We need a bona fide DoF. 2021 version.

[Rash Decision]

Most of all, we need a sets of fans who understand that Football isn't the way they envisioned. Trust the DOF fully.

When the DOF decided we need a strong hand and approached conte, we have to accept that it's for the best. If the DOF decided to sell Martial (3 years ago without a hindsight) we have to back him up, instead of complaining non stop. And many others unpopular decision that the DOF would need to eventually take. SAF even in his late year didn't always take the logical steps (selling Beckham for Ronaldo, Giggs in the Middle, Buying Park Ji Sung, etc) but in SAF we trust.

As long as the next DOF (or manager) are being riddled with bogus expectations of "united ways", "youth", etc they're like working with a handicapped and can't fully express themselves. SAF didn't even reach United ways until much later when his capital is enough for him to pull a clearsale and trust the youth. If Ten Haag sold Pogba/Bruno/Maguire and play say... our youth we'd be baying for his blood, and probably the board will sack him after a few lost (which will eventually happen with this kind of gamble)

So ask ourselves, are we ready for the next SAF?

I’m not sure if I understand your point fully. The DOF isn’t necessarily always correct. According to Spurs fans, their new DOF was responsible for backtracking on the club’s promise to return to attacking football and shortlisting defensive managers, which resulted in Nuno’s hiring.

 

[Sky1981]

I’m not sure if I understand your point fully. The DOF isn’t necessarily always correct. According to Spurs fans, their new DOF was responsible for backtracking on the club’s promise to return to attacking football and shortlisting defensive managers, which resulted in Nuno’s hiring.

True, but if the fans always veto everything the DOF did, it'll hamper his job. He won't be emboldened to do what's right but what's popular.

Most successful managers have the guts to go against the grain and they get results.

 

[JPRouve]

The problem with this theory is that there were no football structure at the club. SAF was the structure. SAF can't stay on forever. It doesn't matter they leave at the same time.

It was down to Ed who is in charge of running the club to modernize and implement a football structure at the club.

Ed's incompetency shouldn't be blamed on SAF or Gill. It's not SAF or Gill job to modernize the club and to be fair most probably they were not the right person to do that as they have never worked in a proper modern football structure.

SAF and Gill was right to leave the modernisation of the club to the next generation in charge. Ultimately, Ed wasted 8 years and he shouldn't be in the position running the club in the first place. Glazers love him to bits because the owners was only interested in balance sheet.

It's the combination of Glazers and Ed prioritizing money that leads us into this shit. And don't blame SAF and Gill for it. Especially SAF the man deserve the upmost respect for his past contributions to Man Utd. Note that SAF is still in advisory roles after stepping down.

That's the problem and the point I'm making. SAF and Gill were the structure it was therefore their job to make sure that any structure they leave was usable for someone else. And no it wasn't doswn to Woodward to modernize the structure, he only became the CEO in July 2013. The modernization of the structure isn't something that you don't quickly and easily which is why it was SAF's and Gill's job otherwise what you are suggesting is that SAF and Gill were right to leave a dud to their successors which is the strangest point that anyone can make.

 

[Adnan]

.

That's the problem and the point I'm making. SAF and Gill were the structure it was therefore their job to make sure that any structure they leave was usable for someone else. And no it wasn't doswn to Woodward to modernize the structure, he only became the CEO in July 2013. The modernization of the structure isn't something that you don't quickly and easily which is why it was SAF's and Gill's job otherwise what you are suggesting is that SAF and Gill were right to leave a dud to their successors which is the strangest point that anyone can make.

Agreed. When Woodward and Moyes were appointed first team Manager and CEO, they walked into a almost non existent footballing structure according to reports. Fergie used to run everything on the football side and his brother (Martin) was his main scout and he also had the likes of Jimmy Ryan scouting who was on the coaching staff. When Moyes arrived we had one full time scout (Jim Lawlor). Moyes was even reported to have asked where he could tap into player data bases to access scout and data information on prospective players, (which he used at Everton's Finch Farm) to which he was told that all the information was in Jim Lawlor's head. I found that shocking personally.

And what ever we say about David Moyes, one thing he was quick to understand was the use of data and analytics at Everton who were a club that were ahead of us when it comes to having the foresight to embrace a modern structure which supported the first team Manager. It's why Everton could sign a player from Ireland for 50k and that player would become a first team player. And it's the reason why Moyes brought in John Murtough to create the processes which have created roles for a extra 80 to a 100 people at youth level, scouting and data analytics departments.

For me the bulk of the blame lies with David Gill who had no foresight and jumped ship when he got wind of Fergie's retirement. We know Woodward isn't a football man but it all goes back to owners who were completely incompetent in allowing us to fall behind, when it comes to structural support.

 

[andersj]

Michael Edwards contract at Liverpool is up this summer. At 41 his record is pretty impressive. Pay whatever it takes.

 

[Yakuza_devils]

That's the problem and the point I'm making. SAF and Gill were the structure it was therefore their job to make sure that any structure they leave was usable for someone else. And no it wasn't doswn to Woodward to modernize the structure, he only became the CEO in July 2013. The modernization of the structure isn't something that you don't quickly and easily which is why it was SAF's and Gill's job otherwise what you are suggesting is that SAF and Gill were right to leave a dud to their successors which is the strangest point that anyone can make.

The main point is SAF and Gill was not the right person to modernize the club with modern football structure. They have a traditional structure that worked for them. Ed tried to follow the structure (whatever it is) by appointing Moyes with SAF influence. The rest is history. And until now we still don't really have a modern football structure that comparable to other big clubs.

 

[Sparky Rhiwabon]

What is Murtough's CV like in terms of DoF roles? Or Fletcher as Technical Director? Assume they’ve proved their worth in these roles around European clubs before being given these roles at a club of our magnitude?

 

[Yakuza_devils]

What is Murtough's CV like in terms of DoF roles? Or Fletcher as Technical Director? Assume they’ve proved their worth in these roles around European clubs before being given these roles at a club of our magnitude?

Both of them first time as DOF and TD.

 

[JPRouve]

The main point is SAF and Gill was not the right person to modernize the club with modern football structure. They have a traditional structure that worked for them. Ed tried to follow the structure (whatever it is) by appointing Moyes with SAF influence. The rest is history. And until now we still don't really have a modern football structure that comparable to other big clubs.

So you are suggesting that the CEO of a company isn't the right person for making sure that the company has a viable structure beyond himself? Their job wasn't just to make sure that the structure worked for them but that the structure worked for the club beyond them that's one of the most important jobs of a CEO, COO and technical directors(SAF). Who do you think was supposed to order an audit on the organization of the club and make sure that the proposed alternatives were suitable outside of the CEO himself?

I genuinely worry about your suggestion, it's a bit baffling because if Gill wasn't the right person then he should have been fired a long time ago for incompetence which is my point, he didn't do his job properly.

 

[Yakuza_devils]

So you are suggesting that the CEO of a company isn't the right person for making sure that the company has a viable structure beyond himself? Their job wasn't just to make sure that the structure worked for them but that the structure worked for the club beyond them that's one of the most important jobs of a CEO, COO and technical directors(SAF). Who do you think was supposed to order an audit on the organization of the club and make sure that the proposed alternatives were suitable outside of the CEO himself?

I genuinely worry about your suggestion, it's a bit baffling because if Gill wasn't the right person then he should have been fired a long time ago for incompetence which is my point, he didn't do his job properly.

As for any company, when a succession fails, the responsibility is almost always shared. There will be a transition period for the new CEO to take over the roles. For Ed's case was with added advantage, he was appointed within the organization and was familiar with the club. Maybe he needs a few years to implement new structural changes and system. But after 8 years?

It is always the new CEO job to implement new major changes and ideas to the company for improvement to achieve greater success especially after 8 years at the job.

Maybe you have a point, Gill maybe incompetent to ensure he establish a new modern structure for the new CEO to takeover. But as I said, IMO, Gill only know a traditional system that worked for him.

 

[JPRouve]

As for any company, when a succession fails, the responsibility is almost always shared. There will be a transition period for the new CEO to take over the roles. For Ed's case was with added advantage, he was appointed within the organization and was familiar with the club. Maybe he needs a few years to implement new structural changes and system. But after 8 years?

It is always the new CEO job to implement new major changes and ideas to the company for improvement to achieve greater success especially after 8 years at the job.

Maybe you have a point, Gill maybe incompetent to ensure he establish a new modern structure for the new CEO to takeover. But as I said, IMO, Gill only know a traditional system that worked for him.

There was no structure, no backbone when SAF and Gill left. You seem to not realize that we are talking about a case where the new CEO has to create something from scratch, that's not normal, we are not talking about modernizing a functioning structure, it would have been the case if SAF was still around when Woodward took over which is why I mentioned Gill taking over from Kenyon as an example. In 2013 we are talking about an empty shell with the CEO and main technical director leaving, you are left with nothing. Surely you realize that you can't create an efficient structure in days which means that your suggestion leads to the incapacity to maintain the same level of productivity which is a massive problem in 100% of companies.

Also United structure wasn't traditional, Football clubs rarely work the way United did because it's not flexible and doesn't allow quick changes. It was an obvious flaw of the system and one that is easily spotted by anyone that has a basic understanding of organizational structures, there is absolutely no way to absolve Gill on that one because if he was actually ignorant of how things are done in the majority of large companies or sports entities then questions need to be asked about his competency.

 

[Bastian]

What is Murtough's CV like in terms of DoF roles? Or Fletcher as Technical Director? Assume they’ve proved their worth in these roles around European clubs before being given these roles at a club of our magnitude?

By some accounts Fletcher is not here to be a decision maker, he's there to make sure we do not alienate targets because he's intelligent and obviously comes from the game. So whether he's got previous experience of the same role is not really that important. When it comes to Murtough he's got quite extensive experience and I'd suggest reading through Adnan's posts. Murtough has been in charge of development (senior and youth), was head of Elite Performance for the Premier League and has been in charge of the overhaul of our academy and scouting department. He's definitely got the experience, the more interesting question is his vision, of which there is little to by other than looking at his short comments from the fan's forum (wants to develop a team to play fluid attacking football) and looking at the type of players recruited, like Mejbri for instance (which was a pretty big deal and signalled a change when it comes to youth development, both in terms of spending and in terms of fighting off the competition) and the Barca and Real boys who were wanted by their current clubs but still convinced to join United.

The key question is does he have decision making authority or is he here in an advisory capacity. Time will tell.

From an Athletic article two days ago:

"John Murtough, the football director, and Darren Fletcher, the technical director who can be a bridge between players, manager and board, have advisory roles."

 

[Robbie Boy]

Remember we were told Ole was only a caretaker and a DOF would be appointed before a new manager came in. Oh how we all believed the club was turning a corner. Then, the next 3 years happened and here we are... in the exact same positon as Jose's final weeks.

 

[JPRouve]

Remember we were told Ole was only a caretaker and a DOF would be appointed before a new manager came in. Oh how we all believed the club was turning a corner. Then, the next 3 years happened and here we are... in the exact same positon as Jose's final weeks.

We are not in the same situation the DOF has been appointed in March-April.

 

[Bastian]

We are not in the same situation the DOF has been appointed in March-April.

A Football Director was appointed, the question is if the role is beyond advisory. Which the Athletic suggest it is not, and recent reports of Arnold, Woodward and the Glazers meeting over the manager's future seem to indicate as well, with no mention of Murtough being involved.

 

[JPRouve]

A Football Director was appointed, the question is if the role is beyond advisory. Which the Athletic suggest it is not, and recent reports of Arnold, Woodward and the Glazers meeting over the manager's future seem to indicate as well, with no mention of Murtough being involved.

The DOF isn't an all powerful being in a club, he isn't seating at all meetings regardless of topics and in this particular case one massive issue for United has nothing to do with Murtough. We have a money problem when it comes to Ole and his staff, the club extended them recently which means that the money people have to decide how and when they are willing to lose a ton of money, that conversation shouldn't involve the DOF and generally won't, it's going to involve CEO(s), the COO and HR.

That's one of the things that bother me with the british press when they talk about this type of topics to the fans, they give you some half truth or misleading ideas. Murtough has no business being in that meeting and that meeting isn't the only one that will or may have taken place, the press isn't aware of every conversation that are being held within a club and what the topic is.

 

[Robbie Boy]

We are not in the same situation the DOF has been appointed in March-April.

Aye, I should have been clearer. I meant we are yet again giving an underperforming manager more time than he deserves, while everything goes to shit around the club, all because we have no clear succession plan.

 

[JPRouve]

Aye, I should have been clearer. I meant we are yet again giving an underperforming manager more time than he deserves, while everything goes to shit around the club, all because we have no clear succession plan.

To be fair, they just extended him and most of the young upcoming managers have moved this summer. If you are not sold on Conte then the situation is a bit grim because there is no obvious long term candidates and who is an ideal long term care taker? Even if you really want to sack Ole, it will most likely take a dozen of days to make it happen. I think that people are being a bit impatient and unrealistic.

 

[Robbie Boy]

To be fair, they just extended him and most of the young upcoming managers have moved this summer. If you are not sold on Conte then the situation is a bit grim because there is no obvious long term candidates and who is an ideal long term care taker? Even if you really want to sack Ole, it will most likely take a dozen of days to make it happen. I think that people are being a bit impatient and unrealistic.

Well it's the clubs fault they let modern progressive managers walk to other clubs while they had some romantic notion about Ole.

I would previously have agreed that people were being impatient, but after last week, that ship has sailed. I previously wasn't an advocate of a caretaker but Ole's situation has been absolutely untenable.

 

[Bastian]

The DOF isn't an all powerful being in a club, he isn't seating at all meetings regardless of topics and in this particular case one massive issue for United has nothing to do with Murtough. We have a money problem when it comes to Ole and his staff, the club extended them recently which means that the money people have to decide how and when they are willing to lose a ton of money, that conversation shouldn't involve the DOF and generally won't, it's going to involve CEO(s), the COO and HR.

That's one of the things that bother me with the british press when they talk about this type of topics to the fans, they give you some half truth or misleading ideas. Murtough has no business being in that meeting and that meeting isn't the only one that will or may have taken place, the press isn't aware of every conversation that are being held within a club and what the topic is.

All powerful, who is saying that? Decision making authority is not an alien concept when it comes to DoF, it is an integral part of the role. The questions now are about sporting ambitions and the vision for the team's development, that latter of which should be part of the mandate of a DoF, including managerial hires.

What do you think a DoF is for?

 

[Amir]

Remember we were told Ole was only a caretaker and a DOF would be appointed before a new manager came in. Oh how we all believed the club was turning a corner. Then, the next 3 years happened and here we are... in the exact same positon as Jose's final weeks.

Which is exactly why I hated it when Solskjaer got the role permanently. We took a decent plan and threw it in the bin.

 

[JPRouve]

Well it's the clubs fault they let modern progressive managers walk to other clubs while they had some romantic notion about Ole.

I would previously have agreed that people were being impatient, but after last week, that ship has sailed. I previously wasn't an advocate of a caretaker but Ole's situation has been absolutely untenable.

We didn't let anyone walk, it's a bit of an arrogant way of putting things, for all we know most of these managers may have not been interested. Ten Hag rejected offers from other clubs and extended his contract with a clause, Rose singed for Dortmund a while ago and may have been more attracted by joining a club where he can slowly grow and learn, the same applies to Marsch and Nagelsmann joined the club of his dreams. I don't really know if there is anyone else that fit the "progressive" tag, outside of Seoane who is an unknown and Potter who could be available.

Also my point about being impatient is about the fact that the Liverpool game happened Sunday, it's a very short amount of time when you consider the implications of sacking Ole, particualrly if you still have hopes for this season. If you have no hope then it's just a money problem and while it should require time and paperwork, you could sack him and not really care about who immediately replaces him.

 

[Yakuza_devils]

There was no structure, no backbone when SAF and Gill left. You seem to not realize that we are talking about a case where the new CEO has to create something from scratch, that's not normal, we are not talking about modernizing a functioning structure, it would have been the case if SAF was still around when Woodward took over which is why I mentioned Gill taking over from Kenyon as an example. In 2013 we are talking about an empty shell with the CEO and main technical director leaving, you are left with nothing. Surely you realize that you can't create an efficient structure in days which means that your suggestion leads to the incapacity to maintain the same level of productivity which is a massive problem in 100% of companies.

Also United structure wasn't traditional, Football clubs rarely work the way United did because it's not flexible and doesn't allow quick changes. It was an obvious flaw of the system and one that is easily spotted by anyone that has a basic understanding of organizational structures, there is absolutely no way to absolve Gill on that one because if he was actually ignorant of how things are done in the majority of large companies or sports entities then questions need to be asked about his competency.

I think we have to agree to disagree. If Gill and SAF was still around there will be no major change of football structure because "they are the structure". In fact, SAF was the only structure we have. Gill was only supporting SAF and we all know who has the real power. SAF never seems to want to implement any changes or modernize the system. In fact, he recommended Moyes to continue the system and asked the fans to support the manager.

Maybe both Gill and Ed must shared responsibility for the failure of initial years to modernize the club for replacing the best manager of all time. But after 8 years, I'm more inclined to believe that the problem lies more with Ed.

 

[JPRouve]

All powerful, who is saying that? Decision making authority is not an alien concept when it comes to DoF, it is an integral part of the role. The questions now are about sporting ambitions and the vision for the team's development, that latter of which should be part of the mandate of a DoF, including managerial hires.

What do you think a DoF is for?

A DoF is not in all meetings, he isn't part of all board meetings, in fact not all executive directors are in all meetings. The actual topic of the meeting will tell you who should be in it and I gave you an example of what the for mentioned people may have been talking about, I will reiterate that point, money, that meeting may have been about the financially and legal implications of sacking Ole and his staff.

If it was a technical meeting then the DoF should have been around the table but sacking or not sacking someone isn't just about the technical aspects and you are unikely to have a singular meeting with everyone around the table.

 

[JPRouve]

I think we have to agree to disagree. If Gill and SAF was still around there will be no major change of football structure because "they are the structure". In fact, SAF was the only structure we have. Gill was only supporting SAF and we all know who has the real power. SAF never seems to want to implement any changes or modernize the system. In fact, he recommended Moyes to continue the system and asked the fans to support the manager.

Maybe both Gill and Ed must shared responsibility for the failure of initial years to modernize the club for replacing the best manager of all time. But after 8 years, I'm more inclined to believe that the problem lies more with Ed.

And that's the problem and why they are at fault. I don't understand how you don't see the issue when it's staring at you, you are describing a suboptimal contect for the club, that should never happen.

 

[Bastian]

A DoF is not in all meetings, he isn't part of all board meetings, in fact not all executive directors are in all meetings. The actual topic of the meeting will tell you who should be in it and I gave you an example of what the for mentioned people may have been talking about, I will reiterate that point, money, that meeting may have been about the financially and legal implications of sacking Ole and his staff.

If it was a technical meeting then the DoF should have been around the table but sacking or not sacking someone isn't just about the technical aspects and you are unikely to have a singular meeting with everyone around the table.

Sure. If there is a DoF with actual authority, they won't be involved with making budgetary decisions or huge financial decisions, they'll work within the budget they're given. So if the meeting was only about the financial implications of sacking the manager, you're right. We obviously don't know that, though my assumption is that meetings since the Liverpool match have involved more than the financial implications of sacking Ole. In any case, this is the acid test, we'll know soon enough how involved football personnel really are.

As far as I'm concerned, a DoF should be involved, if not the main authority, when it comes to new contracts for playing staff and the coaching staff. I would be very surprised to learn that Ole's and his staff's contracts were extended on the authority (or even the recommendation) of Murtough. And it points to the ongoing malaise that the board handicap themselves like this.

 

[Robbie Boy]

We didn't let anyone walk, it's a bit of an arrogant way of putting things, for all we know most of these managers may have not been interested. Ten Hag rejected offers from other clubs and extended his contract with a clause, Rose singed for Dortmund a while ago and may have been more attracted by joining a club where he can slowly grow and learn, the same applies to Marsch and Nagelsmann joined the club of his dreams. I don't really know if there is anyone else that fit the "progressive" tag, outside of Seoane who is an unknown and Potter who could be available.

Also my point about being impatient is about the fact that the Liverpool game happened Sunday, it's a very short amount of time when you consider the implications of sacking Ole, particualrly if you still have hopes for this season. If you have no hope then it's just a money problem and while it should require time and paperwork, you could sack him and not really care about who immediately replaces him.

Obviously letting them 'walk' was hyperbolic! But I don't think Ole ever should have gotten as long as he did. Liverpool sacked Roders in similar circumstances after a 1-1 away draw at Everton, because Klopp was available. Do you ever see our club being so pro-active?

Koeman was sacked immediately after last night's defeat, while nearly mirroring us in La Liga. Your opinion isn't wrong, but it's not how I see it. The writing has been on the wall for a while, as our performances have generally been underwhelming all season. We also lost heavily to Leicester the week before, and there were murmurs he would be sacked if we failed to beat Atalanta. The Liverpool game should merely have been the straw that broke the camels back. The levels of toxicity surrounding the club are staggering, and with rumours of dressing room unrest, there's literally no reason to keep him. The whole situation is farcical and if it's a caretaker we need, then so be it.

 

[Yakuza_devils]

And that's the problem and why they are at fault. I don't understand how you don't see the issue when it's staring at you, you are describing a suboptimal contect for the club, that should never happen.

To be fair to them, at the time, they are running the most successful football club in UK history, if not the world. Won major titles. Signed record commercial deals. Hundred of milions fans worldwide.

 

[JPRouve]

Sure. If there is a DoF with actual authority, they won't be involved with making budgetary decisions or huge financial decisions, they'll work within the budget they're given. So if the meeting was only about the financial implications of sacking the manager, you're right. We obviously don't know that, though my assumption is that meetings since the Liverpool match have involved more than the financial implications of sacking Ole. In any case, this is the acid test, we'll know soon enough how involved football personnel really are.

As far as I'm concerned, a DoF should be involved, if not the main authority, when it comes to new contracts for playing staff and the coaching staff. I would be very surprised to learn that Ole's and his staff's contracts were extended on the authority (or even the recommendation) of Murtough. And it points to the ongoing malaise that the board handicap themselves like this.

But the articles mentioned that one crunch meeting betwe Avram, Joel, Woodward and Arnold. The way the Athletics and other papers turned it would make you believe that there isn't an obvious reason why no one else would be involved and it's something that they often do, that angle is aimed at fans, they want create a narrative when it tells you nothing about Murtough or anyone else. We don't know about other meetings and what was said or not.

 

[JPRouve]

To be fair to them, at the time, they are running the most successful football club in UK history, if not the world. Won major titles. Signed record commercial deals. Hundred of milions fans worldwide.

That's not a fair point, unless they thought they were eternal which they clearly didn't since SAF thought about retiring years ago and Gill was reportedly tempted to go the UEFA sooner. They simply failed to do their job from the POV of the club, they did lots of good thing but failed at that one.

 

[Bastian]

But the articles mentioned that one crunch meeting betwe Avram, Joel, Woodward and Arnold. The way the Athletics and other papers turned it would make you believe that there isn't an obvious reason why no one else would be involved and it's something that they often do, that angle is aimed at fans, they want create a narrative when it tells you nothing about Murtough or anyone else. We don't know about other meetings and what was said or not.

We shall see. I think the next item on the agenda for the press is to question the structure at the club and question the authority the new positions carry. Not least with reference to the recent contract extensions for Ole and the coaching staff, which the club was under absolutely no pressure to carry out. There were also reports about doubling Maguire's wage, again without any pressure to do so.

I'll confess my romanticism here, I loved that we signed Ronnie again, but I very much doubt Murtough and co were consulted, as it may not be in line with a vision the club may or may not have. These are the type of decisions a DoF should be in charge of.

In any case, the next couple of weeks will indicate clearly the level of involvement Murtough has, and whether or not there is a clear vision for the team's development.

 

[Yakuza_devils]

That's not a fair point, unless they thought they were eternal which they clearly didn't since SAF thought about retiring years ago and Gill was reportedly tempted to go the UEFA sooner. They simply failed to do their job from the POV of the club, they did lots of good thing but failed at that one.

They thought that was the best structure. Appoint a capable manager for long term to continue SAF way of doing thing or what we called the united way. This is the exact structure that brought the club enormous success.

 

[JPRouve]

Obviously letting them 'walk' was hyperbolic! But I don't think Ole ever should have gotten as long as he did. Liverpool sacked Roders in similar circumstances after a 1-1 away draw at Everton, because Klopp was available. Do you ever see our club being so pro-active?

Koeman was sacked immediately after last night's defeat, while nearly mirroring us in La Liga. Your opinion isn't wrong, but it's not how I see it. The writing has been on the wall for a while, as our performances have generally been underwhelming all season. We also lost heavily to Leicester the week before, and there were murmurs he would be sacked if we failed to beat Atalanta. The Liverpool game should merely have been the straw that broke the camels back. The levels of toxicity surrounding the club are staggering, and with rumours of dressing room unrest, there's literally no reason to keep him. The whole situation is farcical and if it's a caretaker we need, then so be it.

Koeman sacking wasn't a recent event, it was something that was on the card for months and they didn't sack him quickly, there is the poor results in the CL, the loses against Atletico and Madrid and then the loss against Rayo yesterday.
Koeman started the preseason on the hot seat and was given until almost November and a serie of poor results. So the 5 days since Sunday are nothing compared to Barcelona's situation.

 

[JPRouve]

They thought that was the best structure. Appoint a capable manager for long term to continue SAF way of doing thing or what we called the united way. This is the exact structure that brought the club enormous success.

Which is the demonstration of their failings, there isn't a world where it's the best structure which is why almost no successful clubs have used it.

 

[Yakuza_devils]

Which is the demonstration of their failings, there isn't a world where it's the best structure which is why almost no successful clubs have used it.

Hindsight is easy. If you are running the most successful company in the history for 26 years you would not think of the need to restructure.

 

[JPRouve]

Hindsight is easy. If you are running the most successful company in the history for 26 years you would not think of the need to restructure.

It's not hindsight I have said it years before SAF retire and many people did. It's really not something special, you just have to ask yourself what happens if SAF retires suddenly. It's even easier when I'm from the continent and knows that managers aren't a thing and that no top level head coach has any experience with the role that SAF had.

 

[Robbie Boy]

Koeman sacking wasn't a recent event, it was something that was on the card for months and they didn't sack him quickly, there is the poor results in the CL, the loses against Atletico and Madrid and then the loss against Rayo yesterday.
Koeman started the preseason on the hot seat and was given until almost November and a serie of poor results. So the 5 days since Sunday are nothing compared to Barcelona's situation.

Well yeah, but it's still comparative. We are on a run of 4 points from 15 in the league... not to mention less than convincing CL performances.

 

[Yakuza_devils]

It's not hindsight I have said it years before SAF retire and many people did. It's really not something special, you just have to ask yourself what happens if SAF retires suddenly. It's even easier when I'm from the continent and knows that managers aren't a thing and that no top level head coach has any experience with the role that SAF had.

I think we are going in a circle. The club want to continue SAF's structure, the united way. And the top management agreed that was the best approach. Hence, Glazers and Ed appointed Moyes to continue the success formula. That was the succession plan.

The board never ever thought of modernize the club like big club in Europe at that time.

 

[JPRouve]

Well yeah, but it's still comparative. We are on a run of 4 points from 15 in the league... not to mention less than convincing CL performances.

But the comparison tells you that 5 days is nothing, it doesn't support your point. And don't get me wrong I get your frustration, I'm simply pointing to the fact that it's not as easy and quick as people think, even in the context where Conteis actually a target, you need to find a contractual agreement with him and his staff which can take more than 5 days and it is likely that none of the current staff can takeover as a caretaker because they will be sacked if Conte was the future manager.
So my point is that there are obvious reasons why a club may not sack a manager in 5 days or may want to give itself a few weeks and it's fairly rare for managers to go from safe to sacked in a matter of days unless something terrible happened that involves HR.

 

[JPRouve]

I think we are going in a circle. The club want to continue SAF's structure, the united way. And the top management agreed that was the best approach. Hence, Glazers and Ed appointed Moyes to continue the success formula. That was the succession plan.

The board never ever thought of modernize the club like big club in Europe at that time.

And you think that the chairman of that board isn't responsible for that? What do you think Gill's job was?