The Argument for Giggs as our Next Manager

[Xaviesta]

Top 4 is the minium expectation, I agree on that. But what if when the scenario is, in his first season he doesn't do quite well at the start but 2nd half of season he starts winning a lot with great attacking football and some convincing win against other top teams, and finally finished as 5th. Would you give him another year? It's all hypothetical, but with sentimental reason and evidence of progressive improvement over the season, I would.

There's no room for sentiment in top level football.

 

[Adebesi]

That's pretty much his point. Guardiola is good but he managed two absolutely outstanding sides, both possessing an amount of talent that we can only dream of at the moment. Which is why comparing us potentially appointing Giggs to Barcelona having appointed Guardiola back then is pointless.

Do you think Guardiola may be found out if he managed a less star-studded squad like ours?

 

[Devil may care]

There's no room for sentiment in top level football.

Exactly, it belongs in Anne Hathaway rom coms and R&B ballads, not professional sport.

 

[Siorac]

Top 4 is the minimum expectation, I agree on that. But what if when the scenario is, in his first season he doesn't do quite well at the start but 2nd half of season he starts winning a lot with great attacking football and some convincing win against other top teams, and finally finished as 5th. Would you give him another year? It's all hypothetical, but with sentimental reason and evidence of progressive improvement over the season, I would.

No.

If Van Gaal fecks up royally and finishes outside the top 3 (yes, three) in his last season, we shouldn't appoint Giggs anyway - I think even @Walrus admitted that - we should go for someone proven.

If Van Gaal does well, leaves good foundations, a well-balanced squad then why the hell would we accept Giggs taking the team backwards after it?

Look at it this way: if Van Gaal had done worse last season than Moyes, would we have kept him? Even if things had improved in the second half of the season? Would we feck, he would have been out on his arse.

 

[Siorac]

Do you think Guardiola may be found out if he managed a less star-studded squad like ours?

I don't know. Maybe, maybe not. All I'm saying is that Barcelona took far less of a risk in 2008 by appointing him than we would take by appointing Giggs.

 

[Adebesi]

I don't know. Maybe, maybe not. All I'm saying is that Barcelona took far less of a risk in 2008 by appointing him than we would take by appointing Giggs.

Yeah I definitely agree with that. Because of the squad and because of Guardiola himself as well.

But I do think its an interesting observation you made about the two teams Guardiola has managed, and the possible implications of that. I remember it being discussed a lot years ago in the various threads pitting Guardiola against Mourinho as possible SAF replacements. There was a theory that Guardiola's exploits at Barca didnt prove very much, its the other side of what you are saying. His time at Bayern hasnt really settled that particular question.

Id still take him here though.

 

[Adisa]

That is the very reason I think They have decided it will be Giggs. They want to replicate what the most successful manager of all time has done.

How does appointing Giggs replicate Sir Alex Ferguson. SAF was a proven manager when we appointed him.

 

[RedRonaldo]

Ill accept that to a certain extent, though we can get 99% of that potential gain with less risk. Its really all about the club succeeding, Giggs leading us would only be a cherry on top.

The benefit of having Giggs as manager instead of someone more established but without any former connection to the club is kind of intangible. I can see it. But if we were winning the league, competing for the CL and playing good football with someone else - Guardiola for example - would we be pining for the one that got away?

The goal here is to win football matches, the rest of it is a distraction. That being the case, I think my previous point still stands. Its an unnecessary risk to go with Giggs, in pursuit of an unlikely payoff that is not as important as just establishing ourselves back at the top - and romantic notion of what we should be doing.

That's how the club trying to do now, imo, to mitigate risk by appointing him as no.2 with view of future appointment. By this we won't be able to minimize the risk factor down to the lowest possible, but any success from the current LVG team would only increase the odds of Giggs success as our future manager. From that if payoff we will have a young manager who was brought up in United way through and through, to manage our club for next many many years.

Yes it's more about romance if I am very honest with you lot, but we won't be able to find another possible candidate to suit such romantic notion anymore, there won't be another player who could have play nearly a thousand matches for us, winning everything with us, and also happen to be in our coaching team too, experiencing every up and down with us for the past 2 decades. It's now or never.

 

[devilish]

Top 4 is the minimum expectation, I agree on that. But what if when the scenario is, in his first season he doesn't do quite well at the start but 2nd half of season he starts winning a lot with great attacking football and some convincing win against other top teams, and finally finished as 5th. Would you give him another year? It's all hypothetical, but with sentimental reason and evidence of progressive improvement over the season, I would.

He shouldn't start badly because he's been at the club since forever. That's the argument behind the 'continuity', 'the United way' and how thanks to Ryan Giggs the players wouldn't have the need to pass from a transition period in the first place. Also Guardiola won stuff in his first season, surely Ryan Giggs can get us to 4th place can he?

That's the problem with the Giggs loyalists. You can't come out with arguments only to pull them away once they don't fit the agenda anymore. If Giggs brings continuity than there will be no transition period needed. Also considering that Guardiola is the banner that allows managerial experience and a good CV to be ignored that we must expect Giggs to be as successful as Guardiola did (or at least reach the minimum requirements set). Surely Giggs can be worse off than Guardiola, else we can cut the chase and employ the latter instead.

 

[Adebesi]

That's how the club trying to do now, imo, to mitigate risk by appointing him as no.2 with view of future appointment. By this we won't be able to minimize the risk factor down to the lowest possible, but any success from the current LVG team would only increase the odds of Giggs success as our future manager.

The flaw here, as I see it, is that it is very different assisting someone who is experienced, to actually being the one making the decisions yourself. I dont think you can know how that step up will be unless you actually do it.

I am no expert on this. But in my heart I suspect youd learn more by managing Altrincham yourself than being our assistant manager. Both will teach you different things. Being assistant manager is not worthless. But I would really like to see him go and do it himself.

From that if payoff we will have a young manager who was brought up in United way through and through, to manage our club for next many many years.

What is The United Way though? Is it The SAF Way? In which case, what good is studying LVG? It cant be LVG's way can it? That is surely not The United Way?

I myself believe there is no such thing as The United Way. And if there is, and we are beholden to it (wingers, 442) we are operating at a disadvantage.

Yes it's more about romance if I am very honest with you lot, but we won't be able to find another possible candidate to suit such romantic notion anymore, there won't be another player who could have play nearly a thousand matches for us, winning everything with us, and also happen to be in our coaching team too, experiencing every up and down with us for the past 2 decades. It's now or never.

Never hopefully.

But I understand exactly where you are coming from with this last bit - its the only bit of the pro-Giggs argument I do understand, or do not find intellectually weak.

Edit: Actually, I dont mean that about never. I dont hope Giggs never manages us. I just hope we dont ever make this gamble. Id like to see Giggs go and spend the next 10 years of his life managing a variety of other clubs and distinguishing himself, before returning to us in his 50s, an experienced and confident manager, and then spending another 10 years or so with us.

 

[Rory 7]

That's pretty much his point. Guardiola is good but he managed two absolutely outstanding sides, both possessing an amount of talent that we can only dream of at the moment. Which is why comparing us potentially appointing Giggs to Barcelona having appointed Guardiola back then is pointless.

I agree with that. Comparing the Giggs appointment to Pep is irrelevant.

 

[RedFish]

I've noticed a number of times that Paul Hayward (Telegraph) is promoting the view that 'Giggs + class of 92' is the best solution . Do the pro-Giggs posters here agree with Hayward that if Giggs were to be appointed, that he should surround himself with the CO92?

In my opinion, if Giggs were to get the hot seat, it's essential that he has the very best coaches at his disposal to support his inexperience, and not Neville, Scholes, Butt etc. If people like Meulensteen, or a Stuivenberg, or a Hoek, i.e. people who specialise in coaching, don't make up the backroom staff, then God help us.

Agreed without reservation. Giggs can lead and manage, the others will be specialist coaches. It is in this combination that I think this could really work.

 

[Nighteyes]

There's no room for sentiment in top level football.

Why not?

 

[RedRonaldo]

No.

If Van Gaal fecks up royally and finishes outside the top 3 (yes, three) in his last season, we shouldn't appoint Giggs anyway - I think even @Walrus admitted that - we should go for someone proven.

If Van Gaal does well, leaves good foundations, a well-balanced squad then why the hell would we accept Giggs taking the team backwards after it?

Look at it this way: if Van Gaal had done worse last season than Moyes, would we have kept him? Even if things had improved in the second half of the season? Would we feck, he would have been out on his arse.

Look if LVG feck up no way we should appoint Giggs, I've made myself clear here. What I am saying is, top 4 is the normal minimum expectation, with Giggs in charge, I don't mind to give him a wild card should he finished 5th in his first season, as long as he could lead the team to play high tempo attacking football and show evidence of progressive improvement. When I mean by progressive improvement, I mean there's real chance his 2nd season is likely to be a very good one, and the longer the better.

 

[RedFish]

http://www.manchestereveningnews.co...hester-united-beckham-ferguson-giggs-10210152

 

[Red Dreams]

How does appointing Giggs replicate Sir Alex Ferguson. SAF was a proven manager when we appointed him.

I think they do not want to lose the continuity, the methods, structure example the youth system. No. You cannot replicate Fergie. But you can ensure what he did not be lost. But even so you can only go so far. Because in the end Fergie's success was also due to how the man thought. His personality and presence.

 

[RedRonaldo]

He shouldn't start badly because he's been at the club since forever. That's the argument behind the 'continuity', 'the United way' and how thanks to Ryan Giggs the players wouldn't have the need to pass from a transition period in the first place. Also Guardiola won stuff in his first season, surely Ryan Giggs can get us to 4th place can he?

That's the problem with the Giggs loyalists. You can't come out with arguments only to pull them away once they don't fit the agenda anymore. If Giggs brings continuity than there will be no transition period needed. Also considering that Guardiola is the banner that allows managerial experience and a good CV to be ignored that we must expect Giggs to be as successful as Guardiola did (or at least reach the minimum requirements set). Surely Giggs can be worse off than Guardiola, else we can cut the chase and employ the latter instead.

I am being realistic with all possible scenario/outcomes with Giggs appointment. If we go through all normal procedure in selection criteria, he won't cut it, as simple as that. If we decide to take risk on him, it's also unrealistic to stand so strict on minimum requirements set too, especially in his first year, if we are very honest with our early intention. The potential benefit is there, we either go for it or we won't, but can we take all these risks to achieve such goal, that's the toughest question. I could already imagine should he fail marginally in his first year, the money people of our club would all want him out, whereas the football people would mostly likely ask for patience and to give him another year of settling time, and he would probably get another year.

 

[Siorac]

I am being realistic with all possible scenario/outcomes with Giggs appointment. If we go through all normal procedure in selection criteria, he won't cut it, as simple as that. If we decide to take risk on him, it's also unrealistic to stand so strict on minimum requirements set too, especially in his first year, if we are very honest with our early intention. The potential benefit is there, we either go for it or we won't, but can we take all these risks to achieve such goal, that's the toughest question. I could already imagine should he fail marginally in his first year, the money people of our club would all want him out, whereas the football people would mostly likely ask for patience and to give him another year of settling time, and he would probably get another year.

Basically, you're saying that there's absolutely no logical reason for appointing him and that we should lower our expectations if he gets the job.

That doesn't sound very good to me, to be honest.

 

[devilish]

I am being realistic with all possible scenario/outcomes with Giggs appointment. If we go through all normal procedure in selection criteria, he won't cut it, as simple as that. If we decide to take risk on him, it's also unrealistic to stand so strict on minimum requirements set too, especially in his first year, if we are very honest with our early intention. The potential benefit is there, we either go for it or we won't, but can we take all these risks to achieve such goal, that's the toughest question. I could already imagine should he fail marginally in his first year, the money people of our club would all want him out, whereas the football people would mostly likely ask for patience and to give him another year of settling time, and he would probably get another year.

I still struggle to understand what are the positives about this TBH. Its risky, expectations has to go down, if shit hits fan it would be a PR nightmare to sack him.....Seriously we're better off without him

 

[An Irish Red]

That is the very reason I think They have decided it will be Giggs. They want to replicate what the most successful manager of all time has done.

Alex Ferguson wasn't successful because of his longevity though, he was successful because he was a footballing genius and one of the best of all time. The longevity was a consequence of the fact that no board anywhere in the world would have been stupid enough to sack what he became.

This idea that giving a manager time will always end up well was proven spectacularly wrong with Moyes. Why make the same mistake with an even less qualified manager?

 

[itso 7]

I am being realistic with all possible scenario/outcomes with Giggs appointment. If we go through all normal procedure in selection criteria, he won't cut it, as simple as that. If we decide to take risk on him, it's also unrealistic to stand so strict on minimum requirements set too, especially in his first year, if we are very honest with our early intention. The potential benefit is there, we either go for it or we won't, but can we take all these risks to achieve such goal, that's the toughest question. I could already imagine should he fail marginally in his first year, the money people of our club would all want him out, whereas the football people would mostly likely ask for patience and to give him another year of settling time, and he would probably get another year.

You know he is not the best and surely the money men will know it too plus there will always be a better qualified option that would be available. Under these circumstances I don't see him getting another year because those in control wouldn't have wanted him but for the political maneuverings we are witnessing from Fergie and the Co92, there is no consensus on his appointment and this will torpedo his chances of success. This would be his one and only shot, if he fecks it up that's it, why take it now when he could spend the next five years perfecting his craft and building up a managerial reputation?

 

[NJM78]

I hope not to be honest. I love Giggs, my favorite player of all time, Welsh, born in the same hospital as me too!

Just feel if he is learning the 'philosophy project' from van Gaal will he continue to bore us to death once LvG leaves. He needs a job elsewhere first imo.

 

[Red Dreams]

Alex Ferguson wasn't successful because of his longevity though, he was successful because he was a footballing genius and one of the best of all time. The longevity was a consequence of the fact that no board anywhere in the world would have been stupid enough to sack what he became.

This idea that giving a manager time will always end up well was proven spectacularly wrong with Moyes. Why make the same mistake with an even less qualified manager?

This is true. You just cannot find anyone to replace him. I just thought of Iron Man. the guy in the suit doing all these incredible things. If all the structures and methods Fergie used were the suit, if we get just anyone who does not know how to use that suit, we can have serious issues. Thus I believe the attempt to mold his 'pupil' Giggs and fit him into that suit. But then no two people think exactly alike. Obviously some key people see things in Giggs to persuade them, he could be the man.

 

[itso 7]

Basically, you're saying that there's absolutely no logical reason for appointing him and that we should lower our expectations if he gets the job.

That doesn't sound very good to me, to be honest.

I have long suspected that those in the pro Giggs camp subconsciously have a very low opinion of Giggs' abilities, this is why;
i) they don't want him to go out and prove his suitability because they fear he will fail.
ii) they want us to cuddle him treat him with kid gloves and you hear this in the ' let's surround him with specialist coaches because he is inexperienced' and
iii) they demand that we lower expectations and give him time.
My take on this is this is the deep end, if you can't keep up you drown - there is no middle ground. So his chance will come, maybe sooner that anyone thinks possible but he ought to be very careful in deciding when to take it because the consequences of a poor season to a manager are very different from those to a player and second chances aren't available at this level.

 

[Walrus]

I've noticed a number of times that Paul Hayward (Telegraph) is promoting the view that 'Giggs + class of 92' is the best solution . Do the pro-Giggs posters here agree with Hayward that if Giggs were to be appointed, that he should surround himself with the CO92?

In my opinion, if Giggs were to get the hot seat, it's essential that he has the very best coaches at his disposal to support his inexperience, and not Neville, Scholes, Butt etc. If people like Meulensteen, or a Stuivenberg, or a Hoek, i.e. people who specialise in coaching, don't make up the backroom staff, then God help us.

I agree (with you) - Giggs requires an experienced and successful backroom staff, namely the one he should already be inheriting from LVG/SAF. Their experience and advice having coached title winning sides would be invaluable.

Having said that, I wouldnt object to some roles being given to other CO92 members - Butt is already doing coaching, Neville has shown from his media work that he has an excellent tactical understanding of games, and Scholes - well, if he can pass on just 10% of his own knowledge to some of our players then it would be worth having him around. These would be peripheral appointments however. The core of the backroom staff must be retained, and I would also suggest that having an experienced Assistant Manager (the likes of Phelan or Meulensteen) would be very beneficial as well.

Once Giggs is settled in and established himself, then we can start filling the ranks up with ex-players if we really want (although I do think that Neville and Scholes would have a lot to offer).

If Van Gaal fecks up royally and finishes outside the top 3 (yes, three) in his last season, we shouldn't appoint Giggs anyway - I think even @Walrus admitted that - we should go for someone proven.

If Van Gaal does well, leaves good foundations, a well-balanced squad then why the hell would we accept Giggs taking the team backwards after it?

I did indeed say that; the context and circumstance must be right for Giggs to take over. I believe it will be - that LVG is by his own words building a team for the next manager, that we will have a high quality squad with potential to improve further. As you said, the foundations must be in place.

 

[Red Dreams]

Think the idea of the Class of 92 is really about accessing a database of key players/some of whom are staff now, drawing on their experiences in how things were done.

Not about managing by committee.

 

[RedChip]

That is the very reason I think They have decided it will be Giggs. They want to replicate what the most successful manager of all time has done.

It is stupid even trying; SAF long success was just him and his exceptional abilities. It was not a model that can be replicated without him. If they want to replicate a model, they should look to other elite sports businesses; Bayern in particular is good example.

 

[Devil may care]

http://www.manchestereveningnews.co...hester-united-beckham-ferguson-giggs-10210152

Has to be a City fan, this agenda to get us to appoint the worst possible choice is sickening.

 

[Devil may care]

Think the idea of the Class of 92 is really about accessing a database of key players/some of whom are staff now, drawing on their experiences in how things were done.

Not about managing by committee.

Things are no longer done how it was in their day, we need to move forward as the game evolves, the class of '92 are all stuck in the past and bar Gaz show how clueless and outdated they are with their punditry most weekends.

 

[Chesterlestreet]

I'm curious as to what people actually think when it comes to this thing. For instance:

* Do people think the likes of LVG and Fergie are just throwing out their personal opinions about Giggs?

* Do people think the likes of LVG and Fergie are just being polite, or just bigging up a bloke they happen to like on a personal level - rather than throwing out their actual opinions on said bloke's managerial potential?

* Do people think our decision makers are gamblers?

* Do people think our decision makers are clowns?

* Do people think our owners don't really give a shit about what happens at the club as long as we keep qualifying for the CL?

* Do people think our owners are romantics - and that they like the idea of Giggs as a manager so much that they're willing to lose money on having him in charge?

* Do people think the owners are - wrongfully, insanely - convinced that Giggs will turn out to be a manager good enough to conquer the world?

* Do people think at all?

* Do people think Eboue should be part of this equation?

Just a few - out of many - questions one may ask.

 

[Walrus]

Things are no longer done how it was in their day, we need to move forward as the game evolves, the class of '92 are all stuck in the past and bar Gaz show how clueless and outdated they are with their punditry most weekends.

Yeah, I certainly wouldnt want them involved (bar Neville) in the tactical input. Thats probably why its better initially to just keep them out of the club altogether - dont want them constantly chatting in Giggs' ear about what he should be doing.

Let Giggs inherit the experienced and successful backroom staff left to him, find him a really experienced AM, and then we can integrate some of the CO92 in later years if we want.

 

[Walrus]

@Chesterlestreet I think our owners will make an appointment on merit, not romanticism. I also think that they/those inside the club can - like me - see merit in appointing Giggs over some of the other names touted about.

 

[Devil may care]

Yeah, I certainly wouldnt want them involved (bar Neville) in the tactical input. Thats probably why its better initially to just keep them out of the club altogether - dont want them constantly chatting in Giggs' ear about what he should be doing.

Let Giggs inherit the experienced and successful backroom staff left to him, find him a really experienced AM, and then we can integrate some of the CO92 in later years if we want.

I don't want any of them near the football side of the club, we need to break away from the past and move forward like Arsenal did when they got Wenger in and he changed things there with a whole new way of playing and operating. Giggs and co should be used as Ambassadors and for charity matches and UNICEF stuff along with Beckham.

 

[Walrus]

I don't want any of them near the football side of the club, we need to break away from the past and move forward like Arsenal did when they got Wenger in and he changed things there with a whole new way of playing and operating. Giggs and co should be used as Ambassadors and for charity matches and UNICEF stuff along with Beckham.

Well whether you like it or not, Giggs is already involved in the football side, as is Butt.

The notion that just because they played a decade ago that they must all be dinosaurs who dont even know the "new" back pass rule, is silly. Giggs, Neville and Butt all have their coaching badges, and have been involved in coaching (whether United or England) for years. What have they done for you to assume that they are living in the past?

To say that you dont want ex-players of the quality of Beckham or Scholes involved at all in the football side of the club, is equally silly. We are talking about two of the finest players of their generation. I certainly dont want them involved in tactics and more high level stuff. But as technical coaches, they have a huge amount of personal experience and knowledge to pass on.

 

[Red Dreams]

except in the case of Arsenal, they had been struggling.

 

[Ramshock]

And to prove your own point you predict that Liverpool still won't dine at the top transfer table. I'm not saying you're wrong but it's nicely ironic.

I didn't predict anything really. I gave my own opinion and how things might go. Of course Ryan Giggs might turn out to be the best manager of all time or might turn out to be the worst. It's more unpredictable as he's new to the role (or will be) but this is part of the issue too.

My opinions and ideas are simply that and subject to change when new information or evidence arrives, as everyone's should be, but it'd be a terribly dull forum if nobody was allowed opinions on these things until after they have already happened wouldn't it?

I'm curious though. As the person in charge of appointing a new manager at United, hypothetically, would anyone pick Giggs if any of those other, proven world class managers were available? I certainly would not and this is why my opinion is that this could be a very bad (and potentially very damaging) situation in our near future.

The difference between what I said and yours is quite stark. Im going on several years of John Henry having control of Liverpool, you are going on four games that Ryan Giggs had.

 

[Red Dreams]

Well whether you like it or not, Giggs is already involved in the football side, as is Butt.

The notion that just because they played a decade ago that they must all be dinosaurs who dont even know the "new" back pass rule, is silly. Giggs, Neville and Butt all have their coaching badges, and have been involved in coaching (whether United or England) for years. What have they done for you to assume that they are living in the past?

To say that you dont want ex-players of the quality of Beckham or Scholes involved at all in the football side of the club, is equally silly. We are talking about two of the finest players of their generation. I certainly dont want them involved in tactics and more high level stuff. But as technical coaches, they have a huge amount of personal experience and knowledge to pass on.

I don't see the involvement of the Class of 92 as being negative at all. IF Giggs is the manager, he would obviously have very experienced people in key positions with him. No harm though can come of having the class of 92 around. Personally I am neutral as to Giggs being the next manager. I just think he may be. I think the appointment of Van Gaal/Giggs was a long term appointment. Phase One being van Gaal...Two being Giggs.

 

[afrocentricity]

I've noticed a number of times that Paul Hayward (Telegraph) is promoting the view that 'Giggs + class of 92' is the best solution . Do the pro-Giggs posters here agree with Hayward that if Giggs were to be appointed, that he should surround himself with the CO92?

In my opinion, if Giggs were to get the hot seat, it's essential that he has the very best coaches at his disposal to support his inexperience, and not Neville, Scholes, Butt etc. If people like Meulensteen, or a Stuivenberg, or a Hoek, i.e. people who specialise in coaching, don't make up the backroom staff, then God help us.

Agree with you mate, that's a nightmare scenario akin to Moyes sacking off the backroom staff as soon as he got the job... Recipe for disaster.

 

[Adebesi]

I have long suspected that those in the pro Giggs camp subconsciously have a very low opinion of Giggs' abilities, this is why;
i) they don't want him to go out and prove his suitability because they fear he will fail.
ii) they want us to cuddle him treat him with kid gloves and you hear this in the ' let's surround him with specialist coaches because he is inexperienced' and
iii) they demand that we lower expectations and give him time.
My take on this is this is the deep end, if you can't keep up you drown - there is no middle ground. So his chance will come, maybe sooner that anyone thinks possible but he ought to be very careful in deciding when to take it because the consequences of a poor season to a manager are very different from those to a player and second chances aren't available at this level.

I think our fans in particular are seduced by these kinds of grand and romantic narrative, big events, long serving and era defining managers, heroes like Cantona and Best, obviously the big tragedy in our history adds to it. We have a keen sense of the history of the club and Giggs becoming manager would be another astonishing chapter in that.

I would say the pro Giggs crowd should accept these things happen organically, if you try to force it it won't work. But I guess they would say to me that the people who achieve the biggest things often have to make a leap of faith. But yeah, the reason they want Giggs isn't because of his abiities, which is why they might downplay expectations. It's because they want that chapter of our history to be written.

 

[Walrus]

I don't see the involvement of the Class of 92 as being negative at all. IF Giggs is the manager, he would obviously have very experienced people in key positions with him. No harm though can come of having the class of 92 around.

I am a big supporter of Giggs (obviously) but even I acknowledge that he is inexperienced and needs to find his own style, his own path, his own methods. My concern with having the rest of the CO92 involved right off the bat is that it will become a case of "too many cooks spoil the broth". There needs to be no doubt or confusion as to who is in charge, who is accountable, and who is the decision maker.

Once Giggs is settled, by all means bring in the boys, but wait until he has found his feet.