Man Utd set to appoint Director of Football (when hell freezes over)

[roonster09]

Given that he was also responsible for scouting Pique, it's sort of strange to fire a guy who was working for so long at the club, knew ins and outs and was still doing his job, age doesn't matter here, doubt he'd go to the press if he wanted to retire.

Wasn't it part of complete revamp when our youth teams wasn't doing well, so 2 or 3 years back complete youth scouting was revamped with Butt taking major role?

 

[JPRouve]

Obviously the article is partial but getting rid of this guy is a bit fishy to say at least. He makes it sound to me that he's prepared numerous reports on those two (so I believe before they became 'the thing' as of late) and those were either not considered or simply ignored, doubt he'd have a grip with us just not buying them. Given that he was also responsible for scouting Pique, it's sort of strange to fire a guy who was working for so long at the club, knew ins and outs and was still doing his job, age doesn't matter here, doubt he'd go to the press if he wanted to retire.

For me it only adds to the narrative that there's much wrong with out club and aforementioned long term planning, which will only result in another couple of years without winning PL/CL even if a new manager comes in.

It's not really strange and the academy has vastly improved since the revamping.

 

[Stacks]

And what's the point in that really? Is there some kind of a guarantee that a caretaker could salvage our season? It would only give Mourinho more excuses saying that if he was kept until end of the season he could've turned things around. Another 'quick fix' that could turn out not to be a fix at all instead of long term or even bloody medium term planning, something unheard of as of late here.



Obviously the article is partial but getting rid of this guy is a bit fishy to say at least. He makes it sound to me that he's prepared numerous reports on those two (so I believe before they became 'the thing' as of late) and those were either not considered or simply ignored, doubt he'd have a grip with us just not buying them. Given that he was also responsible for scouting Pique, it's sort of strange to fire a guy who was working for so long at the club, knew ins and outs and was still doing his job, age doesn't matter here, doubt he'd go to the press if he wanted to retire.

For me it only adds to the narrative that there's much wrong with out club and aforementioned long term planning, which will only result in another couple of years without winning PL/CL even if a new manager comes in.

If we are not able to get our main appointment right away then why not? Chelsea sacked Jose and Avram Grant got them to CL final and within touching distance of the title. Benitez also salvaged Chelsea season and Di matteo won the CL. Jose is making things rotten and brings a dark cloud of negativity that needs to be lifted. I am sure the players feel it too and want an escape

 

[Kostur]

Wasn't it part of complete revamp when our youth teams wasn't doing well, so 2 or 3 years back complete youth scouting was revamped with Butt taking major role?

No idea, I mean, Moyes totally revamped our coaching staff by fecking off SAF people and in the end it didn't work overly well now did it?

It's not really strange and the academy has vastly improved since the revamping.

Do we actually know what the revamping was or is it just a buzz-word repeated every now and then? Was the improvement down to getting rid of Langley? Mind you that one of his latest acquirements, according to the article, was Chong.

If we are not able to get our main appointment right away then why not? Chelsea sacked Jose and Avram Grant got them to CL final and within touching distance of the title. Benitez also salvaged Chelsea season and Di matteo won the CL. Jose is making things rotten and brings a dark cloud of negativity that needs to be lifted. I am sure the players feel it too and want an escape

Because, again, it doesn't really solve anything. I'm up for Jose walking but only if we're set with some long term plan/appointment. For every Grant and Di Matteo you've got Hiddink with his second caretaker stint where they still ended up 10th.

 

[JPRouve]

Do we actually know what the revamping was or is it just a buzz-word repeated every now and then? Was the improvement down to getting rid of Langley? Mind you that one of his latest acquirements, according to the article, was Chong.

The club totally changed the structure with Butt as the head of academy and hired dozens of full time scouts. The head of scout is also not traveling anymore, he stays in Manchester and analyzes his scouts reports, so Langley's job would have been different anyway.

 

[Kostur]

The club totally changed the structure with Butt as the head of academy and hired dozens of full time scouts. The head of scout is also not traveling anymore, he stays in Manchester and analyzes his scouts reports, so Langley's job would have been different anyway.

So basically speaking we could've simply moved his position instead of sacking him? As in, if he was doing a good field work, why not leave him in the field?

I think it all boils down to how you interpret what he said. You and @roonster09 perceive what he said in the same way by the looks of it, my take is slightly different to yours with all the bias of the article in mind.

 

[fezzerUTD]

Yeah, also it doesn't say Woodward rejected the move. He talks about competency of other people with Woodward.



Anyways it's a silly article. Clubs usually scout 100s of players and sign many for youth team. Few of them will move, some of them don't. Also among the players who moved, most of them won't even make it to top level.

This guy makes it sound like 2 players were ready to join only for Manutd to veto the deal.

A scout goes and watches the players over long periods and makes relationships with his family and talks about the player with the family, they do look at hundreds of players but when they are at games they are there to watch specific players and if others are there and catch the eyes he may keep an eye on them.
If these 2 players mentioned never ever had any interest in coming to Utd the scout would have been on his bike a long time ago.
Scouts dont just turn up look at a player without speaking to them and leave, they make friendships and gain trusts. It basically says that at the end with Chong. He almost signed for Chelsea but the scout helped him change his mind to join Utd.

 

[JPRouve]

So basically speaking we could've simply moved his position instead of sacking him? As in, if he was doing a good field work, why not leave him in the field?

I think it all boils down to how you interpret what he said. You and @roonster09 perceive what he said in the same way by the looks of it, my take is slightly different to yours with all the bias of the article in mind.

Well, he has to be willing to move his position and the way he comes across in the article tells me that it's not a given. But the reality is that I don't know why he was let go and he doesn't really tell us why either.

 

[breakout67]

No idea how someone has singled out these two specific players as an integral part of the point Langley was making. They were just two players he wanted us to get, but his point was that there are people in our setup that are simply not fit for purpose.

Going by the words of our last two managers this is spot on as well. We basically have no first team scouts, the manager does it all. Lindelof and Dalot were not scouted in house, they were scouted by Mourinho's connections in Portugal. The only other young prospect we got was Bailly, and it would not surprise me at all if he was scouted by Mourinho's connections in Spain.

 

[JPRouve]

No idea how someone has singled out these two specific players as an integral part of the point Langley was making. They were just two players he wanted us to get, but his point was that there are people in our setup that are simply not fit for purpose.

Going by the words of our last two managers this is spot on as well. We basically have no first team scouts, the manager does it all. Lindelof and Dalot were not scouted in house, they were scouted by Mourinho's connections in Portugal. The only other young prospect we got was Bailly, and it would not surprise me at all if he was scouted by Mourinho's connections in Spain.

Why do you make stuffs up? The same paper wrote in 2016 that United was scouting Lindelof.

 

[Massive Spanner]

No idea how someone has singled out these two specific players as an integral part of the point Langley was making. They were just two players he wanted us to get, but his point was that there are people in our setup that are simply not fit for purpose.

Going by the words of our last two managers this is spot on as well. We basically have no first team scouts, the manager does it all. Lindelof and Dalot were not scouted in house, they were scouted by Mourinho's connections in Portugal. The only other young prospect we got was Bailly, and it would not surprise me at all if he was scouted by Mourinho's connections in Spain.

You really do talk any sort of nonsense you can in order to defend Mourinho. Saying he's the one scouting players, not the club, is a great one to be fair.

 

[roonster09]

No idea how someone has singled out these two specific players as an integral part of the point Langley was making. They were just two players he wanted us to get, but his point was that there are people in our setup that are simply not fit for purpose.

Going by the words of our last two managers this is spot on as well. We basically have no first team scouts, the manager does it all. Lindelof and Dalot were not scouted in house, they were scouted by Mourinho's connections in Portugal. The only other young prospect we got was Bailly, and it would not surprise me at all if he was scouted by Mourinho's connections in Spain.

Cool story man.

 

[Stacks]

No idea, I mean, Moyes totally revamped our coaching staff by fecking off SAF people and in the end it didn't work overly well now did it?



Do we actually know what the revamping was or is it just a buzz-word repeated every now and then? Was the improvement down to getting rid of Langley? Mind you that one of his latest acquirements, according to the article, was Chong.



Because, again, it doesn't really solve anything. I'm up for Jose walking but only if we're set with some long term plan/appointment. For every Grant and Di Matteo you've got Hiddink with his second caretaker stint where they still ended up 10th.

When Hiddink came in Chelsea were in a relegation fight (16th place), made the longest unbeaten streak for a new manager in the EPL and took them up 6 places. Is that supposed to be failure? despite coming late into a disjointed team, with their 2nd season form, he would finished 6 points from CL places. So the argument is that they left it too late and let Jose drag them near the bottom. My fear is that he'll isolate some of our key players like Pogba, or even Martial (if he has 2 bad games in a month) and they'll consider leaving in the summer. I also have reservations as to who he will waste our transfer budget on in January. 11 signings, 1 success. The next manager will then have to pick up the pieces. I see little point in him staying.

 

[Kostur]

When Hiddink came in Chelsea were in a relegation fight (16th place), made the longest unbeaten streak for a new manager in the EPL and took them up 6 places. Is that supposed to be failure? despite coming late into a disjointed team, with their 2nd season form, he would finished 6 points from CL places. So the argument is that they left it too late and let Jose drag them near the bottom. My fear is that he'll isolate some of our key players like Pogba, or even Martial (if he has 2 bad games in a month) and they'll consider leaving in the summer. I also have reservations as to who he will waste our transfer budget on in January. 11 signings, 1 success. The next manager will then have to pick up the pieces. I see little point in him staying.

Well since we were making a comparison with Di Matteo and Grant, both of whom have made the CL finals and the former has won it, the 10th place still pales in comparison, no? Would've Mourinho relegated them? No. Did they achieve anything with Hiddink? No.

There's as much chance of them leaving in the summer for me (Pogba will move on sooner or later anyway) if we get in a caretaker manager and prove yet again we've got no fecking idea who to hire and that there's no chance of winning anything in the near future. I don't care about January window, if the board sanctioned Jose's purchases in the summer then they can do it again in the January.

 

[Reddy Rederson]

He didn't say that at all, learn to read, he said "I think it was possibly part of my downfall as to why seven months down the line I was removed.....

The guy was 66 at the time and he conveniently failed to mention to the reporter that he'd already informed the club the club that he was leaving at the end of the season anyway so getting his contract paid up and leaving a few weeks/months early than he intended was/is hardly newsworthy when you consider some of the names(who were more successful at their jobs than he was) leaving the club around that time as part of a academy restructure.

ps. Think you'll find it's you that's getting super defensive, just sayin'

“That was the beginning of my downfall” his words, implying that it was his attitude that got him sacked.

It’s funny how he was there, has a relationship with the club and the people there, but you still have the opinion that you know better. And yet, I’m the one being defensive? I’m not the one being dismissive. I’m not the one being insulting. I’m not the one reducing others arguments to that of a ‘hysterical woman’. Time to grow up, and learn how to communicate without being a child.

If you’ve got evidence that counters a man who was there, by all means show us all. No? Just insults?

 

[steakpie]

Woodward is only to blame for not sacked Mourinho yet.

Apart from that, he's gave Mourinho plenty of money to bring success. If Mourinho had managed and bought successfully, then we would all be saying what a great job Woodward was doing. The problem is Jose, he's worse than Moyes and LVG.

 

[Class of 63]

“That was the beginning of my downfall” his words, implying that it was his attitude that got him sacked.

It’s funny how he was there, has a relationship with the club and the people there, but you still have the opinion that you know better. And yet, I’m the one being defensive? I’m not the one being dismissive. I’m not the one being insulting. I’m not the one reducing others arguments to that of a ‘hysterical woman’. Time to grow up, and learn how to communicate without being a child.

If you’ve got evidence that counters a man who was there, by all means show us all. No? Just insults?

I'm not suggesting I know better at all, but I was in the wide-awake club when the story about Langley originally broke because unlike some I take an keen interest in all areas of the club(not just the first team) and it was an important issue, maybe if the guy(Langley) had stopped and thought about it first before he went running to the press he'd have known that by having a go at the scouting network at the club he was in fact directly. or indirectly having a pop at SAF and how he had ran things previously(ie. relying on networking rather than compiled data for potential recruits at all age groups), and if my basic maths is good enough(never a given) Langley was actually brought to the club, and had 16 years work at the club thanks to SAF, which makes it worse

https://www.telegraph.co.uk/sport/f...g-disillusioned-at-state-of-youth-system.html

 

[breakout67]

Mourinho literally said that he scouted Dalot after the Fulham game. He also said last season that he had been keeping tabs on Lindelof before we signed him because of his connection to the Portuguese league.

I know @roonster09 tried to give credit to Woodward for Dalot in his performance thread, which is just plain fantasy.

“I’m not a scout, I have no chance to do that. I can do it with Dalot because he is Portuguese. I can control that market pretty well. He’s a player with fantastic potential.“

No need to create fantasies to justify your dislike for Mourinho. There's plenty of reason to criticise him for our position in the table. It is a fact that Mourinho has scouted the portugese market and our purchases from that league are his recommendations.

 

[roonster09]

I know @roonster09 tried to give credit to Woodward for Dalot in his performance thread, which is just plain fantasy.

That was a sarcastic comment as Jose fans always say player wasn't his choice when they play poorly.

 

[VorZakone]

I wonder if other forums have a 116-page thread on their club's CEO.

 

[Class of 63]

Still waiting @Reddy Rederson, no rush

 

[Patrick08]

The major issue I have with Woodward is he hires questionable managers and then fails to ditch them whilst our season is salvageable! Other clubs would have acted by now, even if it meant getting in a caretaker

Seriously annoyed right now with that in mind.

 

[ravi2]

I wonder if other forums have a 116-page thread on their club's CEO.

if I had to guess I'd say probably newcastle?

 

[Giggsyking]

Ed Woodward used 1 word to describe Jurgen Klopp before appointing Jose Mourinho
Manchester United's vice-chairman approached the Liverpool to take over from David Moyes
Ed Woodward described Jurgen Klopp as a "genius" before he left Borussia Dortmund and became Liverpool's boss.

It's no secret that the Manchester United vice-chairman was a big fan of the German and tried to lure him to Old Trafford.

Woodward was keen for Klopp to takeover from David Moyes but was unsuccessful in his attempt.

According to Raphael Honigstein, in his 2017 book Klopp: Bring the Noise , Woodward apparently described United like 'an adult version of Disneyland'. Alas his attempts were futile and United instead turned to Louis van Gaal.

A year later and Klopp took over from Brendan Rodgers at Anfield.
When Klopp was still at Borussia Dortmund, Woodward told Andy Mitten: "He's a genius ... their wage bill is lower than half the clubs in the Premier League, but he’s really got a lot out of them."
Klopp later revealed why he chose Liverpool over United, and told Robbie Fowler: "I had talks with other clubs and they didn't sound like a football club. It sounded like marketing, image, you need to sign this, you need to sign that. And I thought 'wow, that's not the game I love'.

"It's all part of football, but it can not be the number one, two, three, four, priority. First of all please try to improve the game we play.

"And that's what I am good in. All the rest can happen but it's not so important for me."

 

[ClaytonBlackmoorLeftPeg]

Ed Woodward used 1 word to describe Jurgen Klopp before appointing Jose Mourinho
Manchester United's vice-chairman approached the Liverpool to take over from David Moyes
Ed Woodward described Jurgen Klopp as a "genius" before he left Borussia Dortmund and became Liverpool's boss.

It's no secret that the Manchester United vice-chairman was a big fan of the German and tried to lure him to Old Trafford.

Woodward was keen for Klopp to takeover from David Moyes but was unsuccessful in his attempt.

According to Raphael Honigstein, in his 2017 book Klopp: Bring the Noise , Woodward apparently described United like 'an adult version of Disneyland'. Alas his attempts were futile and United instead turned to Louis van Gaal.

A year later and Klopp took over from Brendan Rodgers at Anfield.
When Klopp was still at Borussia Dortmund, Woodward told Andy Mitten: "He's a genius ... their wage bill is lower than half the clubs in the Premier League, but he’s really got a lot out of them."
Klopp later revealed why he chose Liverpool over United, and told Robbie Fowler: "I had talks with other clubs and they didn't sound like a football club. It sounded like marketing, image, you need to sign this, you need to sign that. And I thought 'wow, that's not the game I love'.

"It's all part of football, but it can not be the number one, two, three, four, priority. First of all please try to improve the game we play.

"And that's what I am good in. All the rest can happen but it's not so important for me."

This is the current Liverpool Manager - he’s hardly going to say what a great opportunity Utd was, is he?! I’m surprised he’s not more negative. He’s being interviewed by a Liverpool legend, and the audience are Liverpool fans.

Context is important.

 

[Im red2]

We are still £487million in the hole. Finance charges on that alone were £24 million in 2017-18. According to the Guardian:

The six Glazer siblings who collectively own 97% of United’s voting shares were paid approximately $23m (£18m) in dividends, the third year dividends have been paid. The total paid to them and the other financial investors was £22m, following £23m in 2016-17 and £20m the previous year, a total of £65m out of the club. The salary packages paid to directors and senior executives, which includes the six Glazers, was £13m, following £12m in 2016-17 and £11m the year before. A year ago, the Glazers’ holding company, Red Football, sold 4.3m shares in Cayman Islands-registered United, for $17 per share. That is a further $73m (£56m) made by the Glazers from their heavily leveraged acquisition of a football institution.

https://www.theguardian.com/football/2018/oct/04/glazers-manchester-united

And you have the nerve to call me intellectually dishonest? This club serves now to make the Glazers rich. The club is so far removed from its traditional fan base, it might as well play home games in Miami. The Glazers don't care whose arse is on a seat as long as it's an arse.

Well said.

 

[liamp]

This is the current Liverpool Manager - he’s hardly going to say what a great opportunity Utd was, is he?! I’m surprised he’s not more negative. He’s being interviewed by a Liverpool legend, and the audience are Liverpool fans.

Context is important.

He may be exaggerating but nothing that Klopp said would be remotely surprising if it were true. If Woodward is the one selling Klopp on the club, his sell (beyond throwing piles of money at him) is probably going to gravitate towards the commercial side rather than the football side. Like, they're not going to have a nuanced discussion on the appropriateness of the current squad for gegenpressing.

 

[Alabaster Codify7]

He may be exaggerating but nothing that Klopp said would be remotely surprising if it were true. If Woodward is the one selling Klopp on the club, his sell (beyond throwing piles of money at him) is probably going to gravitate towards the commercial side rather than the football side. Like, they're not going to have a nuanced discussion on the appropriateness of the current squad for gegenpressing.

Exactly. I don't disbelieve a word of it.

 

[simonhch]

On the one hand it should be acknowledged that he has taken the job when a seasoned operator in Gill has left, and the greatest manager in British football history has retired. He also had David Moyes foisted upon him. So to be fair, an uneviable position to find himself in. He's also made an absolute fortune available to spend to every manager, and gotten feck all return for it.

But it is also clear that he has no business running the football side of operations. He has no idea of the nuances of long term football strategy, and as long as he is allowed to make decisions on managerial appointments, and player recruitment, this club is going nowhere.

He takes a lot of unfair flack, in my opinion. He is obviously a very canny operator, and from a financial perspective, the deals he has struck have been incredible. But again, he is not a football man. He shouldn't be making calls on recruitment. The club clearly need to split operations between the commerical operations and football operations, and bring in someone who spells out a long term vision for on the field success. A vision which transcends transitory managerial appointments. As much as one hates them, the model City have employed, has been excellent.

 

[Fluctuation0161]

We are still £487million in the hole. Finance charges on that alone were £24 million in 2017-18. According to the Guardian:

The six Glazer siblings who collectively own 97% of United’s voting shares were paid approximately $23m (£18m) in dividends, the third year dividends have been paid. The total paid to them and the other financial investors was £22m, following £23m in 2016-17 and £20m the previous year, a total of £65m out of the club. The salary packages paid to directors and senior executives, which includes the six Glazers, was £13m, following £12m in 2016-17 and £11m the year before. A year ago, the Glazers’ holding company, Red Football, sold 4.3m shares in Cayman Islands-registered United, for $17 per share. That is a further $73m (£56m) made by the Glazers from their heavily leveraged acquisition of a football institution.

https://www.theguardian.com/football/2018/oct/04/glazers-manchester-united

And you have the nerve to call me intellectually dishonest? This club serves now to make the Glazers rich. The club is so far removed from its traditional fan base, it might as well play home games in Miami. The Glazers don't care whose arse is on a seat as long as it's an arse.

Great post.

 

[ClaytonBlackmoorLeftPeg]

Great post.

It’s really not, and actually displays a poor understanding of debt. Do you expect ANY owner of an asset not to get paid?

If the club is now valued at more than £4bn then the club has a very low level of debt, and is not in any way highly leveraged.

Reading the figures above, the Glazers are receiving circa £20m per year in dividends - which is probably what Sanchez is earning. It’s clear that the Glazers add more value than him.

 

[clarkydaz]

This is the current Liverpool Manager - he’s hardly going to say what a great opportunity Utd was, is he?! I’m surprised he’s not more negative. He’s being interviewed by a Liverpool legend, and the audience are Liverpool fans.

Context is important.

LVG said the same thing

 

[Fluctuation0161]

It’s really not, and actually displays a poor understanding of debt. Do you expect ANY owner of an asset not to get paid?

If the club is now valued at more than £4bn then the club has a very low level of debt, and is not in any way highly leveraged.

Reading the figures above, the Glazers are receiving circa £20m per year in dividends - which is probably what Sanchez is earning. It’s clear that the Glazers add more value than him.

Disagree. With nearly all of your post. For one, it's not clear the Glazers add more value than anyone. In fact, they added debt onto the club. So take value out. Especially when considering the rapid growth in value of all top premiership clubs in recent years.

 

[Patrick08]

Disagree. With nearly all of your post. For one, it's not clear the Glazers add more value than anyone. In fact, they added debt onto the club. So take value out. Especially when considering the rapid growth in value of all top premiership clubs in recent years.

They did spend enough money in the market, so I don't blame them directly, the problem is who you spend it on and what are your plans and footballing vision forward.

 

[Dr. StrangeHate]

I always thought Woodward was an intelligent guy based purely on the fact that he became CEO of a club as big as us. How wrong was I?
This buffoon cannot see how toxic Jose is making United. Jose has taken every opportunity to shit on United and has sabotaged lineups as much as he can to make a point. He has made the whole aura around the club so defeatist that everyone associated with United is becoming numb. So much so that even current football players who are United fans can't watch us. Why would any player join United when they know a World Cup winning world class player is thrown under the bus regularly?

Yet this buffoon cannot judge the sentiment among fans. He can't order simple forum searches to gauge fan opinions. Other than Moyes, it made sense to hire LVG and Jose at the time. It wasn't ideal hiring them back to back due to the difference in styles but it was the best we could have done. However not firing Mourinho now is an unforgivable mistake and I agree with the rest of the forum that he needs to go along with Jose if the club is to progress.

 

[endless_wheelies]

I always thought Woodward was an intelligent guy based purely on the fact that he became CEO of a club as big as us. How wrong was I?
This buffoon cannot see how toxic Jose is making United. Jose has taken every opportunity to shit on United and has sabotaged lineups as much as he can to make a point. He has made the whole aura around the club so defeatist that everyone associated with United is becoming numb. So much so that even current football players who are United fans can't watch us. Why would any player join United when they know a World Cup winning world class player is thrown under the bus regularly?

Yet this buffoon cannot judge the sentiment among fans. He can't order simple forum searches to gauge fan opinions. Other than Moyes, it made sense to hire LVG and Jose at the time. It wasn't ideal hiring them back to back due to the difference in styles but it was the best we could have done. However not firing Mourinho now is an unforgivable mistake and I agree with the rest of the forum that he needs to go along with Jose if the club is to progress.

On the other hand he may just be smarter than you and therefore doesn't come to the same judgements...?

 

[MackRobinson]

Well said.

Great post.

It’s really not, and actually displays a poor understanding of debt. Do you expect ANY owner of an asset not to get paid?

If the club is now valued at more than £4bn then the club has a very low level of debt, and is not in any way highly leveraged.

Reading the figures above, the Glazers are receiving circa £20m per year in dividends - which is probably what Sanchez is earning. It’s clear that the Glazers add more value than him.

It's such a poor understanding of debt and literally I addressed it in the post directly beneath it (link). I also find it mildly amusing that Fluctuation0161 responded to that post (link), and then ignored my response (link).

I have to talk about facts (in Rafa Benitez's voice):
1) The article posted ignores that the Glazers put up £265m of their own money (still debt but the collateral is the family's assets rather than the club).
2) £65m collected in dividend payments is based on earnings or profits. It doesn't come out of thin air
3) The money raised from selling the 4.3M shares (£56m) most likely went to paying down the debt (of which the Glazer's are on the hook for £265m)

I don't care about the Glazer's (I find it hard to defend billionares), but I say all this b/c the fans are being misled by half-truths. That Guardian article is biased tripe, meant to incite a reaction out of fans rather than inform them.

P.S. - I like how the author slipped the following in, while never really thoroughly explaining why (he just mentions SAF):

This debt is more than financially manageable now

 

[ravi2]

On the other hand he may just be smarter than you and therefore doesn't come to the same judgements...?

Woodward is a top investment banker and is brilliant at making money and signing sponsors but he is terrible at making footballing decisions. He really should be delegating anything involving football to a dof so he could focus on what he does best. At this point he is hurting the club more than he is helping it.

 

[Adnan]

How do people know Woodward doesn't take advice from people with a footballing back ground before making decisions?

 

[ayushreddevil9]

How do people know Woodward doesn't take advice from people with a footballing back ground before making decisions?

We wouldn't have been in this mess if that was the case.