Do you think Robbie ( or any other manager for that fact), should have total control over senior players transfered into & out of the club he manages?.

Is it a case of:

A= Yes,because his & his choices alone reflect his beliefs in how his team should play?,after all,that's why he was appointed?.

B=No,because a good manager can work with any good quality player that the 'club' buys & in truth, the board may not trust the 'numpty' not to sign up his mates for a cut of the transfer?.

C=Who cares?,the X factor's on in a minute.

D=Other.

I wonder if the real reason international canine banking expert harry redknapp was given the elbow at spuds, was because he liked a 'cut' of the action,much to Levy's horror,(& beyond his control).

Maybe todays Director of Football position has evolved because managers & their agent chums just can't be trusted anymore?.

Who knows really?, but what do you think is the best way?..............

I think they should have control over transfers. Of course he can't pick anyone he likes, but he should atleast be able to say "I need someone creative to play deep at midfield. Someone like Modric or Pirlo". Maybe he can get one of those. If not, he and the board (or whoever is in charge of the actual buying of players) should talk things through to find a suitable solution.

A really good manager is usually flexible and can do well with most kinds of squads, but to get the best result the manager should be able to build the team he needs to work his ideas, as long as he's not asking for a complete replacement of the squad of course.

And I doubt it helps the manager to get stability in the squad if he's pelted with new players he has neither asked nor planned for.

Maybe he's planned and got the squad to play a 4-5-1 with a real target player up front, but suddenly the club has bought a new striker who is nowhere near suitable as a target man and the manager has to use him because he cost a lot of money. That will cause some problems.

In short: The manager should be in control, but there has to be good communication, understanding and respect between him (or her) and the board.

I

In short: The manager should be in control, but there has to be good communication, understanding and respect between him (or her) and the board.

Which team has got a female manager?

I'm firmly in the "No" camp. Managers are far too dispensable and shortlived to rely on for sole control of transfers. They need to be involved of course, but an independent perspective is needed from coaching/scouting staff, medical/performance staff and the board (financial).

The manager is the best placed person to identify the kind of player needed in a squad, and his opinion should be given heavy weight as such. However he is rarely the best placed person to decide who that exact player is and what the economic consequences of his capture are.

without a doubt he should be given full control. At the end of the day he is the one who will be sacked if the players dont perform. My only worry is as Robbie is still quite new to this managing game how good is his eye for talent and how far does his talent pool go? I realise we will have scouts all over the world looking at players so that would help.

It's dangerous when a manager has too much control over transfers, look at what happened to a lot of the clubs Redknapp managed that had weaker chairmen.

Ideally you want the manager and coaching staff to identify areas that could be strengthened, the scouts to find the prospects and there to be a meeting between the chairman/DoF, owners and manager over the options.

Managers are not businessmen and there's now too much money involved for them to be handed blank cheques.

I think its rare for that to happen. I would think that most managers in control of transfers go to the board with a number of targets and then the board see if a deal can be done.

100% yes.

tbf to the board, we have made some top quality signings this summer AND last summer. I think Robbie must give them a few names, it can't all be those nuggets.

Which team has got a female manager?

None that I can think of, but if a womens team can have a male as manager, then a mens team should be able to have a woman.

While the amount of control can be debated, there is no doubt that a manager must be involved in transfers. Situations like what Moos pointed out shouldn't happen, it will only be detrimental to the team. We've seen it at Chelsea in recent years, when Ballack & Shevchenko were forced on Mourinho, and Torres on Ancelotti.

I think Romans a disgrace.. forcing all these world class players onto managers, it's NOT the way to go, we should follow the Arsenal/Wenger philosophy.. after all what have we got to show for it in the last 8 years ???....

Alan

While the amount of control can be debated, there is no doubt that a manager must be involved in transfers. Situations like what Moos pointed out shouldn't happen, it will only be detrimental to the team. We've seen it at Chelsea in recent years, when Ballack & Shevchenko were forced on Mourinho, and Torres on Ancelotti.

Its a strange thing to say having world class players "forced" onto a manager, I always felt part of Joses downfall was not using Shevchenko correctly and at times seeming to cut his own nose off to spite his face. As for control over transfers, I doubt many managers have that anymore, other than the long termers like Ferguson and Wenger. I dont mind there being more than one person having a say in it, as long as those people are the correct ones.

...and Torres on Ancelotti.

That's not what Ray Wilkins has said...

I think Romans a disgrace.. forcing all these world class players onto managers, it's NOT the way to go, we should follow the Arsenal/Wenger philosophy.. after all what have we got to show for it in the last 8 years ???....

Alan

Not what I said and not what I meant, and you know that.

Its a strange thing to say having world class players "forced" onto a manager, I always felt part of Joses downfall was not using Shevchenko correctly and at times seeming to cut his own nose off to spite his face.

I would agree totally that Shevchenko could have and should have been used better, but it shows my point. It created unnecessary tension and put Mourinho in a situation he wasn't happy with, even if he should have handled it better.

As for control over transfers, I doubt many managers have that anymore, other than the long termers like Ferguson and Wenger. I dont mind there being more than one person having a say in it, as long as those people are the correct ones.

You're right on that one and I too don't mind having numerous people involved, just so long as the manager is happy with who's coming in.

When the special 1 was with us he made sure he took a couple of Porto players with him. That must've been his selection rather than the boards so I don't know I think the manager should have a big part to play in transfers saying that I'm not sure anyone we've signed with RDM has been his pick.

By definition, a manager who picks his own signings will on average, outperform a manager who doesn't.

The question is weather a club can stick with a manager long enough for him to properly build his own side.

Edited August 21, 201213 yr by Guest

By definition, a manager who picks his own signings will on average, outperform a manager who doesn't.

The question is weather a club can stick with a manager long enough for him to properly build his own side.

Not necessarily. It'd take a manager who's also quite skilled at evaluating talent and there's plenty of evidence that even great managers are often not particularly strong in this category. It's hardly surprising, of course, considering that managers have more pressing responsibilities and therefore lack the same capacity to scout players as someone whose job is solely concerned with doing so.

In my opinion, no manager should ever have total control. The best possible set-up involves football operations working in synergy with the manager to determine player transfers. More specifically, the manager would not have the final say, but his input should be heeded. For example, if Robbie feels that he needs a right sided attacking player, he should be able to suggest as much, and his input should be considered, but it should be up to somebody else to determine who the appropriate player should be. For transfers out, I'd weigh the manager's input more heavily, but certainly wouldn't give a manager the latitude to axe whomever he wants.

Edited August 21, 201213 yr by That Boy Brandinho

In today's game is the manager necessarily best placed to find the most suitable players out there? There are a lot of good clubs all over the world and it takes a lot of time to identify and monitor talent. In my opinion a manager should be involved in transfers but not in full control of them.

In the country he managers in then yes he should have some control over the players he want that play in that division but we have scouts ect who travel the world looking for talent and that has to come into it.

I think Moses is very much a RDM option while Hulk is the priority of the board.

Not what I said and not what I meant, and you know that.

Sorry fella (wasn't meant to offend, and wasn't aimed at you specifically)

I just don't buy all this the manager should have control over transfers for a successful team ethos..

We have proved that to be complete tosh since Roman came in (him buying the best has obviously helped).

We've won everything despite a managerial merry go round that irrelevant of the FACTS is ridiculed by all and sundry in the media.

Alan

Its a strange thing to say having world class players "forced" onto a manager, I always felt part of Joses downfall was not using Shevchenko correctly and at times seeming to cut his own nose off to spite his face. As for control over transfers, I doubt many managers have that anymore, other than the long termers like Ferguson and Wenger. I dont mind there being more than one person having a say in it, as long as those people are the correct ones.

Not even Wenger has control over transfers. Ivan Gazidis and Dick Law are in charge of the transfers, I'm still not entirely sure what Wenger does.

I'm still not entirely sure what Wenger does.

I think, by definition, Wenger wengs...