If Ineos bring the right football people in to the club that helps find the right players and bring the right talent into the club then other than ETH identifying the positions he wants, he should get what he's given. He's proven so far that when left to look after transfers that he's not up to it so that responsibility should be taken away at least for now.
Should ETH have a say on INEOS transfers or accept whatever he is given?
- Thread starter fastwalker
- Start date
Indeed, that was what was reported back then. Furthermore, he tried to get Mount in loan when he was managing in Holland so he was a player EtH was interested (or at the very least familiar) before. The entire idea of two 10s with Mount and Bruno looked to have been EtH’s.
The club signings usually have been for high profile players, like Falcao, Ronaldo, or Di Maria. So if some signing was a club signing, it was Casemiro.
The question is not who were ETH signings its who wasnt. All those who played for him or against him at Ajax are clearly his, and that includes Mount who apparently had a MOTM game against Ajax when at Vitesse. So only Hojlund and Casimero really appear to have come from the recruitment team.
This is a great shout, will allow continuity regardless of who the manager is.
I think I basically said the same as you are? It's an issue of the whole squad/team that they are this open, not of a single player.
The club decides on a style of play, then they hire a manager to implement it. The manager is responsible for engineering a well-functioning system able to serve the style of play. Of course, he should always have a say regarding the shape of the squad, who comes and who goes. If the executives are going to muffle his voice during the transfer windows and bypass his judgements to "protect the assets", they should trade the shirt and tie for a tracksuit and go teach the system themselves, too, because they don't really need a manager, but a yes-man.
Ideally, after assessing his players, the manager decides on a few possible formations to make his system work and analyses the roles of the players (and their variables) within the tactical set-up(s). At the end of this process, he identifies the weakest links which must be addressed when the transfer market opens. The scouts offer a list of possible targets to the DoF. The latter with his knowledge of the market and the club's finances will discuss with the manager the best way to move forward. Once they reach a conclusion, the scouts and the DoF should convince the manager which are the best options in player recruitment. Not because they must defer to "the cult of the manager", but because the manager's the one who must make it work and if the wheels come off, it's always his head under the guillotine. Similarly, if the manager is adamant about a specific player, he should also be able to plead his case and convince the DoF and the scouts that he's right. Edwards, Fallows and Hunter talked to Klopp and convinced him that Salah was the best option, they didn't leave him out of the equation.
Within these fluid parameters and once all the different personalities have managed to find a way to understand each other and work together, we can all move forward. Just like in any sane working environment. Delegation of duties isn't about shutting people out. You say you want the modernization of the club, but what you're really asking for is to trade one "father figure" for another. Mistakes are bound to happen in an environment where assessments and valuations are almost a daily process. Nearly 1/2 transfers turns out to be a dud one way or the other. The best thing you can do is follow a process that makes sense on the pitch. The Ineos people may come in and make a few bad signings themselves. What then? Off with their heads and go back to searching for the new Ferguson? It should be about maximizing the potential of the decision makers. It's not the dick-measuring contest and the melodrama between the song-writer and the front-man in a rock band most of you imagine it to be.
Ideally, after assessing his players, the manager decides on a few possible formations to make his system work and analyses the roles of the players (and their variables) within the tactical set-up(s). At the end of this process, he identifies the weakest links which must be addressed when the transfer market opens. The scouts offer a list of possible targets to the DoF. The latter with his knowledge of the market and the club's finances will discuss with the manager the best way to move forward. Once they reach a conclusion, the scouts and the DoF should convince the manager which are the best options in player recruitment. Not because they must defer to "the cult of the manager", but because the manager's the one who must make it work and if the wheels come off, it's always his head under the guillotine. Similarly, if the manager is adamant about a specific player, he should also be able to plead his case and convince the DoF and the scouts that he's right. Edwards, Fallows and Hunter talked to Klopp and convinced him that Salah was the best option, they didn't leave him out of the equation.
Within these fluid parameters and once all the different personalities have managed to find a way to understand each other and work together, we can all move forward. Just like in any sane working environment. Delegation of duties isn't about shutting people out. You say you want the modernization of the club, but what you're really asking for is to trade one "father figure" for another. Mistakes are bound to happen in an environment where assessments and valuations are almost a daily process. Nearly 1/2 transfers turns out to be a dud one way or the other. The best thing you can do is follow a process that makes sense on the pitch. The Ineos people may come in and make a few bad signings themselves. What then? Off with their heads and go back to searching for the new Ferguson? It should be about maximizing the potential of the decision makers. It's not the dick-measuring contest and the melodrama between the song-writer and the front-man in a rock band most of you imagine it to be.
Absolutely NO. DoF should decide based on the team needs.
I am not against a manager having a say in recruitment. Ideally he should. But given track record of ETH I think keep him 100 meters away.
I am not against a manager having a say in recruitment. Ideally he should. But given track record of ETH I think keep him 100 meters away.
Veto power perhaps?
He shouldn't have input into picking players to start matches never mind in Recruitment. Hes a Bust. A decent manager in to have input into recruitment is the ideal way forward. ETH is just not capable of decent input.
Hojlund has the same agent as ETH, and ETH's son works at the same agency, so Hojlund is pretty much ETH's decision, too. I doubt that anyone else in Man Utd would ever consider him as our main striker and willing to pay 70 million.
Casemiro is the only one from our team and we had interest in him before ETH arrived here. Of course, ETH did not want him, and he waited the whole summer for De Jong, but after the beatings in the first two games he panicked, and he agreed.
Have a say on potential transfers? Yes.
Recommend players? No.
Recommend players? No.
He should’t have any say at all. When he’s had a say we’ve lost our best players; Ronaldo and now Sancho and brought in his non-performing soyboys for ridicoulos money.
Transfers are a gamble. Well run clubs are successful in their gambling more often than not and everyone has a stinker now and again.
What is more damning of Ten Hag is that he has had the benefit of working with many of his signings before and seemingly couldn't recognise that they were deficient so given his inability to diagnose a poor player when he was working with them day in /day out for several years I have zero faith in his ability to make a pick off the back of a few match highlights.
Ten Hag should only be a stakeholder, not a decision maker in the recruitment/retention/contracting process.
What is more damning of Ten Hag is that he has had the benefit of working with many of his signings before and seemingly couldn't recognise that they were deficient so given his inability to diagnose a poor player when he was working with them day in /day out for several years I have zero faith in his ability to make a pick off the back of a few match highlights.
Ten Hag should only be a stakeholder, not a decision maker in the recruitment/retention/contracting process.
Is he seeing himself surviving past January?
Yes, he wants a veto on future manager hires as well.
The manager should always have input, but the club needs to build with an idea of what they want too, regardless of who the manager may be, because that can always change. If you build a squad for a manager specifically, and they leave or are let go, then three squad isn't necessarily useful to the new manager.
Specifically looking at our manager, he's hardly covering himself in glory, so really shouldn't be picking players for the future when he's looking unlikely to be here.
Specifically looking at our manager, he's hardly covering himself in glory, so really shouldn't be picking players for the future when he's looking unlikely to be here.
Does he want access to the nuclear football as well?
Sadly he still won't be able to launch a proper counterattack.
After Antony transfer he should stay away from transfer decisions.
Don’t know how trustworthy the article is but if it is true it strikes me as arrogant. Does he think he’s done well so far?
Agree, they always goes for the best. Sometimes, it backfires like Hazard. Buy players based on style of play and hire manager base on style of play so managers shouldn't argue if the player is suitable. Right way to go, ETH just do you job and coach. If you are unhappy then quit. I lost faith in him so he can only suck it up or leave.
Yes he should have a say unless you want us to end up like Chelsea. A say meaning priority positions and skillsets needed.
And if the manager absolutely does or does not want a player sold / bought then it shouldn't happen.
And if the manager absolutely does or does not want a player sold / bought then it shouldn't happen.
Considering how many excuses are for him right now, imagine what would happen if he really ended up with almost no say in transfers. "Impossible to judge him. Not his fault that the club bought him X who is shite!".
Absolutely. So INEOS can do the exact opposite. ETH has done an uncanny job of getting them all wrong. I include Licha in there because it was well documented that he went for Timber first.
Sorry but this is a ridiculous question. All managers always have a say in transfers, nobody is gonna dump players on a manager if they say they have no need for said player. What is the point of doing this - the manager won't use that player even if you buy them
What has been toxic was Ten Hag playing a head if recruitement solely deciding transfers and Murtough having zero expertise to provide feedback or disagree
It needs to be collaboration of partners, always
What has been toxic was Ten Hag playing a head if recruitement solely deciding transfers and Murtough having zero expertise to provide feedback or disagree
It needs to be collaboration of partners, always
They did that in Florentino's first spell, and then in the first year when he became president again. But since then, they have been very wise in transfers and do not necessary go only for big names. They have been going typically for young promising players (Vicius, Rodrygo, Militao, Camavinga, Tchoumani etc) and it has been working well for them. While they do not explicitly tell who is in charge, most rumours say that their chief scout and their CEO are those who decides in transfers (albeit Perez probably wants a big big name once in a while and they have to get one). For us, assuming that Mitchell becomes head of recruitment under INEOS, I guess he will have the last say in transfers (not Ashworth the DoF, or whoever is manager, or Blank the CEO).
Erm Sancho has been shit for 3 managers and has never been close to our best player and Ronaldo for all his goals was a detriment to the team as a whole and we played better without him
By your logic, Casimiro is also a Ten Hag signing then, if playing against a team of his is the criteria?
What evidence do we have that Ineos is any better at transfers? They haven't even announced a DoF.
I doubt it’ll matter what he wants. He’ll be sacked before the start of next season
Exactly - as always the caf overreacts - any manager needs some say on the transfer but they have to be the bottom of the funnel. The club has to create set profiles it looks for in each position, the manager can highlight which positions they deem most important (the DoF can agree/disagree) and then you get shortlists of players for each specific profiles. Only then would a manager get involved in giving their opinion on the actual players themselves and by this time the scouts have assessed hundreds of players and it's right for a manager to have some kind of veto power without it being ridiculous. i.e. if there's 5 candidates for the DM role, the manager should have 1 veto.
Unless we move fully to a Head Coach model which it what Chelsea have to my knowledge, where the head Coach simply coaches and the transfer team pick and choose all signings. The article makes out ETH would not be up for this approach.
This would be my stance too. I'm a supporter of EtH but his track record with signings is so bad that I wouldn't involve him at all.
What exactly is it with EtH that you ”are a fan” of?
If ETH is staying then of course it should be a group decision that includes the manager.
You don’t pay a manager £9million a year and say there you go, get what you are given……
You don’t pay a manager £9million a year and say there you go, get what you are given……
He actually holds the players to account for their BS. He's not letting Sancho back in, dropped Maguire for a long time, drummed out Ronaldo and has dropped Rashford.
Honestly I don't think anyone could be successful with these lazy f#ckwits so at least he's punishing them for their uselessness.
Don't speak stuff like that here. Many want new players to come in xmas wrappers that the manager opens in his office in the morning.
Basically he creates conflicts with the players and are unable to solve them. Great managing-skills…
Whether he gets a day on transfers or not will very much depend on whether they plan to keep him or not. If there is no intention to get rid, of course he will get a say.
He’s effectively coaching for a contract now as he will have one more year left on his current deal. They either extend him or sack him in the summer.