Ed Woodward 2019 - Until all Arctic ice melts edition

[Keefy18]

I'm sure you can spot the difference. Ole was hired after a few good games when he was actually just a stop gap solution, whereas we've been - allegedely - on the market for a DoF for good 12 months now. Which is obviously not the case. No good business would take so much time for a position like this. It's just the usual bollocks spouted by Woodward.

Yes the difference being is that the DoF is undoubtedly the more important role going forward as they should remain longer than the manager and structure stays in place, therefore taking our time hiring one shouldn't come as a surprise.

As pointed out already, Jose was against the idea of a DoF. He wanted full team autonomy. He doesn't work well with others as we've seen here, Real and Chelsea.

So the reality is it's been nearly 6 months to the day that Jose has gone and in that time we've hired a temp who is now permanent, hired his back room team as well and made changes at youth with Ricky Sbragia (think that's how its spelt) sacked and there has clearly been interviews / discussions about the role and what it might entail and who is best for it.

It takes time. I mean if you even Judge City's buyout in 2008, Txiki didn't join them until 4 years later and that's where they've really started to dominate from. They guy he took over from was hit n miss and they only won their first title the summer that Txiki arrived.

 

[Keefy18]

You’ve not answered his question at all, you’ve just done what he’s accused which is not offering any solutions just pointing out the problems. Anyone in hindsight can talk about mistakes, if Woodward could see into the future he too could have avoided these mistakes. The guys question is what would you have done instead? In 2014 after the World Cup instead of hiring the guy who massively overachieved with a Netherlands team who would you have gotten?

Instead of getting Mourinho the most successful manager in the game bar Pep who would you have gotten?

The point is it’s super easy to analyse problems after the fact. But at the time, in the context of things, a lot of these decisions were very defensible, extremely defensible and probably even seemed like good ideas. Yes people doubted Mou but he also brought us 2 trophies and 2nd place after 2 years. We wanted him to get us to winning ways and he did that and it’s very hard to say at that time it seemed like a bad idea to have gotten him. If you think that’s not what we wanted you should offer up some alternatives or solutions

Spot on and this is the problem with our spoiled brat fan base. Act like they are all so vastly more knowledgeable than "the accountant".

I've argued exactly the same that at the point in time of recruiting a new manager, the 2 best candidates got the job based on their experience and CV. Isn't that the very foundation of job recruitment? The old chestnut that "the best man for the job should be hired". Ed arguably did that with what was available to him, which is a lot more true than Fergie and Gill handing Moyes a feckin 6 year monster deal!! The absolute feckwittery of it!!

 

[Johan07]

LVG: failed appointment, which in turn led to failed signings. And yes, plenty of people said he was a dinosaur already back then. This was the guy who nearly relegated Barcelona in 2003 and was sacked when they were hovering 3 points off relegation. Then he spent years on the managerial dumpster heap in AZ Alkmaar before winning the league with Bayern (yawn) and getting third with Robben, RVP and Sneijder.

Mou: complete opposite philosophy to LVG, which led to incompatible signings and a mess of a team.

Ole: even David Squires is mocking Ed for giving him a permanent contract after 2 losses with absolutely no competition for his signature. The jury’s still out, but do you seriously think giving ole the permanent job so soon while foregoing available managers of a much higher calibre was shrewd?

Then we have all the ridiculous contracts which Ed is ultimately responsible for. And a scouting network that has proven useless so far.

And that’s just what we can directly observe. From LVG saying he has no clue about football, to Mourinho hating him, to SAF employees venting their frustrations with him there’s a lot of smoke pointing to incompetence behind closed doors.

So basically you want to hold Woodward accountable for the failure of two managers and your opinion that OGS will fail too? Is that it?
Thats weak, mate really weak. Do you know how many managers FSG went through until they hit the jackpot with Klopp? Google it if not.
And even then: what is your proposed option? Its easy to moan "Woodward out".
Who is your alternative? Is there even one? Do you think it will be better with another Glazer henchman?
Newsflash: There is not an alternative and it means feck all what us fans thinks about the CEO.
As long as the Glazers own the club, we will probably have Woodward as CEO. Its just how it is. Or we will have another one like him. The CEO is the owners right hand, "shill" or whatever. Its how it works. And how it should be. And must be.
Sometimes I think people in here thinks that there is a possibility for us to have some form of "independent" CEO from the owners. Some "champion" for the interests of the fans. Thats not just naive, its stupid.
Its not like a manager, who can be removed for different reasons. There the fans might have some power. Though not much. The most power lies with the players, which was probably what ended both LVGs and Mourinhos stints at the club.
Present me with a fecking better - realistic - option than Woodward and I will take it under consideration. Otherwise your moaning in this thread is just that.

 

[Saffron]

Spot on and this is the problem with our spoiled brat fan base. Act like they are all so vastly more knowledgeable than "the accountant".

Jesus Christ. I have no problems at all admitting that I personally wouldn’t do a good job as CEO. Just as I couldn’t paint the Mona Lisa. I can still point out that this is a failed rebuild and that the person who oversaw it shouldn’t go near it ever again:

Spoiler

See, that’s the difference between us and the Woodward sycophants. You think that thinking ”that’s what I would have done” is enough to establish that Woodward is competent. The arrogance of it.

 

[Fosu-Mens]

1. Woodward works on behest of the owners, so he has to govern the club in a manner that befits the Glazers intention.
2. The Glazers are not in it for the guts and glory, they are in it for the £££.
3. Woodward as a CEO has to reach the owner's goals of maximizing the value of the club while keeping the fans content/willing consumers.

If Woodward job description was to make the club win big trophies and perform on the pitch, then he would have been replaced 3 years ago, or never appointed. However, it is not.

Woodward is simply doing his job, and if one should direct ones frustration towards someone it should be the owners.
A fair criticism of Woodward is the ROI from the amount spent on transfers and wages? Here, he would be better served by appointing an experienced DoF and let the football side of the club work autonomously within a set budget and their own long term goals. Sadly, this is not going to happen under the current ownership...

 

[Johan07]

Spot on and this is the problem with our spoiled brat fan base. Act like they are all so vastly more knowledgeable than "the accountant".

I've argued exactly the same that at the point in time of recruiting a new manager, the 2 best candidates got the job based on their experience and CV. Isn't that the very foundation of job recruitment? The old chestnut that "the best man for the job should be hired". Ed arguably did that with what was available to him, which is a lot more true than Fergie and Gill handing Moyes a feckin 6 year monster deal!! The absolute feckwittery of it!!

That makes too much sense for this thread.
Look, I would be critical of the club as well if there was evidence that proper due diligence was not carried out before those two appointments. Truth is that any appointment of a manager is taking a chance. You cant guarantee success. To criticise the club in retrospect (and I am not writing Woodward here because I am plenty sure that there were some other legendary club names involved in those decisions) for this is weird.

 

[Saf94]

Spot on and this is the problem with our spoiled brat fan base. Act like they are all so vastly more knowledgeable than "the accountant".

I've argued exactly the same that at the point in time of recruiting a new manager, the 2 best candidates got the job based on their experience and CV. Isn't that the very foundation of job recruitment? The old chestnut that "the best man for the job should be hired". Ed arguably did that with what was available to him, which is a lot more true than Fergie and Gill handing Moyes a feckin 6 year monster deal!! The absolute feckwittery of it!!

Yep and also gave both managers unlimited money and support in the transfer market. Yet some people have the gall to say the board didn’t do enough to support our managers.

The truth is what Woodward had to do was one of the biggest, hardest and most unprecedented jobs in football history.

He had to somehow follow on from Fergie and Gill, the longest reigning manager ever, the most successful and unique manager ever AND do an entire top to bottom rebuild of the club including refreshing the entire 25 man squad, revamp the academy and try to maintain commercial success AND all the while get back to winning ways within a season or 2 because fans couldn’t accept us losing and sponsors were threatening to pull out money if we didn’t secure CL regularly.

So yeah, it’s sooo easy to just point out all the things Woodward did wrong like any 5 year old who’d watched a dozen games of football could have come in a done it all much better.

 

[Johan07]

1. Woodward works on behest of the owners, so he has to govern the club in a manner that befits the Glazers intention.
2. The Glazers are not in it for the guts and glory, they are in it for the £££.
3. Woodward as a CEO has to reach the owner's goals of maximizing the value of the club while keeping the fans content/willing consumers.

If Woodward job description was to make the club win big trophies and perform on the pitch, then he would have been replaced 3 years ago, or never appointed. However, it is not.

Woodward is simply doing his job, and if one should direct ones frustration towards someone it should be the owners.
A fair criticism of Woodward is the ROI from the amount spent on transfers and wages? Here, he would be better served by appointing an experienced DoF and let the football side of the club work autonomously within a set budget and their own long term goals. Sadly, this is not going to happen under the current ownership...

Just interested: Which owners of any top club in the PL do you think are in it "for the guts and glory"? Levy? FSG? Kroenke? EDIT Sorry, forgot Abu Dhabi.

 

[Keefy18]

Jesus Christ. I have no problems at all admitting that I personally wouldn’t do a good job as CEO. Just as I couldn’t paint the Mona Lisa. I can still point out that this is a failed rebuild and that the person who oversaw it shouldn’t go near it ever again:

Spoiler

See, that’s the difference between us and the Woodward sycophants. You think that thinking ”that’s what I would have done” is enough to establish that Woodward is competent. The arrogance of it.

Least you admit it, plenty here don't and when pressed for an alternative decision they give none.

It's not an easy job at the best of times, never mind when you take over a club that has issues already. He inherited a club without support from Gill, who tucked his tail and ran when Ferguson did! He inherited a club with Moyes as manager who then demanded the back room staff all be fired and his team brought in, to the detriment of the club.

His first attempt at adding some stability was hiring LVG who had just had a successful world cup by all standards. Why wouldn't he hire him? With his experience and CV as well, he was a suitable candidate, the best available.

Two years later, fans wanted rid of LVG and were singing Jose's name. He was again the best available based on experience and CV.

Both were given freedom to do their job as they personally saw fit, they were supported financially.

How, how in the feck is any of that on Woodward?

If he was tight with cash and restricted the managers in choice of coaches, playing style or anything similar...then it would be valid.

 

[Keefy18]

Yep and also gave both managers unlimited money and support in the transfer market. Yet some people have the gall to say the board didn’t do enough to support our managers.

The truth is what Woodward had to do was one of the biggest, hardest and most unprecedented jobs in football history.

He had to somehow follow on from Fergie and Gill, the longest reigning manager ever, the most successful and unique manager ever AND do an entire top to bottom rebuild of the club including refreshing the entire 25 man squad, revamp the academy and try to maintain commercial success AND all the while get back to winning ways within a season or 2 because fans couldn’t accept us losing and sponsors were threatening to pull out money if we didn’t secure CL regularly.

So yeah, it’s sooo easy to just point out all the things Woodward did wrong like any 5 year old who’d watched a dozen games of football could have come in a done it all much better.

Is that all?

 

[Keefy18]

1. Woodward works on behest of the owners, so he has to govern the club in a manner that befits the Glazers intention.
2. The Glazers are not in it for the guts and glory, they are in it for the £££.
3. Woodward as a CEO has to reach the owner's goals of maximizing the value of the club while keeping the fans content/willing consumers.

If Woodward job description was to make the club win big trophies and perform on the pitch, then he would have been replaced 3 years ago, or never appointed. However, it is not.

Woodward is simply doing his job, and if one should direct ones frustration towards someone it should be the owners.
A fair criticism of Woodward is the ROI from the amount spent on transfers and wages? Here, he would be better served by appointing an experienced DoF and let the football side of the club work autonomously within a set budget and their own long term goals. Sadly, this is not going to happen under the current ownership...

This narrative has to be the most idiotic of the lot.

Stop and think for one second before believing this sentiment.... Doesn't success on field mean more profit?

I mean, if all they care about is profit as you and thousands and thousands of other short sighted folks suggest in our supporter base, wouldn't they then therefore demand success on the pitch too? They made Jose the hired paid manager in world football because they only care about sponsors? Get real for god sake!

If we are successful on the pitch it also addresses your 3rd point too!

Just because the managers post Ferguson haven't won a league or champions league, that doesn't automatically mean that they only care for off field revenue! I mean, the biggest slice of revenue is in TV revenue and TV revenue is dictated by a teams success, it goes hand in hand!

It really has to be the dumbest of all the anti Glazer waffle going around!!

 

[Jim Beam]

We will end up as a case study in all the biggest managament schools as an example how to not run a club if we continue this way. Some of the nonsense around here is hilarious.

 

[Keefy18]

We will end up as a case study in all the biggest managament schools as an example how to not run a club if we continue this way. Some of the nonsense around here is hilarious.

Martin Edwards was CEO from 1982, we didn't win a league for another 11 years.

Some of the hysteria is funnier though.

 

[Fosu-Mens]

Just interested: Which owners of any top club in the PL do you think are in it "for the guts and glory"? Levy? FSG? Kroenke?

I think the difference is that some of the owners have the perception that financial and on-pitch performance/improvement are not mutually exclusive, at least in the long term.

When growing the value of a business(relevant for most businesses) there are usually two approaches to do this(lets not factor in external uncertainties that might influence/complicate this):
1. Short term profit: Cut cost, streamline processes/operations/investment only to stay AS-IS in productivity. Bare minimum to "stay afloat"
2. Long term profit: Invest heavy short term for increased productivity long term.

Option 2 is often tied with a high risk of not working out if the people involved in the investments are not competent, and if in an unstable market where there is a large degree of variation in the forecast this might not be the best approach.
Option 1 is can be a good approach over a short period of time and would be beneficial if there is a large amount of waste in the business, often after a period of heavy investment.

 

[Saf94]

Jesus Christ. I have no problems at all admitting that I personally wouldn’t do a good job as CEO. Just as I couldn’t paint the Mona Lisa. I can still point out that this is a failed rebuild and that the person who oversaw it shouldn’t go near it ever again:

Spoiler

See, that’s the difference between us and the Woodward sycophants. You think that thinking ”that’s what I would have done” is enough to establish that Woodward is competent. The arrogance of it.

Here let me help you. What you should have said was instead of getting LVG we should have realised that clubs need to have a strong identity otherwise you have nothing to build around. You need consistency in approach between managers otherwise you’re always rebuilding from scratch and you need something the players understand, relate about the club to recruit them and get them to buy into a system.

Therefore getting LVG and Mou both were mistakes because their styles were radically different to each other but more importantly to the style we and the players were used to at United. We needed a less radical change, something to take us from Fergies game to something similar but modernised, more pressing but still keeping the philosophy of attacking fast and aggressive, creating and exploiting spaces with width and depth. Only then do you have something to build around. If we wanted to change and move away from the Fergie stuff that’s ok but then we have to go all in on that. If we wanted possession Barca style like LVG wanted we can’t scrap it after 2 years, you have to go all in.

Therefore what we should have done was getting a young forward thinking manager who would build upon the Fergie style, who that is I have no idea but that’s what we needed. We also shouldn’t have targeted every big name under the sun but target players who fit the philosophy we are implementing (ie the one mentioned above) and ensure they have the right attitudes and work ethic to meet high standards we need. Who those players would be, again I don’t know.

So yeah, you don’t need to be a CEO to suggest alternatives in fact with 6 years of mistakes and lessons learned everyone should know now what the solution is. But the point is we only know this now, I only know this now I didn’t know any of this at any point before this season, do you know why? Because it was new, it was all new. The rebuild we had to do, replacing managers, implementing a philosophy and style. We’ve never done it before because Fergie did it, he did everything. Now to say Woodward should have come in and known straight away what to do is impossible. Hell even Fergie didn’t know how to replace himself he got that horribly wrong.

A good CEO isn’t all knowing all predicting, many CEOs fail but no CEO has ever had to do what Woodward had to do. Even Woodward could have turned City into a dynasty when they were spending hundreds of millions in a market where Juve, Barca had net spends of 20m (I looked that up recently). Even Woodward could have hired Klopp and Poch and let them run the club successfully. But none of those teams CEOs could have led us to a complete top to bottom rebuild because it’s completely unprecedented in the history of football, it’s never been done before.

 

[Jim Beam]

Martin Edwards was CEO from 1982, we didn't win a league for another 11 years.

Some of the hysteria is funnier though.

Are you aware that we can't hire most coaches in the game or they are more likely to fail because of our structure and the fact they never operated in such conditions.

But, yeah, let's make a comparisons from almost 40 years ago.

You don't know what are you talking about so please bore someone else.

 

[TrueRed79]

Woodward has spent 800M to get us OUT of the CL, yet some people in this thread say that fans act like spoiled brats for wanting him out. Amazing take really.

 

[the chameleon]

Martin Edwards was CEO from 1982, we didn't win a league for another 11 years.

Some of the hysteria is funnier though.

He was far from ideal. He just wanted to sell up and get lost. He may have lucked out with the appointment of Fergie. But one thing he didn’t do was incur debt on the club. Plus, it did take him 11 years. True. But the game wasn’t as global then.

We had a lot of financial clout before the Glazer’s came. They didn’t make us the richest club in the world. They incurred a shit ton of debt on us. Think about all the players that could have been bought, the make dos we signed instead. A lot of that period was spent paying off Pik loans.

No. But we’re idiots. All of us who speak against Woodward and the almighty Glazers who are leeching off our club.

And it’s not just the emphasis on football results. It’s about the sheer incompetence they run the club.

People will talk and complain about the ownership and the ceo. Just like they did about mourinho. Fans want to see change in the way the club is run and the footballing decisions. It’s not much to ask. If your team was underachieving I’m sure would equally be frustrated.

Oh wait! Do you have a team? Or are you just a shareholder? Or are you WUM from another club?

 

[Johan07]

He was far from ideal. He just wanted to sell up and get lost. He may have lucked out with the appointment of Fergie. But one thing he didn’t do was incur debt on the club. Plus, it did take him 11 years. True. But the game wasn’t as global then.

We had a lot of financial clout before the Glazer’s came. They didn’t make us the richest club in the world. They incurred a shit ton of debt on us. Think about all the players that could have been bought, the make dos we signed instead. A lot of that period was spent paying off Pik loans.

No. But we’re idiots. All of us who speak against Woodward and the almighty Glazers who are leeching off our club.

And it’s not just the emphasis on football results. It’s about the sheer incompetence they run the club.

People will talk and complain about the ownership and the ceo. Just like they did about mourinho. Fans want to see change in the way the club is run and the footballing decisions. It’s not much to ask. If your team was underachieving I’m sure would equally be frustrated.

Oh wait! Do you have a team? Or are you just a shareholder? Or are you WUM from another club?

And Woodward did that? Jeez, there seems to be no end to what you can blame the chap for.

 

[Bastian]

So what has this debate come to? We can all agree that Woodward's job is one of the hardest jobs in football. That doesn't excuse him for not doing a good job though does it? You can argue that he's hired "the best available" at every turn, which is not the case, but let's assume so. That doesn't thereby mean that he's adopted a long-term approach with the club's best interests at heart. It has been repeated many times that going from one particular brand of football to another, to another, to another, is not a long-term approach in the slightest.

Why are we comparing the Glazer ownership to Liverpool's? Is that because they're from the US? At least they've not saddled the club with debt (but let's not digress there further for the time being). We should be comparing our setup to the one setup that looks the most efficient, City. There has been strategic investment on and off the pitch. Pep spent a shit tonne of money of course, but he already had outstanding talent available.

Granted Woodward's job was huge as soon as SAF retired and Gill left, however, the owners had failed to adequately strengthen the team in the years leading to SAF retiring. Another much repeated line - and a very true one - was that SAF's genius masked a period of underinvestment and lack of planning. The no value in the market era, whilst our rivals somehow found great value.

As fans we have the benefit of hindsight - decision-makers responsible for hundreds of millions of pounds are not afforded that luxury - so given how everything has panned out, do the Woodward defenders feel that he bears no responsibility for hiring 4 radically different managers? That at every turn he did the best he could and he was simply let down by 3 managers (possibly a 4th too)? Please elaborate.

Do the Glazer defenders feel that the rapid rise of City in the last years of SAF's reign was matched with ambition and foresight on our part? Please elaborate.

 

[Kag]

We will end up as a case study in all the biggest managament schools as an example how to not run a club if we continue this way. Some of the nonsense around here is hilarious.

What a refreshing and rational post.

 

[Fosu-Mens]

This narrative has to be the most idiotic of the lot.

Stop and think for one second before believing this sentiment.... Doesn't success on field mean more profit?

I mean, if all they care about is profit as you and thousands and thousands of other short sighted folks suggest in our supporter base, wouldn't they then therefore demand success on the pitch too? They made Jose the hired paid manager in world football because they only care about sponsors? Get real for god sake!

If we are successful on the pitch it also addresses your 3rd point too!

Just because the managers post Ferguson haven't won a league or champions league, that doesn't automatically mean that they only care for off field revenue! I mean, the biggest slice of revenue is in TV revenue and TV revenue is dictated by a teams success, it goes hand in hand!

It really has to be the dumbest of all the anti Glazer waffle going around!!

Are you able to write a post without an insult in each sentence? And common decency would be to respond to the whole post, instead of finding one thing you disagree with and write 2 paragraphs about how idiotic/dumb/another less than neutral words in your vocabulary. Your efforts to lower this discussing into neanderthalic stone throwing.

As an answer to your eloquent post:

I think the difference is that some of the owners have the perception that financial and on-pitch performance/improvement are not mutually exclusive, at least in the long term.

When growing the value of a business(relevant for most businesses) there are usually two approaches to do this(lets not factor in external uncertainties that might influence/complicate this):
1. Short term profit: Cut cost, streamline processes/operations/investment only to stay AS-IS in productivity. Bare minimum to "stay afloat"
2. Long term profit: Invest heavy short term for increased productivity long term.

Option 2 is often tied with a high risk of not working out if the people involved in the investments are not competent, and if in an unstable market where there is a large degree of variation in the forecast this might not be the best approach.
Option 1 is can be a good approach over a short period of time and would be beneficial if there is a large amount of waste in the business, often after a period of heavy investment.

EPL: https://pbs.twimg.com/media/D6UX3PJWwAArfEr.jpg
We got £140 mill this season from TV-money. Liverpool got £150m.
Not worth investing xxx£ to get the extra £10m in prize money.

CL/EL: https://www.uefa.com/insideuefa/stakeholders/clubs/news/newsid=2562024.html
As long as you get CL-group stage, the difference in £££ in performance-related prize money does not accommodate for the assumed investment needed.

Expected ROI from winning EPL and investment needed to be a serious contender makes it not worth it.
CL: ROI from getting top 4 and CL-group stage(especially with Adidas/CL deal makes it worth it).

 

[Jim Beam]

What a refreshing and rational post.

Aye, can't wait for another gem of yours so the feeling is mutual.

 

[Kag]

Aye, can't wait for another gem of yours so the feeling is mutual.

Keep an eye out, my man. You might learn something.

 

[the chameleon]

And Woodward did that? Jeez, there seems to be no end to what you can blame the chap for.

I think you’re WUM. Is there a blocking option on here?

 

[Johan07]

So what has this debate come to? We can all agree that Woodward's job is one of the hardest jobs in football. That doesn't excuse him for not doing a good job though does it? You can argue that he's hired "the best available" at every turn, which is not the case, but let's assume so. That doesn't thereby mean that he's adopted a long-term approach with the club's best interests at heart. It has been repeated many times that going from one particular brand of football to another, to another, to another, is not a long-term approach in the slightest.

Why are we comparing the Glazer ownership to Liverpool's? Is that because they're from the US? At least they've not saddled with debt (but let's not digress there further for the time being). We should be comparing our setup to the one setup that looks the most efficient, City. There has been strategic investment on and off the pitch. Pep spent a shit tonne of money of course, but he already had outstanding talent available.

Granted Woodward's job was huge as soon as SAF retired and Gill left, however, the owners had failed to adequately strengthen the team in the years leading to SAF retiring. Another much repeated line - and a very true one - was that SAF's genius masked a period of underinvestment and lack of planning. The no value in the market era, whilst our rivals somehow found great value.

As fans we have the benefit of hindsight - decision-makers responsible for hundreds of millions of pounds are not afforded that luxury - so given how everything has panned out, do the Woodward defenders feel that he bears no responsibility for hiring 4 radically different managers? That at every turn he did the best he could and he was simply let down by 3 managers (possibly a 4th too)? Please elaborate.

Do the Glazer defenders feel that the rapid rise of City in the last years of SAF's reign was matched with ambition and foresight on our part? Please elaborate.

Three including OGS. Can we please at least be true to facts at least. You cant kill a myth on the Caf it seems. Gill appointed Moyes and gave him a six year-contract. Gill. Cant people register this? Woodward as CEO has two failed managerial appointments on him and one still to be judged. Not four. Jeez.

 

[Johan07]

I think you’re WUM. Is there a blocking option on here?

So you really think Woodward saddled United with debt? Maybe you should block yourself from the Caf, since you cant even defend your own statements.

 

[Jim Beam]

Keep an eye out, my man. You might learn something.

Eagerly waiting, my man.

 

[Bastian]

Three including OGS. Can we please at least be true to facts at least. You cant kill a myth on the Caf it seems. Gill appointed Moyes and gave him a six year-contract. Gill. Cant people register this? Woodward as CEO has two failed managerial appointments on him and one still to be judged. Not for. Jeez.

Is that all you took from that? With regards to the myth, you actually think that the owners of a football club worth billions of pounds had an outgoing CEO appoint a new manager for the next 6 years? I will grant you that Moyes is not a Woodward appointment, but very much a board decision. Recommending is not appointing.

So we agree then that Woodward has failed with his managerial appointments which, in essence, is him failing at his job. We're getting closer to a consensus here.

 

[Johan07]

Is that all you took from that? With regards to the myth, you actually think that the owners of a football club worth billions of pounds had an outgoing CEO appoint a new manager for the next 6 years? I will grant you that Moyes is not a Woodward appointment, but very much a board decision. Recommending is not appointing.

So we agree then that Woodward has failed with his managerial appointments which, in essence, is him failing at his job. We're getting closer to a consensus here.

I think that it was one hundred percent Gill and Fergusons decision. And I think that is pretty much recognised by now. I have no problems with your posts btw, they are fairly rational and you at least try to argue your points. Just keep your facts straight.

 

[the chameleon]

So you really think Woodward saddled United with debt? Maybe you should block yourself from the Caf, since you cant even defend your own statements.

He actually was the person in charge of the hostile takeover of the club. That paved the way for Glazers. If you read my posts properly, you might be able to comprehend that I’m critical incompetence of both Glazers and Woodward.

I think there’s only you who needs to blocking from the Caf you. Selectively picking bits and changing the narrative. I understand that you have vested interest with the investing.

We as fans will discuss and complain about how are club is being run badly. Do what fans do if their club isn’t performing.

 

[the chameleon]

I asked this question @Johan07 amd @Keefy18 before.

How long should we keep Woodward? If the club underperforms on the pitch. Yes the manangers will have to go. Players will need to replaced.

But, at what point do you say that, Woodward should step away fully from the footballing side. Or quit altogether.

Let’s hear it!

 

[Coleyoscar]

You have to be in a job paying millions to fail this consistently and not face the consequences.

 

[Keefy18]

Are you aware that we can't hire most coaches in the game or they are more likely to fail because of our structure and the fact they never operated in such conditions.

But, yeah, let's make a comparisons from almost 40 years ago.

You don't know what are you talking about so please bore someone else.

Where in the feck are you getting the notion we can't hire "most" coaches? Says who? Based on what evidence?

The only coach who has openly refused to work for us who could be considered a top coach is Klopp! So suddenly LVG & Jose aren't top coaches now as well? They are 2 of the most successful and well respected coaches in the game the last 25 years! Ridiculous statement!

Why shouldn't I compare to 40 years ago? We've exactly the same structure throughout all that time. Nothing structurally has changed.

Your last statement, hilarious!

Read up on the club and educate yourself on it, might surprise yourself by picking something new up.

 

[Keefy18]

Are you able to write a post without an insult in each sentence? And common decency would be to respond to the whole post, instead of finding one thing you disagree with and write 2 paragraphs about how idiotic/dumb/another less than neutral words in your vocabulary. Your efforts to lower this discussing into neanderthalic stone throwing.

As an answer to your eloquent post:



EPL: https://pbs.twimg.com/media/D6UX3PJWwAArfEr.jpg
We got £140 mill this season from TV-money. Liverpool got £150m.
Not worth investing xxx£ to get the extra £10m in prize money.

CL/EL: https://www.uefa.com/insideuefa/stakeholders/clubs/news/newsid=2562024.html
As long as you get CL-group stage, the difference in £££ in performance-related prize money does not accommodate for the assumed investment needed.

Expected ROI from winning EPL and investment needed to be a serious contender makes it not worth it.
CL: ROI from getting top 4 and CL-group stage(especially with Adidas/CL deal makes it worth it).

The sentiment is incredibly, incredibly dumb! There is no 2 ways about it, you brought the conversation down to its most simplistic level.

To address your "eloquent" reply... Liverpool have made record profits this season on the back of their 2nd place finish and CL win. What on earth are you on about? Those numbers are only likely to increase in the seasons ahead.

Of course it is worth the investment, if it isn't why did they make Jose the best paid coach in world football? To fail? Why did they part with 1 billion in transfers since 2010? Why bother giving players record sums of wages and generating the largest wage bill in the league?

They quite easily could of just kept that money and not repeatedly broken transfer records and salary records if they didn't care about winning. Just because a manager hasn't succeeded yet, doesn't equate to meaning the board don't demand titles.

That's one hell of a ridiculous, irrational jump to make for anyone in my very honest opinion.

 

[Johan07]

I asked this question @Johan07 amd @Keefy18 before.

How long should we keep Woodward? If the club underperforms on the pitch. Yes the manangers will have to go. Players will need to replaced.

But, at what point do you say that, Woodward should step away fully from the footballing side. Or quit altogether.

Let’s hear it!

Who are "we"? And how have "we" any say in the question you are posing.
I have no idea how to answer your question because I am intelligent enough to recognise that the CEO is appointed by the owners and not the club and that we as fans have no input whatsoever regarding who is or will be the CEO of the club.
And never will have. Which is why the moaning in this thread is quite irrelevant to begin with.
I will happy to discuss alternatives to Woodward if you can present a realistic candidate. Which of course you cant, because if Woodward would be replaced it would be by the Glazers and not by "we" and could very well be a worse option. Who knows.
Its the same as with the Glazers. Present me with an alternative to them today and I would be happy to discuss it. But there is none except for a much worse LBO than last time or a sportswashed takeover by some Gulf State. Therefore this moaning about them has no purpose, since all the realistic alternatives on the table are worse.
This is not defending Glazers or Woodward, its being realistic and actually contemplating the consequences of what you are suggesting.

 

[Keefy18]

I asked this question @Johan07 amd @Keefy18 before.

How long should we keep Woodward? If the club underperforms on the pitch. Yes the manangers will have to go. Players will need to replaced.

But, at what point do you say that, Woodward should step away fully from the footballing side. Or quit altogether.

Let’s hear it!

Hard to say really cause its far more complex than most give it credit for. I honestly can't say a time frame.

How do you believe its his fault the team is failing, specifically?

I mean, is it Woodwards fault Lukaku has the warming touch of Josef Fritzel? Is it Woodwards fault Young can't cross a ball? At what other club is it the CEO's fault specifically for on field failures?

Has he not given his 2 main appointments complete freedom to manage the team as they needed to in the quest to become a successful team?

Woodward has OK'd the signing of 27 players in 6 years to the tune of nearly £800m!
Our wage bill increased a whopping £100m over Jose's tenure at the club... let that sink in...£100m in salaries alone!
He supported LVG in selling any players he wished, but that narrative was changed to protect Jose by supporters like you who blamed Woodward.

Now, if he was overbearing and over ruling his managers and not allowing them to do as they pleased and refused funds for transfers... the Woodward out narrative would certainly make more sense.

 

[the chameleon]

Who are "we"? And how have "we" any say in the question you are posing.
I have no idea how to answer your question because I am intelligent enough to recognise that the CEO is appointed by the owners and not the club and that we as fans have no input whatsoever regarding who is or will be the CEO of the club.
And never will have. Which is why the moaning in this thread is quite irrelevant to begin with.
I will happy to discuss alternatives to Woodward if you can present a realistic candidate. Which of course you cant, because if Woodward would be replaced it would be by the Glazers and not by "we" and could very well be a worse option. Who knows.
Its the same as with the Glazers. Present me with an alternative to them today and I would be happy to discuss it. But there is none except for a much worse LBO than last time or a sportswashed takeover by some Gulf State. Therefore this moaning about them has no purpose, since all the realistic alternatives on the table are worse.
This is not defending Glazers or Woodward, its being realistic and actually contemplating the consequences of what you are suggesting.

But this is a forum. So I’m sure you’d be intelligent enough to understand that everything here is opinion. Every transfer thread. Every match day thread.

All most of the people here are doing is having a conversation about Woodie’s failings as a CEO.

You swerve your questions like politician.

For a self proclaimed “intelligent” being you’re arguments are weak. When asked questions you swerve a lot and create new sub topics. That my friend is genius!

 

[Keefy18]

But this is a forum. So I’m sure you’d be intelligent enough to understand that everything here is opinion. Every transfer thread. Every match day thread.

All most of the people here are doing is having a conversation about Woodie’s failings as a CEO.

You swerve your questions like politician.

For a self proclaimed “intelligent” being you’re arguments are weak. When asked questions you swerve a lot and create new sub topics. That my friend is genius!

Well, in your "opinion"...Who replaces Woodward then?

Can you name me a logical worth while replacement.

There's no guarantees they will succeed either, which is what you and many, many others think will magically happen once Woodward goes.

 

[Jim Beam]

Where in the feck are you getting the notion we can't hire "most" coaches? Says who? Based on what evidence?

The only coach who has openly refused to work for us who could be considered a top coach is Klopp! So suddenly LVG & Jose aren't top coaches now as well? They are 2 of the most successful and well respected coaches in the game the last 25 years! Ridiculous statement!

Why shouldn't I compare to 40 years ago? We've exactly the same structure throughout all that time. Nothing structurally has changed.

Your last statement, hilarious!

Read up on the club and educate yourself on it, might surprise yourself by picking something new up.

Meant to block you, but you add entertaining value tbh, so it would be a shame.

Times have changed, the day of managers is over and coach primarly task is to (you're in for a shocker) - to coach. Every potentially great coach on the continent works under DoF and the direction that club sets up. He is there to improve the players. And ours have done a fantastic job in that regard.
City didn't beat us just with money, I would bet they already targeted who will come after Pep. Hint, it won't be Conte.

6 years have past and there are people like you who are calling fans spoilt because they expected a biggest club in England to actually put more than 3 great games in that period.

Based on what evidence I say we can't hire most coaches? And then you go on about that we bring 2 best coaches in the last 25 years which struggled to get top 4. Because all modern coaches are focused purely on coaching.
Capello is one of the best in last 25 years, let's go for him too.

And not to mention:
- paying Fellaini over his clause
- hiring 3 desperados on the last day of transfer window to close Herrera deal and then briefing they weren't there for us
- not getting any value for our players
- overpaying every single one
- wages all over the place
- a team with no identity whatsoever
- hiring Ole who never operated on this level with the support of Phelan?
- leaving Herrera deal to expire because Jose didn't fancy him, but Ole clearly does
- giving extension to Mourinho and not backing him when he was already in meltdown
- briefing the press behind his back or basically going in the season doomed to fail
- stating that our performance on the pitch don't have relation to money making which is the dumbest thing I heard ever


And so on and on. The structure is wrong and every man who starts to slate Ole next season can bugger off.
You can shove those green smileys up your ass btw.

And if have any knowledge about our history you would know that it was the whole rewamp of the club what put us ahead of everyone else. Done by one man who was a coach and DoF at the same time. Good luck finding that in an era where coaches move all the time.

Ed's appologist have hit Jose fans level of delusion. Mighty impressive must say.