Do you think this club with this indecisive board is capable of pulling off a move as demanding as poaching a manager from Spurs or A Madrid? I wouldn't hold my breath given what we've seen since Fergie quit. I want Mourinho mainly because it boils down to the fact that he is the only top class manager that we are able to hire.
BBC: United hold talks with Mourinho
- Thread starter Damien
- Start date
- Status
In his defense, it is very hard to go from being everyone's peer and equal, to being their boss.
But that was 2 years ago, most of his old team mates are now gone and the vast majority of the team have had time to get used to him as assistant manager or indeed never known him as anything else. Now in fairness, as assistant it would allow him some more leeway in terms of being just the pal with more sway with the boss but the dynamic is still altered.
Used to him being an assistant.. I don't know the stats but how many assistants step up from that role and having success? Being an assistant is a completely different job than being the man in charge.
True. Consistent in his baldness too, one is tempted to add. So, yes - one can't claim he's inconsistent.
Was thinking about the Giggs/Mourinho situation last night. To me it's a complete mess and the appointment of Giggs would be a trainwreck. But maybe we should take comfort in the fact that United is such a huge club that no amount of Woodward/Glazer mismanagement can keep us down for long.
To my mind there is a certain, immutable law of gravity in football. The best-supported clubs will generally rise to the top, and the clubs with smaller fanbases (apart from that tiny handful with a billionaire owner) will eventually be pulled downwards by their lack of economic power.
In every league you can think of, the clubs with the biggest fanbases (and hence the most money) are at or near the top. Liverpool has probably been the only outlier in recent years, but then they have a small stadium which has prevented them from monetizing their support.
In recent years clubs like Portsmouth, Bolton and Blackburn have tried to cheat football economics, and failed. And clubs like Real Madrid and Barcelona have gone through fallow periods, but returned to the top soon enough.
This may read like an arrogant and complacent homily, a footballing version of the 'too big to fail' mantra which undid the banking system. But football clubs aren't banks. They have supporters, not customers. If your bank lets you down, you can ditch them for another bank. A football supporter follows the same club for life, so when a footballing giant starts to struggle, the fanbase remains.
United, to my mind, are one of the three biggest clubs in world football, alongside RM and Barca. None of those clubs should ever be an also-ran for a prolonged period. If they endure three or four bad years, eventually the huge supporter base mutinies, the pressure is ratcheted up, and the owners are forced out, or forced to buck their ideas up.
So, if the Glazers try to turn us into a football version of the New York Yankees, a glamorous name with no on-pitch success, the law of footballing gravity will slap them in the face. If we appoint Giggs and it turns pear-shaped, the current apathy and frustration will turn to outright mutiny, and United's fortunes will be turned round.
Apologies if this reads like an arrogant rant. I am not trying to demean the smaller clubs - United are my local team and I'd like to think I'd have supported them even if they'd been in division three when I was growing up. It's brilliant that Leicester are winning the league, good luck to them. I'm just trying to find some crumbs of comfort in what is a hugely frustrating time to be a United fan!
To my mind there is a certain, immutable law of gravity in football. The best-supported clubs will generally rise to the top, and the clubs with smaller fanbases (apart from that tiny handful with a billionaire owner) will eventually be pulled downwards by their lack of economic power.
In every league you can think of, the clubs with the biggest fanbases (and hence the most money) are at or near the top. Liverpool has probably been the only outlier in recent years, but then they have a small stadium which has prevented them from monetizing their support.
In recent years clubs like Portsmouth, Bolton and Blackburn have tried to cheat football economics, and failed. And clubs like Real Madrid and Barcelona have gone through fallow periods, but returned to the top soon enough.
This may read like an arrogant and complacent homily, a footballing version of the 'too big to fail' mantra which undid the banking system. But football clubs aren't banks. They have supporters, not customers. If your bank lets you down, you can ditch them for another bank. A football supporter follows the same club for life, so when a footballing giant starts to struggle, the fanbase remains.
United, to my mind, are one of the three biggest clubs in world football, alongside RM and Barca. None of those clubs should ever be an also-ran for a prolonged period. If they endure three or four bad years, eventually the huge supporter base mutinies, the pressure is ratcheted up, and the owners are forced out, or forced to buck their ideas up.
So, if the Glazers try to turn us into a football version of the New York Yankees, a glamorous name with no on-pitch success, the law of footballing gravity will slap them in the face. If we appoint Giggs and it turns pear-shaped, the current apathy and frustration will turn to outright mutiny, and United's fortunes will be turned round.
Apologies if this reads like an arrogant rant. I am not trying to demean the smaller clubs - United are my local team and I'd like to think I'd have supported them even if they'd been in division three when I was growing up. It's brilliant that Leicester are winning the league, good luck to them. I'm just trying to find some crumbs of comfort in what is a hugely frustrating time to be a United fan!
Sam Wallace and Duncan castles pieces are clearly written on behalf of Mourinho. Duncan castles is well known for having close ties with Mourinho's camp. Both articles make it clear there isn't a concrete offer from the club and Mourinho is beginning to doubt if one will arrive at all. The Beeb say something similar.
I also doubt the choice of next manager is strictly between Giggs and Mourinho. I don't expect the club to be that narrow minded. The fact that other managers are at other clubs, doesn't mean we can't get them.
I also doubt the choice of next manager is strictly between Giggs and Mourinho. I don't expect the club to be that narrow minded. The fact that other managers are at other clubs, doesn't mean we can't get them.
Do you think we'd be likely to get Poch or Simeone (as an example) if we wanted them? I don't think the latter will come if we made an offer at all tbh and I don't see Poch leaving what he's building at Tottenham either.
The fact that Giggs is even a candidate is proof of this board's idiocy, would be too much a stretch to expect an idiot to be broad minded.
If its true Mourinho is joining, then the deal was likely agreed ages ago, making the notion that the board is indecisive redundant. Not to mention we also saw no indecisiveness in replacing Moyes with LVG (we met and agreed the deal even before Moyes was officially sacked).
Whilst I don't have confidence in the board in general, mainly because we hired Moyes, I don't buy all the narrative in the press. Look at all the talk about the youth development that was going around in the press, which is clearly also a load of bullshit and the club have clearly been undergoing a restructuring plan in that area for sometime.
At the end of the day on this Mourinho decision I will make my judgement at the end of the season when all the details are out. If it is true he cannot work until July because of some agreement with Chelsea then the board have done the right thing.
We don't know tbh. That's why I find this constant hysteria about not appointing Mourinho NOW to be weird. Pochettino has been evasive about signing a new contract, Simeone has been taking English lessons for some years. To me that suggests he has at least some ambition to manage in this country.
Yes, but there is little to suggest that Moyes would have been fired if he hadn't failed to get CL football.
I honestly have no idea what Woody is up to, but I hope he isn't sticking to some sort of rigid scheme which involves mathematical impossibilities. Waiting for the manager to drift so far behind that he can't achieve his (contractual) goals before pulling the trigger, certainly doesn't qualify as ruthlessness.
This is all getting farcical now. The board don't want a manager that's going to overshadow the club? We are talking about Manchester United for Christ sake, not some tiny little non league team! No fecking player OR manager could ever overshadow this great club!
If a rich man gets charged with murder he doesn't go out and hire a £50 an hour lawyer to represent him. He hires the most expensive one available, as usually the most expensive one equates to the best and most experienced which gives this man the most chance of success during the trial. He doesn't think to himself "nah, I'll stick with a rookie as I don't want to be overshadowed during the trial". It's ludicrous.
It really should be exactly the same in football. If you want success you go out and hire the best manager available (Mourinho) not a fecking rookie (Giggs).
I can't stand the likes of Abramovich, but every decision he makes (knee jerk or not) is made because he wants Chelsea to have the very best chance of being the best. I respect that.
Compare that to us, where we have a group of old farts that are (seemingly) worried that Mourinho will steal their limelight and are clearly not putting the club first if they are serious about appointing a rookie as manager of Manchester United. It really is just unbelievable.
If we overlook Mourinho and hire Giggs, when it all enevitably goes tits up, every single one of them that backed Giggs needs to leave the club with him. Rant over lol.
If a rich man gets charged with murder he doesn't go out and hire a £50 an hour lawyer to represent him. He hires the most expensive one available, as usually the most expensive one equates to the best and most experienced which gives this man the most chance of success during the trial. He doesn't think to himself "nah, I'll stick with a rookie as I don't want to be overshadowed during the trial". It's ludicrous.
It really should be exactly the same in football. If you want success you go out and hire the best manager available (Mourinho) not a fecking rookie (Giggs).
I can't stand the likes of Abramovich, but every decision he makes (knee jerk or not) is made because he wants Chelsea to have the very best chance of being the best. I respect that.
Compare that to us, where we have a group of old farts that are (seemingly) worried that Mourinho will steal their limelight and are clearly not putting the club first if they are serious about appointing a rookie as manager of Manchester United. It really is just unbelievable.
If we overlook Mourinho and hire Giggs, when it all enevitably goes tits up, every single one of them that backed Giggs needs to leave the club with him. Rant over lol.
100% agree.
The board decided to write off an entire season with Moyes and pulled the same stunt with LVG, thats not only indecisive but stupid considering the amount of money at stake. We laugh at Chelsea and Madrid, and they do go to the extreme, but how many Cups and improved positions have they salvaged down the years through acting swiftly on managers? With Chelsea I can point to the CL, fluked or not but they were going out if they hadn't sacked AVB. The board worries too much about optics to properly manage one thing that attracted all the money they prioritize now, the football.
The "overshadow" part sounds like - well - bollocks. It fits the narrative - or rather one of the narratives the journos favour at the moment. The idea that Maureen pontificates too much for Sir Bobby's taste is at the centre of said narrative - and very easy to create numerous variations on for journos who don't have any actual information about what goes on.
Fixed that for you
Neither do I, but I don't pretend to know and label them indecisive, my post states this, it was the point of my post. Judgement reserved till I see what happens in the summer. The press narrative is being followed and believed far too much IMO
What? Do you mean in hiring him in the first place? Then ok yes I agree.
EDIT: Also if you read my original post, the point I am making is that we do not know yet what the details of keeping LVG to the end of the seasons and what the reasons for it are yet.
IF Mourinho cannot work until July then they have done the right thing. Otherwise yes they are stupid.
Its not the press narrative but facts on the ground which are LVG is still on the job despite failing to meet the minimum expectations one of which is reaching the knockout stages of the CL. These expectations are what Woody states in the financial results detailing the root of his financial projections, which shows how serious the club takes or ought to take them. LVG shouls have been made to fall on his sword long before that December run that destroyed our season.
Even if the manager to replace him with cannot work till July.... yes ok makes perfect sense
There's not really any point in axing LVG at this point, that will probably change should we go out of the FA Cup however.
Weren't you there when Everton, Newcastle and Spurs were taking the piss at OT, of all places? When were getting knocked out of the FA and CC by Swansea and Sunderland? By mid January I had already seen what I needed to see to determine that Moyes was taking us down and was the wrong man after initially, reluctantly deciding to give him a fair chance.
Oh yeah because we aren't allowed to bring in an experienced stop gap to see us through the rest of the season.
I agree Moyes was a disaster, but I think its right the club gave him a fair chance and backed him in January, thats just me though. He did get to the UCL Qtr final
The only problem is we didn't have a viable candidate to replace LVG, unlike Chelsea with Hiddink - unless of course you think Giggs could have arrested our slump at that time, or we hired Rafa Benitez. I can't think of who else was available for an interim position.
In that case, don't think the board had much choice but to continue with VG hoping he could turn things around. Where they will totally feck up is by continuing with him after the end of the season.
Like who?
Pretty much what I was getting at, but of course the club should have just magic'd up an interim coach out of nowhere.
You see there words 'right' and 'fair chance' shouldn't exist when making a decision which affects the destiny of a billion pound enterprise. Thats the luxury the Manchester United board shouldn't afford itself, thats for you and me over a pint at the pub! Do you think Madrid gave FSW a fair chance?
Personally I dont think the concept of setting a target and then giving the manager space to achieve it - or fail - is a bad thing per se. The problem is because of what the actual target is, or is presumed to be (CL qualification), it means by the time the manager is sacked, damage has been done which might have been avoidable had the board acted sooner. So while I quite like the concept, there are clearly issues in practice. I wonder whether it would be feasible to change the trigger, the KPI, itself. So instead of saying, if you dont qualify for the CL the board can sack you without paying up your contact or incurring whatever penalty, it could instead say, if you are X number of points behind CL qualification places on Y date, you can be sacked.. etc. Or something else, but crucially something that would kick in early enough so that things could be changed so that the season could be salvaged.
It does take you a little away from the principle of giving the manager a target and trusting him to achieve it, given the trigger would be quite arbitrary, rather than the real club (minimum) goal of being in the CL, but it keeps the advantage of being fair and transparent - at least as far as the manager himself is concerned (obviously the fans would never know what was going on behind the scenes anyway.)
@itso 7 it doesn't matter now what the board should have done in Dec etc - it's gone and we can't do anything about it except move on. Our big worry now is what the hell they're likely to do at this moment regarding the managerial situation. If they miss out on a proven candidate for superficial and stupid reasons, then we've got a big problem obviously. This now is the issue.
FSW was sacked for what exactly? The club are in no better position now than they were then.
Anyway thread is being derailed. Lets see what the club does in the summer
If I was being paid millions of pounds to decide that I would obviously have a list of names for you. But given that I'm not I'd consider pulling Heckeneys out of retirement or persuade Queroz to come in since he woulsn't have to quit his NT job. This is not because I rate them highly but simply to get rid of LVG whose impact is obviously negative looking at where his preferred tactics have landed us. Another could be Joyce...
I'd say being in the CL semis is something Perez can spin positively and hopefully it will the finals themselves by a record win in a semi final tie.
Erm Benitez wasn't having issues in the UCL, they topped their group. He would have likely easily dispatched of Wolfsburg and Roma
I agree its no use crying over spilt milk and its important to look at now and how we act from here on in. My point, basically, was that we have wrote off two seasons pursuing and placing too much import on superficial reasons and the board is likely to do so when making the next decision. The reason you don't hear ex-Chelsea players launching campaigns on behalf of Drogba is because they know it won't work on Roman because he doesn't take shit, the Glazers and Woodward do and people know they can be swayed into a suicidal move.
Not sure if serious. Heyneckes (if that's whom you meant) retired and has no connection to United anyways. Why would he reconsider? And I'm not even taking the queiroz suggestion seriously.
Your problem was highlighted by yourself. You want to sack the manager to show that something is being done not to improve the season. Unless there is actually a viable candidate, it didn't make sense to sack a a manager just for the sake of it and the new manager would take another month to get acclimatised.
No, it's not a bad thing - probably even a necessary thing in most cases. But like you say, it's the nature of the target.
It's also - for me, at least - a question of comprehending the situation from a football standpoint. I don't have an iota of trust in our board as far as that is concerned.
This. That's why I wouldn't mind him as our owner. But surely Woody and Glazers know their credibility will take a severe knock if they go against the majority of the fans' wishes? It doesn't make sense to me that they think they can ignore this if they're worried about their 'image' or whatnot. i dunno, maybe people at United live in a different kind of world that doesn't let reality intrude
This. That's why I wouldn't mind him as our owner. But surely Woody and Glazers know their credibility will take a severe knock if they go against the majority of the fans' wishes? It doesn't make sense to me that they think they can ignore this if they're worried about their 'image' or whatnot. i dunno, maybe people at United live in a different kind of world that doesn't let reality intrude
Apart from Moyes (which seems to be a Fergie choice) where have they bowed to the sway? I'm seriously confused, there is no indication we are going to appoint Giggs, if we were going to do that we would have already
- Status