The Guardian sportsblog talks today about the creeping redefinition of what it means to be a Premier League manager. As I touched on yesterday re: Keegan’s departure (or not) managers are increasingly being superceded/undermined/assisted (delete as appropriate) by directors of football and the like as more owners move away from the traditional model of appointing a manager to manage the whole operation. Curbishley was not happy with his lack of control of transfers, as Keegan had been the day before. And fair enough. Surely in any industry a manager should have significant input in employing (or sacking) his staff. Also, there is little evidence that this works in English football, it generally ends in tears. It is no coincidence that two of the most established and successful managers, Wenger and Ferguson, have so much say over the direction of their clubs. Are owners following this new model because of continental influence, or because they’ve bought a club as a plaything, a real-life Championship Manager?