Good for the immediate future.

According to who?

Never heard of the athletic but i know 365 are awful.

Ole is acting as the role as a DofF at United. Probably a lot more than he 'manages' the club.

United are adamant that the current system means stability for the squad and that the days of a new manager meaning a completely new team have gone.
———
I’ll believe this when I see it.

United are adamant that the current system means stability for the squad and that the days of a new manager meaning a completely new team have gone.
++

So, basically Ed is saying that MUFC would not employ the current manager, or a new manager, unless he agrees before hand to act under the 'current system' which has already been set out in stone by 'the club'.

So is he saying that this 'current system' was imposed on Ole, or did Ole formulating the 'current system'?


And what is the 'current system' anyway?

Typical shortsightedness and capriciousness, the trademark of the Woodward era.

I think Ole laid down what he wanted, and the board has gone with it.
Barring a catastrophe (sorry Robb and UWW) I don't think they will sack Ole.
So on that basis we don't need a DoF in the near future.

It was obvious to anyone paying attention that Ed has been moving away from this.

He doesn’t want to lose the power he has. Any of it.

Woodward can still retain power even with a director of football at the club, they’d still be his subordinate. I wouldn’t trust to him to appoint the right director of football anyway, justice by his incompetence since he’s been in the job, but it’s stupid that he’s not realised we need someone with expertise in this role.

There's nothing shocking about it. He was never interested in appointing one. I mean interviewing Rio and Fletch, come on.

I've never agreed with the idea that someone apart from the Manager should be dealing with the transfer side of the game, however in this particular instance, I don't think Woodward was ever serious about it.

Woodward can still retain power even with a director of football at the club, they’d still be his subordinate.

......

You clearly don’t understand people like Ed.

Why did we give Matt Judge a job then? Woodward’s delegated a lot of responsibilities at the club to others beneath him. The power thing isn’t a great argument when you consider the current structure of the club.

Why did we give Matt Judge a job then.

.......

No one knows. He wasn’t qualified for it and had done an appalling job.

That’s beside the point. It’s an example of Woodward giving up power, or responsibilities to be more accurate. It’s a weak argument to suggest Woodward wants to cling onto power as to why we haven’t appointed a director of football.

That’s beside the point.

.....:

Not really. It was the answer to your question.

My guess is he appointed Judge so that he could spend more of his time playing footy manager with United’s resources.

Which leads us full circle to DoF because he has effed it up for the last six or seven years.

Yes really, it was a rhetorical question, it’s clear what the actual point was.

Yes really

..,

Not really. Your point was stupid.