Sorry, but I still don't understand your arguments. How does the case for him being appointed have a great deal of merit? Also what is it with the uniqueness? Manchester United is not a unique club. Every club's supporters think they're special snowflakes, but in actuality we struck gold in having a manager who was successful year in and year out, and gave us no reason to sack him, that's the most reductive of facts surrounding Fergie. Just like with Sir Matt. Apart from those two, where was the uniqueness you speak of?
Does him being a great player at the club have enormous tangible implications like people suggest? Was Fergie a former United great familiar with our setup? Was Sir Matt a former United great? Was Mourinho for Chelsea? Was Clough for Forest? Was Shankly for Liverpool? Was Wenger for Arsenal? Alan Shearer learnt from Bobby Robson and was Newcastle United through and through. How did that work out in the end? Souness learnt from Shankly and Paisley and Fagan. How did that work out? They both done goofed despite being club legends.
Why does the manager have to be 'unique', or play in a way Fergie did, or have prior knowledge of the club? We chased the ghost of Sir Matt for decades until Fergie arrived. Let's not recreate the same mistake by taking shots at managers, hoping to chance on the next Fergie. The odds of that happening are desperately slim. Why not go with the proven commodity? Great managers have the ability to walk in and assume control of the club within a couple of weeks, or the entirety of the off-season at max. All this talk of familiarity and flowery uniqueness detracts from other more basic requirements which will have greater implications on the football field. Why don't you bring up more tangible reasons for appointing him, like I don't know - his ability to marshal the troops and be a charismatic leader, to articulate what he's trying to convey in a concise manner and with authority, to outmaneuver tacticians like Mourinho, Guardiola or Simeone in Europe. If those arguments have adequate merit, then I for one would be totally behind Giggs' appointment.
Another thing I don't understand is the reluctance to appreciate anti-establishment sentiments. There are managers who have worked their behinds off for years on end to get where they are today. Klopp worked almost a decade and a half, stuck by Mainz after relegation, took over Dortmund in a precarious situation, took them to the Champions League final, to get to where he is now. Jose Mourinho worked as a scout, a lowly coach in the Portuguese third division, an interpreter, an assistant, manager at Benfica, Uniao and Porto to get the Chelsea job. Diego Simeone worked at 6 different clubs in Argentina, Italy and Spain, ground out trophies and was then appointed the Atletico manager. These are managers who have earned the right to manage a club like United, or atleast be considered suitable options, with years of sacrifice and grit. Should we overlook candidates like these, even though they fit the profile, just hand it over to an ex-legend and hope for the best?
Good post as usual Invictus. I would like to respond to the points you are making here, but before I do, it is worth reiterating that I do believe Giggs would be a gamble.
But so would any other manager. I stand firm in my belief that managing a club of the stature of United is very different from managing a smaller one - the same applies to other elite clubs as they all have specific 'traits' (for lack of a better word) which do make them unique, to a degree. In United's case, this is the enormous financial juggernaut and global fanbase, and the subsequent expectations from the fans of not just winning, but playing attractive football and continuing our history and legacy of youth development (this latter one can perhaps be argued, but I for one as a United fan would like the club to continue as it has done in snapping up the very best British talent, and promoting youth prospects when possible).
The above is a different scenario to managing Real Madrid (for example), where the balance of power between manager and president is different, where the transfer policy is wildly different, and the behaviour and expectations of the fans are different. It is a different scenario to Chelsea or City, who realistically do not have the same global present (yet) as United or Madrid, do not have the same record or expectation regarding youth, etc. These are "new" clubs on the elite scene.
United
are unique (not in an egotistical "special snowflakes" sense) in that we have traditionally given our managers total control over most aspects of the club - it goes far beyond simply being the head coach or first team manager. Additionally, we have traditionally had managers who stay at the club for long periods. Obviously this is vastly assisted by having someone like Fergie who as you said, gave us no need to sack him, but realistically I would hope that most can agree that the Chelsea/Madrid model of changing manager every year is not exactly desirable. Furthermore (and this relates to my next point), this policy is a large hindrance when it comes to continuity. My view is that if we want to change manager every year, then we need a Director of Football to oversee the longer term plans, and if we are doing that, then Woodward is probably going to be redundant as the DoF role would need to be someone from a footballing background I feel - but that is really a debate for another thread.
So "continuity". This is for me the big drawback of going with a big name a-la Mourinho or Guardiola. I will pretty much repeat what I said in the OP here which is that I would expect LVG to be leaving us in 2-3 years time, and leaving the next manager with a competitive squad capable of at least challenging for the PL, probably the CL as well. If we can agree on that being the most likely case when LVG steps down, then it begs the question of whether we want someone else to come in and tear all of that down, replace the backroom staff and various other elements of the club, so that they can implement their own systems etc. This again relates to the point that we give our managers a lot of control over all aspects of the club.
Basically from this, I would hope we can agree that the most desirable situation would be for the next manager to come in after LVG and (assuming LVG has left the team in decent condition) continue to build and work with what they inherit, rather than wanting to rebuild from scratch like LVG has done?
This post is getting a bit longer than I intended so I will cut it short here. For me though, I didnt want Giggs to take over from Ferguson, and I didnt want him to take over from Moyes. It is not simply a case of wanting a club legend in charge for romantic reasons. After Fergie we needed someone experienced and a tough personality like a Mourinho or LVG to step in and steady the ship for a few years, overseeing the transition and keeping us competitive. After Moyes, we needed someone to come in for much the same reasons, but with more emphasis on immediate success. After LVG however, the situation will be a bit different I feel in that LVG will [should] be leaving a competitive team with a strong core that has several years ahead of it. At this point, we dont need someone to steady the ship, we dont need someone to oversee a tumultuous transition, we need someone to take over the foundations that LVG has left in place, and build on them. We will want/need someone who can stay for the long haul and yes, in a best case scenario be the next Ferguson or Busby. The stage is set (in my opinion) for Giggs to come in, having learnt from the best, having strong existing relationships with the club, backroom staff, players and fans etc, and to take the team that LVG leaves up to the next level.
Edit: To reiterate, this does hinge on the expectation that LVG leaves in 2-3 years and leaves the club and team in good shape, which I do think is the most likely and realistic scenario. It is also dependant on (again, a realistic scenario in my opinion) LVG/SAF/the club vouching for Giggs and actually believing he can do the job. I say that, because we as fans have very little idea of Giggs credentials (or not) as a manager, whereas those in and around the club will have a much better idea. Are the opinions of SAF and LVG infallible? Of course not, but they at least provide a basis to go on that we are not simply chucking Giggs into the hotseat and having
absolutely no idea of whether he is going to be able to cope or not.
Not a chance, too expensive for them.
