I don't think he's been much of a quality pundit since his early days.
Too opinionated, his take on Abramovich\Abu boys etc etc, he needed Russia to wage war on Ukraine to realize what the actual problem is and then we're back to his opinion being the only truth out there.
His take that Pochettino is the only answer, a narrative that sticks out every single time he talks about Ten Hag, his frustrations over Rashford being benched while neglecting to mention how he's actually performing. His lack of logic is outstanding, really, to the point where he argued that ETH might reconsider taking the job on the basis of how we were performing, but Pochettino who he reckons is a much better option would apparently jump at the chance, great.
His latest narrative on Uniteds failures, going on about the commercial side of the club etc, he's just like any daft fan picking the easy narrative without having much of a clue. We've always maximized opportunities on the commercial side, simply because we have to, we've done it for years including when we were successfull.
He's a hypocritical knob with too many agendas, imo.
People need to understand that this isn't 1's and 0's. Manchester Uniteds failures has little to do with the commercial side, our failure to modernize the club goes back to Fergusons period. He wanted, needed, and had full control of much of the operational side, transfers. When you're performing at the very highest level and obtaining results, it's not always easy to see the need for changes to the structure, changes that wouldn't have been tolerated by fans or Fergie. Can you imagine the reactions if the club restructured to take away parts of Fergies responsibilites, there would've been an uproar and angled towards the managers arms being tied behind his back. Fergies transfers, for an extended period, were dodgy as feck, including some utter bizarre deals via Mendes.
We hired Moyes, similar mold to Ferguson when it comes to need for controlling too much, to the point where he had a negative effect on transfers because he insisted on scouting them on his own. Brendan Rodgers had been at Liverpool for a year, and their transfer committee was an absolute disaster because Brendan Rodgers wanted to be in complete control as well, he loathed them. People were joking about how much of a disaster their setup was, restricting the manager, it was hardly being pointed out how it's the standard every club should follow. Transfers were still a disaster at Liverpool, we hired Van Gaal who didn't mind sharing control but he didn't last long enough, Mourinho wanted complete control and opposed every suggestion of change, and by now Klopp was at Liverpool and he was happy to seek out improving the relationship between manager and Edwards as a sporting director, often praising the work being done signing the right players. Liverpools method went from laughing stock to being the golden standard of how a club should operate.
We followed the same path that made us successfull in the first place, main problem was that we didn't see the need to modernize and change the structure, preparing for Fergusons departure. It's fairly fecking easy to sit here 10 years later and point out what we should've done, just like you should've purchased every stock that goes up, identifying it beforehand is where it gets complicated. We've invested a shit ton of money, just in terms of transfer spending we've spent around £825mill to allow the managers to bring in the players they wanted, we've always had one of the highest wage bills in the world during this period. The club has done it outmost to provide the funds, but we've followed a model that depends far too much on the managers being "one of a kind".
It's not as if the desire to be successfull isn't there, if you'd asked Gary Neville during the early days of Liverpools transfer committe if United should go down the same path it's not hard to guess what his reply would've been.
