I would prefer you post properly with a white background as opposed to the entire post being a quote.
And there was the evidence in the Express article where Moyes admitted it. So where's your evidence to the contrary?? Still waiting.
So the evidence other candidates were not considered was the fact Alex Ferguson told David Moyes you are hired?
You honestly think because Alex Ferguson personally told David Moyes he was hired is evidence that not even a single other candidate was considered.
Your logic is hilarious.
It's not a claim at all. Where did I not back this up? It was reported in many media outlets.I posted a link to one.
You seem to be suggesting no other candidates were considered. I replied to your post that you have no evidence or knowledge whether the board considered other candidates before choosing Moyes. You are delusional if you think Moyes merely stating Alex Ferguson hired him in person is evidence that not a single other candidate was considered.
An interview is not needed at the highest level. You consider several candidates and then pursue the chosen one (no pun intended).
No I didn't. Jesus, learn to read. When did I say that? I said that Fergie selected him without interviewing anyone else, not the other way round or Moyes had some say in the matter.
Your understanding of the English language
Let's see what I said:
So basically, you are inferring David Moyes was involved in the process for finding Sir Alex's successor? How else would he know whether other candidates were considered or not...
You are putting words into my mouth like a noob. Not once did I state you
said anything, read the posts accurately next time you reply! Either that or you don't know the meaning of 'infer'...
I stated you have no evidence other candidates were not considered (look up the definition of 'considered', it does not mean 'interviewed'). You replied with a link to the Moyes article and so you were inferring David Moyes is evidence that nobody else was considered. Now, in that article he did not at any point talk about the selection process therefore you must be inferring he was a part of it, why else would he be the evidence?
It's ironic you tell me to learn to read yet you don't know the meaning of 'infer', thinking it means 'said' and furthermore, you think in order to consider a candidate one must personally interview the candidate. Had you known the meaning of 'infer' and not thought it mean't 'said' then perhaps you would not be telling me to learn to read.
Yes, it is laughable. That's what makes it more if a farce cos that is what happened. I'm sure they talked about it and the considered everyone under the sun, but it's irrelevant if no-one else was approached.
If somebody else was approached then they would be the number 1 candidate. If they considered many candidates before settling on Moyes then Ferguson didn't just give Moyes the job. He did so because he and the board had sound reasoning, what is wrong with having sound reasoning for making a decision?
Furthermore, it is possible another candidate was approached however before the approach both parties signed a non-disclousre agreement. We would then never know.
Imagine United requesting an interview from Guardiola, Mourinho, Ancelotti, Klopp
I'm sure there is a wealth of information available negating the need for a personal interview. They can consider these candidates without interviewing them, it really isn't that difficult to understand.
Yes I did, and you haven't proved anything. You're just discussing semantics. What does it matter since the whole episode was such a joke?
I'm arguing semantics?
Your post suggests you fail to understand one can consider many candidates without a personal interview. You suggested the board just gave Moyes the job as evidenced by your initial reply:
Are these the same people who let SAF just give Moyes the job without an interview or seeing any other candidates?
I told you that they did not need to interview or see in person other candidates. They could have considered several candidates, analysed these candidates and then chose the one they deemed most suitable to the position.
Your logic is unbelievable. I'm not sure how it is even possible.
You obviously don't read mine properly either. And I didn't imply that, I asked what reasons were there for not sacking him.It's great our away form is better than home. But that's a major issue in itself. And who have they taken points off home and away, any of the top 10 clubs? Not nearly enough.
You said:
Has he shown anything to prove he is up to the job? I, like many others, think he has been a total failure and those backing him have not provided anything to the contrary, except blind faith.
And so I replied stating actually it isn't blind faith. You said his supporters have only blind faith therefore you must think doing well away from home is not a sign he might not be completely out of his depth, he might actually have potential to achieve the objectives next season.
He has under performed and failed to achieve his objectives this season. However let's not assume those who support him have nothing but blind faith.
And why has he cost us so many points at OT?? Maybe his negative tactics work better away from home, but at home he doesn't know how to get our team to dominate offensively or play attacking football.
Let us firstly establish counter attacking football is not a negative tactic. Building a solid defensive foundation and launching from there is not a negative tactic. The objective is still very much so to win the game of football.
Those that support him plausibly argue his counter attacking approach has been successful away from home when teams are more likely to attack in their bid to win the game however at home he hasn't implemented the same counter attacking approach. A lot of teams have been a little more cautious requiring him to take control of the game and creatively break teams down however he has struggled with this. It's a skill he must better develop, teams play differently at Old Trafford than they did at Goodison. His supporters plausibly argue he can solve this issue going into next season by learning from his own errors and even improving his coaching staff. And if he did so then he will get more points.
There is no guarantee his replacement will be successful therefore if the problems are known and solutions will likely be successfully implemented then this might tempt the board to give him a little more time. Again, in my opinion, the board must do what they think is right.
I wouldn't back the board's decision if they don't sack him. And anything less than top 4 is unacceptable, so 70 pts and lower than 4th is a failure.
You completely miss the point. It is not about sacking him because he has failed this season, it is about determining the chance of him getting top four next season (so 80 points or above to be on the safe side). If he can achieve next season's objectives and the board are confident of this then it is in their interest to keep him on.
You seem to want him punished for his failures. By your logic of focusing on this failed season neglecting what he could do next season, you would sooner have him sacked this season because he failed even if he would win the league next season and get in a new manager on the risk that manager might not even make top four next season.
When the focal point is on whether he can achieve the objectives next season then things change. If the board are confident in this after launching their inquest then despite his failures this season it makes sense to not sack a manager they are confident will successfully fulfil the required objectives next season.
Whether he can get 80 or more points next season is another debate. That's for the board to determine and I will support their decision.
I will say this, I have been left very disappointed like you. And I will be very nervous going into next season because of this season's failure. However, I do think the board want the share price to rise and so will determine whether he is the right man to lead United into next season or whether they need to pursue another manager. And they have done well so far getting many decisions right (e.g. look at the commercial growth). This is another one of those decisions they must get right.
