Mourinho to United | Officially Announced

[SirAF]

Mourinho and Zlatan, can it get any better?

Nope!

 

[Parry Gallister]

Would rather have LVG for one more year than Mou to be honest. Loved hating him at Chelsea. Can't bare to think about cheering hiim on at United. Feel like puking...

Just think about how the fans of the majority of the other clubs will feel. Could bring back the fear and hate factor, it's been gone too long.

 

[grahamo]

Nothing better than Mourinho with a point to prove....

Add to this the fact that the United job is the one he's coveted for years. He's finally got it! He wont fail. We'll win another CL within the next 3 years.

 

[Striker10]

Matthew Syed: Shameless Mourinho and his clique not fit to inherit the club that Busby built
The Portuguese may bring success in the short term, but at what cost to United’s reputation?

Matthew Syed | Columnist of the Year May 23 2016, 12:01am, The Times
http://www.thetimes.co.uk/article/m...0?shareToken=fdf7c13afacf59777230cecd95fb971d

As the story has started, so it will continue. Speculation was rife last night that the leak which revealed that Louis van Gaal was to be sacked had come directly from the camp of his putative successor. Van Gaal was not even afforded the dignity of enjoying the sweetest moment of his tenure: winning the FA Cup.

But this is the crassness that Manchester United fans must get used to as a new clique readies itself to be installed at the helm of their club. Regardless of the source of the story, it has been clear for years that José Mourinho, the man who has cast such a long shadow over Old Trafford, and his advisers, such as the loathsome Jorge Mendes, have no conception of grace or honour.

In appointing Mourinho, the Manchester United board have taken a vast gamble. The wider context is worth considering, here. The United brand has undergone corrosion of late. The owners, capitalists in tooth and claw, have sweated the club for all it is worth, reaching deals with noodle companies, alcohol brands, casinos and big pharma. They have sucked millions from the club in dividends and debt repayments, although they also had the scope to invest £250 million in deals for new players.

But they know that the club requires success to retain their cachet. The problem with David Moyes was simple: poor results. With Van Gaal, the same problem was exemplified by a failure to reach the Champions League, such a crucial component of the club’s global aspirations, and compounded by a style that was altogether too regimented and lacking in flair. It is noteworthy that United’s total of 49 goals in the Premier League this season was the lowest for more than a quarter of a century.

So now, if the leak is to be believed, the United board have thrown their lot in with one of the few managers in football who can credibly claim the mantle “proven winner”. So desperate are the club for a man who can propel them into the Champions League that they have ridden roughshod over the concerns of some directors, who have witnessed the trail of destruction that Mourinho has left in his wake at every club he has touched.

It sets up the most fascinating of social experiments. United have one of the most powerful of histories. The Munich air disaster, the tragedy that brought a nation to a standstill, still resonates down the ages. The Busby Babes, the black and white photos of those young men, so proud to wear the club’s jersey, so tragically lost on a snowy runway, remain icons to a new generation of fans.

Sir Matt Busby, a Scot who understood the importance of community and philosophy, rebuilt the club from the ashes of the runway. He dared to believe that a club, a city, could be rejuvenated. The redemptive climax of the European Cup in 1968 (with players holding the trophy aloft who had themselves been rescued from the stricken jet) is a key reason why United have such a powerful mystique. The history and the present are intertwined.

Sir Alex Ferguson understood these traditions. He was by no means perfect (this column has chronicled his excesses) but he would peer down from his office at the Cliff training ground, aware that his young players were following in historic footsteps, always emphasising a philosophy of attacking football, of youth, of width and, most importantly, the pride in the shirt. “Under his leadership, United was not just a club,” Gary Neville told me. “We felt like part of a living history.”

When Ferguson left, the club faltered. He had been there so long, the club danced so completely to his inimitable beat, that perhaps this was inevitable. The club couldn’t disentangle themselves from the dynamics of his connection to their most basic functions, just as Wilf McGuinness and Frank O’Farrell faltered in the aftermath of Busby. This is one of the problems when an institution is run with absolutism. As one colleague put it: who ever heard of Attila the Second?

Given time, however, United would have rediscovered their mojo. A new manager, sufficiently separated in space and time from Ferguson, would have brought the club back to glory. But in appointing Mourinho, the board have taken a vast gamble. They are confident that the Portuguese will improve short-term results, but what then? I sense no appetite from fans to have a manager, even a moderately successful one, who brings the club into disrepute, as he surely will.

Do we need to list his shameless antics? Do we need to chronicle the stabbing of his finger into the eye of a rival manager, the impugning of ballboys, the allegations of bias against officials (in one case, leading to death threats against a referee), the insinuations of corruption against a rival club?

At Chelsea, the players got sick of him. Like most young men, they were initially intrigued by his vanity and swayed by his ludicrous claim that the world was against them, and that they had to fight to rectify this injustice. But eventually, just like the Real Madrid players — who witnessed him getting banished from the dugout during a Copa del Rey final, storming out of the stadium without collecting his loser’s medal from the King of Spain, and then insulting the referee again in the car park — they became ashamed. The Eva Carneiro incident — wherever the truth may lie — was, in many ways, the final straw.

Given his behaviour, it is almost an afterthought to mention the insistent worry that an astonishing number of Mourinho’s signings have gone through Mendes, who has engorged himself on the expenditure of his star client. According to a story from 2014, Mourinho had made at least 12 purchases through Mendes while at Chelsea, Real Madrid and Inter Milan. It will be interesting to see if the pattern repeats at United.

Where Busby created a dynasty, Mourinho is too immature to understand the concept. The United board are effectively trading the value of a short-term uplift in results on the risk of a man whose narcissistic tendencies shame football, and could contaminate the club’s reputation. For neutrals, the dynamics are going to prove intriguing. My hunch is that United fans will come to rue the appointment of a man who stole the limelight on the very day his predecessor won the FA Cup.

Bit dramatic. He left Porto fine. He left Inter Milan fine. Chelsea have an owner who's fired plenty including gents Ancelotti, Ranieri. At Madrid, it's just not a good environment where the clubs ego is as big as Joses and you have people meddling in the background. I think it's poor to judge so soon and easy to write a sensational piece. He's done some disturbing things but I don't imagine he will try that at Old Trafford but we'll see. But going back to Madrid, look at all the crap Jose got for dropping a goalkeeper that was becoming average. Look how LVG dealt with the De Gea situation. It's a much better environment at United and probably the best kind of environment since he left Inter.

 

[Scarecrow]

Any article criticising the appointment of Mourinho based on his behaviour that neglects to balance it with comment on Ferguson's questionable behaviour over the years is not worth the paper its written on.

Did you read it?

 

[Man-United]

Nope!

I was against having Mourinho for a long time, but the more thinking about it the better it get. I think he will be perfect here and getting Ibrahimovic is a big step towards the title and get this club back to the top. A new great era to start again hopefully!

 

[spwd]

Is he really 'best for the club'? I seriously doubt it.

He's certainly "best for the club" a damn site more than wanting the cretin to stay!

 

[stevoc]

Except Rashford isn't 16, he isn't playing 40 plus games as a 16 year old, he'll be almost 19 having played less than a dozen first team matches, there's ample evidence of players playing regular football at that age without falling off a cliff before they are 30 like Rooney did. Infact Messi made his debut a good two years before Rashford did, the same with Ronaldo. Even if we look at an extreme example in Totti, a player who is still playing first team football at 39 made his debut at 16 and become a regular by the time he was 18.

So much of it is in a players genetic make up and their own discipline, Rooney is at the shallow end in both respects, Rashford isn't.

I was obviously referring to Ronaldo and Messi there mate.

I'm not saying Rashford couldn't playing 50 games a year between now and when he turns 20 and not go on to have a great career well into his 30's, as i have already said every player is different. But just because others have and can do it doesn't mean Rashford will definitely will or be able to do it.

For a club like United we really shouldn't be taking that risk with such a promising local talent. And anyway as good as he is i don't think he's quite ready yet for us to rely on him for an entire season.

 

[RetroStu]

Is he really 'best for the club'? I seriously doubt it.

Just go back to watching your black and white tv.

 

[spwd]

Matthew Syed: Shameless Mourinho and his clique not fit to inherit the club that Busby built
The Portuguese may bring success in the short term, but at what cost to United’s reputation?

Matthew Syed | Columnist of the Year May 23 2016, 12:01am, The Times
http://www.thetimes.co.uk/article/m...0?shareToken=fdf7c13afacf59777230cecd95fb971d

As the story has started, so it will continue. Speculation was rife last night that the leak which revealed that Louis van Gaal was to be sacked had come directly from the camp of his putative successor. Van Gaal was not even afforded the dignity of enjoying the sweetest moment of his tenure: winning the FA Cup.

But this is the crassness that Manchester United fans must get used to as a new clique readies itself to be installed at the helm of their club. Regardless of the source of the story, it has been clear for years that José Mourinho, the man who has cast such a long shadow over Old Trafford, and his advisers, such as the loathsome Jorge Mendes, have no conception of grace or honour.

In appointing Mourinho, the Manchester United board have taken a vast gamble. The wider context is worth considering, here. The United brand has undergone corrosion of late. The owners, capitalists in tooth and claw, have sweated the club for all it is worth, reaching deals with noodle companies, alcohol brands, casinos and big pharma. They have sucked millions from the club in dividends and debt repayments, although they also had the scope to invest £250 million in deals for new players.

But they know that the club requires success to retain their cachet. The problem with David Moyes was simple: poor results. With Van Gaal, the same problem was exemplified by a failure to reach the Champions League, such a crucial component of the club’s global aspirations, and compounded by a style that was altogether too regimented and lacking in flair. It is noteworthy that United’s total of 49 goals in the Premier League this season was the lowest for more than a quarter of a century.

So now, if the leak is to be believed, the United board have thrown their lot in with one of the few managers in football who can credibly claim the mantle “proven winner”. So desperate are the club for a man who can propel them into the Champions League that they have ridden roughshod over the concerns of some directors, who have witnessed the trail of destruction that Mourinho has left in his wake at every club he has touched.

It sets up the most fascinating of social experiments. United have one of the most powerful of histories. The Munich air disaster, the tragedy that brought a nation to a standstill, still resonates down the ages. The Busby Babes, the black and white photos of those young men, so proud to wear the club’s jersey, so tragically lost on a snowy runway, remain icons to a new generation of fans.

Sir Matt Busby, a Scot who understood the importance of community and philosophy, rebuilt the club from the ashes of the runway. He dared to believe that a club, a city, could be rejuvenated. The redemptive climax of the European Cup in 1968 (with players holding the trophy aloft who had themselves been rescued from the stricken jet) is a key reason why United have such a powerful mystique. The history and the present are intertwined.

Sir Alex Ferguson understood these traditions. He was by no means perfect (this column has chronicled his excesses) but he would peer down from his office at the Cliff training ground, aware that his young players were following in historic footsteps, always emphasising a philosophy of attacking football, of youth, of width and, most importantly, the pride in the shirt. “Under his leadership, United was not just a club,” Gary Neville told me. “We felt like part of a living history.”

When Ferguson left, the club faltered. He had been there so long, the club danced so completely to his inimitable beat, that perhaps this was inevitable. The club couldn’t disentangle themselves from the dynamics of his connection to their most basic functions, just as Wilf McGuinness and Frank O’Farrell faltered in the aftermath of Busby. This is one of the problems when an institution is run with absolutism. As one colleague put it: who ever heard of Attila the Second?

Given time, however, United would have rediscovered their mojo. A new manager, sufficiently separated in space and time from Ferguson, would have brought the club back to glory. But in appointing Mourinho, the board have taken a vast gamble. They are confident that the Portuguese will improve short-term results, but what then? I sense no appetite from fans to have a manager, even a moderately successful one, who brings the club into disrepute, as he surely will.

Do we need to list his shameless antics? Do we need to chronicle the stabbing of his finger into the eye of a rival manager, the impugning of ballboys, the allegations of bias against officials (in one case, leading to death threats against a referee), the insinuations of corruption against a rival club?

At Chelsea, the players got sick of him. Like most young men, they were initially intrigued by his vanity and swayed by his ludicrous claim that the world was against them, and that they had to fight to rectify this injustice. But eventually, just like the Real Madrid players — who witnessed him getting banished from the dugout during a Copa del Rey final, storming out of the stadium without collecting his loser’s medal from the King of Spain, and then insulting the referee again in the car park — they became ashamed. The Eva Carneiro incident — wherever the truth may lie — was, in many ways, the final straw.

Given his behaviour, it is almost an afterthought to mention the insistent worry that an astonishing number of Mourinho’s signings have gone through Mendes, who has engorged himself on the expenditure of his star client. According to a story from 2014, Mourinho had made at least 12 purchases through Mendes while at Chelsea, Real Madrid and Inter Milan. It will be interesting to see if the pattern repeats at United.

Where Busby created a dynasty, Mourinho is too immature to understand the concept. The United board are effectively trading the value of a short-term uplift in results on the risk of a man whose narcissistic tendencies shame football, and could contaminate the club’s reputation. For neutrals, the dynamics are going to prove intriguing. My hunch is that United fans will come to rue the appointment of a man who stole the limelight on the very day his predecessor won the FA Cup.

Just going by the subtitle, our reputation is in tatters at the minute because of the last 3 years and we've been laughed at by our rivals for those 3 years so it won't affect our reputation other than getting back to our reputation of winning!

 

[Ubik]

Never noticed the similarity between Jose and Clough before, watching that documentary was a bit of a "oh shit, yeah" moment.

 

[JohnnyKills]

Any article criticising the appointment of Mourinho based on his behaviour that neglects to balance it with comment on Ferguson's questionable behaviour over the years is not worth the paper its written on.

So many non-United people are just sour because we are appointing him. Keep talking about him and how he wont make it here. Its all just added ammunition for Mou.

Exactly.

From what the press are writing, you'd think Ferguson was the lovechild of Nelson Mandela and Florence Nightingale. They suggest we're this magical club that's about to be sullied, like a virgin entering an orgy.

Fact is, Ferguson was a rogue who regularly abused referees, picked fights with opposing managers and swore on national TV (in fact, judging by his remarks on Saturday, he's still doing it). Ferguson stood by a player who kung-fu kicked a bloke in the crowd and he almost drove Keegan to a nervous breakdown. And everyone loved him for it.

Mourinho is no better or worse than any other elite manager. Wenger is a disgracefully bad loser and Simeone is even worse. And anyone who thinks Guardiola was some kind of innocent party in his feud with Mourinho has been suckered in by the lazy media narrative which portrays Barca as the embodiment of footballing beauty and Madrid as a voracious empire of depravity.

One of the main things that's come out of the Mou-United saga is the appalling state of modern football journalism. Most of the hacks are completely clueless and rely on lazy, stereotypical thinking to mask their lack of contacts and credibility. Let's just ignore them and enjoy the Mourinho ride - the fact people are getting all antsy suggests they're worried about United again. Long may it continue.

 

[Uniquim]

[Mirror]

 

[RetroStu]

Exactly.

From what the press are writing, you'd think Ferguson was the lovechild of Nelson Mandela and Florence Nightingale. They suggest we're this magical club that's about to be sullied, like a virgin entering an orgy.

Fact is, Ferguson was a rogue who regularly abused referees, picked fights with opposing managers and swore on national TV (in fact, judging by his remarks on Saturday, he's still doing it). Ferguson stood by a player who kung-fu kicked a bloke in the crowd and he almost drove Keegan to a nervous breakdown. And everyone loved him for it.

Mourinho is no better or worse than any other elite manager. Wenger is a disgracefully bad loser and Simeone is even worse. And anyone who thinks Guardiola was some kind of innocent party in his feud with Mourinho has been suckered in by the lazy media narrative which portrays Barca as the embodiment of footballing beauty and Madrid as a voracious empire of depravity.

One of the main things that's come out of the Mou-United saga is the appalling state of modern football journalism. Most of the hacks are completely clueless and rely on lazy, stereotypical thinking to mask their lack of contacts and credibility. Let's just ignore them and enjoy the Mourinho ride - the fact people are getting all antsy suggests they're worried about United again. Long may it continue.

 

[mu4c_20le]

Syed doesn't really say anything new that the anti-Jose camp here hasn't already brought up. Basically just another review of his worst moments and how he isn't a long term solution, the United way, etc. The thing is, as a United fan, I crave success. I need it, and I need it now. The club needs it. We need to get back to winning ways before we forget how it feels.

 

[Fergie's gum]

What???? Gonna be gut wrenching watching Mourinho's plaster-of-paris persona crumble under the pressure of failure for the fourth time, this time as manager of our club, even in black and white.

 

[spwd]

Exactly.

From what the press are writing, you'd think Ferguson was the lovechild of Nelson Mandela and Florence Nightingale. They suggest we're this magical club that's about to be sullied, like a virgin entering an orgy.

the fact people are getting all antsy suggests they're worried about United again. Long may it continue.

 

[stubie]

So that's what John Carver is up to these days

Removal man for Jose

 

[Maradona10]

Jose is moving houses today. New house for new manager.

 

[The Man Himself]

err, just about the most reputed sports journalist around?!

Is it? That gets said about many journalist though. Anyway the article title itself means he can't be taken seriously.

 

[RDCR07]

Does anyone have a video of him running away from journalists yet?

 

[Natener]

Just going by the subtitle, our reputation is in tatters at the minute because of the last 3 years and we've been laughed at by our rivals for those 3 years so it won't affect our reputation other than getting back to our reputation of winning!

Correct. People should get off their high horses. Nobody talks about these moral reputation when you win, just like no one went on about the madrid circus when they won decima. Winning shuts everyone elses' mouth.

 

[horsechoker]

[Mirror]

Great to see him shipping players out already.

 

[evra]

I'm more concerned with Mou's commitment to attacking football, blooding youngsters and leaving a legacy than anything Syed mentioned in his article. I've always found his antics quite entertaining, it's the football that concerns me. Obviously this year has been largely insipid so it wouldn't be difficult to make an improvement, it feels like the days of winning, exciting football played with academy products are well and truly over.

 

[hobbers]

Fergie abused referees more than any other manager in the Prem era. He was arrogant and demonstrative. He lost his decorum on occasion (ie booting Beckham). He needlessly fell out with players (Stam). He turfed out journos for asking questions he didn't want to answer. He invited conspiracy theories about league fixtures and refereeing decisions. He created a siege mentality that lasted for most of his reign.

And it worked.

We could also draw similarities between Fergie and Mou's approach to big games. ie always favouring pragmatic counter attacking play rather than looking to dominate possession.

 

[Pexbo]

[Mirror]

I can see the resemblance in the left picture but the other two look nothing like him.

 

[LonelyFire]

Did you read it?

I did - the Ferguson sections are extremely tinted and the line about "this column having criticised him in the past" is arse covering of the highest calibre.

 

[Rado_N]

I can see the resemblance in the left picture but the other two look nothing like him.

 

[RDCR07]

I'm more concerned with Mou's commitment to attacking football, blooding youngsters and leaving a legacy than anything Syed mentioned in his article. I've always found his antics quite entertaining, it's the football that concerns me. Obviously this year has been largely insipid so it wouldn't be difficult to make an improvement, it feels like the days of winning, exciting football played with academy products are well and truly over.

What part of his team leading the league in quite a few seasons in terms of goals scored do you not understand?

 

[duffer]

He is a despicable, shit on stick, bus parking, eye gouging, youth ignoring anti-football man.

I can't believe you lot could support a club with him in charge.

 

[Cassidy]

He is a despicable, shit on stick, bus parking, eye gouging, youth ignoring anti-football man.

I can't believe you lot could support a club with him in charge.

 

[JB7]

He is a despicable, shit on stick, bus parking, eye gouging, youth ignoring anti-football man.

I can't believe you lot could support a club with him in charge.

You ok, bro?

 

[evra]

What part of his team leading the league in quite a few seasons in terms of goals scored do you not understand?

http://www.football365.com/news/mediawatch-louis-van-gaal-sent-e-mails-hang-him

Devil in detail
Neil Custis’ argument against the ‘myth’ that Mourinho’s teams play boring football: ‘In four of the five full seasons he has been in charge of Chelsea in the Premier League, he was in the top two for goals scored.’

That’s technically true but in 2004/05 Mourinho’s Chelsea scored 72 to Arsenal’s 87 goals, in 2006/07, they scored 64 to Manchester United’s 83 and even in the title march of 2014/15, they scored 73 goals to Manchester City’s 83. And in the anomalous 2013/14 season, their 71 goals were blown out of the water by City and Liverpool scoring over 100 times.

Oh and a very small point: He only completed five full seasons because he cocked up two others.

 

[Honest John]

It will be a two-way thing.
For Mourinho to be the making of United, United will have to be the making of him.

 

[RDCR07]

http://www.football365.com/news/mediawatch-louis-van-gaal-sent-e-mails-hang-him

Devil in detail
Neil Custis’ argument against the ‘myth’ that Mourinho’s teams play boring football: ‘In four of the five full seasons he has been in charge of Chelsea in the Premier League, he was in the top two for goals scored.’

That’s technically true but in 2004/05 Mourinho’s Chelsea scored 72 to Arsenal’s 87 goals, in 2006/07, they scored 64 to Manchester United’s 83 and even in the title march of 2014/15, they scored 73 goals to Manchester City’s 83. And in the anomalous 2013/14 season, their 71 goals were blown out of the water by City and Liverpool scoring over 100 times.

Oh and a very small point: He only completed five full seasons because he cocked up two others.

So youre just going to ignore his Inter and Madrid tenures like it didn't happen?

 

[Ubik]

Have we sold Victor Valdes yet? Just saw the clip of him scuffling with Mourinho

 

[Shark]

He is a despicable, shit on stick, bus parking, eye gouging, youth ignoring anti-football man.

I can't believe you lot could support a club with him in charge.

And he's going to wind you lot up to great lengths next season. Love it.

 

[Cassidy]

So youre just going to ignore his Inter and Madrid tenures like it didn't happen?

Of course, doesn't suit the arguement

 

[evra]

So youre just going to ignore his Inter and Madrid tenures like it didn't happen?

Of course, doesn't suit the arguement

No he did fantastically well at Inter, didn't exactly leave much of a legacy though (scorched earth policy). Real Madrid are always going to score bucket loads of goals with the ridiculous financial advantage they have and the many whipping boys in that division.

 

[Spock]

Jose is a risk we had to take, but in defense of his critics there's no doubt we're taking a risk. But the potential upside is too massive to ignore.

We know his resume, which no other active manager on the planet can match. Some might say Pep but Pep had much more talent handed to him on a gold platter handed to him than Jose has ever had and in any event Pep wasn't available.

In short, we would have been criminally insane not to bring in Jose. This should have happened three seasons ago but here we are so let's go on with it and return to our rightful place among the powers that be in club football.