Club Sale | It’s done!

Status
Not open for further replies.


Figured this would be the case.

Cracking the code at Manchester United is right up Brailsford’s street.
 
Would be actually funny if true, him busting a door right before player signs a contract
 
So far we've always been crippled by bad luck and desperately need to turn that around. But there's one british man (fits Sir Jemmy's philosphy) who's been very lucky his whole life that he managed to win Ballon D'or and had never been unemployed despite chatting a lot of shit.

Should we bring in Michael Owen or nah?
 
tenpoless said:
So far we've always been crippled by bad luck and desperately need to turn that around. But there's one british man (fits Sir Jemmy's philosphy) who's been very lucky his whole life that he managed to win Ballon D'or and had never been unemployed despite chatting a lot of shit.

Should we bring in Michael Owen or nah?
Click to expand...
To make brochures for players we want to sell? I say yes!
 
Only a matter of time till he’s gone if he’s going to make a fuss about transfer control, his choices have been beyond disastrous and will cost him his job eventually.
 
onemata said:
A positive for me is that Ratcliffe has barely touched down and already action has been taken on Sancho's and VDB' s futures . Whatever happens this was essential . These are 2 players we do not need or want but who linger at the club showing that the previous and hopefully long gone people who were in charge before were complete amateurs .
The arrival of Ineos is not going to work miracles but if we start employing proper people to the board it can" t help but improve the running of the club which has been in the hands of no bodies since the days of SAF and Gill
Richard Arnold was [who?] soon out of the door and Murtaugh looks a goner too .
I don't think Ratcliffe is going to tolerate ETH 's delusions for long either
Click to expand...
INEOS haven’t done shit with Sancho or VdB
 
AlexUTD said:
I want people that knows football so why you talking about Woodward?
Click to expand...

Brailsford knows about SPORTS mentality as a whole. You've got to find what motivates your people in order to get the best out of them.
 
AlexUTD said:
I want people that knows football so why you talking about Woodward?
Click to expand...

Because the blokes he’s replacing as the main recruiter and strategic planner are fecking bankers.

Because he, like Woodward & Arnold will have a huge say in the direction of our club. He has a big sports background, not just in cycling and by all accounts he’s targeting all the right people, so it’s time you cared.
The best big chiefs surround themselves will the best around and if he’s targeting Blanc, Ashworth, Mitchell he’s good for me.
 
Regulus Arcturus Black said:
It’s his fecking job to recruit Blanc, Mitchell & Ashworth so maybe start to care.
Click to expand...

Blanc is the CEO of Ineos Sports. He kind of recruit himself or to be more exact only Ratcliffe is above him and Brailsford is "just" Ineos director of sports.
 
Brailsford is going to have a huge part to play at Manchester United so to not care is weird.

We have been crying out for sporting people over bankers etc and in Brailsford we have one of the best, yes his best work has been in cycling but the man bleeds sport.

Time he was given some respect to be honest.
 
AndySmith1990 said:
It puts a bit of a spanner in the works for all those who argue he needs proper structure behind him when his contract basically states he's a component of that fecking structure
Click to expand...

true but the devil is in the detail. Have you noticed that all our managers seem to want total control on transfers? Mou relationship with Branca was well known , LVG had been around for decades and ETH's success at Ajax was also thanks to Overmars and yet, once at United they all want to work alone. Why is it the case? Could it be the case that the great survivor had basically pushed such huge responsibility away from him and right on the manager's lap?
 
Are they going to agree to adhere to a long term footballing style and ethos? So the players and managers we go for have a clear and coherent direction to their appointments? We keep hearing all these DOF/director names but little of the impending plan. Maybe it's too early to speculate.
 
devilish said:
true but the devil is in the detail. Have you noticed that all our managers seem to want total control on transfers? Mou relationship with Branca was well known , LVG had been around for decades and ETH's success at Ajax was also thanks to Overmars and yet, once at United they all want to work alone. Why is it the case? Could it be the case that the great survivor had basically pushed such huge responsibility away from him and right on the manager's lap?
Click to expand...

It depends on what type of control we're actually talking about. It's fully understandable that managers want to be able to veto signings they're completely against, given what's at stake. In real life it's rarely a problem as long as they're happy to work together, unlike Rodgers at Liverpool.
 
NotChatGPT said:
It depends on what type of control we're actually talking about. It's fully understandable that managers want to be able to veto signings they're completely against, given what's at stake. In real life it's rarely a problem as long as they're happy to work together, unlike Rodgers at Liverpool.
Click to expand...

Its not exactly a VETO mate. Ashworth described it perfectly in an old interview of his

https://www.ucfb.ac.uk/news/brighton-s-dan-ashworth-describes-role-of-technical-director/

Its clear that 90% of our signings are done by the manager and when the DOF gets his way (ex Amad) the information between the two is sketchy as hell. That's not normal. From the DOF's POV its a clear abdication from his responsibilities. DOF's aren't and shouldn't be cheer leaders.
 
devilish said:
Its not exactly a VETO mate. Ashworth described it perfectly in an old interview of his

https://www.ucfb.ac.uk/news/brighton-s-dan-ashworth-describes-role-of-technical-director/

Its clear that 90% of our signings are done by the manager and when the DOF gets his way (ex Amad) the information between the two is sketchy as hell. That's not normal. From the DOF's POV its a clear abdication from his responsibilities. DOF's aren't and shouldn't be cheer leaders.
Click to expand...

Isn't that more or less what i'm saying, in real life it's not/very rarely an actual problem.
 
NotChatGPT said:
Isn't that more or less what i'm saying, in real life it's not/very rarely an actual problem.
Click to expand...
devilish said:
Its not exactly a VETO mate. Ashworth described it perfectly in an old interview of his

https://www.ucfb.ac.uk/news/brighton-s-dan-ashworth-describes-role-of-technical-director/

Its clear that 90% of our signings are done by the manager and when the DOF gets his way (ex Amad) the information between the two is sketchy as hell. That's not normal. From the DOF's POV its a clear abdication from his responsibilities. DOF's aren't and shouldn't be cheer leaders.
Click to expand...

I don't know if you are saying the same thing but you are in my opinion both right. In practice a good DOF will not impose a signing that the manager doesn't want at all because it doesn't serves the club or DOF mid to long term plans, a manager can easily ruin a signing by deliberately misusing it or not using it at all. Now because in theory a DOF and a manager have different timelines, the DOF could and should get rid of a manager that categorically refuses to accept moves that are meant to help the club mid to long term plans especially when it's due to the manager own short term worries because a club can't only work for the current season. But a DOF should also set short term goals that are in line with his recruiting decisions and reassure his manager if needed.
 
JPRouve said:
I don't know if you are saying the same thing but you are in my opinion both right. In practice a good DOF will not impose a signing that the manager doesn't want at all because it doesn't serves the club or DOF mid to long term plans, a manager can easily ruin a signing by deliberately misusing it or not using it at all. Now because in theory a DOF and a manager have different timelines, the DOF could and should get rid of a manager that categorically refuses to accept moves that are meant to help the club mid to long term plans especially when it's due to the manager own short term worries because a club can't only work for the current season. But a DOF should also set short term goals that are in line with his recruiting decisions and reassure his manager if needed.
Click to expand...

A recent example is Rodgers at Liverpool and how he got on with Michael Edwards and the concept of a transfer committee
 
NotChatGPT said:
Isn't that more or less what i'm saying, in real life it's not/very rarely an actual problem.
Click to expand...

I am not saying you are wrong. I am simply comparing between how united work vs how a truly efficient club works and why I think united work the way it does.

BTW there will be times when the manager will have to lump it. I remember when juventus Dof wanted del piero to take a significant pay cut something the manager was against. The Dof got his way. That's by design as dofs aren't vulnerable to player power. Sure the manager can always dif his heels and not play the new player the DOf brought in. However if the football structure has explained the manager why they are acting the way they are doing amd he's got no valod counter argument then it will reflect badly on him
 
AlexUTD said:
Could not care less about this guy.

What we need are people like Paul Mitchell and Dan Ashworth.
Click to expand...
Maybe think about the bigger picture here, how it all knits together into a cohesive strategy.

Focussing on one person / issue is a bit at a time is likely the kind of approach that got the club to where it is now.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.