I would appreciate if you (and others, to be fair) would stop making this claim, as it means either that you simply are not reading any of what is being brought up in this thread, or are simply choosing to ignore the points being brought up.
There has been some excellent and well reasoned debate in this thread with those such as
@Invictus - there is quite plainly and obviously more to it than just a romantic notion of "having Giggs and the class on '92 running the club".
I wont stop making this claim until I see other real arguments for bringing him in. Because I just dont see them. I see a lot of reasons why the arguments against him are flawed. But that is not the same as a real, active reason why he is the best candidate. I have seen reasons put forward that pertain to be that, but I just dont buy them Im afraid. For example, going back to your OP.
1) Lack of Experience" & Similar Arguments. This is more a counterpoint like I said before, refuting the allegation that he is NOT up to it, rather than why, out of an open field of candidates, he is the best choice. You do mention "United Pedigree" here of course, but you come back to that again later. i.e...
2) Giggs is a proven winner who commands respect. "Giggs has won it all with United." I dont see this as a factor. Its just irrelevant. And I dont think respect as a player will necessarily translate to respect as a manager unless it is backed up by ability, which is not really dealt with in this or any subsequent point. It couldnt be, because he hasnt proved he has it yet.
3)
We do not want another lengthy "transition" after LVG. I dont see this as a factor either. Other managers have come in after LVG and done well, he has a reputation for instilling good technical and tactical understanding in his players, that can be exploited in a number of ways by any number of different managers. We had a lengthily transition after SAF because he was here for the best part of 30 years, that is not going to be the situation after LVG so we dont need to make special provisions.
4)
Giggs has learnt from the very best. As did Hughes, Bruce, Robson, Keane, Solskjaer and others. I dont see this as a reason to appoint him at all.
5)
Giggs would not be on his own. Other managers have also been known to bring in supporting staff. So again, I dont see this as a reason to appoint him, I see this as a reason not to worry about the risk of appointing him.
One you didnt put in the OP but comes up a lot is longevity but again, Giggs wont be around for 30 years unless he is successful. I think this is looking at it the wrong way round. Bring someone in, let him achieve success, and he will stick around for a good amount of time. if it isnt decades, we may have to accept that isnt the way football works anymore. We tried appointing the long term candidate before, it didnt work out. I dont think this can be used as an argument. Who knows, Mourinho could be at Chelsea for the next 15 years, its not impossible. You cant make appointments based on what may or may not happen in the future.
More generally, you dont do things because you carefully and painstakingly eliminate reasons not to do them. You have to have an active reason to do it. What is Giggs USP? The only one I see is what I said before: the romance of it - and that is not nothing. I understand the appeal of it. But it isnt enough. Look at factors 1-5 above and think about how they apply to other candidates. Other managers command respect (the ones we should be looking at anyway.) Other managers can build on the foundations that LVG lays. Other managers may not have learned from SAF but the issue is what you know, not where you learned it. And other managers would have their own support networks too.
So I say it again: I really dont think there are any really strong reasons to appoint Giggs, besides the one, and it is highly debatable how much of a reason that really is. What we have is a lot of soothing counterpoints to those who have concerns - we dont need to worry about it because x, y or z. Or, better still, other managers also come with risks. But that is surely even people who say that can see risk is not binary, not black and white. Its not either risk or no risk. Its a big risk or a smaller risk, a mitigated risk.
If other good reasons have been posted that werent outlined in your OP and are positive reasons FOR Giggs, things he has OVER his rivals, then I apologise for missing them, I have not read every post exhaustively. But yeah, for me it all comes back to what I said before. The reason people want Giggs is because it would feel great to have a club legend as manager. But that's not enough.
