The sacking of Andre Villas Boas has shed some light on the role of Directors of Football.

Tottenham have relied on the work of Franco Baldini in the transfer market, while the likes of Sunderland, Manchester City, Chelsea, West Brom, Cardiff, Liverpool and Newcastle all have some variation of a position that is common on the continent.

But is it really necessary to have a figure who signs players when managers are the ones with the best knowledge of the players needed in a squad?

Tonight we spoke to football writer Gabriel Marcotti about the pros and cons of a Director of Football.

"I think clubs realize that it is a necessity. Back in the day when you were only signing players from your country or often just from your region, you could have a manager manage on a Saturday and then take in a reserve game. He could handle everything himself. It wasn't very scientific and he could train up his assistants to do it. All that has gone out the window now. There's no way one person can do everything," said Marcotti, pointing out that AVB was the one who demanded Baldini's appointment and that Alex Ferguson also delegated many tasks to those he trusted.

While there are still suspicions about this species of club official, Marcotti had some positive examples of how a Director of Football should operate, citing Sevilla's Monchi whose transfer market nous transformed that club.

Main image (Clockwise from top right): Joe Kinnear of Newcastle, Monchi of Sevilla, Michael Emenalo of Chelsea and Franco Baldini of Spurs