Woodward likes and respects Van Gaal, that's obvious. And I think people need to look at the bigger picture when debating our indecision to sack him earlier in the season.
Van Gaal may very well have been sacked in December, but that awful run of form (results-wise) was somewhat unexpected. The performances had been tedious and, at times, downright terrible, but the results had taken a very sudden tumble. Before that, the results were generally quite good.
Woodward, bearing in mind he works with Van Gaal and clearly has a lot of time for him, was probably, understandably loathe to sack him so quickly.
Rightly or wrongly, our board members still like to present the image that the club give their managers a proper chance. And to be fair, that's what we've done.
Moyes was given one season and was sacked when there was nothing to play for. And the only reason Van Gaal is still here is because we do have something to play for. When the season is over, I fully expect change (Hi, Jose) and it's a plan of action I think we've had in place for months.
In the mean time, I think Woodward came to the conclusion that keeping Van Gaal around to rescue the season was a better bet than handing over the reigns to Giggs or bringing in somebody (who?) fresh from the outside for the sake of a few months. I, for one, agree with that logic.
At least this way we've given the current manager a proper shot, and given the incoming one a full six months of time to do some homework. Of course, if Mourinho doesn't come in all of this is bullshit. But let's wait and see first.
