So petrochemicals companies aren't allowed to make any environmentally conscious decisions because their core business is carbon-intensive?
Club ownership | Senior management team talk
- Thread starter golden_blunder
- Start date
A petrochemicals company is contacting a club owned by a petrostate because they wanted to align to do something that is environmentally conscious? As I say I don't actually care given how minor a story it is and is only being published as a further way to mock United for how far behind City we now are but it would seem much more likely that a club that is going through major cost-cutting measures (including letting hundreds of people go which is actually something to care and be outraged about) is doing that rather than this being an act thinking of the greater good.
Hard to tell sarcasm on the internet, but I’ll give you the benefit of the doubt and assume it is.
Disagree. In any industry, you can have short-term goals, medium-term goals, and long-term/strategic goals all at the same time. Ultimately, you will make different (but compatible) decisions based on that to pick and hire people to accomplish those goals.
We don't have to hire the long-term guy to solve our current issues on the pitch. So this hire need not be ideal for our strategic objectives, but good enough to get our short-term goals achieved (ensuring a decent finish for Europe next season, getting some confidence into the players, getting us playing better, etc.). Enough so that the long-term manager can come in later on and not be hampered unduly.
Just because Ragnick failed, doesn't mean we shouldn't have tried getting an interim in. Other clubs have done so, and been successful with it. You cannot stop trying just because you failed the first time.
Often think the best decision they can make right now is remove the title 'manager' from the next guy they hire, and rebrand it 'head coach'. At least then our fans will also move on from thiking (SAF = ) manager = god.
Bet Jim wishes he'd have thought of that bit of spin.
From the second the buy-in was ratified all we've seen is negative publicity after negative publicty through the way they are doing things like the ridiculous drawn-out saga with the Ashworth appointment, the persuit of Wilcox, tbe sacking of hundreds of staff, the silly post season review that seemingly amounted to nothing, the approaches to other managers to replace ETH, their ludicrus decision to stick with ETH, and now yet again failing to sack him while reportedly speaking to other managers.
This club has been a bigger shambles since the buy-in than it was before the buy-in.
This club has been a bigger shambles since the buy-in than it was before the buy-in.
What's so funny?
Terry Crews character in Everybody Hates Chris is notoriously stingy/tight/cheap.
Ah thanks. Never watched it.
True. You can try again. But it's also OK if you have a differnet plan.
Do they have one? We'll see.
What worries me is that they apparently came into this season without a contingency in case it went tits-up. We all thought Ruud was it, but apparently not.
After what happened last season, that's unacceptable for supposed 'best in class'.
He’s done less than Phelan in that time. At least Phelan moved cones.
Sack him. Useless.
I don’t think cones are in his remit.
He literally didn't earn an extension. It's not like Ole where he'd finished 3rd and 2nd then we extended his contract. ETH got us our worst ever finish and we added on a year for no reason. He should be under pressure, not getting an extension to lessen it. He was lucky to even keep the job. That was his reward, not extra job security.
TBF people ask questions about his tactics in press conferences. It was done last season for sure.
I know you’re trying to make a point but we don’t have to be disingenuous while doing that. Try finding the reason again. Hint: starts with an FA and ends with a CUP.
Best in third class maybe.
And popped stray balloons. Good at that was Phelan.
No one said it was a reason not to improve on the manager. Im sure we will
Ruud was never the answer even short-term. He has zero managerial pedigree.
For me it's in line with Ratcliffe's stated strategy: Don't run to the wrong solution, walk to the right one.
It's frustrating for us, obviously, but they won't make a move until they find someone acceptable to them.
I discounted it as not being a good reason so counted as no reason.
Yeah I have accepted that's happening, however just maybe they will surprise me and finally hold their hands up to backing a carthorse
I think we have written off this season. EtH will be gone when his 1 year extension is over. This gives the current leadership time (more than a few months) and space to make the best decision possible and build a new ship rather than plugging holes in the old one. The big question is how disruptive renovating or rebuilding the stadium will be to this process. Sir Jim is building his legacy. He is so rich and pretty elderly. He will want to be remembered for reviving United.
Don't think it helped they had zero serious competition come to the table, clearly Jassim couldn't prove himself as genuine to the club
That’s at the end of 2025-26. And I actually agree, I am expecting him to start next season with us and if he’s fired at all it will be in the middle of it.
It’s just a cliche saying that doesn’t really mean much. Success, both in sports and business, is built on ability to make the right decision at the time, not waiting on a set of absolutely perfect circumstances because they may never arrive. We’ve already lost one season because of them walking extremely slowly to the wrong decision last Summer.
This is really a precedent for a big club to not only persist with a coach that is so clearly out of his depth but also rewarding him with a contract extension on the back of their worst season in more than 30 years. This had never happened before, nowhere, ever. Even without the contract extension thing.
I think the SAF statement no longer really applies to be honest. It really only worked to keep Moyes in a job when really he should have been sacked by November. It arguably worked to keep ETH in a job last season. But then we can also argue that most clubs with a “long term plan” would have kept ETH based on his first season and the fact that the second season was ravaged by injuries and he still beat City in the FA cup final.
The SAF statement doesn't apply now but the problem is a lot of the ex-player pundits are his players, so up until recently it was like they didn't want to go against that statement and disrespect their old boss.