Richard Arnold leaving United

I actually think a lot of the commentary on Arnold is quite unfair and in part fueled by what happened with Greenwood (which was a shitty situation to inherit, even if he did fumble it to an extent)

He made the absolutely correct decision to separate commercial & sport, and to not get involved in decisions relating to the team. The problem was that the man in charge of the sporting element (Murtough) is completely out of his depth, and his entire strategy is to just do whatever the manager wants - which is as good as having no Director of Football at all.

Couple that with having the crappest bosses in sport and I don't believe he has done a completely terrible job. The problem is 'not terrible' is not enough for a club like United.

All said, I am glad we are bringing in someone who is much more experienced.
 
devilish said:
The reality is simple and had been so for years. Both Murtough and the manager have a veto on whom we sign or whom we not. Once they both agree on the target then the names go to the money people specifically the CEO. If United agreed to a deal then it must be signed by the Glazers to go through. Woodward used to mess at a previous stage (ie the football side).
Click to expand...

That is far from "simple" reality though, when you think about it. As clear-cut as that arrangement sounds, it really raises far more questions than it answers. Such as:

- Who drives the process? Who gets to decide what players are put on the table to be vetoed or not?
- How are priorities set, and by whom? Who decides if it's better to pursue a specific 80m winger rather than, say, a specific 35m one and additionally buy a 45m RB?
- What does it say about the coherence of the whole recruitment process if a player actually makes it as far as the veto stage before being shot down by the manager or the DOF?

If you ask me, it's a huge worry that the distribution of power on recruitment is even framed around the concept of vetoing. To a club that does good work on recruitment that would be irrelevant, because it wouldn't arise.
 
justsomebloke said:
That is far from "simple" reality though, when you think about it. As clear-cut as that arrangement sounds, it really raises far more questions than it answers. Such as:

- Who drives the process? Who gets to decide what players are put on the table to be vetoed or not?
- How are priorities set, and by whom? Who decides if it's better to pursue a specific 80m winger rather than, say, a specific 35m one and additionally buy a 45m RB?
- What does it say about the coherence of the whole recruitment process if a player actually makes it as far as the veto stage before being shot down by the manager or the DOF?

If you ask me, it's a huge worry that the distribution of power on recruitment is even framed around the concept of vetoing. To a club that does good work on recruitment that would be irrelevant, because it wouldn't arise.
Click to expand...

Oh I am not a big fan of the process. I criticized our modus operandi throughout SAF's late reign and got more vocal after the legend retired. I even got the tag to prove that. Let's give me my opinion of why our system doesn't work

a-its a known thing that the Glazers are clueless + they take ages to decide. The whole takeover process is a classic example of that. Thus any deal the football board might negotiate prior to the opening of the summer transfer window will probably be ignored as transfer budgets aren't set and the Glazers will kick the can later on. Meanwhile any deal that drags on is a problem because the Glazers will take their own time to give their go ahead. Take that + the manager's interest to have new players as quick as possible to integrate into the group then there's a very short time window for the two (DOF and manager) to come to a consensus.

b- in the current setup its within the DOF's interest to simply let the manager call the shots. That's because the only time the DOF can look bad is if the clubs pays silly money on a player only for the manager to refuse to play him. If he avoids that then its pretty much plain sailing for him. If the manager's sign great players then the DOF will get some of the credit for it. If he doesn't then well, its the manager's fault, isn't it? Surely no one can blame Murtough for signing Antony, Amrabat and Martinez. They all played for ETH ffs! On the other hand the manager has no choice but to take action. Unlike Murtough, Arnold and co his job is highly performance based. If he doesn't make it to top 4 then he's out. He can't afford to shrug responsibility given the circumstances.

Thus we have a system which was initially built to distribute the blame on as many people as possible (many people, little responsibility) but in reality it gets all the cons of having so many overheads (ridiculous red tape) without getting any benefits (the manager ends up taking the decision). Add to the fact that manager these days lack both the time (man management had become a nightmare) and the knowledge (most managers had grown up working with a competent DOF) then things are even worse then they look. That's why I hate people pinning the fault on one person (usually the manager). Murtough has a veto as well. If he disagreed on a deal then he should have shown some cojones and veto it.

A properly run club would have a different setup. The manager and the DOF would sit down and together they'll identify the type of player the club needs with the manager probably listing one or two examples. Then the football team would spend months analyzing data, sending scouts and investigating the candidates availability and character traits. Throughout the process the manager will be kept on the loop with videos and information (data stats etc) of any candidate. By the end of the process the entire team would have 3-4 names with an estimate of how much they would cost. Occasionally the manager's and the DOF's opinion will differ but usually the communication between the two will be so constant that the DOF's candidate will be very similar in terms of characteristics to the manager's candidate. Ultimately the DOF and the CEO will decide things as the former is specialized in recruitment while the other one hold the purse strings.
 
devilish said:
A properly run club would have a different setup. The manager and the DOF would sit down and together they'll identify the type of player the club needs with the manager probably listing one or two examples. Then the football team would spend months analyzing data, sending scouts and investigating the candidates availability and character traits. Throughout the process the manager will be kept on the loop with videos and information (data stats etc) of any candidate. By the end of the process the entire team would have 3-4 names with an estimate of how much they would cost. Occasionally the manager's and the DOF's opinion will differ but usually the communication between the two will be so constant that the DOF's candidate will be very similar in terms of characteristics to the manager's candidate. Ultimately the DOF and the CEO will decide things as the former is specialized in recruitment while the other one hold the purse strings.
Click to expand...

Couldn't agree more!
 
Tom Van Persie said:
Click to expand...


Do not need to read this article. It is apparent that the relationship was untenable. It would be interesting to know if Arnold's vote against INEOS has contributed to Ratcliffe only being able to acquire 25% at this stage? The vote Arnold went against was the 51% and the put and call option.

I would have preferred a complete break from the Glazers, but would have preferred 51% INEOS majority ownership.

All in all, I am glad his backside is out of the door and I just want those siblings to follow in the not too distant future. I do have faith that Ratcliffe will put an end to this circus of "leaks".
 
RedDevilQuebecois said:
Because Richard Arnold is little to no different from the abject failure that his predecessor was.
Click to expand...

So if somebody fails at the club they deserve to be thought of like that? It's just that black and white for you?
 
I feel for Arnold. I believe he genuinely wanted to undo the damage of the Woodward era, but:

A. Probably lacked the knowhow.
B. Employed by unambitious leeches.
C. Sentimentality toward newborn-level naïve Murtough.
 
ForeverRed1 said:
Is he any good? Don’t know loads about him.
Click to expand...

Financially he's brilliant. He's a clear upgrade over Arnold and Woodward on the matter. The guy was at Juventus in what was considered as a nightmarish scenario ( Serie B while still retaining a number of players on silly money). He played a huge role in getting rid of many players while keeping the really good ones. That was done while rebuilding the stadium (first Italian club with its own stadium) and even finding money for a respectable transfer budget year after year. At PSG he was responsible on the commercial side and he turned the club into a financial juggernaut. The guy is able to think out of the box (ex turning PSG's shirt into a fashion brand), he's fantastic in attracting sponsors, lead infrastructure projects while keeping expenses down. Think of him as the littlefinger of football.

Football wise, well, he's not that great. At Juventus he was accused of sticking to the DOF for far too long despite the many bad signing he made and for not tackling the fitness coaching problem which was leading to waves upon waves of injury. The guy is a football CEO like lets say Marotta is. You can't expect him to sit down and identify football issues and make successful football appointments based on his own knowledge. Hence why I think that we need to build around the guy a team of people who understand football very well.
 
devilish said:
Financially he's brilliant. He's a clear upgrade over Arnold and Woodward on the matter. The guy was at Juventus in what was considered as a nightmarish scenario ( Serie B while still retaining a number of players on silly money). He played a huge role in getting rid of many players while keeping the really good ones. That was done while rebuilding the stadium (first Italian club with its own stadium) and even finding money for a respectable transfer budget year after year. At PSG he was responsible on the commercial side and he turned the club into a financial juggernaut. The guy is able to think out of the box (ex turning PSG's shirt into a fashion brand), he's fantastic in attracting sponsors, lead infrastructure projects while keeping expenses down. Think of him as the littlefinger of football.

Football wise, well, he's not that great. At Juventus he was accused of sticking to the DOF for far too long despite the many bad signing he made and for not tackling the fitness coaching problem which was leading to waves upon waves of injury. The guy is a football CEO like lets say Marotta is. You can't expect him to sit down and identify football issues and make successful football appointments based on his own knowledge. Hence why I think that we need to build around the guy a team of people who understand football very well.
Click to expand...

Intersting, thanks for that. Would be an interesting appointment.
 


I will remember him for this. "Club burned money before i got here". In next 12 months he burns 400 mil.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.