We are used to managers coming and going, but consider this: When the Premier League campaign kicks off in August, just three will have had more than a season in their job in the top flight – Arsene Wenger, Alan Pardew and Martin Jol.

If the past is anything to go by, all this should herald a season of transitions and excuses (perhaps legitimate ones, but excuses nevertheless). If ever there was a time to find out which clubs rely on an omnipotent, micro-managing boss and which ones are well-run (yes, even "holistically" to use Manchester City's favourite word), then this is it.

What is curious though is that there is a definite trend away from the uber-boss and towards a more shared role, if not an outright director of football model. David Moyes will inherit Sir Alex Ferguson's title at Old Trafford, but not his responsibility and power, at least not straight away.

Manchester City and Chelsea already have directors of football and, in the former's case, it is notable that Michael Emenalo has thus far stuck around, despite the arrival of one Jose Mourinho (who made short work of the last DoF he worked under, Jorge Valdano).

Tottenham could appoint Franco Baldini to work alongside Tim Sherwood in that very role this week. Sunderland hired one last month. West Bromwich Albion and Swansea have operated along such lines for some years now.

The idea is a sound one. Managers come and go, particularly outside the top six. Do well and your boss is likely to want to step up. Underachieve and you are likely to sack him. The best way to maintain stability and do some medium and long-term planning is to share out the responsibility, balancing a guy looking for short-term results to survive (and might bring in high-priced veterans, for example) and one who is judged over five years and will be looking to bring through youth and build for the future.

There is another – obvious – reason as well. At clubs where there is no director of football, all too often that function is filled by a coterie of two or three "friendly" agents. And that is a walking, talking conflict of interest.

Jose Mourinho will be officially unveiled as manager of Chelsea tomorrow, much to the delight of the English media.You sense a classic build-up-to-tear-down cycle coming on.

Many pined for his return, noting just how badly treated he had been in Madrid, and he, of course, played the game, talking about wanting to go "where he is loved".

Now he is back, you are already noting concerns and caveats. Some rediscovered the fact that his time at Chelsea wasn't a continuous love-in. They remember that he rowed with Rafa Benitez, Arsene Wenger and the ambulance services at Reading. That he fell out with John Terry and, ultimately, Roman Abramovich.

Some compare this to the second marriage of Richard Burton and Elizabeth Taylor. They note that Chelsea are now operating under Financial Fair Play restrictions and he won't have the blank chequebook he had in his first two seasons in West London.

It is almost as if the wonderful narrative of Mourinho's return is played out and now they need a new chapter. If he hits the ground running, it will be the "See? We told you, Jose really is the Special One." If he has the slightest wobble, the backlash can begin.

Wouldn't it be ironic if – having complained (absurdly) that Spain was unjust to him – in the end it is England that gives him the rougher ride?

Conventional wisdom when Tony Pulis was relieved of duty was that he had "taken Stoke as far as he could". Now Mark Hughes has taken over, the storyline is that his hunger for "redemption" after the Queens Park Rangers' nightmare will see the Potters in good stead.

"My intention is, for my own sanity, to repair my reputation," Hughes said.

Leaving aside the brand of football, there is one thing that stands out in Pulis' tenure. In the past five seasons, Stoke have had a net spend of £80 million. That is the third-highest in the English game after Chelsea and Manchester City. That is what it took to obtain five years of finishing between 12th and 14th.

The obvious question is whether Hughes will have access to the same level of resources. And that is one to be directed at the club. Let's just remind ourselves of what happened under Pulis, because it epitomises how grown men can turn into teenage girls with daddy's credit card.

Maurice Edu arrives from Rangers, gets a three-year deal and then plays just 11 minutes in three months before being sent out on loan to Turkey because Pulis decides he doesn't rate him.

Brek Shea is signed for £2.7m and much hype in January and then doesn't start a single game.

Wilson Palacios arrives for £7m then, in his second season, plays a grand total of just 49 minutes. Or how about Eidur Gudjohnsen? £2.5m for a 32-year-old, zero starts, zero goals and then he is gone again.

Or Kenwyne Jones. Pulis spends £9m in 2010, the guy scores nine goals but then finds himself on the bench for the next two seasons behind – ahem – Peter Crouch.

Then there is his fetish for old free agents who can hardly get on the pitch (Matthew Upson, Jonathan Woodgate, Michael Owen). Or the genius move of signing England's Under 21 goalkeeper, Jack Butland, to back up Asmir Begovic, who is 25 and whom the club had just locked into a long-term deal.

If Hughes gets that kind of carte blanche, he will do better than Pulis, QPR notwithstanding. If he doesn't get it, he will have to go back to basics and make his mark on the training pitch, giving the club a tactical identity (hopefully a different one than under his predecessor) and working to make the players he has better. Which is what a manager ought to be doing in the first place.