The director of football has become the bete noir of English managers.
Alan Curbishley and Kevin Keegan both cited interference in transfer policy as the key reason for their resignations earlier this week.
Curbishley was infuriated that West Ham technical director Gianluca Nani had authorised the sale of George McCartney without his knowledge, while Keegan could not accept that executive director Dennis Wise had signed two players he had never even heard of on transfer deadline day.
Harry Redknapp voiced the thoughts of many English bosses when he said: "Players are bought and sold without the manager's
consent - and even knowledge in some cases. How can you do the job like that?"
Five Live football correspondent Mike Ingham has even suggested that the trend of appointing directors of football could lead to the demise of the English manager.
But can the partnership between a director of football and a manager work?
David Pleat, who was Spurs director of football from 1998 to 2004, says it can.
"It's absolute rubbish to say it can't," he told BBC Sport. "But both men need to buy into the idea from the start and respect each other."
These sentiments are backed by Stoke director of football John Rudge who, in tandem with manager Tony Pulis, helped the club secure promotion to the Premier League last season.
He told the BBC: "I'm working with someone I get on really well with in Tony and I hope I can just help by taking the strain off him, because I know exactly what it's like to be a manager."
Rudge says it's too much to ask one man to oversee coaching, transfers, the academy, dealing with the board and matchday matters.
"Being a manager is a hard role and can be often too much for one person," he said.
"I'm here to lighten the load so Tony can focus on winning matches."
West Ham vice chairman Asgeir Fridgeirsson also believes the old-fashioned model of one man being in control of all football matters leads to expense and instability.
When a new manager comes in, he inevitably wants to bring in new players and ship out many of the old ones.
"About a year ago, we began to feel we were vulnerable in having a structure with one manager who runs all football matters," Fridgeirsson said.
"If the manager leaves, where does it leave you? We decided to build an infrastructure and philosophy for the club, which would provide continuity."
West Ham and Newcastle have both decided on a policy of mainly signing young players who can be developed.
The clubs believed that Nani and Wise were better suited to doing this than the respective former managers.
A source "close to Newcastle's board" is reported to have ridiculed Keegan's lack of knowledge of emerging players, saying he had presented a wish list of signings valued at more than £200m, including Ronaldinho, Thierry Henry and Frank Lampard.
Instead, Wise was charged with looking to South America and Spain for previously undiscovered talent.
Nani had an impressive track record of unearthing talented players when he worked at Brescia.
Folklore has it that he discovered KakŠ in Brazil, only for the Italian club to be unable to afford him.
What is undoubtedly true is that he helped to develop future Italy internationals Andrea Pirlo and Luca Toni and enabled the club to make huge profits on players such as Slovakian Marek Hamsik.
Yet, despite all these arguments in favour of the director of football role, it is the manager who has to stand on the touchline on matchday and suffer abuse if his new signings fail to perform.
And it seems clear, as Pleat and Rudge suggest, that the director of football and manager must get along.
Ideally, the director of football will have recruited the manager in the first place.
This was not the case with either Keegan or Curbishley, but perhaps the structure will work when their successors are appointed.
What do you think?
Can the structure work? Is it unsuited to English football or do English managers need to change their ways?