If nothing is unique to us, why do you support United?
I understand the answer to that might be by default subjective, but I do believe that every traditional club has something unique to its soul.
And whatever it is, Ferguson embodied it. That's why it worked for so long.
I disagree with his assessment as united is indeed unique. The Munich crash, the Busby babes, Ferguson, the CL final in Barcelona. That makes us unique.
However I believe being unique is not the reason why people support their football club. Else 90% of clubs would have zero support
I like it, good work.I support United because my dad and older brothers support Liverpool, and I was a contrary little shite as a child.
I support United because my dad and older brothers support Liverpool, and I was a contrary little shite as a child.
Point taken but those trophies did not have to be won under the Glazers. The men who backed Malcolm Glazer insisted on the continuation of management. A rival bid was in the works. Keith Harris had serious money behind him (Nomura). It was put to Fergie that if he would quit, the Glazer bid would die off and Nomura would simply reinstate him as manager after their takeover. There would be no debt, no leverage buyout. Fergie declined.Or the Glazers could have sacked SAF and hired a new manager. There would have been a media firestorm for a week and that would have been that. SAF's "approval" was a that of an employee going along with their boss.
He could have quit, but instead he decided to stay and won us another 5 PL titles, got us into 3 CL finals winning us 1 more CL trophy, and won the League Cup twice. He did his job.
Some damage.
By all accounts, Fergie considered it but decided it was too much of a risk.Point taken but those trophies did not have to be won under the Glazers. The men who backed Malcolm Glazer insisted on the continuation of management. A rival bid was in the works. Keith Harris had serious money behind him (Nomura). It was put to Fergie that if he would quit, the Glazer bid would die off and Nomura would simply reinstate him as manager after their takeover. There would be no debt, no leverage buyout. Fergie declined.
I remember talking to Andy Walsh who was in of those meetings. Fergie's biggest concern was other staff who's jobs may have been at risk if he had stepped down, even on a temporary basis to stop the takeover.
The ludicrous idea that ending a contract worth, 7000% the average salary for a multimillionaire octogenarian to shake the occasional hand was in any way a bad idea. Especially in the context of job cuts for normal people elsewhere. Never mind the argument about the salary being the continued price of Ferguson's defending silence over The Glazer ownership.
I was talking in just football terms.I disagree with his assessment as united is indeed unique. The Munich crash, the Busby babes, Ferguson, the CL final in Barcelona. That makes us unique.
However I believe being unique is not the reason why people support their football club. Else 90% of clubs would have zero support
Yeah, that's spot on I think to be fair.I think that was a cop-out. Fergie/Nomura could have re-hired anyone at the club whose job was at risk under the new owners. Andy Walsh told Jim White later that after he had put Harris's proposals to Fergie, he asked for time so he could consult his sons about it. That was the last thing Walsh heard about it. Fergie never had issues with the Glazers because they allowed him free reign, something he never really had under the PLC. In fact, no United manager in my time, bar Busby, has ever had the amount of control that Fergie had under the Glazers. We know from Fergie's own mouth how much he values control so I suppose he went with the Glazers bid. Interesting how, after his resignation in 2013, the Glazers never again allowed a manager such freedom of action.
I think that was a cop-out. Fergie/Nomura could have re-hired anyone at the club whose job was at risk under the new owners. Andy Walsh told Jim White later that after he had put Harris's proposals to Fergie, he asked for time so he could consult his sons about it. That was the last thing Walsh heard about it. Fergie never had issues with the Glazers because they allowed him free reign, something he never really had under the PLC. In fact, no United manager in my time, bar Busby, has ever had the amount of control that Fergie had under the Glazers. We know from Fergie's own mouth how much he values control so I suppose he went with the Glazers bid. Interesting how, after his resignation in 2013, the Glazers never again allowed a manager such freedom of action.
with Fergie running the club they didnt have to do anything, just sit back and watch the success roll in. When he left if feels like they went into overdrive on the commercial side and morphed it into their own vision, with nobody to question itThat may have been more of a Woodward thing. I think the Glazers just let Gill do his job and he gave Fergie that freedom.
Our success was diminishing while he was there and they didn't take it seriously enough.with Fergie running the club they didnt have to do anything, just sit back and watch the success roll in. When he left if feels like they went into overdrive on the commercial side and morphed it into their own vision, with nobody to question it
You're probably right there. Gill bailing at the same time as Fergie made matters worse, for us anyway. Letting that arse Woodward run things was a bloody catastrophe.That may have been more of a Woodward thing. I think the Glazers just let Gill do his job and he gave Fergie that freedom.
Our success was diminishing while he was there and they didn't take it seriously enough.
Our success was diminishing while he was there and they didn't take it seriously enough.
Europe as was the clear showing of it though, we did poorly often in it. We were a bit lucky the PL declined during that time.I think the decline of the team was clear to anything with a bit of football knowledge. But for owners who were not football people? They saw us contesting every title since 2007, winning most and losing twice only on goal difference. They saw us in the CL final as late as 2011. The success was still there, big time.
Europe as was the clear showing of it though, we did poorly often in it. We were a bit lucky the PL declined during that time.
Talk about giving a half story. 2011/12 knocked out of the group stage, winning 2 out of 6. 12/13 having an amazing easy group, lost 2, goal difference +3, getting 3 of our 3 wins by 1 goal. Losing first tie out of the group to a struggling Real Madrid.Winners 2008, Finalists 2009, lost by a small margin to Bayern in 2010 after Rafael was sent off, Finalists 2011, Group Stage exit in 2012 (OK, that was crap, but I don't think it really reflected the strength of the eam), losing to Real in 2013 after again being down to 10 men.
I don't think we did poorly in Fergie's latter years at all.
Again, the team WAS in decline. But Fergie's brilliance meant that if you were only looking at the results, you wouldn't really notice it.
Interesting approach, there's definitely truth in it.You can't be sacking staff to cut costs then pay someone over 2m a year just to be an ambassador.
Talk about giving a half story. 2011/12 knocked out of the group stage, winning 2 out of 6. 12/13 having an amazing easy group, lost 2, goal difference +3, getting 3 of our 3 wins by 1 goal. Losing first tie out of the group to a struggling Real Madrid.
The decline was very clear. We didn't have a godly squad anymore.
Yea I'm not sure what happened, but we were so unprepared when he left.Again, the decline was clear to us.
To a Glazer sitting in Florida? Probably not as much.
And anyway, Fergie retired in 2013. Even if the decline was noticed, he was gone by the day anything could have been done.
Yea I'm not sure what happened, but we were so unprepared when he left.
Gill was shite.That may have been more of a Woodward thing. I think the Glazers just let Gill do his job and he gave Fergie that freedom.
A little from column a, a little from column b.Option 1: There was no plan for his departure. Other than maybe just appoint another manager and hope for the best.
Option 2: There was some sort of plan, but then didn't go through with it. It would have been David Gill's plan, as he was CEO for quite a few years, and since he left as well maybe they decided to go a different route.
I tend to think it's Option 1. And in a way I can understand it because how can you really prepare for the departure of such a manager who was also in his role for 26 years, when you don't know when it'll happen? It's the fact that we needed so many years after Fergie to realise we need to make some real changes that's the problem.
It was declining but it didn't need too many changes. A new centre back and a new midfielder alongside a long term replacement for Van Persie was what we needed at that point.Sure the team at that time was declining. Fergie had rebuilt the team maybe 5 times. Can't expect the man to go on forever!
It will always sting how he later criticised those concerned about the club. It's crazy how each person and their concerns were completely vindicated within 9 years.
Gill was shite.
He put zero long term strategies in place. I'm convinced he left once he knew Fergie was leaving as he knew his job was going to get harder.
A little from column a, a little from column b.
I genuinely think we were sounding out Guardiola and Mourinho but both had already decided on their plans.
Once that had been confirmed, I think mass panic set in and Moyes was the easiest option to try and persuade to take on the job.
It was declining but it didn't need too many changes. A new centre back and a new midfielder alongside a long term replacement for Van Persie was what we needed at that point.
Whilst FC are struggling a tad in the 7th tier at the moment. The club has built a ground, started an academy, given players a platform to move onto professional football, started a women's team and has helped pioneer a European competition for semi professional and amateur teams across the continent. It's done OK. It has given reds a place to watch football that may have been outpriced/disengaged by top level football. Plenty of matchgoing United fans go aswell as an addition to what they watch at OT.Going go the extent of creating a breakaway club will do that for you. FC United hasn't been a roaring success by any means and has had its fair share of internal strife.
Ferguson appears to be completely vindicated about it, too.
We desperately need to stop factoring Ferguson into everything currently wrong with us. We can see the 'Rock of Gibraltar' narrative rearing its ugly head, again. For what? What is the prize for allowing such profane nonsense to pose as fact?
Ratcliffe was right to remove his ambassadorial role. It saves money, and Ferguson is a wealthy octogenarian. Also, it's consistent with the tranche of other redundancies which have rightly got our dander up. The Glazer's largesse will take time to remedy. There will be casualties.
Now, if at all ever, is the time to spout conspiratorial snippets about horses and 'hush money'.
He had a relatively easy job because Fergie was an incredible manager.I don't think Gill was shit. He wasn't a football man and he probably did well in other fields. However, I do find it funny when people talk concincingly about how things would have been better had Gill stayed after Fergie. Fergie made every CEO look good and without him Gill might have turned out just as bad as Woodward. Or atleast not much better.
As for post-Fergie, I'm sure we did try for other managers. But trying to get the best manager available isn't really a strategy and even if we ended up getting a top-class manager who would have done OK for a while, eventually we would have had to come up with something different. Like we're doing now.
Gill actually stated - and this was some years before Fergie left - that United would not repeat the mistakes of the Busby era and would actively search out Fergie's replacement from a pool of managers with experience with winning things. This from 2010: https://www.mirror.co.uk/sport/football/news/new-manchester-united-manager-david-3347240We suffered due to a lack of anyone really thinking "what's the plan for when Fergie retires." With the Glazers not really up to it, that responsibility was on Gill. He failed.
Whilst FC are struggling a tad in the 7th tier at the moment. The club has built a ground, started an academy, given players a platform to move onto professional football, started a women's team and has helped pioneer a European competition for semi professional and amateur teams across the continent. It's done OK.
Fergie's row over Rock of Gibraltar had a massive impact on the club. The end result of that was ultimately the Glazer takeover
Gill actually stated - and this was some years before Fergie left - that United would not repeat the mistakes of the Busby era and would actively search out Fergie's replacement from a pool of managers with experience with winning things. This from 2010: https://www.mirror.co.uk/sport/football/news/new-manchester-united-manager-david-3347240
Gill actually stated - and this was some years before Fergie left - that United would not repeat the mistakes of the Busby era and would actively search out Fergie's replacement from a pool of managers with experience with winning things. This from 2010: https://www.mirror.co.uk/sport/football/news/new-manchester-united-manager-david-3347240
Gill was already leaving for some UEFA or FIFA role and Fergie had to finish for his wife's sake.What business the size of Man United allows their two most important people to leave at the same time? Most businesses have a 12 month notice period for directors. The ineptitude is on the Glazers for not having this in their contracts. After Sir Alex and Gill found out they were both leaving at the same time, one of them should have stay another 12 months.
Gill was already leaving for some UEFA or FIFA role and Fergie had to finish for his wife's sake.
It wasn't possible to alter.
