What's the primary responsibility of a DOF?

Skills

Snitch
Joined
Jan 17, 2012
Messages
43,008
A lot of discussion going in a few different threads on the forum.

I'd say the primary role of a DOF in most clubs is to actually 'manage' the head coach.

Hold the head coach accountable for getting the most out of assets already at the club. It's not a role that 'works with' a head coach - he should clearly sit a rung above him that is ruthlessly assessing how good of a job he's doing. As well as, keeping an eye out on potential future head coaches on the market and with the authority to sack the current one as required.
 
From what I’ve read on here over the years he/she should appoint the manager, decide his tactics, decide his players and oversee the academy. God help you if they turn out to be rubbish at their job, you basically get these random philosophers (I feel it’s very hard to have demonstrable pedigree at such a role at least if you are just starting out) and hand them the entirety of your club.
 
Rozay said:
From what I’ve read on here over the years he/she should appoint the manager, decide his tactics, decide his players and oversee the academy. God help you if they turn out to be rubbish at their job, you basically get these random philosophers (I feel it’s very hard to have demonstrable pedigree at such a role at least if you are just starting out) and hand them the entirety of your club.
Click to expand...
This is very true. Plenty on here love to bemoan the “cult of the manager” at United, but seem to think that all power being transferred to a DoF would somehow make things different.

Anyone looking for a SAF-like messiah to come in on a white horse and save us by being brilliant at all the things you mention* is going to be disappointed.

* you haven’t mentioned ensuring that we don’t “overpay” for all the perfect players they are going to recruit.

That doesn’t mean that getting good people in to help do all those things isn’t a good idea, obvs.
 
The Job of the DoF is to set the overall football strategy at the club in the short, mid and long-term. This includes deciding the type of football the club wants to play and making sure that the recruitment of staff and players are in accordance with that vision.
The lack of a proper DoF at United has left us directionless and we ended up sacking managers, hiring someone with a completely different style and ended up with a mix and match squad...It's one of the reasons as to why we look like we have no identity when we play.
This won't be a quick fix, and the DoF might fail but it's a step in the right direction.
 
Revaulx said:
This is very true. Plenty on here love to bemoan the “cult of the manager” at United, but seem to think that all power being transferred to a DoF would somehow make things different.

Anyone looking for a SAF-like messiah to come in on a white horse and save us by being brilliant at all the things you mention* is going to be disappointed.

* you haven’t mentioned ensuring that we don’t “overpay” for all the perfect players they are going to recruit.

That doesn’t mean that getting good people in to help do all those things isn’t a good idea, obvs.
Click to expand...
DoF holding the power is different. They have no attachment to the players like managers having players they like as person that they want to keep in the teams to the detriment of said team performance.

You can't always get great manager with great man management skill. Sometimes good professional relationship between the coach and playing squad is sufficient short term by having a DOF keep things in check. Or you can't always get a long term manager. If your club find yourself in situation you can hire Ancelotti, Heynckes for just couple years as stop gap and strike deal for a longer term elite coach when the stop gap period end, while maintaining a certain standard, is it not better for DoF to oversee this rather than a redo of LVG episode, where LVG wanted to overhaul the structure his way when he didn't have much time and the team needed result? And the next managers don't like it and want his own teams thus leaving you stuck in forever rebuild.

A good DoF would always have a dynamic transfer targets ready. Not waiting till last minute and scrapping at the barrel overpaying. By dynamic it means DOF would have readied for a sale of replaceable high value players from the squad in case fund is needed to reinvest on rare quality player availability, and some cheap stop gap replacement. You can't always bank on selling the deadwood nobody want to raise fund because as we see other clubs noticed our desperation and they just resist and we're stuck with overpaying for our target while about half the deadwood moved on cheap, or they just stay until their contract expire.

Edit: Also a good DoF should be in better position to set up pre season tour in that not having all those games after a season with 62 games and a World Cup in between. This preseason is ridiculous. Even when there are games the first teams were not really involved, we still played more than the like of Tottenham, Liverpool. And the manager had to leave the team to attend the youth games. Feel like unnecessary distraction with the boss not always around. Players are away from home stuck in hotel during the training camp.
 
Last edited:
ti vu said:
DoF holding the power is different. They have no attachment to the players like managers having players they like as person that they want to keep in the teams to the detriment of said team performance.
Click to expand...
Er, why not?

They are the ones who’ve signed the players, so of course they will be attached to them. If the player doesn’t perform they can blame the manager for not getting the best out of them, rather than themselves for signing a dud.

You can't always get great manager with great man management skill. Sometimes good professional relationship between the coach and playing squad is sufficient short term by having a DOF keep things in check. Or you can't always get a long term manager. If your club find yourself in situation you can hire Ancelotti, Heynckes for just couple years as stop gap and strike deal for a longer term elite coach when the stop gap period end, while maintaining a certain standard, is it not better for DoF to oversee this rather than a redo of LVG episode, where LVG wanted to overhaul the structure his way when he didn't have much time and the team needed result? And the next managers don't like it and want his own teams thus leaving you stuck in forever rebuild.
Click to expand...
That’s certainly true, but I’m not sure it requires an all-powerful DoF; it just needs whoever is responsible for choosing the manager to understand that lurching from one style to the other is a bad idea. LvG to Jose being a particularly idiotic example.

A good DoF would always have a dynamic transfer targets ready. Not waiting till last minute and scrapping at the barrel overpaying. By dynamic it means DOF would have readied for a sale of replaceable high value players from the squad in case fund is needed to reinvest on rare quality player availability, and some cheap stop gap replacement. You can't always bank on selling the deadwood nobody want to raise fund because as we see other clubs noticed our desperation and they just resist and we're stuck with overpaying for our target while about half the deadwood moved on cheap, or they just stay until their contract expire.
Click to expand...
Yeah that’s all true as well. But I’d have said that was the job of a recruitment specialist rather than an all-encompassing DoF. It’s a big job that not only involves identifying players with the right qualities, but also working out which ones can realistically be prised away from their existing clubs for a reasonable fee and wage.

Clearly a manager needs capable people around them to be able to function properly, and United seems to be as far off that as ever. I’m just very sceptical of the concept that concentrating all the power with an supremo DoF is going to make things any better.
 
Focused on long term strategy and medium term operations.

Incoming 'murica post

The head coach is responsible for making the best of the talent on the team. On field tactics, man management, training, competing for trophies, hiring assistant coaches/staff. That's it, and that is all he/she is judged on.

The GM (general manager) hires the coach. They sign the players. They evaluate draft prospects. They (in collaboration with the coach) vet contingency plans. They ensure the team stays within financial spend limits. They create an environment that fosters winning.

You can't have 1 person in charge of all of that. We had SAF who was a one of a kind, but teams are so good tactically that you need a coach devoted to maximizing talent available to him. Let someone else capable handle the rest.
 
The best managers lately have been great motivators and able to play fast football. Winners basically. Pep, Klopp stand out as the one's where you can't just put it down as a statistical outlier like Ante might be over time. Arteta is getting there. That's the manager's job. To motivate the players, pick the in-form players, create competition and tweak the tactics.

The DOF should be able to identify the most important traits of a modern manager and playing style over the next 5 years and asses the character of the manager and how well he would adapt to having an overall style applied to him. Align the expectations to the budget and playing-style so you don't get a Conte/Mourinho-situation where there'll be moaning about the transferbudget and players needed - and also so you just don't buy players like Lukaku who barely fits any modern manager. Also our current injury-problem a DoF should be able to ease by finding squad-players fit and competent enough to give other players a rest.

Actually Arteta is a great example of where the transfers align with the manager, which is what our DOF should do. Keep a high quality of the squad-players so every knot can be replaced in the machinery without leaving too much damage, ensuring a cohesive playing-style every game like you see at City and Arsenal. We laughed at Ben White's price tag, we laughed at Rice's too, and they ended up being great assets to them.
 
Revaulx said:
Er, why not?

They are the ones who’ve signed the players, so of course they will be attached to them. If the player doesn’t perform they can blame the manager for not getting the best out of them, rather than themselves for signing a dud.


That’s certainly true, but I’m not sure it requires an all-powerful DoF; it just needs whoever is responsible for choosing the manager to understand that lurching from one style to the other is a bad idea. LvG to Jose being a particularly idiotic example.


Yeah that’s all true as well. But I’d have said that was the job of a recruitment specialist rather than an all-encompassing DoF. It’s a big job that not only involves identifying players with the right qualities, but also working out which ones can realistically be prised away from their existing clubs for a reasonable fee and wage.

Clearly a manager needs capable people around them to be able to function properly, and United seems to be as far off that as ever. I’m just very sceptical of the concept that concentrating all the power with an supremo DoF is going to make things any better.
Click to expand...
DOF holds responsibilities to the signings, but they don't have strong person to person relationship like managers usually do with work daily with players in training, dressing room, in the stadium. For example LVG and Rooney shared a strong relationship that LVG decided his captain always play, even making new position for declining Rooney. Or Moyes needed an ally when he took the job and knowing Rooney previously, that leads to Rooney ridiculous contract and elevated his status as leader (Rooney was not groomed to be a captain under SAF). Mourinho always had his group of loyalist. Here he had Matic, Fellaini, Lukaku. Ole fought and died on Maguire hill.

DOF shouldn't and less likely to form such relationship. Blaming manager doesn't work. The team not performing then that manager would get sacked. The team still performing but big signing flop then someone needed to take responsible. Also DOF would need to work to clean up and recoup whatever possible from such flop signings. If the manager continuing to succeed while expensive flop keep accumulating, then maybe this team find their SAF or Wenger that they can do away the DOF role. Evidently this situation rarely happen if not at all in this era.

DOF role may have huge power and the responsibility, but it's an upstair position, and usually not paid as well as the manager. What this means that DoF can't do as they please especially in successful teams, where the managers get all the public backing of the fans. DOF is the boss, but they have to find way to work with the manager lest the manager grow delusional and leave the teams, and add new work for the DoF.

Recuitment specialists may collect, analyze, compile, write report, suggestion all they want. Someone need to read those report, and appreciate suggestion. Manager mostly busy enough with the team management already. Without the power to push for action in certain action, there is no help. That's where DoF without the burden of direct management of players to come in.
 
Revaulx said:
This is very true. Plenty on here love to bemoan the “cult of the manager” at United, but seem to think that all power being transferred to a DoF would somehow make things different.

Anyone looking for a SAF-like messiah to come in on a white horse and save us by being brilliant at all the things you mention* is going to be disappointed.

* you haven’t mentioned ensuring that we don’t “overpay” for all the perfect players they are going to recruit.

That doesn’t mean that getting good people in to help do all those things isn’t a good idea, obvs.
Click to expand...
Of course it would make a difference.

Obviously you need "the right one", but it means you get consistency throughout all aspects of the club. Tactics, manager, signings.

Instead of what we've been doing for the past 10 years.

Going from pragmatic manager (Moyes) to possession based (LVG) then back to defensive (Mourinho)then to counter attacking (Ole) etc

You waste so much money signing different styles of players this way.

Man City and Barcelona have been signing the same kind of players for the last decade because they have a clear philosophy and plan in place.
 
Romez said:
Of course it would make a difference.

Obviously you need "the right one", but it means you get consistency throughout all aspects of the club. Tactics, manager, signings.

Instead of what we've been doing for the past 10 years.

Going from pragmatic manager (Moyes) to possession based (LVG) then back to defensive (Mourinho)then to counter attacking (Ole) etc

You waste so much money signing different styles of players this way.

Man City and Barcelona have been signing the same kind of players for the last decade because they have a clear philosophy and plan in place.
Click to expand...
Exactly.

A clear philosophy doesn’t start with an individual DoF. In City’s case the executives looked at other successful clubs, picked Barcelona and went about replicating their model.

They didn’t appoint a flavour of the month DoF and then leave it to him to hit upon a philosophy.
 
How does the CEO pick the right DOF and how does he know when it is the DOF's fault?
 
Romez said:
Of course it would make a difference.

Obviously you need "the right one", but it means you get consistency throughout all aspects of the club. Tactics, manager, signings.

Instead of what we've been doing for the past 10 years.

Going from pragmatic manager (Moyes) to possession based (LVG) then back to defensive (Mourinho)then to counter attacking (Ole) etc

You waste so much money signing different styles of players this way.

Man City and Barcelona have been signing the same kind of players for the last decade because they have a clear philosophy and plan in place.
Click to expand...

Man City have had the best manager in the world and are entirely set up to benefit him. Once he leaves they will look for a clone and if/when that fails all philosophy will go out the window and they will look for the biggest manager available at that point in time.
 
In the beginning the manager used to do almost everything on his own. In time the role became bigger and bigger up until it couldn't be done by one person alone. Thus we see roles being created like that of the assistant manager who did all the day to day training, the chief scout who represented the manager's eyes in terms of new talent etc.

The DOF is yet another evolution of that. It basically strips the manager from the admin type of work including making sure that the right people are in the right jobs, dealing with the top brass, deciding the mid term/long term decision making and making sure that the academy is producing the right sort of talent. That was the result of four things

a- the SAF type of managers were dying out giving way to the Mourinho's, the Pep's and the Capello'x sort of managers ie guys with a definite project in mind who can't care less for the long term future of the club as they weren't aiming to stay there for long
b- the rise of player's power. Players started to learn that if the manager doesn't play to their tune then they can organize themselves and have him sacked. Thus there was a need for someone who was immune from such threat and could not be hurt by the players
c- football became more complex. Transfers for example required dedicated people who would work on them day in day out for months. That's something the manager couldn't do
d- there was the need for someone who play as an intermediary between the money men on top and the football men at the bottom. We nearly lost SAF because Edwards had no idea of how much managers at top club levels were being paid.
 
9 Stone Elvis said:
Man City have had the best manager in the world and are entirely set up to benefit him. Once he leaves they will look for a clone and if/when that fails all philosophy will go out the window and they will look for the biggest manager available at that point in time.
Click to expand...
Sure they have Pep but the point is they were playing attractive attacking football and signed similar players under Mancini and Pellegrini as they do now. (Nasri, David Silva, Aguero, Kompany, Toure, Tevez etc.)

It's not just Pep. It's their whole system, identity as a club. Which was put in place long before Pep came.
 
There's not a textbook answer, of course.

For me, the DOF's main responsibility is to make sure that the overall plan of the club is followed, both in the shorter and the longer term: recruitment policy, playing style, etc. The plan itself isn't something the DOF should come up with all by himself, but he should seek to implement it and adhere to it regardless of who the "manager" (in traditional British terms) is.

In terms of structure/chain of command, the DOF should always outrank the "manager", clearly so. Ideally, the DOF should be less expendable than the "manager". But, again, the point - or one important point - is that the DOF shouldn't be responsible for coming up with the plan all by himself (and then stick to it - that would be just as bad as having a traditional British "manager" effectively making all the calls on the football side). The DOF needs to answer to people above him in the structure too.

I dunno, something like this:

Tier 1: Owner
Tier 2: Football board (the ones who lay the course, define the ambitions, devise the plan for achieving those ambitions)
Tier 3: DOF (whose job is to implement the plan, part of which is to hire the right "manager" and work closely with that person)
Tier 4: "Manager" (head coach, whatever: the person responsible for picking the XI week in, week out)
 
I'll quote a reply I sent in another thread what I feel is the ideal structure of a club that starts with the DOF.

"A proper club is run from top to bottom. A proper CEO, a DOF, a manger and scouting team. All of them have to be on the same wavelength.

DOF should be behind the decision making of how the team should be playing and hiring a manager on that.

The manager should be communicating with the DOF and scouting team about what positions they need improving. Explain the type of player they want, is it a skillful winger or a creative one etc...

Scouting team should be out there looking at various clubs and narrowing down a list of players to bring back to the manager and DOF, giving their stats and their opinion, this includes reports on temperament and work rate etc.

Manager communicates to the DOF about what player they feel will benefit the squad going forward present and future for the team. This should include another 1 or 2 players similar if player A fails to materialise.

DOF goes to the CEO, gives them the report on the 2 or 3 players and the managers recommended for his squad. They then work together getting the transfer over the line. No fecking about, if team A doesn't seem to want to sell or are holding out, use team B and team C against them.

This all should be put into plan by the end of March, not the middle or end of the transfer window.

But it seems no one talks to each other about anything or does their homework and we act like that kid that rushes their work 5 minutes before class regardless if the work is correct or not."
 
Pragmatically speaking, because of the fan- and owner-driven nature of football, managers get sacked too quickly to allow good managers to reliably translate into good outcomes.

So you hire a DoF who sets the agenda in terms of style of play, agenda, transfer business etc, but is less visible to fans. Then when the manager takes the fall once every two or three seasons, your DoF maintains continuity and hopefully allows you to steadily move in the right direction.
 
Revaulx said:
This is very true. Plenty on here love to bemoan the “cult of the manager” at United, but seem to think that all power being transferred to a DoF would somehow make things different.

Anyone looking for a SAF-like messiah to come in on a white horse and save us by being brilliant at all the things you mention* is going to be disappointed.

* you haven’t mentioned ensuring that we don’t “overpay” for all the perfect players they are going to recruit.

That doesn’t mean that getting good people in to help do all those things isn’t a good idea, obvs.
Click to expand...
The key is that it's not 'all that power' going to one person. It's distributing the power amongst two or three different people, allowing each to specialise in what they do instead of relying on one person to be great at all aspects. You could hire a manager who is the best in the world at tactics and man-management, but if he's shit at player recruitment it's all going to fall apart as he buys the wrong players for too much money.

Different clubs give different powers to their DoF, so it's impossible to sit here and discuss hard and fast job roles. Generally, I feel the best way is a triangle at the top of the club hierarchy on the football side of things.

  • The DoF who sits at the top and is the person who hires the Manager and the Head of Recruitment, and is the person that they answer to. The role is more focused on the long-term goals rather than the day-to-day details, and largely decides in broad strokes 'how' the football side of things are built. For example, if the goal is to play high-pressing, fast-transition, attacking football, he'd be in charge of hiring a manager who suits that (so we don't bounce between completely different style managers) and informs the Head of Recruitment that players who suit that style is what he should be focused on. He's not just doing that for the first team, but sets the tempo throughout the entire club with all the youth teams and women's team. Is also the main one liaising with the CEO and non-football departments.
  • The Manager, who obviously manages the first team and controls the details of training, tactics, man-management, in-game decisions, etc (and some limited say in the youth teams).
  • The Head of Recruitment, who handles the day-to-day running of the scouting network, liaises with player agents, builds the player database for data analysis, etc. Has the biggest say in actual player recruitment, probably throughout the entire club at all age groups, although perhaps he'd have further people under him who are in charge of different ages.

So the latter two are focused on their own roles, largely at the same 'level' so that neither answer directly to the other. Obviously they have to work together and the manager will say what positions he wants to focus on, what type of player he wants for it, and can ask for specific players (and the more successful the manager the more power they will have in that regard), but it has to be run through the Head of Recruitment and his huge scouting network and database to find the right players for the right price, or to rule out players who won't fit.

The DoF is basically a CEO who specialises in football. He's not necessarily great at doing any of the jobs under him (in the same way that a CEO of a department store doesn't know how to make the clothes that they sell) and isn't involved in the day-to-day details of those positions, but his role is to build the football pyramid under him with the right people in the right positions and ultimately make the big decisions. Not just the Manager and the Head of Recruitment, but also things like club doctors and physios, coaches if they don't come with the manager, and other positions involved in the football pyramid.

Now, to some extent we already have this. But what we had previously under Woodward definitely wasn't working. We bounced between managers of completely different styles, and then gave them too much power in the recruitment side of things which resulted in an absolute mess of a team. I'm not completely writing things off under Murtough as we're still relatively early into his reign, and he's made a significant amount of changes throughout our football organisation and they will take a while to take effect. It's not something that will happen overnight. As such, I could understand giving the manager more power than ideal if we were basically building our scouting system and player database from scratch with new people in numerous different positions. However that excuse is starting to wear a bit thin, as I would have expected to see more of an improvement this past transfer window.

Some clubs give the DoF more power in the actual player recruitment, but personally I don't think that's ideal. There is some overlap there (it seems Heads of Recruitment at one club will often move to a smaller club to become their DoF), but I see them as two distinct positions. I guess it really depends on the set-up at the particular club though. For example Paul Mitchell who we are being linked to (again) had a fair bit of success as Head of Recruitment at Southampton, Spurs and Leipzig before then taking on the role of DoF at Monaco where from the sounds of it he's struggled a bit so far.
 
Last edited:
Romez said:
Sure they have Pep but the point is they were playing attractive attacking football and signed similar players under Mancini and Pellegrini as they do now. (Nasri, David Silva, Aguero, Kompany, Toure, Tevez etc.)

It's not just Pep. It's their whole system, identity as a club. Which was put in place long before Pep came.
Click to expand...

It was put in place to enable Pep to come.

See the issue I have with this, is its great to point to an example of something working and saying "this is the way forward" but what happens when you hit a bump in the road? Who is to blame? Picture the scene last summer if we had appointed Rangnick as DofF and brought in Ten Hag as a coach (or indeed replace either or both with people of your choosing). If things dont go well then the coach gets fired. You cant fire the DofF because he is shaping the club ethos, so is bulletproof. However what happens if you have appointed a great coach and messed up the DofF appointment, and how do you know? You are married to the ethos of the DofF and its much more of an upheaval to change things.

If we appointed a DofF after Fergie and then appointed a coach that dovetails with his style for ever more? If thats the case then heres what happens.......the fans will demand a different style. We appointed Van Gaal because the fans demanded a big name continental style manager as a reaction to Moyes. We got rid of him and demanded a "guaranteed winner" to replace him so we got Mourinho. Then the fans demanded he go because he didnt "get the club" and thats how we got Ole. We as fans wouldnt put up with the same style of coaching appointment if the first didnt work. We led the calls for change. Where it tends to work is when you hit upon a good manager. Under Brendan Rodgers Liverpool fans hated FSG and the "transfer committee" , then they appointed one of the best coaches in the world and suddenly things aren't so bad....
 
Chesterlestreet said:
There's not a textbook answer, of course.

For me, the DOF's main responsibility is to make sure that the overall plan of the club is followed, both in the shorter and the longer term: recruitment policy, playing style, etc. The plan itself isn't something the DOF should come up with all by himself, but he should seek to implement it and adhere to it regardless of who the "manager" (in traditional British terms) is.

In terms of structure/chain of command, the DOF should always outrank the "manager", clearly so. Ideally, the DOF should be less expendable than the "manager". But, again, the point - or one important point - is that the DOF shouldn't be responsible for coming up with the plan all by himself (and then stick to it - that would be just as bad as having a traditional British "manager" effectively making all the calls on the football side). The DOF needs to answer to people above him in the structure too.

I dunno, something like this:

Tier 1: Owner
Tier 2: Football board (the ones who lay the course, define the ambitions, devise the plan for achieving those ambitions)
Tier 3: DOF (whose job is to implement the plan, part of which is to hire the right "manager" and work closely with that person)
Tier 4: "Manager" (head coach, whatever: the person responsible for picking the XI week in, week out)
Click to expand...

Good post Chester. The question then is based on your structure is, how do you choose the football board - in practice that seems the most important since everything on the sporting side flows from there. Are you thinking former coaches/pros etc see what they think the style and approach that will be needed to win and then hire a DOF who is on board with that vision?
 
Rozay said:
From what I’ve read on here over the years he/she should appoint the manager, decide his tactics, decide his players and oversee the academy. God help you if they turn out to be rubbish at their job, you basically get these random philosophers (I feel it’s very hard to have demonstrable pedigree at such a role at least if you are just starting out) and hand them the entirety of your club.
Click to expand...

What do you think is the best structure for a club in today's era?
 
You only get the benefit of a DoF if they work out for you the same as any manager for instance.

People think the DoF is going to change any of our fortunes but there is a good chance they won't and then you have to reset the culture again with a new DoF in a few years down the line and then a new way of playing and managing the team based on the new DoF vision.

Liverpool had DoF's before Klopp and it didn't work and then the reason why it did work was Klopp really the players have been good but the manager is the one to drive them to the next level, same as City the DoF was in place prior to Pep and whilst they still won things it wasn't until Pep coming in that they dominated to the degree they do now.

It's funny people mention Arteta on this forum every single poster would have sacked him over the previous 3 seasons prior to last for the same reasons they are having a go at EtH now but Arsenal stuck with him because they could see what was happening at the club, we spend a bit of money and at the 1st sign of anything not quite going to plan we want to get rid of everything.
 
Ballache said:
The Job of the DoF is to set the overall football strategy at the club in the short, mid and long-term. This includes deciding the type of football the club wants to play and making sure that the recruitment of staff and players are in accordance with that vision.
The lack of a proper DoF at United has left us directionless and we ended up sacking managers, hiring someone with a completely different style and ended up with a mix and match squad...It's one of the reasons as to why we look like we have no identity when we play.
This won't be a quick fix, and the DoF might fail but it's a step in the right direction.
Click to expand...
This is accurate.
 
It will completely vary from one club to another. Same way the exact duties of a CFO, COO or any other senior role will be different from one organisation to another. It largely depends on what other roles exist and how all the key duties are divided. At some places the DOF really only handles player recruitment. At others, they get involved in a bit of everything, including things like Academy, the facilities and club fitness.

What matters is that you have good people overseeing all the key areas of the business, working to the same overall vision but with the individual talent and room to excel individually. Whether that includes someone with the specific title of DOF is kind of besides the point. If you create a DOF and then appoint a dogshit DOF, you will be no better off. However if we replaced every senior official in the club with the best in the business, the club would begin to be well run, even without a single person in that role.

I think what most people want is just for the club to be well run and many fans imagine that getting a DOF would fix that. They envisage some sort of overseer who will ensure smooth continuity in manager and player recruitment over the long term. But in fact, that comes from a vision for the entire club, not just from your DOF. If your DOF has one vision, but your Board, CEO and first team coach disagree, you'll still get the kind of mishmash approach that has characterised the club in the last decade.

Our focus should be on the CEO, who is the most important senior exec. A good CEO can help the club formulate a vision and find the right people to make it happen so that each of the business areas is run well. That may or may not include a DOF. It doesnt really matter what shape each jigsaw piece is as long as the big picture is right.
 
I think people overestimate the footballing philosophy part of a DOF.

You sign hardworking talented players at a reasonable fee/wage. You do background checks on their attitude/behaviour. You give less lucrative contracts as players age. You favour the long term.

good managers and good players with the right attitude can work for each other and vice-versa
 
Long term squad building strategy based on youth, potential and reasonable prices with 3-4 alternatives for a specific primary transfer targert regardless of the manager in charge.
 
Identification of play style for a club, filtering down to which manager is compatible with said play style and then in conjunction with the manager and other senior officials, finding the compatible players.
 
A lot of sporting success is down to trial and error. In my mind the role of a DOF is to have some kind of footballing knowledge to not get every single decision wrong like a banker in charge of footballing decisions.
 
Revaulx said:
Exactly.

A clear philosophy doesn’t start with an individual DoF. In City’s case the executives looked at other successful clubs, picked Barcelona and went about replicating their model.

They didn’t appoint a flavour of the month DoF and then leave it to him to hit upon a philosophy.
Click to expand...
City literally pick the flavor of the year from Barcelona to replicate Barcelona.

City started their orthodox DoF + head coach model when they're less successful, when their previous owners ain't as wealthy. With money from the new owner, they "upgraded" their football higher management department. These guys was not be able to get Pep right away after Pep quit Barcelona. They took their time, with trial and error, plenty of flops (expected). But it's clear that they have vision and it shows with Mancini, Pellegrini appointment and recruitment toward a technical style and cultural familiar with more Latin players influence. Build up the foundation, paving the way for Pep landing.

It's very different from picking whatever current top model you want, and task your old school director from Everton to replicate, while changing parts. It's like using an old motherboard from last decade, and adding the best GPU and can't really see the improvement due to motherboard bottleneck.
 
Last edited:
adexkola said:
What do you think is the best structure for a club in today's era?
Click to expand...

I don’t have a particular view, largely due to lack of qualification on the matter. I think it’s a bit outlandish for casual observers to believe they are qualified to go beyond talking XI vs XI to now apparently being an authority on how mega clubs should be structured from top to bottom.

My thinking is that you simply need the best people to carry out the functions of a football club. So for example, one of those functions is of course recruitment of football players. You can have a DoF who signs all the players or you can have a ‘recruitment team’ that signs players. What matters is that, as a football club, you have designation for the necessary function of signing players. After that, all that matters is they do their job well. Not their job titles. If your DoF is shit, you sign shit players, if your recruitment team is shit, you sign shit players. The idea that the structure of having a recruitment team as opposed to a director being the problem is not one that I subscribe to personally.

Ajax apparently have the perfect structure, but their personnel are doing a shit job and as a result, their team is shit.
 
Primarily he will say he is responsible for everything except getting the team to win - that would be the coach’s job. Or is it?

That’s why I don’t like DoFs. It ends with the coach and the DoF blaming each other and if you have to fire one of them, how do you know you’re firing the right one?
 
Managers job is to win this year and next year
DOF's job is to win every year for the next 20 years
 
Revaulx said:
This is very true. Plenty on here love to bemoan the “cult of the manager” at United, but seem to think that all power being transferred to a DoF would somehow make things different.

Anyone looking for a SAF-like messiah to come in on a white horse and save us by being brilliant at all the things you mention* is going to be disappointed.

* you haven’t mentioned ensuring that we don’t “overpay” for all the perfect players they are going to recruit.

That doesn’t mean that getting good people in to help do all those things isn’t a good idea, obvs.
Click to expand...

Ironically, in the absence of a strong footballing structure at the top of the club, this is exactly what we appear to be striving for and is one of the biggest contributors to why we've been so dire for over a decade. Football has moved on; we haven't.
 
Rozay said:
I don’t have a particular view, largely due to lack of qualification on the matter. I think it’s a bit outlandish for casual observers to believe they are qualified to go beyond talking XI vs XI to now apparently being an authority on how mega clubs should be structured from top to bottom.

My thinking is that you simply need the best people to carry out the functions of a football club. So for example, one of those functions is of course recruitment of football players. You can have a DoF who signs all the players or you can have a ‘recruitment team’ that signs players. What matters is that, as a football club, you have designation for the necessary function of signing players. After that, all that matters is they do their job well. Not their job titles. If your DoF is shit, you sign shit players, if your recruitment team is shit, you sign shit players. The idea that the structure of having a recruitment team as opposed to a director being the problem is not one that I subscribe to personally.

Ajax apparently have the perfect structure, but their personnel are doing a shit job and as a result, their team is shit.
Click to expand...
Ajax almost got their previous personnel in all position wiped off too quickly. From DoF, head coach, his staffs, to key players... If anything, Ajax current downfall drives home the point about having the competent DoF? Ajax didn't plan for Overmarcs debacle. He did well and he's expected to reign over the transition of managers and players if not for the scandal. They had evidence with this structure past success. They know where the problem is in the chain of command. It's not like they conclude that now they mistakenly signed Eredisive bottom half quality and need to sack all the scouts, revamp the scouting system. They went for the manager head. They bring LVG back as adviser to help their directors who is not doing as well as OverMarcs. They know getting the right personnels at the top, things would start falling back into place again. It's just random to ignore long term benefit of structure, and influence of competent DoF by citing this short term unexpected chaos example.

Yes people do the job. Not words, titles. Structure is not just making job titles, which we seem to do for the sake of it. It's about enabling the right position with the power, and have them accounted for it. It's not like our scouts, head of scouting don't go scouting, writing report, making suggestion, and warning. They don't have no power when our Football Director don't take responsibility, turning his back to the scouting department and delegating his responsibility to the manager for picking transfer target instead.
 
ti vu said:
Ajax almost got their previous personnel in all position wiped off too quickly. From DoF, head coach, his staffs, to key players... If anything, Ajax current downfall drives home the point about having the competent DoF? Ajax didn't plan for Overmarcs debacle. He did well and he's expected to reign over the transition of managers and players if not for the scandal. They had evidence with this structure past success. They know where the problem is in the chain of command. It's not like they conclude that now they mistakenly signed Eredisive bottom half quality and need to sack all the scouts, revamp the scouting system. They went for the manager head. They bring LVG back as adviser to help their directors who is not doing as well as OverMarcs. They know getting the right personnels at the top, things would start falling back into place again. It's just random to ignore long term benefit of structure, and influence of competent DoF by citing this short term unexpected chaos example.

Yes people do the job. Not words, titles. Structure is not just making job titles, which we seem to do for the sake of it. It's about enabling the right position with the power, and have them accounted for it. It's not like our scouts, head of scouting don't go scouting, writing report, making suggestion, and warning. They don't have no power when our Football Director don't take responsibility, turning his back to the scouting department and delegating his responsibility to the manager for picking transfer target instead.
Click to expand...

But by all accounts, emotion aside, that is not how our system works. According to all reports and comments from those at the club, Ten Hag is simply part of the decision making process. He has a say. Every single signing we make is announced by Murtough, who highlights the interest the club held in the player in question.

Your point regarding Ajax is not entirely true either. They didn’t simply sack their manager. He was the last to go actually. Their Director was sacked first. Van der Saar was also moved on. These are structural changes. The same structure which previously worked well seemingly because they had better people managing it. I have no issue with Ajax’ structure, for the record, my point is that poor personnel will cause any structure to fail.

Any Director we hire, especially with the DoF mandate I have been reading on here, absolutely HAS to be phenomenal at his job because he controls everything at the club. And when it’s all said and done, what even qualifies ANYBODY for such a responsibility, especially at a club like ours?
 
Physiocrat said:
Are you thinking former coaches/pros etc see what they think the style and approach that will be needed to win and then hire a DOF who is on board with that vision?
Click to expand...

Well, to be honest...I don't know.

And as you say, that part is extremely important, not to say the most important one: you can't just let a bunch of random clowns sit on that "football board" and let them a) devise a plan and b) hire a DOF.

One thing which can be mentioned here is that making "football people" with experience and a connection to Manchester United members (directors, whatever) of a board should be far less risky than employing them as either DOFs or managers. For one thing, it's a board, as in multiple people.

As I see it, this "football board" would be initially tasked "simply" (it wouldn't be simple at all, of course) with devising an overall plan for United over the next few seasons: given where we are now, what is a realistic target for the next season, the season after that...and so forth. What sort of players should we go for with these targets in mind? What sort of football should the "brand" of Manchester United be associated with? (Which again would influence what sort of players we go for). What sort of overall "club culture" should we aim for (again: this should absolutely influence transfer policy). And so forth.

As for individuals, I'd perhaps go for a mix of pure experience and...something else: fresh perspectives. A mix of people associated with the Fergie era culture, which was a winner's culture first and foremost, and people who bring something else to the table (someone with experience from working in a completely different culture, one where the "manager" was not king...which Fergie himself very much was).

Just one example (and I'm not saying he should be approached for anything like this, it's just an example): I never wanted Ole to get the manager gig permanently. But I wouldn't mind him on such a board.

And bear in mind here: devising a strategy and then, subsequently, holding DOFs and "managers" (head coaches, whatever) responsible for carrying out that strategy is vastly different from actually doing the job on the floor. It's "easier" in one sense, it's about maintaining standards from above, not accepting anything below standard from the people below you, keeping them honest. I actually believe we have some ex-players and other figures who'd be suited for that job even if they arent' suited for actual coaching or direct management (which is, again, a completely different ballgame). Perhaps this "football board" could consist of such people - and others with no particular ties to the club/the Fergie era (and/or others again who could be a bit of both).

I'm just throwing out ideas, obviously.

ETA And I would stress that the role of this "football board" should not be to constantly meddle with the affairs of the DOF and/or the "manager". Their role is to make sure the ones below them don't get away with not delivering on the targets set. The "football board" would be - let's say - guardians of the culture, the overall ambitions, the "philosophy" of the club.

Simplistically (very):

If the "manager" doesn't deliver, the DOF has the power to sack the fecker.

If the DOF doesn't deliver (he can't keep hiring "managers" forever), the "football board" has the power to sack him.

Of course, none of this is even remotely possible in practice if the owner is an utter idiot (or someone who doesn't really care about the football side).
 
Last edited:
Chesterlestreet said:
Well, to be honest...I don't know.

And as you say, that part is extremely important, not to say the most important one: you can't just let a bunch of random clowns sit on that "football board" and let them a) devise a plan and b) hire a DOF.

One thing which can be mentioned here is that making "football people" with experience and a connection to Manchester United members (directors, whatever) of a board should be far less risky than employing them as either DOFs or managers. For one thing, it's a board, as in multiple people.

As I see it, this "football board" would be initially tasked "simply" (it wouldn't be simple at all, of course) with devising an overall plan for United over the next few seasons: given where we are now, what is a realistic target for the next season, the season after that...and so forth. What sort of players should we go for with these targets in mind? What sort of football should the "brand" of Manchester United be associated with? (Which again would influence what sort of players we go for). What sort of overall "club culture" should we aim for (again: this should absolutely influence transfer policy). And so forth.

As for individuals, I'd perhaps go for a mix of pure experience and...something else: fresh perspectives. A mix of people associated with the Fergie era culture, which was a winner's culture first and foremost, and people who bring something else to the table (someone with experience from working in a completely different culture, one where the "manager" was not king...which Fergie himself very much was).

Just one example (and I'm not saying he should be approached for anything like this, it's just an example): I never wanted Ole to get the manager gig permanently. But I wouldn't mind him on such a board.

And bear in mind here: devising a strategy and then, subsequently, holding DOFs and "managers" (head coaches, whatever) responsible for carrying out that strategy is vastly different from actually doing the job on the floor. It's "easier" in one sense, it's about maintaining standards from above, not accepting anything below standard from the people below you, keeping them honest. I actually believe we have some ex-players and other figures who'd be suited for that job even if they arent' suited for actual coaching or direct management (which is, again, a completely different ballgame). Perhaps this "football board" could consist of such people - and others with no particular ties to the club/the Fergie era (and/or others again who could be a bit of both).

I'm just throwing out ideas, obviously.

ETA And I would stress that the role of this "football board" should not be to constantly meddle with the affairs of the DOF and/or the "manager". Their role is to make sure the ones below them don't get away with not delivering on the targets set. The "football board" would be - let's say - guardians of the culture, the overall ambitions, the "philosophy" of the club.

Simplistically (very):

If the "manager" doesn't deliver, the DOF has the power to sack the fecker.

If the DOF doesn't deliver (he can't keep hiring "managers" forever), the "football board" has the power to sack him.

Of course, none of this is even remotely possible in practice if the owner is an utter idiot (or someone who doesn't really care about the football side).
Click to expand...

Good stuff Chester. It also explains why the terrible leadership by our current owners is so important and thus detrimental. I think your approach makes entire sense. I do wonder if some of the better run sides have a similar model.
 
Not a surprise more than half of the United fans here don't even know what to expect from a DoF. I don't even blame them considering we never had one.

Their job is not to just make sure the manager does his job but also to make sure there is a proper recruitment so that the manager is not acting like a scout. Plan a strategy of how you want to see the club play and appoint such manager. The play style should be non- negotiable and so should be player recruitment.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.