United’s Worst Decisions of the Last 12 Years

[Red in STL]

Not putting somebody in with Ollie to make tactics decisions when things started to look less good because of some of Ollie`s odd decisions. Including not using subs at key times and instead flogging players who needed a refresh.

Ollie identified a key problem with the culture of United`s team - the shared English football culture that was the backbone of Sir Alex`s success and the team building that comes from it. Of course non English players are crucial but just bringing in a bunch of people with no ties to what Manchester United is supposed to be, has been behind some of the nosedive. There are still fans like me who don`t want to see United become a team which fields no locals and has no strong identity.

United`s shift away from that has brought in players who just don`t gell. There have been no identifiable leaders, too, and I`m aware a non English player can be a fantastic leader - look at Keano. But our recruitment has not been focused on bringing in people who will work together because they`re playing for Manchester United and care about it. We haven`t had any leadership qualities in our recruitment for years. Look at how Rio was - a man from Peckham, recruited from West Ham, who was as solid as a rock for years for us and also stepped up as a leader.

And bringing in Mourinho at the wrong time. Should have been given the job before if it were possible. Even then, he was blamed when the players should have been.

Rio maybe from Peckham but he wasn't recruited from West Ham

 

[Big Ben Foster]

I wonder how many of these people are considering bad decisions only in hindsight. E.g. after the FA cup win, a vast majority of fans wanted ETH to stay. Now same people are crapping on Ineos for the worst decision ever.
My point isn't to call anyone out but instead to make the point that there's a difference between a poor outcome and a poor decision.

I can assure you there were a lot of people here criticizing most of those decisions when they happened. Just because they were shouted down by the hivemind doesn't mean the outcome is only clear in hindsight.

 

[FrankWhite]

Most of these are in hindsight

Exactly.

I can assure you there were a lot of people here criticizing most of those decisions when they happened. Just because they were shouted down by the hivemind doesn't mean the outcome is only clear in hindsight.

Oh I'm sure there were such people. I was one of them in a few cases.
I didn't think Antony was worth more than Rafinha. I thought we should have signed the latter that summer.
I thought ETH should have been fired after the FA cup final.
I didn't agree with bring ronaldo back.
On the other hand, I liked the Mount move.

Right now, we're shite so all the decisions are being treated as bad.
I guess a more interesting idea for me would be,
What decisions did you think were a good idea at the time but have resulted in bad outcomes.

 

[lex talionis]

There's just one issue. It was changing a football department that was basically tailored for and around Fergie. That's bigger than anything and it required more than just finding the right manager, and we clearly had no idea how to do that. Or indeed, even that we needed to do something beyond putting another manager in place.

There never was going to be another Ferguson, but at the time Mourinho was as close it was going to get in terms of a single man who could manage the first team and identify new recruits to join the squad. There might have been others who were competent enough to do the job -- doubtful that Pep was available at the time, but perhaps he was -- but the point is that we needed a manager with a pedigree of success, even if it is undoubtedly the case that United was, and probably still is, the most difficult single managerial job in all of sports.

 

[Red in STL]

The original sin was allowing the Glazers to buy Magnier's and McManus's shares of the club, which was 2003. Every feck up since then has been small potatoes.

Shocked to learn that we dodged a bullet and avoided being owned by Jeffrey Epstein's girlfriend's dad (Maxwell) and dodged a second bullet by avoiding Rupert Murdoch. Wow.

The club was the subject of takeover bids from media tycoon Robert Maxwell in 1984 and property trader Michael Knighton in 1989, before going public in 1991; they received another takeover bid from Rupert Murdoch's BSkyB corporation in 1998 before Malcolm Glazer's stake was announced in September 2003.

By the end of 2003, Glazer had increased his shareholding from 3.17% to around 15%, which he almost doubled in the year up to October 2004. His acquisition of John Magnier and J. P. McManus's 28.7% stake in May 2005 pushed his own up to around 57%, well over the 30% threshold that would force him to launch a takeover bid. A few days later, he took control of 75% of the club's shares, allowing him to delist the company from the London Stock Exchange, and within a month, the Glazers took 98% ownership of the club via their Red Football parent company, forcing a squeeze-out of the remaining 2%. The final purchase price of the club totalled almost £800 million

The original sin was making it a PLC, that's what enabled the Glazers to buy, you can thank the government for us not having Murdoch

 

[ryansgirl]

Rio maybe from Peckham but he wasn't recruited from West Ham

That`s right, I forgot he was recruited from Leeds but at the same time it tells me a lot about players we`ve brought in since Rio that a Peckham lad can feel so much pride and passion in playing for Manchester United yet we seem to have lost out continually on his calibre of player.

As the old saying goes, the fish rots from the head. Too late to change much about the misadministration etc for years, of course a real United fan follows the team through the good times and the bad times which were plenty before Sir Alex. However, it`s the needlessness of it all that is the killer - United had the status and money to do better post Sir Alex. But as you said in a different post, when Manchester United became a PLC that was the beginning of it all.

 

[ryansgirl]

There never was going to be another Ferguson, but at the time Mourinho was as close it was going to get in terms of a single man who could manage the first team and identify new recruits to join the squad. There might have been others who were competent enough to do the job -- doubtful that Pep was available at the time, but perhaps he was -- but the point is that we needed a manager with a pedigree of success, even if it is undoubtedly the case that United was, and probably still is, the most difficult single managerial job in all of sports.

Mourinho should have followed Sir Alex and not been given the job later but wasn`t he on some watertight contract at the time or made it clear he was not interested?

 

[Amir]

Mourinho should have followed Sir Alex and not been given the job later but wasn`t he on some watertight contract at the time or made it clear he was not interested?

Oh, he was interested alright. He actually left Real Madrid that summer, but he probably already gave his word to Abramovich that was he coming back to Chelsea. Or we just weren't interested...

He would have been a better fit than Moyes, but would it have really worked? And with a novice Woodward? I have my doubts.

 

[lex talionis]

Mourinho should have followed Sir Alex and not been given the job later but wasn`t he on some watertight contract at the time or made it clear he was not interested?

There was something tangible that stood in the way of us bringing in Mourinho at that time. It definitely wasn't a straight shot at offering him a contract.

 

[Polar]

The problem with Mourinho was his short-term thinking. He didn't have big long-term ambitions and was mostly interested in keeping his head above water and maintaining his own reputation. He had no feelings for United. Only for himself.

 

[KStandBarmyArmy1993]

Oh, he was interested alright. He actually left Real Madrid that summer, but he probably already gave his word to Abramovich that was he coming back to Chelsea. Or we just weren't interested...

He would have been a better fit than Moyes, but would it have really worked? And with a novice Woodward? I have my doubts.

I'm still convinced Mourinho sensed it was Fergie's last season when we played them in the Champions League in 2013. That's why he was so complimentary about us. He was desperate for the job.

I think any agreement with Chelsea probably came after that.

 

[Amir]

There were certainly question marks over Mourinho... Just not enough to prefer Moyes over him, if that's what happened.

 

[Fr. Todd Unctious]

Will still stand by my opinion we'd be in a much better positon now if we'd gone for Jose after Fergie. He'd have been the perfect bridge to the post Ferguson era. Moyes wasn't able to handle being the man who succeeded Fergie. Jose wouldn't have beem phased by it.

 

[redshaw]

Just poor planning in the build up and after Fergie left.

I really doubt Jose coming in 2-3 years earlier than he did solves anything, we'd be in the same spot now operationally.

There was a clear example of what to do at city. We've had chances to course correct since 2015 and implement something similar. Even if we still couldn't win the title we'd be a top 3 club capable of long runs in the CL or even winning it. The prize money of taking part that we've missed out on and the worsening of our profile and marketability has been hugely damaging.

There was scope to finance a redevelopment or build a new stadium and be competitive, pay off the Glazer debt, it was down to around 300m. We should be in a strong position today. We've wasted obscene amounts on the team while the rest was left to decay and added hundreds more millions to debt doing the same thing each year.

We now have a 10-12 year hole to climb out of.

 

[Blue Llama]

The elephant in the room here is that the club allowed Sir A to piss off the owners over horse spunk placing his personal wealth above the best interests of the club.

 

[Rozay]

The elephant in the room here is that the club allowed Sir A to piss off the owners over horse spunk placing his personal wealth above the best interests of the club.

This is the event that altered the direction of travel for sure.

More recently though, I think the Mason Greenwood situation has had a severe impact on the football side of things than people realise, and one we have yet to recover from. It’s cost us huge money too, and will continue to do so, and in addition to the pure finances - it has simply made us a far weaker football team.

 

[jem]

Top of my head and in no particular order:

- hiring Moyes
- Rashford contract
- wages given to new signings like Sancho, Antony, Mount, and Casemiro
- hiring Ole full-time
- Not giving Rangnick a role in the heirarchy (and ignoring his suggestions)
- bringing back Ronaldo
- ignoring chance to sign young Haaland
- signing Sanchez
- making Maguire captain
- selling De Gea and replacing him with Onana
- giving Murtough the DOF role
- extensions to perma-crocks Jones and Shaw

I’m sure there are plenty more…

 

[ClaytonBlackmoorLeftPeg]

Moyes in the biggest one. Everything stemmed from that.

 

[Longlivekeano]

Selling the club to Glazers.

 

[RedDevilCanuck]

All the obvious ones have been stated.

It wasn't a decision, but the fate of the Greenwood, Rashford, Martial and Pogba foursome set this club back 5 years.

These four players were all immensely talented and at one point looked like our attack was set for 10 years.

Who could have imagined that all would be gone now and all completely finished as top footballers except greenwood. It's actually quite astonishing. All for different reasons.

Their replacements have been dross. On pure talent we haven't got close to these four players.

 

[Westerkerk]

Bad decisions after bad decisions just compounds the overarching problem which had roots in the Glazer takeover of course, but began to be multi-faceted after SAF retired.

United is now like a large tree, with every branch an area of concern, and every branch has multiple other branches stemming off it which represent additional problems.

Chop the whole fecking thing down and start again.

 

[Irwin99]

Just poor planning in the build up and after Fergie left.

I really doubt Jose coming in 2-3 years earlier than he did solves anything, we'd be in the same spot now operationally.

There was a clear example of what to do at city. We've had chances to course correct since 2015 and implement something similar. Even if we still couldn't win the title we'd be a top 3 club capable of long runs in the CL or even winning it. The prize money of taking part that we've missed out on and the worsening of our profile and marketability has been hugely damaging.

There was scope to finance a redevelopment or build a new stadium and be competitive, pay off the Glazer debt, it was down to around 300m. We should be in a strong position today. We've wasted obscene amounts on the team while the rest was left to decay and added hundreds more millions to debt doing the same thing each year.

We now have a 10-12 year hole to climb out of.

It always feels awkward and wrong to say this because of the absolute reverence we hold Fergie in but Jose was possibly the one manager who could have taken over that team and got it to perform at a level that was far above its ability, just like Sir Alex Ferguson had been doing. The football would have been dire and it wouldn't have been a long term solution though so I guess it doesn't matter.

People say that LvG gutted that last title winning squad but they forget where those players ended up in their careers and that they finished 7th the year before. It's actually been a long old decline since the days when we were one of the most feared teams in Europe.

 

[matherto]

It always feels awkward and wrong to say this because of the absolute reverence we hold Fergie in but Jose was possibly the one manager who could have taken over that team and got it to perform at a level that was far above its ability, just like Sir Alex Ferguson had been doing. The football would have been dire and it wouldn't have been a long term solution though so I guess it doesn't matter.

People say that LvG gutted that last title winning squad but they forget where those players ended up in their careers and that they finished 7th the year before. It's actually been a long old decline since the days when we were one of the most feared teams in Europe.

The flipside of that is potentially we're even worse off once Jose does his usual trick and fecks things up and the squad doesn't get replaced until even later when they're even more over the hill. Maybe we'd have stayed in the top 4 a bit longer but we'd be even more of a dinosaur club following it and football would've left us behind in a more brutal manner than it already did.

 

[Irwin99]

The flipside of that is potentially we're even worse off once Jose does his usual trick and fecks things up and the squad doesn't get replaced until even later when they're even more over the hill. Maybe we'd have stayed in the top 4 a bit longer but we'd be even more of a dinosaur club following it and football would've left us behind in a more brutal manner than it already did.

Yeah that's probably true. Maybe he could have squeezed another year or two out of the veterans such as Rio, Vidic, Rooney, Giggs, Evra, but it probably would have fallen apart and wouldn't have helped in the long run.

I look back to when we were at our very best and that was 06-09 and it's a testament to how great that team was that it could decline each season afterwards but still remain so competitive.

 

[FujiVice]

There's no one decision. This has been inevitable since 2005. Once these owners came in with all that debt, we were fecked.

 

[Amir]

It wasn't a decision, but the fate of the Greenwood, Rashford, Martial and Pogba foursome set this club back 5 years.

These four players were all immensely talented and at one point looked like our attack was set for 10 years.

Who could have imagined that all would be gone now and all completely finished as top footballers except greenwood. It's actually quite astonishing. All for different reasons.

Yeah, I recently thought about it. Just imagine having all that talent together. For different reasons, we weren't able to get the best out of their talent - not consistently and long term, anyway. A hard to swallow case of what could have been.

 

[Steve 007]

I think Mourinho or Ancelotti should have replaced Fergie. Mourinho might be spent now but at the time he had the ego and the squad.

 

[Chicharo]

Hiring Moyes was a mistake, but far from the worst. We had plenty of time to recover after him, especially since he barely spent any money or brought in deadwood that we later struggled to offload.
His successors had much worse decisions regarding the transfers, starting from LVG.

The biggest problem with this club is still its owners.

 

[Amity Survivor]

So many mistakes, all as bad as each other , but to get to the shitshow when Ralf was in charge and not listen to what he said , I remember hearing those interviews and wondering why no one took note and tried to rectify it, it’s mind boggling.
And that’s why nothing will change while those pony tailed cnuts are still owners .
I’m getting close to being done with it

 

[Musclehead]

The catalyst for the demise goes no further than 1 person, Ed Woodward. We can cite a lot of signings but reality is the individual who was in pure panic mode for all those decisions was 1 person. The thing about SAF, due diligence in signings. The player, the attitude, the skill level and the personality. Why that changed anyone can guess, but 1 person made those signings post SAF and 1 person brought this club to its knees. Fellaini was the start of horrible signings and usage of players.

Moyes was a 6, 7, 8 manager, it's what he is, watch, Everton will rebecome a 6,7,8 club under him, but heck, they will be happy. The guy built his reputation on defensive style and they gave him the keys to the lambo and he wouldn't drive it over 60. Can't blame the guy, he just wasn't suited to the style or makeup of the team. He took over a champion and turned into a non champion. Funny how Slott can come in and not miss a beat, seamless and elevate the team. I will say it again, due diligence in signings.

The second thing I will cite, Paul Pogba. This guy should have never been brought back. What little character he had pulled the club down. The guy had skill no doubt, just wasn't the right fit.

3rd, Mourinho, when they brought him in, he had a plan. Woodward stood in his way and enacted his stance on blocking signings. Then chose his Pogba over him. Why? Cause he was the fool who signed Pogba and unwilling to admit a mistake.

Now we continue in panic mode. The losses in merchandise sales, the improvement at City, we have been in panic mode for 12 yrs. Is Ineos going to change this? Well from what I have seen in the short term, nope. We now have a rag tag bunch of old and some new. No defined style of play. A mid field basically with an avg age over 30 in a league where anything over 25 is questionable, a captain who is more suited to a slower league, different manager after manager. Perhaps Amorim is the guy, but it will take at least 2 summer transfer windows to evolve into the team he wants if at all. Using a non league mentality and lack of understanding as to what is required to compete could be his downfall. We saw what happened and how Antony fizzled after his signing and how much was paid.

It is so disappointing to see this storied club where they are today. I would hope they can pull out of it, but I really have 0 confidence in the ownership group. We will all still wear our reds, but not sure I will buy another one until they are worthy of my money.

 

[Frostie]

Ten Hag.

Keeping him last summer was beyond ridiculous. Everyone and his dog knew he was a a dead man walking, yet United came out and doubled down on him and gave him a longer contract.

It was almost laughable they gave the clown more time, and then the inevitable happened and United lost most of their games. How do people in charge of a multibillion business miss things that obvious? Why did they extend his contract?

It baffles me, it genuinely does. Is there some kind of money laundering going on? Why on Earth would they keep such a moron in charge? Not only keep him in charge, but extend his contract. It's mind-boggling.

 

[Ace]

Ten Hag.

Keeping him last summer was beyond ridiculous. Everyone and his dog knew he was a a dead man walking, yet United came out and doubled down on him and gave him a longer contract.

It was almost laughable they gave the clown more time, and then the inevitable happened and United lost most of their games. How do people in charge of a multibillion business miss things that obvious? Why did they extend his contract?

It baffles me, it genuinely does. Is there some kind of money laundering going on? Why on Earth would they keep such a moron in charge? Not only keep him in charge, but extend his contract. It's mind-boggling.

Exactly this— he spent a literal fortune rebuilding an Ajax side from 2017 and were far worse in every position than we were when he took over. From a talent identification and transfer perspective, ten hags spell couldn’t have gone any worse.

Giving him a contract extension is peanuts in comparison to giving him close to a billion to waste on bringing in his former players and pals from the Dutch league.

 

[wolvored]

Mourinho should have followed Sir Alex and not been given the job later but wasn`t he on some watertight contract at the time or made it clear he was not interested?

Didnt the media say Charlton wasnt keen and he was on the board at the time and obviously would be listened to. It stemmed from when Mourinho was at Madrid and poked a Barcelona member of staff in the eye slyly. Somehing like that.

 

[wolvored]

I think the worst thing to happen was Ratcliffe deciding to bid for 25% of Utd. If he had kept out I am sure the leeches would have sold up to Qatar.

 

[Frostie]

I think the worst thing to happen was Ratcliffe deciding to bid for 25% of Utd. If he had kept out I am sure the leeches would have sold up to Qatar.

From an outside perspective, Scruffy Jim just wanted in to take money away. He's got no incentive or ambition to improve United, he's just a greedy man that wants to cream off the profit.

He's basically a Glazer without the daft rat-tail haircut. The guy is worth £5b and he's sacking people on £24k a year to save money.

5 billion is 5,000 million. It's hard to even imagine that number, yet he's sacking people that earn less in 12 months than he earns in 60 seconds of interest.

And he'll tell you it needs to be done.

Casemiro is OK on £350k a week, but someone on £30k a year has to be sacked.

 

[berbasloth4]

Probably not backing Jose enough. Football might have been negative but we wouldn’t be in this shite now if he stayed longer and the winning culture would still be there.

The “viruses” sold too much merchandise and after a while he has been proven right

 

[bgoodall]

One mistake was not financially backing Sir Alex so he could adequately revamp our squad during his latter years. Giving him peanuts because he could get players to play above their weight would result in weaker managers discovering just how far the squad had fallen behind. We’ve never been right since.

 

[P0GBA]

Will still stand by my opinion we'd be in a much better positon now if we'd gone for Jose after Fergie. He'd have been the perfect bridge to the post Ferguson era. Moyes wasn't able to handle being the man who succeeded Fergie. Jose wouldn't have beem phased by it.

Zlatan coming 3 years earlier would make a huge difference.

 

[ryansgirl]

Didnt the media say Charlton wasnt keen and he was on the board at the time and obviously would be listened to. It stemmed from when Mourinho was at Madrid and poked a Barcelona member of staff in the eye slyly. Somehing like that.

Wow, I never heard of that incident. In that case I understand completely why Sir Bobby and other board membes baulked at Mourinho - and it wouldn`t have been based just on that incident.