transfers but ultimately the transfer people should have the final say. They are the experts on transfers and had followed the player not him. If Liverpool left klopp with a veto then they would have gotten Brandt rather then salah
Click to expand...

Not really. Klopp may have still been outvoted, doesn’t mean he shouldn’t have one. Ten Hag similarly can’t form a majority on his own, but his view should be taken into consideration, otherwise the Head of Recruitment should just come and manage his own team that he built himself.
 
Rozay said:
Not really. Klopp may have still been outvoted, doesn’t mean he shouldn’t have one. Ten Hag similarly can’t form a majority on his own, but his view should be taken into consideration, otherwise the Head of Recruitment should just come and manage his own team that he built himself.
Click to expand...

Its a veto
 
devilish said:
they should have a huge say on transfers but ultimately the transfer people should have the final say. They are the experts on transfers and had followed the player not him. If Liverpool left klopp with a veto then they would have gotten Brandt rather then salah
Click to expand...

This is a rather simplistic view of it and not how things would/should work in reality. First of all the recruitment team has a Veto also, so in your hypothetical they could have also vetoed Brandt and told Klopp he can have neither or Salah. But they aren't supposed to be adversarial. They're trying to make the best decisions for the squad and team. So I'd imagine they'd act like grown ups and come to the same conclusion they did.

The idea of the manager having a Veto isn't so the manager can force one player to be bought instead of another its so the manager isn't left with a player that he doesn't believe in or thinks will be a problem. If a manager continuously vetos the recruitment team something is very wrong and would need to be changed. Be that the manager the recruitment team or both.

Ultimately the Veto isn't about the Manager/coach getting his own way every time it's there to stop a situation where a manager is left with a player he doesn't believe in and won't use properly.
 
Rozay said:
Not really. Klopp may have still been outvoted, doesn’t mean he shouldn’t have one. Ten Hag similarly can’t form a majority on his own, but his view should be taken into consideration, otherwise the Head of Recruitment should just come and manage his own team that he built himself.
Click to expand...
You're correct Rozay. The head coach should absolutely have the right to veto a transfer and that's normal at most clubs. Even at Liverpool where the Brandt and Salah example is brought up, the Liverpool recruitment structure had previously deemed Sadio Mane as someone who wasn't upto the mark in 2014 and instead signed Lazar Markovic. Van dijk was another player that Rodgers wanted from Celtic but his move was vetoed by Liverpool's recruitment structure. It wasn't until Klopp came in and signed both players.

There has to be balance and the head coach who will be working with the players to prepare for matchdays should have the right to say no, if he feels the player doesn't fit his tactical needs. Hence why Ashworth himself has gone on record and said that the won't sign a player that the coach will not play.
 
So long as the manager’s veto power is for first-team signings only, I think it’s fine.

But the first team manager should not be able to stop the club from signing youth players it considers promising.
 
MikeUpNorth said:
So long as the manager’s veto power is for first-team signings only, I think it’s fine.

But the first team manager should not be able to stop the club from signing youth players it considers promising.
Click to expand...
The first team head coach/manager won't have anything to do with signings at youth level. They (youth structure) have their own coaches, budget, scout and directors etc.
 
Last edited:
Also he might get veto but he isn’t deciding targets.

“Erik, here are three left backs we’ve extensively scouted and think fit our philosophy and transfer strategy”

“ heh no”

“ok well you’ll get nothing then”
 
devilish said:
Managers should not have vetos on transfers
Click to expand...
Klopp did have a veto on players. He even initially used on Salah because he wanted Brandt instead(or some other player from BL). Edwards had to personally meet him and after a lot of back and forth Klopp relented and the rest is history as they say.
 
MF1138 said:
This is a rather simplistic view of it and not how things would/should work in reality. First of all the recruitment team has a Veto also, so in your hypothetical they could have also vetoed Brandt and told Klopp he can have neither or Salah. But they aren't supposed to be adversarial. They're trying to make the best decisions for the squad and team. So I'd imagine they'd act like grown ups and come to the same conclusion they did.

The idea of the manager having a Veto isn't so the manager can force one player to be bought instead of another its so the manager isn't left with a player that he doesn't believe in or thinks will be a problem. If a manager continuously vetos the recruitment team something is very wrong and would need to be changed. Be that the manager the recruitment team or both.

Ultimately the Veto isn't about the Manager/coach getting his own way every time it's there to stop a situation where a manager is left with a player he doesn't believe in and won't use properly.
Click to expand...

The manager's job is largely performance based. One game (ex FA cup final) can save his arse. That is significant as anything that improves his chances now would add mileage to his career. The recruitment people are the ones who follow players throughout a long period of time, they analyze their attitude, what makes them tick etc. They are capable of going through the data generated by the data crunchers and they compare it to what they saw with their very eyes. On top of that their job is not tied to how the team is performing now thus they afford to see the bigger picture.

The two have to work together with the manager constantly being kept in the loop on whom they are targeting, what's his strengths, weaknesses etc. God forbid if the manager asks for a Martinez type of a CB only to end up with a Tarkowski. He won't play him and the club would lose money because of him. Having said that everyone is specialized in their job and they should stick to it. Believe it or not its protects the manager as well. For example ETH had to stick to Antony simply because he championed the signing of such player. If Antony failed then that would look bad on him. Its rumored that such attitude might have caused him problems in the dressing room

I understand that everyone is armed with a veto. However in a business one need to move forward and quickly rather then risk a scenario of mutual destruction. What happens in such circumstances is that usually one party will relent thus encourage the other to do it again. In the end one will almost always get what it wants to the expense of the other. We've seen that happening at United already with this fetishness for Eredivisie players, something INEOS seem to have gotten infected with as well.
 
ArmaDino said:
Klopp did have a veto on players. He even initially used on Salah because he wanted Brandt instead(or some other player from BL). Edwards had to personally meet him and after a lot of back and forth Klopp relented and the rest is history as they say.
Click to expand...

He had a huge say on transfers not a VETO which is different.
 
ArmaDino said:
Klopp did have a veto on players. He even initially used on Salah because he wanted Brandt instead(or some other player from BL). Edwards had to personally meet him and after a lot of back and forth Klopp relented and the rest is history as they say.
Click to expand...
Klopp didn't have a veto but rather he had absolutel power over recruitment hence he went ahead and signed both Mane and Van Dijk after both signings were vetoed by Edwards abs co in 2014 under Rodgers. Liverpool's football structure was widely ridiculed at the time and Klopp was joining a club where he things looked pretty bleak until his arrival and he went on to revive Liverpool's football structure when it was at it's lowest. Michael Edwards was a laughing stock at the time.

But Klopp is intelligent and understood that he needed the Liverpool football structure to work because otherwise he wouldn’t be able to succeed at the club without using the club's vast resources and man power. So Klopp took charge of the first few transfer windows and prepared Edwards and co to recruit to how he wants to develop the team. Hence when they proposed Salah as a alternative to Brandt, they convinced Klopp that Salah was a better fit for the way he wanted to play. Klopp agreed and they signed. This was all documented via the Liverpool press pack at the time.
 
Adamsk7 said:
Also he might get veto but he isn’t deciding targets.

“Erik, here are three left backs we’ve extensively scouted and think fit our philosophy and transfer strategy”

“ heh no”

“ok well you’ll get nothing then”
Click to expand...


Its more like.

“ heh no”

“ok, choose one of the 3 or we will choose for you”
 
A good thread and thoroughly worthy of discussion. Of the new people coming in, who did they replace? Just wondering how bad our structure was before / how inept the people were they are replacing. Also, what's the specific role of each person as there seems quite a few clashes in duties with the sporting director / director of recruitment / sports coordinator role (but that's me looking at titles without knowing what they do)

CEO: Omar Berrada

Sporting Director: Dan Ashworth

Technical Director: Jason Wilcox

Director of Recruitment: Christopher Vivell.

Sports Coordinator / Deputy DOF: Andy O'Boyle
 
For a change a positive surprise from the club. It didn't look like they would be able to get all the ducks in the line so early in the window. Kudos to them for getting it done. The proof will be in the pudding now. Hopefully, they would be able to have some immediate positive effect on the current transfer window. Some players out for some good money and a few good players with good upside potential in at decent fees and wages. Tired of being taken over for a ride by other clubs for mediocre talent. The era of crocks, big club rejects and players who are pals of the current manager on massive fees and wages needs to end.
 
Last edited:
Hopefully it also means that, from now on, Joel 'Martial is Utd's Pele' Glazer is making zero contribution to which players are bought and sold.
 
pcaming said:
It's in the name.

Technical for style of play, squad management etc
Recruitment is self explanatory
Sports director is overarching manager, like a CEO for football related stuff.
Click to expand...

Not really.

Director of recruitment don't CONTROL recruitment, he/she simply runs the office. He perhaps would have full say on players under 5m (e.g. Bebe) without wider consultation but otherwise it was someone else / group decision. DOR is more like Secretary of Office of Recruitment managing Agents, Permanent, Contracted, and part time.

Technical Dir doesn't control style of play, it is the MANAGER. Perhaps someone manage all the supporting staff such as medical dept, ground staff, fitness coach, Academy staff, U19, U17, U15 etc., but I am still confused between Tech Vs Football director
 
You must log in or register to reply here.