So why did we appoint a manager we knew was only going to be here 3 years in the first place?
LVG Out Thread | BBC: Sacked!
- Thread starter Livewire1974
- Start date
- Status
So why did we appoint a manager we knew was only going to be here 3 years in the first place?
Ideally, yeah. But I'm sure any club would want that to be the case. Even the trigger happy Abramovic waited until about the halfway point of the season to get rid of Mourinho. He'd still be safe in a job if he'd managed to have a championship winning side around mid-table.
Essentially, I'd like us to have long-term managers, but it shouldn't really come into the thought process of appointments unless it's to reject someone who we expect will only stay for one/two years. Even a great manager who can give us four years is better than an alright one who gives us ten. Barca and Bayern cope just fine with switching managers because they know how to make such a transition.
I think Mourinho was more influenced by Bobby Robson. He has said that his ideas were different from Van Gaal's at Barcelona.
As much as I'm pretty reserved with the idea of appointing Mourinho...the bolded isn't really a bad thing, is it?
Other clubs can change managers because they've a better structure in place. And yeah, would be great to have a long term manager but not every manager is a potential Fergie or Busby, most are like Sexton, Atkinson, O'Farrell et al. Liverpool fans used to look at Fergie in defence of their managers, 'hey Fergie took a few years and look at the subsequent success he brought!'.
So I ask you to name clubs outs of Barca and Bayern (and of course Real who you admit make up their own rules) and the list you come back with is:
Lyon: A club who haven't won their domestic league since 2008 and have had 3 managers since then. Yep bang on target, rotate every 3 years Lyon.
Juventus: A club who have been disgraced for paying off referees in their domestic league.
Milan: A club whose owner has been disgraced for paying off referees in their domestic league.
and Benfica & Porto: The Portugese equivalent of Celtic and Rangers.
I just don't see how 'rotating' your manager every 3 years is somehow the best approach to managing a club. For every club you name who supposedly succeed with this policy I can name 10 that have failed, miserably.
we have spent 250 mil over last 18 months or so. Your point being?
And we clearly don't!
Like I said before he's not long term anyway he's gone in 18 months regardless of how he does, and he's as bad as Moyes having spent what he has and for how long he's been here, his stats are worse than Moyes, I agree he's had a better managerial carrier than Moyes but it's just as bad and it's getting worse.
Personally I think it's just Ed/Glazers desire to keep our 'brand' as better and more pure than other clubs. A bit like Barca's more than a club bullsh*t. We're United, we stick to our managers like we'll stick with these commercial arrangements. We're not short-termist, our legacy is strong, sign for 5 years!
Also would imagine there's a lot of Ed wanting to power straight through the media/fans backlash, hope LVG actually turns it around so he can parade around the fact that HE was the only voice of reason standing by HIS man. It sounds trivial, but the longer I spend with exec layer folks, the more I see similar characteristics in them. And ego and a belief that one is never wrong are pretty much the unifying traits.
Also would imagine there's a lot of Ed wanting to power straight through the media/fans backlash, hope LVG actually turns it around so he can parade around the fact that HE was the only voice of reason standing by HIS man. It sounds trivial, but the longer I spend with exec layer folks, the more I see similar characteristics in them. And ego and a belief that one is never wrong are pretty much the unifying traits.
I have a morbid curiosity to see what Mourinho could do with our squad, and see if he could handle the pressure. But the dreaded anti football approach puts me off.
We're playing catch up. My point being our club's success wasn't built on buying success, that's part of the appeal of United for me. The City and Chelsea 'successes' are hollow.
Then we have to learn how to, and ensure foundations are in place for when new managers come into place. If we find another one who can stay for 20 years and be successful, then that's brilliant. If we're like the vast majority of clubs in world football though, who have little choice in rotating managers, then we have to learn to adapt. There's a reason Bayern and Barca are some of the most dominant sides in world football and we're not.
Me too. There's a danger that he'd repeat what happened with Chelsea, but an instant return to the league at one of its biggest clubs would be immensely entertaining from a certain perspective. The football on the pitch would probably be dire, but then it probably wouldn't be any worse than what we're currently seeing.
Lyon won 7 league titles in a row with 4 managers. They haven't won since 2008 because they didn't had the money to replace their players since they had a stadium to finance.
For the rest you are just disrespecting 50 years of football.
Are Bayern and Barca the most dominant sides in world football because they rotate their manager? I agree with you core point, if we find a manager who sticks it would be brilliant. I'm not saying it is the sole criteria for a managerial appointment. I just don't agree with this assertion that managerial 'rotation' is the secret to success. In fact, there really is no such thing as managerial rotation. Most of the 'rotations' at even Bayern and Barca (save for the last few) have been as a result of sackings i.e. failures.
No one told you that. Everyone is telling you that they are dominant despite rotating managers and that you can rotate managers while seeking for the long term manager of your dreams.
We've been buying success for years. Look at the title winning squad from Fergie's final season. It's almost entirely based on players who were bought. RVP was our big signing. Rooney was bought as a youngster. Carrick was key that season; he was bought. Rio and Vidic? Yep, you guessed it. DDG? Bought. Our only homegrown players in that team were really the ageing Giggs and Scholes, along with Welbeck and the rather useless Cleverley.
Yeah, City and Chelsea have bought success; in that they spend money on trying to improve their squad, like we do. I'd like to think that one of Fergie's greatest qualities was being able to find magnificent players for small amount of money: Schmeichel, Cantona, Vidic, Evra, VDS etc, but he still bought most of his players, especially in later years when we failed to produce any top class youngsters.
The idea that they're somehow 'hollow' is only really an opinion, and one that the vast majority of their fans probably struggle to particularly care about when we're sitting down in 5th.
Isn't that exactly what Chelsea and city have done, they've spent to catch us up and pass us too, you can't give that as an argument having spent what we have its nonesense.
So Lyon's magic formula worked up until more oil money corrupted the French league, that's great. I'll give you that one. I'm not respecting 50 years of football at all, I'm just stating the facts about Juve, Milan, Benfica and Porto. And, by the way, our original exchange on this topic was in relation to English football. The only example you have a 'rotational success' in England is Chelsea, again oil money buying titles. I'm going to stop now, I'm bringing the thread off topic. I think I've made my points about this so-called 'theory' around managerial rotations.
No, not specifically. I'm sure that if either of the two clubs could've retained Guardiola then they would ensure that they had done so. They weren't able to do that, though, because like most managers, he decided to move on (or at least will with Bayern). There was essentially no way in which the clubs could guarantee a long-term, successful managers. I'd like to think Klopp and Simeone are two top tier managers who like to stick around with clubs, but even then, I'd categorise a long-term manager in football now as 5-8 years. Anything beyond that is an extreme rarity.
I'm being facetious about Chelsea and their money. The bigger point is they have sacked manager after manager; its NOT a rotation policy.
If they haven't already I don't think they ever will, Ferguson was a one off but yeah let's keep a shit manager for 5/6 years to give him time hoping that lightning strikes twice and he turns in to Ferguson, I'm sure by that time winning league one will give the fans something to cheer.
This whole conversation started with me responding to a post about how 'modern football clubs' HAVE to rotate their managers every 3 years. Anyway, enough already. I don't think I can take another 18 months of LVG if this is the type of stuff occupying my thoughts
This is meant to be a negative?
"What do you think of this Mourinho guy?"
"Well, I don't know. I mean, he might manage to secure top 4 football, but there's always the chance he'll win the Champions League in his first season, and that's just not a risk we should be taking."
It's clearly worked for them though hasn't it, remind me who are the current champions and how many trophies they've won in the last 7 years compared to us?
Maybe bought is the wrong word. Chelsea and City won leagues by 'out-spending' the rest. And as I said earlier I wouldn't want United to turn into that kind of club. I know most fans would.
I get it, you want United to be more like Chelsea. I don't. And for what it's worth, Chelsea have won the league TWICE in the last 7 years. We have won it FOUR times. Short memories and all that...
Wouldn't you see it as selling your soul for silverware?
Crazy notion that eh
Granted, I'm being a bit sarcastic since I've got my own reservations about appointing Mourinho, but I'd rather any manager who can deliver short-term, instant success over a long-term one who finishes in 6th. Ideally we'd get a long-term, successful manager...but they're not easy to find.
What soul?
If the decision is between short-term success and no success at all, where's the hard part?
Yup, this is the core issue. Too many people seem to believe it and the Press and ex-players too keep hammering away at it being "the United way" to stand by our managers. It's holding the club back. Saw us hold on to Moyes when the whole world and its dog knew he was done and now it's being repeated with LvG. Funny thing is that a lot of "recent" United fans (the ones that only saw us / started supporting the club after the treble season) seem to agree with it. Mind-numbing. I've been called a plastic (on FB by a fan in Singapore) for saying that I thought we needed to sack the manager. FFS!
Anti-football. Hmmm... Isn't this the manager whose teams have always finished (a season he's been in charge of fully) with the highest or second-highest goals scored? Every season and at every team? His Real team also broke all kinds of La Liga records (points and goals) in the season he won. He sets up to be ruthless and against the top teams he prioritizes defence, but frankly, I'd take him and winning. Without blinking.
Pep v/s Mourinho? Unsure. I think a lot of folks - specially those within OT - would prefer Pep, but I think it's time the top brass saw that Pep's definitely going to City. If that's the case, I shudder at the thought of Giggs being in charge (or LvG) when that happens - specially when Mourinho could be the man. Isn't Mourinho pretty much the only manager to have beaten Pep to a league title?
Don't put words into my mouth and I'd sooner be like Chelsea than Liverpool who you seem to want us to turn into.
I want the best for Utd not the manager and especially one that is fecking leaving in the very near future anyway, I want us to win trophies and play a decent type of football, neither which lvg looks like he can do!
No, because it isn't. That's a silly, overly romantic way of looking at things that has no place in modern football. It just isn't like how it used to be, and any club that can't adapt is going to be left behind.
If we appoint Mourinho today he most definitely won't win the Champions League with us in his first season, that's for sure.
Both stands are morally bad, pretending to be holier than thou or selling your soul for silveware.
I think we all agree that in an ideal world we choose the right man and stick by him.
However, I think most have come to see what's plainly in front of them - lvg is not that man, so what's the point in sticking by him?
His squad, his tactics, his mess. We've regressed this season under him. We're on target to score the least amount of goals we've ever scored, we're near the bottom of the table for chances created and our manager has admitted he doesn't know how to motivate the team. The form over the last 8-10 matches is relegation form, not form for top4. Just look at the stats and tell me how ANY club would not sack him now? Why shouldn't we, just because some softies think that the longer we hold onto a dud, that it might magically turn into a clone of Alex Ferguson? There is only one Fergie, its not going to happen again no matter how much we all hold hands and chant
- Status