Should ETH have a say on INEOS transfers or accept whatever he is given?

So let's say we have Ashworth and Mitchell as Sporting director and head of recruitment respectively. The manager asks for a player and he lists exactly the qualities that player need to have to succeed. He suggest player X that he thinks would fit the bill perfectly. Mitchell tries to get the guy but they are asking silly money for him. Meanwhile all the football structure is working for alternatives. After months of hard work (watching loads of players regularly, working on data analysis, narrowing it down according to contract, temperament etc) they find a talent whom they believe is even better to the player that the manager suggested. Video clips are sent to the manager and he likes what he's seeing. Mitchell starts working on a deal and guess what, he's able to bring that player for 1/3 the price. Yet when everything is set to be concluded, the manager throws his veto because he insists that we sign the player he suggested. Turns out that the player the manager wants is the teachers pet having worked with him at the previous 2 clubs.

Managers should be consulted. The last thing we need are players who aren't being played simply because the manager didn't want them here. However the manager is not the one watching players on a Saturday evening, game after game or are responsible on long term planning. Its simply not his responsibility and expertise.
 
He should have some say but he doesn't have enough credit in the bank.

Anthony - say no more.

A clear strategic plan on the style and way we are going to be playing should be agreed upon with the manager and sporting director(s)/DoF.

A list of players that suit that style should then be drawn up by the scouts and DoF and once reasonable initial discussions have taken place then the manager can be involved.

The manager should definitely have some input with regards to priorities but in terms of deals, price payed etc then this should be well out of the managers jurisdiction so that desperation doesn't set in.

Proper due diligence, salaries, contract length, alternative's need to be done and dusted well
in advance.

We can never get to the end of the window desperate scenario that we've been in so many times recently - where we pay through the nose for targets that would have been much cheaper previously.

We have to lose our reputation of being the team
who always get their trousers pulled down on deals, the laughing stock.
 
It seems Klopp had initially wanted Mario Götze and Draxler for Liverpool, but the club's analytics team suggested better alternatives for those positions, recommending Salah and Mane instead.

Klopp was convinced by their analysis and didn't oppose the signings.

Hopefully, we can use a similar, collegiate, approach.
 
Last edited:
Whilst some ETH signings haven't been good, it seems ludicrous that a manager doesnt have some say in signings, only he knows what hes trying to achieve.
 
El Jefe said:
Bold to assume he'll even get to work with them.
Click to expand...

I think everything is pointing that ETH will leave. The job is massive and the new admin will be on a hurry. The last thing the new people need is having to understand and negotiate with a brooding guy who feels that the goalposts had just changed
 
RedIan said:
Whilst some ETH signings haven't been good, it seems ludicrous that a manager doesnt have some say in signings, only he knows what hes trying to achieve.
Click to expand...

Ashworth describes his job perfectly here

https://www.ucfb.ac.uk/news/brighton-s-dan-ashworth-describes-role-of-technical-director/

“If it’s a big decision on who’s going to be the next academy manager then that’s not the first team coach’s job. That’s clear in my view,” he says. “If it’s a big decision where we’re signing a player then ultimately, there is no point having a disagreement with the manager. If I want to sign him and the manager doesn’t, then the player won’t play and it becomes a fruitless exercise.”

He says: “We would work off of a traffic light system; the recruitment department have got to like the player; the player has got to stack up on data and numbers like the contract and if we can afford him; and the first team manager has got to like the player. If all three things get the green light, then we’ll go ahead. If one is orange, then we need to have a discussion “


Is there much back and forth with the manager when debating the possibility of signing a player? “Yes, of course,” Ashworth explains. “They’re big, multi-million-pound decisions. If it didn’t go backwards and forwards, then there’d be something wrong!

“In any business, if there’s a multi-million-pound decision then several people will be getting involved. It’s healthy debate and constructive conflict. Graham might say “I like this player” and we ask “why?” because we think another player can do X, Y, and Z better and is better value. We then either agree or disagree, then sign the player, or we don’t.”


Ashworth ends our conversation by stating that his role is one as a “relationship builder”, adding: “I’ve got to get on the right page with whichever head coach I’m working with. I’ve got to understand their philosophy, what they want from their team and what they like and dislike, because there’s no point in me bringing them in a player that I know isn’t going to be any good to them.”
 
Maagge said:
Of course he should have a veto. As long as he's the manager he's also the one picking the team on match days. There's no point in signing someone the manager doesn't want unless it's for the youth team.

He obviously shouldn't be writing up shortlists of targets but that's a different matter.
Click to expand...
I think it depends how the veto is used. In practice, I would think it becomes more of a discussion rather than flat out saying no without any solid reason. This requires good communication from the manager and management team. You don't want to be in a position where the manager is vetoing RW options because he wants Antony instead. The same goes for vetoing an option because the manager isn't familiar with a player may need to be questioned and rejected or accepted. Ultimately, all parties need to act in good faith.
 
How can any man united supporter want eth having a say in transfers in and out of the club, he has royally screwed up our squad for the worse
 
Having a say in transfers is part of a manager's job. ETH is unable to carry out this part of his job successfully, so it's better that he's sacked rather than undermined by the United hierarchy who surely by now don't trust him with transfer decisions.
 
RedIan said:
Whilst some ETH signings haven't been good, it seems ludicrous that a manager doesnt have some say in signings, only he knows what hes trying to achieve.
Click to expand...

Absolutely. And signing a player a manager actively doesnt want (i.e. a signing he would veto) is incredibly stupid. I doubt any club anywhere in the world would do that. Obviously different story when it comes to whether or not he gets his first choice but that’s got nothing to do with ETH and his veto option.
 
Lay said:
Signings should be based on what style of football the club want to implement. The manager can then try to get the best out of them
Click to expand...
This this this this. The head coach should fit what the Director of Football recruits player wise.
 
He obviously needs to have a say. But the key thing is that whoever is in charge of transfers is a competent person with a properly organised department in tune with the long term choice of style of play which should not be manager dependent. Pick the manager for the style, not change manager and change style.
 
Actually, I think he has lost the right to have a say. Most of his high profile signings didn't work out. I agree that the manager has the right to veto but the clubs also can veto his recommendations. Sadly, United didn't have the balls to veto his and ended with panic buys. Frankly speaking, say we didn't buy Antony or Mount or Onana due to the transfer fee. I guess we wouldn't be much worse than today but save few hundred million.
 
Say in position, attributes, given a list of players and names his preference. Ideally they do background and personality check on the player and decide together.


And it’s also important he’s involved because in the unlikely event that one day Ratcliffe has us competing for a player that is also wanted by City, Real etc. let’s hypothetically say Bellingham stayed at Dortmund and moved in 2 years time. Then the manager speaking to the player can make the difference.

A manger who has always been a part of the process will naturally be better when he meets and greets the player.

But the days of the manager naming and chasing one player all summer only to not get him or we overpay by £50m or more needs to stop.

It’s amazing but United have chased Sancho / Antony in the same way that Real Madrid chased Ronaldo and Bellingham, or Liverpool chased VVD etc as all or nothing signings. Those players exist but are very very rare and right now United won’t be in the market for them.
 
While our recruitment department should have the lead on building the squad I think it makes sense to talk to the manager about potential transfers. This should be a cooperation but the lead in team building needs to be taken by the club and specialists we hire or consult to build a cohesive team that can play the football we want.
 
Every manager needs to have a say in transfers, the main issue is that we need to stop relying on managers to identify our targets, rather they should be identifying a profile and skillset (perhaps naming an exemplar or two) and there should be a team of analysts and scouts that find players who fit the bill.
 
glazed said:
Surely having a veto is having a say?
Click to expand...

He can have a say but not a veto. Ultimately 50:50 right now he's gone by May. Mount and Anthony are the hills he dies on.

... well that and his inability to improve any player in the squad, inability to get across his playing style, pick a workable starting 11 that fits the EPL, inability to make good in game decisions...

ok. can i tag out yet and let someone else take over?
 
Let’s all be honest, the likliehood of ETH being at the club beyond the EGR of this season is very minimal so this is about as hypothetical as hypothetical can probably ever be.

My understanding of the Director Of Football whether it be Ashworth or someone else is that they are tasked with creating out on pitch identity, create our style of play, handle player contracts, handle incoming/outgoing transfers and direct the scouts jobs.

Then my understanding of the Head Of Recruitment whether it is Mitchell or someone else is using a network of global contacts to identify players, do due diligence, liaise with the Director Of Football on scouting and ensure potential incoming players fit into the style of play.

So with that plus the CEO who is most likely to be Blanc we would have a genuinely brilliant footballing structure in place, people who would create a culture, create a footballing philosophy and style of play so everyone could see who or what is needed incoming wise and outgoing wise for that to work and the job of the head coach is to coach the players and pick the team.

We have seen what happens when ETH doesn’t have a proper structure above him like he did at Ajax with VDS and Overmars and he simply pushes for players that he’s worked with or knows from Holland in some form and as seen it doesn’t translate to English football, players like Antony or Amrabat aren’t good enough to step up from Holland to England.

So in short the answer is no and ETH should NOT have an input into players coming in or out as the days of managers/head coaches being the top tier of a club on the football side stopped with Sir Alex and Wenger, even Guardiola and Klopp work under a structure.

I believe in having the structure include the head coach in meetings for incoming players and getting their opinion seeing as they’re the ones who pick the team and everyone needs to be working as one but there’s a reason for such structures, at a club like United we should have one of the best structures in football in place.
 
Revan said:
If only United operated like this in the last 10 years, we would have been far less shit.

I think most clubs operate like this.
Click to expand...
Competent ones at least... People miss the point when they hear should managers be in charge of transfers or have a say. Of course they play a key role. They identify needs and say what current players they have that they like or don't like, what fits and what doesn't, what their priority should be. That shouldn't change ... They should have nothing to do with actual judgement of players not in the club though. They can say "give me someone like Frenkie de Jong", and then it's on the club to give them a player of that type at a good enough level I'd say.

The manager role at United though is like a catch all phrase where they do everything in addition to actually coaching the team.

Hell even in big normal companies, the manager doesn't necessarily hire the people or even interview them. Often enough they just say they have a need, and the company/HR group goes out and finds candidates and places them in your group. It's not that different in football.
 
Managers don't last much in the modern game, in general. The only constant capable of overseeing a long term process is a solid football structure that remains all that time. So they should be the ones drawing the masterlines and building the squad in the long run in a cohesive way, having a strong control on the market, finding the right profiles and developing a sense of homogeneity.

The club can adopt a balanced approach and take decisions that fit their general strategy and (ideally) could be also welcome by the manager. But I think the club should be the ones having the power and then trying to find that perfect balance if possible.

A manager can give ideas, share his conclusions about the team, suggest profiles and being given a candy from time to time. But the way I see it no random manager should have the power to consistently say if a player should be signed or not, because in that case the general plan gets distorted by all these different managers and their own preferences, and maybe short term interests in some cases.

So ideally club and manager would work together, but the power should remain at the club to ensure certain stability in the building process, with the manager playing a secondary/supportive role, with occasional concessions here and there if they earn the credit for it. If we talk about ETH specifically I think his credit is bankrupt so I wouldn't give him the time of day.
 
CallyRed said:
At Chelsea, we choose the player for you
Click to expand...

Copycats, that is our thing!

At least we pick good ones :wenger: Maybe United should go the same way. Manager gets what he gets and needs to do something with it. Works for us.
 
This thread gives me hope that (a part) of Caf has finally understood that the manager is a club employee, it is not the club itself, neither the one who sits above the club, and not in a 50-50 relation with the club.

I was seriously expecting it to be divided between what we are getting in this thread, and ‘of course the manager should be in charge of signings, if you don’t back him, then sack him’, and ‘the DoF and the structure around him is there to support the manager on signing the players he wants’.

Eleven years of misery, but it has finally happened. Caf has finally understood the role of the manager and is in an almost unanimous agreement. This deserves a celebration by itself.
 
RG77 said:
Copycats, that is our thing!

At least we pick good ones :wenger: Maybe United should go the same way. Manager gets what he gets and needs to do something with it. Works for us.
Click to expand...
I think lots of clubs will go in this direction. Most US sport clubs have a General Manager (the DoF equivalent) who signs and sells players, and a head coach who coaches and plays them. It is not unusual from the head coach to read on Twitter than his team just made a complicated deal that brought 3 players at the club at the cost of giving 4 players. Yankees are ahead at these things!
 
Him pushing for Antony for 85mn itself disqualifies him from ever asking for a specific player...
 
Real Madrid have been arguably the best run club in the last ten years. How much say do their managers get in their transfers? (Genuinely asking as it seems like very little but I could be wrong)
 
The jury is still out on a lot of his players, but even if that wasn’t the case, the club structure we should be trying to implement is one that transcends the manager imo.

Ten Hag should meet with the DOF and tell him the profile of player he wants, and they liaise with the scouts who give him 5-10 names from their constantly evolving shortlist. Don’t get your first choice? Fine, we walk away and go for the second. We don’t sit on our hands all summer before returning on deadline with the exact same money they wanted in July - or worse!
 
After his sack payment he probaly could afford copy of Football Manager.

I if that tweet is real he is really deluded.
 
Maurice Setters Training said:
It seems Klopp had initially wanted Mario Götze and Draxler for Liverpool, but the club's analytics team suggested better alternatives for those positions, recommending Salah and Mane instead.

Klopp was convinced by their analysis and didn't oppose the signings.

Hopefully, we can use a similar, collegiate, approach.
Click to expand...
Isn't this how we are supposed to operate as a football club?

I much like the above approach by the way.
 
The way I see it is that we shouldn't sign players he doesn't want, but we shouldn't flat out agree on all his recommendations either.

My understanding that in most top clubs the manager highlights the areas of improvement and the profile of the player he wants. The director of football would then work with the scouts on identifying that player, keeping in mind the long term strategy (age), the cost, availability, and the reputation among other things. Then they present the manager with a shortlist.

The director of football should also be able to challenge the manager sometimes, if he sees a clear gap for example but the manager wants to prioritise another position, it should be ok to challenge that.

Anyway in most cases collaboration is key. What happened in the past few windows was us allowing the manager to go with what's familiar, and that failed.
 
Revan said:
If the DoF wants to sign a 100m player but the manager says he won't play, the club has a massive problem. Either DoF, or manager, or both should be fired. Probably the manager (why on Earth he will not play a 100m player?).
Click to expand...
Imagine EtH is the dof and wants to sign Antony for 100M. Also imagine Pep is the coach.
 
This is the problem, as our coach he should have some input, but he's so bad at it. And he's not doing great at the coaching part either. Honestly if he's still here next season then this INEOS thing will be a false dawn. They'd be naive to think they're so good at everything that they can drag Ten Hag along and achieve anything meaningful.
 
Of course a manager should have a say. If he wants to implement a style of play he will need the players to achieve that. I think he needs to inform Ineos exactly what he wants to do, then sell/buy the players in turn. I would hope he goes back to bare bones Ajax style of play. No more fecking about, it's time to change this side for the better. Ineos and ETH need to come to an understanding and avoid the iceberg dead ahead.
 
INEOS should, and I hope they will, take over recruitment fully and the manager should just be a coach, have some input? Sure, but this is the modern way of doing it. Aren't you all sick and tired of hiring managers who want the players they want, then we hire another manager who wants a different type of player?

Modern football works like this, the club builds an identity and the recruitment team build the team around that identity and then they identify coaches to come in and coach that team based on that identity, we shouldn't be changing identity everytime we hire a new manager it's been absolutely terrible for us for overt 10 years, it's as simple as that. Stop giving managers/coaches so much power especially when they are god awful at recruitment like Ten Hag has been.
 
If the manager signs Mount to play as a CM, then it is time for the manager to no longer have a say.

Not that there is any basis at all to trust anyone from Ineos either. Do Ineos have a tactical style of play and a profile of player to fit it, along with an understanding of how the existing squad fits into that style of play and a long term strategy for scouting, attracting and signing players to help improve it? Or are they some company that sells chemicals and only owns a quarter of the club?
 
Last edited:
You must log in or register to reply here.