Yes
Man Utd set to appoint Director of Football (when hell freezes over)
- Thread starter RedMachine03
- Start date
- Status
In a previous investor conference (I don't remember when) he also gave an example of how Liverpool still remain popular despite them not winning the league in so many years.
But how can he forsee how much sponsors would be willing to pay / how many sponsors pay at all - if we had a period of proper on the field failure. Odd statement to make.
Well, our performances last 5 years have been shit but we still sign sponsors aplenty. I guess that gives him confidence (or at least he is projecting it that way for the investors) that our commercial side is impacted minimally by our playing performances.
It's all a bit depressing, but that's my understanding of it.
Yeah no difference at all between the players Pep inherited that still play and those that play for us
This whole trope is so predictable that for your next trick i can already tell you're going to claim the only difference between Aguero, Silva, KdB ,Sterling and Young, Valencia, Mata Lingard is coaching.
That the same team that beat us to 4th by goal difference?
Amazing bunch of players. Where are they all now?Yeah he’s done a good job with funds provided. Unfortunately he just hasn’t been good enough.
Gary Neville highlighted exactly what Ed meant by this statement so if anyone needs this explaining go find he’s quotes. Nowhere is it believed we are happy to just get 4th if that was the case why even hire Mourinho?
What on Earth was he supposed to say? 'Hey fellas, we are playing like shit, and if results are not going to improve, the revenue and stock value might get lower. Give me your money now'.
That the same team that beat us to 4th by goal difference?
That one is actually confusing because it puts LVG in an amazing light.
Isn’t that err closer to the truth? Or maybe not say it in the affirmative the other way? So many easy way to give non answers if he wanted.
What is this stupidity?
The poster asked "Thing is - how is Ed so sure of this as we’ve never really been in that (poor) footballing position for a number of years" - and I replied with what he had mentioned previously.
How am I to know what is he supposed to say?
He said that with investors not fans. Investors are supposed to give you money, you are supposed to convince them that giving you money is in their best interest and will make them rich too.
Of course that he was always going to say that. Of course, that results on the pitch are related to how much money a club makes. United, Real, Barca, Bayern are the richest clubs in the world not cause people adore those cities, or the water is better there, but because those clubs have been very successful. I guess that unless Glazers are preparing to sell the club, they care a shitload about trophies, because the more trophies we win and play sexy football, the more money in longterm they are going to make.
But you say to investors, 'give me your money, you shitc**ts, and don't worry about other things'.
They are both at fault. But it’s only Ed’s fault because the managers have not delivered. If I was Ed Woodward my first appointment after Fergie would have been Mourinho but unfortunately he wasn’t making the decision when Moyes was appointmented. After Moyes it was important to get a manager who knew how to run a big club that was a natural reaction after Moyes’s failures. In hindsight that’s what he did only problem was LVG was a narcissist. However if he did his research and if we had a DOF we probably would have taken more time in finding the correct man for the criteria. After LVG’s failing it was crucial that the next guy got us the title and fast (dispite the claim we only care about top 4) so we hire the man who gets titles every two years. Again what’s wrong with that. He’s had two years of backing and there’s been no title and we weren’t even close. However he did slightly do what we expected him to do.
Just as an example, Liverpool was/is a massive club but their turnovers was equal to 3/5 of United's turnover in 2017. If investors actually think about that claim, they will start wondering.
And bear in mind that the difference between both clubs is almost exclusively down to the value of commercial deals.
Sure, but we are 2 decades away from becoming Liverpool. And most of investors won't be here on 2 decades. On short term, it probably doesn't matter how much we win, on long term it is an absolute necessity if we plan to stay one of the biggest clubs in the world. Glazers have yet to give a sign that they want to sell, so I guess they are planning on long term (and it was clear from the beginning).
Of course that investors aren't stupid. Adidas for example has clauses on reducing the money they pay to us if we miss UCL twice in a row. And I wouldn't be surprised if we have clauses on them giving us more money if we win trophies (Barca for example has clauses with Nike about it).
I think that your first sentence is wrong simply because it's a timing thing more than length one, due to their inconsistent results and presence at the top, Liverpool were never in the right place at the right time when it came to monetize their popularity, Liverpool have always been popular but marketability depends as much on where, when and how you are at a given point than it depends on popularity.
While we need to take into account when our current main deals end, the value of their replacement will depend on where we are at that time and where the potential sponsors think we will be in the years following the new deals, they rely on visibility and a positive image, our deals could easily stagnate or slightly decrease if we give the impression that we aren't going to be front liners and shareholders rely on an increase of the turnovers. That's where the Galactico come from, they were mainly a demonstration of the Real Madrid's intent in terms of standing, the most efficient sales pitch.
for what it’s worth, I agree with you.
Last edited:
They spent the vast majority of last season on the bench to Kompany and Otamendi. I don't think I imagined that at all. And we've only played two games this season.
Have Liverpool spent more than United in recent years?
Klopp has spent but got a huge fee for Countinho. He'll now be expected to deliver. I very much suspect they won't just continue to spend hundreds of millions year on year because regardless of money coming into a club through external revenue, that's just not sustainable.
Indeed. Clubs go through cycles of spending in the hope that a big summer one year results in a few years of success and less spending thereafter.
Net spent, Liverpool have spent less than us since Mourinho came here. Gross they've spent more, but they had to replace Coutinho.
Replied on that in a previous.
They were helped by Coutinho money in the 75m of VVD but they also went on and spent 50m on Keita, 43m on Fabinho and 67m for Alisson. That far exceeds Coutinho money.
They have changed their policy of aiming of average players with cheap prices and now are spending heavily and want to win.
I know you've got something going on with Liverpool but Utd fans needn't get their knickers in a twist about a team that haven't won anything in years and finished below you last season. It isn't a dead certainty that Liverpool will finish above Utd or win anything this season.
The season is very young and plenty can happen.
Oh! To get back on topic, if Jose does go the full meltdown Woodward shouldn't wait as long as the Chelsea board did to sack him. Chelsea were 1 point off relegation before the axe came. They had already lost top 4 but stuck with him for too long. In fairness to Jose this scenario is still a long way off and things can change quite quickly. If Utd win their next 4 games all this will be forgotten.
Spurs on Monday?
Maybe not.
The season is very young and plenty can happen.
Oh! To get back on topic, if Jose does go the full meltdown Woodward shouldn't wait as long as the Chelsea board did to sack him. Chelsea were 1 point off relegation before the axe came. They had already lost top 4 but stuck with him for too long. In fairness to Jose this scenario is still a long way off and things can change quite quickly. If Utd win their next 4 games all this will be forgotten.
Spurs on Monday?
Maybe not.
Since Mourinho has become our manager, Liverpool have a net spent of 154.4m pounds, while we have a net spent of 349.75m pounds. Gross spent is almost identical (430m for Liverpool, 432m for us), but Klopp had to sell the likes of Coutinho, Sakho, Allen, Benteke for big money (and many others for less money) while Mourinho sold only Blind, Schneiderlin and Memphis for 10m+ (Januzaj near to that).
On other words, we've spent much more than them, so the narrative that Liverpool are outspending us is false. They outspent us this season, cause on last two seasons they had a negative net spent, while we had a net spent of 300m in the last two seasons.
Not that net spend again. I feel like in 2020 we'll still be saying they sold Coutinho and still spending from his money.
If you're going this route be fair and say that we haven't spent much under LVG then, 100m combined in his both seasons because he sold +20 players in both summers.
Matey, if we sell Pogba and sign SMS or whoever for the same amount of money, would you say that 'hooray, we just strengthened the squad for 120m pounds' or well 'we spent nothing'? I'll bet it is the later. Net spent of course matters, you weaken the team by selling some player, in order to finance the signings of some other players.
About LVG, we had a net spent of circa 200m euros in his 2 seasons there. Liverpool had a net spent of around 90m in those two seasons. LVG sold a million players but only Di Maria brought back a lot of money, and other than him only Hernandez and Welbeck were over 10m.
One correction though, the values I provided are in Euro, not in pounds. No idea why transfermarket has them in Euro.
I was going to point to that Euro part you mentioned. I'm pretty sure LVG net spend in both seasons was about 103m combined. The rest of the players didn't cost much on selling but when you sell 20 players their sum will be high at the end.
Regarding your question, I have never looked at net spending thing in my life. I have said several times this last week that I prefer to sell Pogba for 150-200m, add that money to the budget and strengthen the whole team to be more balanced than the current situation.
The Coutinho money thing was viable when they bought Coutinho but it's illogical to think that they're still spending from this money when the sum of money they have spent since then including Coutinho is 240m. They have already got past Coutinho money.
Liverpool board have never been poor or lacked money. They were just always looking for cheap options and trying to secure high positions without spending much. They have changed their policy in last year and looked like they have no problem splashing money anymore.
We did well when the market prices were pre Neymar deal but post it and when the prices went sky high we're refusing to adapt when all clubs around us are adapting and getting used to spending 70m on names to keep the team competitive.
https://www.transfermarkt.com/manchester-united/alletransfers/verein/985
14/15 bought 195.35m, sold 48.29m. Net 146.06m
15/16 bought 156m, sold 102.07n. Net 53.93m
Total Net: 199.9m euros.
Of course, transfermarkt might be wrong. Most of players are sold/bought for 'undisclosed' sums.
Of course, they are past Coutinho money, same as Barca is past Neymar's money. But neither of them would have been able to do some of the transfers they did without selling those players they sold (unless the owner threw money in the club, which they haven't been doing). If we sell Pogba for 150m, and then sign players for 200m, we would have spent 50m, not 200m. Weakened the team by selling Pogba, strengthening by signing other players. If you just buy without selling, then you're just strengthening the team, pretty simple concept.
It doesn't work like that for sure. There's no point having a top player surrounded by dross. Overall it's better to have a well balanced team across all the pitch instead of having 2-3 great players with the rest of the team being average. You need to sell the dross, and sell useless players or players that even if they're great aren't benefiting you and replace them with more balanced options across the field.
Liverpool sold Coutinho but they now have a far, far better and more balanced team across all areas of the pitch. Baca sold Neymar but they are starting to shape into a more balanced team with great players in midfield, attack and strengthened their defense well.
Selling Pogba for 200m and adding this money to the budget, buy players in our weakness spots while getting a good CM that's not a prima donna and we'll end at far better spot than now. I'm won't resist that if the net spend thing is the only excuse. Actually it looks like a better business for, something our clueless board and CEO won't do.
We're talking for different things, man. I am talking about the money the club spends, you're talking about how well the money is spend. I agree that the money we have spent, has not been spent in a wise way, and Woodward is one of the biggest (if not the biggest) culprits about it.
No problem then.
Doubt it. Fergie performed as well under Edwards and Kenyon (though he had problems with Kenyon, unlike with Gill and Edwards) too. Hard to know how Gill would have performed with some other manager.
I made the same point a couple of weeks ago and I did had any of them "Great post". Granted that it wasn't as well written but still.
I made the same point a couple of weeks ago and I did had any of them "Great post". Granted that it wasn't as well written but still.
Did you? My apologies I must not have read them.
Well JPRouve, you are the reveloutinary vision of this post!
But great to read people understand my annoyance with the club at the moment.
Pretty sure United were set to hire a DoF last season too, I'll believe it when I see it
I made the same point a couple of weeks ago and I did had any of them "Great post". Granted that it wasn't as well written but still.
Great post.
you mean the mind behind the value signing strategy were top players like Rio, Vidic, Giggs, Ronaldo and Scholes were systematically being replaced by Smalling, Jones, Valencia, Young and Cleverley? I doubt it. Actually I think the accountant was actually a worse CEO then Woody.
So what? Would their owners have sanctioned that total spend without the Coutinho money? I suspect not since they're ran as a business like 99% of other football clubs. They had a windfall and re-invested but overall they've spent less than United have in terms of the balance sheet.
Your suggestion was that Liverpool now have some open cheque-book policy which I don't accept. Klopp has, this year been given funds to mount a title challenge. He''ll be expected to do so. I suspect he wont get mega-money next year and the board will expect a return on their investment this year - i.e. Silverware. Just because a club spends big one summer doesn't mean they will the next because it's not sustainable to throw £200 million at transfers (and another £50 million plus in contracts, agents fees etc) every summer.
They have spent 240m since they sold Coutinho. This exceeds the money sold by Coutinho and they're not going to spend it for life.
We'll see. They had a problem in GK and CB, splashed 75m on a defender and 67m on a GK. City also splashed 290m on defense and GK alone in 2.5 years under Pep away from their other spending on other areas. What they splashed on defense and GK alone is nearly equal to what Mourinho has spent in his entire reign here. If that's not a cheque book then what is it ? Even Chelsea lost Coutinho for 35 then splashed the cash on unknown GK for 75m.
The only reason if they won't spend big next summer is because they have already covered most of their weaknesses in all areas like what City did, while we have been 6 years post SAF and still have exactly same problem and weaknesses in certain positions year in year out. We have only solved the midfield issue.
That's what planned and well run clubs do. Sell unneeded players for a huge profit, splash the cash in 1 or 2 summers on all weaknesses of the team to build a nearly complete squad, then you can spend less and only on additions or luxury players the next summers. We have done nothing of that since we sacked Moyes.
We'll enter next season with exactly the same problems we have entering the current season.
He's obviously not going anywhere at the moment, but this now looks like two very big, very expensive, high-profile failed appointments that he's made. He's also now, for the first time, drawing some real criticism from sections of the press. One would assume that he'll be under some pressure to get the next appointment right.
- Status