BBC: United hold talks with Mourinho

Would you be happy to see Jose Mourinho become next United manager?


  • Total voters
    1,749
Status
Not open for further replies.
When one rag "breaks" the story the others pick up on it just in case it might be true. 50 media outlets could be reporting it, but it could have originated from only one source so it's nothing to go by. I'm not saying it's not true, but these days you have to be wary no matter how many outlets are reporting something.

My favourite ones are the purely speculative stories to fill the column inches, good one there yesterday

"COULD Reds be rocked by Everton move for Mourinho?"

"10 players Mourinho COULD sign for Reds"

Literally anything COULD happen:lol:
 
My favourite ones are the purely speculative stories to fill the column inches, good one there yesterday

"COULD Reds be rocked by Everton move for Mourinho?"

"10 players Mourinho COULD sign for Reds"

Literally anything COULD happen:lol:
Yes, I'm sure Mourinho would jump at the chance of managing Everton in preference to Utd! :rolleyes:
 
Some shitty friends he has who run straight to the press with whatever he tells them. Ooor ... these reports are nonsense.
 
Some shitty friends he has who run straight to the press with whatever he tells them. Ooor ... these reports are nonsense.

Or he is his own friend, which is generally the case when you read "sources" or "close friends".
 
Some shitty friends he has who run straight to the press with whatever he tells them. Ooor ... these reports are nonsense.
Maybe just him, Mendes and their connections trying to corral Utd into giving him the job. Trying to present it as a fait accompli when there perhaps hasn't been any contact at all.

Who knows?
 
Mendes is a swindler but nobody can deny he works a lot. If our team put half of the efforts he's putting on this, we would be fighting for the league now.
 
They claim they have the exclusive info that Mourinho has already started to contact certain United players and the second sentence of the article starts with this: "While it is not known which of the players have been in touch with Mourinho...". :wenger:
I wish I didn't click the article. Made up trash.
 
Ha - Some of you need some basic News/Media training. A reporter isnt going to say "Mourinhos friend, a certain Mr Rodriguez, has informed me that Jose is very confident of the United job"

Could be a lie, could be true. You will never know for sure until you know.
 
Ha - Some of you need some basic News/Media training. A reporter isnt going to say "Mourinhos friend, a certain Mr Rodriguez, has informed me that Jose is very confident of the United job"

Could be a lie, could be true. You will never know for sure until you know.
Sports journalism is an easy life.
 
They claim they have the exclusive info that Mourinho has already started to contact certain United players and the second sentence of the article starts with this: "While it is not known which of the players have been in touch with Mourinho...". :wenger:
I have no idea if the story is true but it looks very much like either a leak from Mourinho's camp or, lesss likely, the players themselves. if Mourinho had contacted some of the players he's not going to immediately throw them under the bus and cause them issues with their current manager and club and force them to potentially have to answer difficult questions on the topic. If it came from players then of course they're not going to identify themselves.

That said, it could just as easily be clickbait. Who knows?
 
Sports journalism is an easy life.


It isn't really.

What' absurd is this idea that if someone doesn't name sources they're lying. There are rather obvious reasons why a journalist wouldn't blurt out his sources for reasons that even a child should be able to understand. Yet all the time you see:

"No named sources, bullshit"

News journalists read by proper people don't suffer this when they write: 'A Downing Street source' or 'people close to the Chancellor' as people who read the news tend to be less thick than the average football fan.

Not to say you believe everything you read in the papers but if people can't see why there are obvious reasons why a source shouldn't be revealed in many circumstance they shouldn't be allowed to leave the house to buy a newspaper in the first place.
 
Maybe just him, Mendes and their connections trying to corral Utd into giving him the job. Trying to present it as a fait accompli when there perhaps hasn't been any contact at all.

Who knows?

Well, that would be very weird. Working hard to convince the entire world that he'll be the next United manager, and come summer maybe he isn't. He's going to make himself look like a massive clot. I think it's more likely that media are just inventing these "friend" reports, and that some other reports (like his representatives having actually met United) may be true.
 
From the Yahoo story:

Alex Ferguson has recently relented over the prospect of Mourinho taking the job at United, despite preferring the control he would retain if Giggs were given the role of permanent manager - it is not just Mourinho himself who expects the Portuguese to be in charge this summer. Van Gaal’s time at United is coming to an end unless he pulls off an extraordinary turnaround in results, performances and morale, something that not even the manager anticipates.


I know its probably bullshit but if SAF did want Giggs to have greater control, then why retire in the first place?!?!
 
It isn't really.

What' absurd is this idea that if someone doesn't name sources they're lying. There are rather obvious reasons why a journalist wouldn't blurt out his sources for reasons that even a child should be able to understand. Yet all the time you see:

"No named sources, bullshit"

News journalists read by proper people don't suffer this when they write: 'A Downing Street source' or 'people close to the Chancellor' as people who read the news tend to be less thick than the average football fan.

Not to say you believe everything you read in the papers but if people can't see why there are obvious reasons why a source shouldn't be revealed in many circumstance they shouldn't be allowed to leave the house to buy a newspaper in the first place.

:lol:
 
From the Yahoo story:

Alex Ferguson has recently relented over the prospect of Mourinho taking the job at United, despite preferring the control he would retain if Giggs were given the role of permanent manager - it is not just Mourinho himself who expects the Portuguese to be in charge this summer. Van Gaal’s time at United is coming to an end unless he pulls off an extraordinary turnaround in results, performances and morale, something that not even the manager anticipates.


I know its probably bullshit but if SAF did want Giggs to have greater control, then why retire in the first place?!?!

It's that old theory about Ferguson being a control freak who can't let go.
 
It isn't really.

What' absurd is this idea that if someone doesn't name sources they're lying. There are rather obvious reasons why a journalist wouldn't blurt out his sources for reasons that even a child should be able to understand. Yet all the time you see:

"No named sources, bullshit"

News journalists read by proper people don't suffer this when they write: 'A Downing Street source' or 'people close to the Chancellor' as people who read the news tend to be less thick than the average football fan.

Not to say you believe everything you read in the papers but if people can't see why there are obvious reasons why a source shouldn't be revealed in many circumstance they shouldn't be allowed to leave the house to buy a newspaper in the first place.
Feel free to stop lowering yourself to mixing with us yobbos any time you like.
 
Well if Yahoo sources are confirming it then this definitely gets my hopes up. Just waiting for Wahey sources and Boom! sources and then he's practically in the bag.
 
It isn't really.

What' absurd is this idea that if someone doesn't name sources they're lying. There are rather obvious reasons why a journalist wouldn't blurt out his sources for reasons that even a child should be able to understand. Yet all the time you see:

"No named sources, bullshit"

News journalists read by proper people don't suffer this when they write: 'A Downing Street source' or 'people close to the Chancellor' as people who read the news tend to be less thick than the average football fan.

Not to say you believe everything you read in the papers but if people can't see why there are obvious reasons why a source shouldn't be revealed in many circumstance they shouldn't be allowed to leave the house to buy a newspaper in the first place.
There are also obvious reasons why a journalist would make up a source or use a highly unreliable source to make fiction look like fact. It would be terribly naive to suppose that ethics would stand in the way of that.

Especiallay because we know it didn't in the past. 'A source' is also responsible for 90 percent of the transfernews turning out to be plain bullshit, there was supposed to be a source for LvG's sacking a few months ago. Appearently the average football fan is thick enough to believe a report if they want to be believe it, and if the journalist uses words like 'a source told', 'is believed to' etc withouth mentioning a single person.
 
It's nothing to do with people being 'thick' or intelligent; it's to do with the public's declining - and, sadly, justified - trust in journalists.
 
It's nothing to do with people being 'thick' or intelligent; it's to do with the public's declining - and, sadly, justified - trust in journalists.
No Steve, we're all thick compared to the super intelligence of drunkenbeaver.
 
Ah, well. It's not the first time I've been outsmarted by an animal, chief.
 
I have no idea if the story is true but it looks very much like either a leak from Mourinho's camp or, lesss likely, the players themselves. if Mourinho had contacted some of the players he's not going to immediately throw them under the bus and cause them issues with their current manager and club and force them to potentially have to answer difficult questions on the topic. If it came from players then of course they're not going to identify themselves.

That said, it could just as easily be clickbait. Who knows?

Yeah, you may be right. If that's the case, these players wouldn't for sure want to see their names in the press. I agree with that although i believe it was Herrera who had no problem to say earlier in the season that Mourinho would do a good job with this squad (one could say that he was suggesting a better job than LvG). Plus i believe that, by judging from what we're watching on the pitch, it's becoming rather obvious that some players have lost faith in LvG's tactics.

I don't know if you read the piece but most of it is speculation that Mourinho must have contacted (their words, not mine) De Gea, whose agent is Mendes too, to make sure he will stay and Rooney because he's one of the people who still have faith in his abilities based on the fact that he wanted him at Chelsea three seasons ago.
 
Terribly written article in fairness.

I guess there is a decent chance Mou could have been in touch with Rooney as when he was trying to buy him at Chelsea he would have had extensive contact with his agent.
 
First it is Yahoo, second it is written by Alex Netherton who writes parody articles for Yahoo each week. They are supposed to be funny but they are absolutely not. The above article can very well be such weekly shit.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.