They would, Bosingwa certainly. They are the kind of people Moyes should be after.

I would take the pair of them at Newcastle in an instant.

Bosingwa would be an excellent mentor for Santon, he's played at the top level for years and we could get another two or three years out of him and then the position would be there for Santon to take over. Pardew let it slip last season that Santon wasn't a long term vision for him at left back, so if we could get Bosingwa for the right and one of the rumoured left backs we've been after (along with Douglas to bolster us in the centre) we'd certainly be cooking. Plus, if Danny Simpson is stalling on a contract then sell him for a couple of million and use that to go towards covering Bosingwa's wages.

Kalou or no Kalou we need to sign some non-African attacking players for when we lose Cisse and Ba (if both still here) to the ACoN. That would leave a front three of Best, Ameobi and Ben Arfa in the hole. Shola was like bambi on ice at the best of times, but now is so slow it's unbelievable. Nothing more than a hold up man when we're trying to keep a lead. Best has proved a lot of critics wrong since he's been here, but he still isn't the sort of striker that contributes much and is never going to be a prolific scorer for us. Kalou probably on big money so that'd likely be a stumbling block. He would fit in to our formation perfectly on the left though, would also allow us to rest Cisse and put Ba up front - we're going to have to give both chance to rest otherwise with the league, domestic cups, Europe and the ACoN they'll both be knackered by February.

Private limited liability companies are not governed by the same regulations and expectations as a plc though so it is important to make that distinction. As limited liability companies are not exposed to the stock exchange/trading their commitment to profit can be managed more easily than it can with a plc. A plc is required to produce profit which usually they are asked to maximise whereas a limited company does not have to be seen to be maximising profits in the same way. Sure, they will want to make a profit, however I would argue that they are more free to pursue their own agenda as well, which may include just being successful. It's an important distinction.

oh I see,

so, they are not in it for the money then ?

just an altruistic act to make the lives of a few hundred thousand scousers happier then ?

the last time I was in the pub with my missus !

van Gaal would fall out with himself if there was nobody else left to bicker with.

He's not a good fit for this kind of role, as he'll ruffle the feathers of those who he works for, with and above.

Why do English clubs get involved with Director's of Football? In Europe it's different, managers at most of the clubs do absolutely nothing in terms of managing the club bar coaching on a day to day level. Transfers and even team selection is taken out of their hands.

Liverpool wanting Van Gaal as DOF just seems silly to me. The English culture is that the manager develops his squad, signs the players he wants and picks whoever he wants. The next manager of Liverpool is now basically going to have to be a complete yes man and just do whatever Van Gaal tells him to. In that case, why not just make Van Gaal the manager and give him the full jurisdiction instead of having the horrible DOF/Manager contradiction and duality of roles?

There's no reason the sporting director/coach model can't work anywhere. There's no reason the 'English' model can't either - Felix Magath winning the league with Wolfsburg, for example. It's horses for courses innit.

Fsg are probably under more pressure than most listed companies to make a profit because they invest the money of wealthy individuals that expect high returns. They do not invest for any other reason than to make money

Well said. I think either model can work, but you only have to look at clubs like Udinese and Porto to see how well DoFs/'transfer gurus' can work. Like any system/structure, if you have the right people in place, it will always work well. Clubs like United and Arsenal will say they wouldn't be where they are now without their managers and their manager's signings, but then I imagine a lot of clubs in Italy/Spain would say they that the DoFs are the reason they've maintained stability despite managers leaving.

I've read a lot on DoFs and a lot of it seems to come down to a different interpretation of the role of a manager. English coaches are 'lazier', they let their coaches do more of the work, instead preferring to get involved with signing players and going to watch players abroad - they act more like DoFs themselves. In other countries, the manager is expected to be out with the players, hammering home tactics and preparing his side as best as possible, whilst a dedicated person scouts and signs players. However, it isn't as simple as it seems, they will both be in dialogue so there's an understanding about style of player wanted and so on; it's simply to maximise results from scouting, whilst maximising the performance of the manager who's spending more time with his players.

Quote: McClennan "Private limited liability companies are not governed by the same regulations and expectations as a plc though so it is important to make that distinction. As limited liability companies are not exposed to the stock exchange/trading their commitment to profit can be managed more easily than it can with a plc. A plc is required to produce profit which usually they are asked to maximise whereas a limited company does not have to be seen to be maximising profits in the same way. Sure, they will want to make a profit, however I would argue that they are more free to pursue their own agenda as well, which may include just being successful. It's an important distinction.'" it seems that LFC , owned by Fenway Sports Group operates under the british company UKSV Holdings Co. Ltd. which it appears, is actually a PLC after all... www.cdrex.com/uksv-holdings-comp ... 86906.html

Quote: McClennan "Private limited liability companies are not governed by the same regulations and expectations as a plc though so it is important to make that distinction. As limited liability companies are not exposed to the stock exchange/trading their commitment to profit can be managed more easily than it can with a plc. A plc is required to produce profit which usually they are asked to maximise whereas a limited company does not have to be seen to be maximising profits in the same way. Sure, they will want to make a profit, however I would argue that they are more free to pursue their own agenda as well, which may include just being successful. It's an important distinction.'" it seems that LFC , owned by Fenway Sports Group operates under the british company UKSV Holdings Co. Ltd. which it appears, is actually a PLC after all... www.cdrex.com/uksv-holdings-comp ... 86906.html