Yeah, we needed another thread like this
United are the noisy neighbours
- Thread starter SAred
- Start date
It's utterly embarrassing to see those figures, knowing we've achieved comparatively so little during that time, and we're seemingly staring a huge rebuild in the face (again). We've given the wrong managers far too much backing. Feels like someone should go to jail for the state of this!
Being the noisy neighbour is not a bad place to be. Outside of structure, the one thing your club needs is hunger to succeed
That bothers me so much, Liverpool were as useless as we are until they brought Klopp which is the fruit of circumstances more than careful planning. Liverpool are exactly the kind of examples that we shouldn't follow, they are in the same bought than United under SAF, when Klopp leaves they will have the same useless executives than they did pre-Klopp.
Hmm Michael Edwards developed a very good reputation before leaving, now it could very well be because they have one of the best 2 coaches in the world who turned potential flops into world beaters (could say the same with Zorc at Dortmund) but the point remains the same. I think if we get a great coach (which we may well have done) then that is a great first step but asking him to take the entire weight of building a great team and overseeing every aspect of it's performance is probably asking too much, especially from the position he starts in.
Liverpool are the best recent example of a club that has a good amount of funding but not infinite oil money who have signed brilliantly well in line with the coaches style of play, had patience with a talented manager and reaped the rewards.
You see that's my problem what was Edwards reputation outside of Liverpool FC before Klopp arrived? Most people had no idea about who he was and Liverpool were a laughing stock that was generally between the 6th and 8th position in the PL. Things only turned for them when Klopp arrived, they are not a good example, let alone the best, unless the goal is to depend entirely on having the best head coach in the world.
How good was anyone's reputation until they did something good?
He is quite young and seems to have done a very good job unless you just imagine Klopp has done every job at Liverpool over the last few years.
No idea what your point is. Edwards had a solid track record of achievement before joining Liverpool, and was then promoted internally there as he proved himself. Contrast for example with Fletcher. Sure Klopp is core to Liverpool's success but the club was also in parallel building a coherent football decision making structure. United 100% have not. It remains to be seen if that changes. Allowing Fletcher with no badges and about 6 months actual hands on coachign experience to select managers, transfer targets etc is back to amateur hour.
You need to read the conversation you are replying to. You are arguing my point.
My point is that unless Liverpool and Edwards show any sort of competency without Klopp, I'm not using them as a reference when it comes to structure. What I think is that Klopp is the best manager in the world, that Liverpool haven't actually won a lot since 2015 and that Liverpool have been subpar outside of Klopp.
Edwards didn't had a solid track record of achievement before joining Liverpool, since when data analysts have a solid or even publicized track record?
Transfer spending is literally one of the many aspects that make a club successful.
Again, look at the infrastructure and staffing / coaching. We spend on player wages and transfers when needed but it's like a chav on a council estate owning a beemer to look flash.
The modern day Oasis would support United
Yeah.....
I agree that he is the best manager in the world. I also think it is naïve to imagine that he has done it all by himself.
According to reports, Klopp was unsure on Mo Salah and Edwards kept pushing for him, he also recommended Mane and Robertson before anyone else.
You and me are both arguing an impossible argument because none of us see the internal side of the club. You are also arguing a very unimportant point of my original post as I am sure you do not disagree with the steps to improving the clubs performance.
Hire world class manager, things all of a sudden looks good at every level.
Hire poor ones and everything looks outdated and shit.
And like you said Liverpool were laughing stock, they owners were called all sort of names for penny pinching, their transfer committee for signing shit players. What changed? The man who is leading the team and now everything looks perfect. Great owners, great transfer team and even some of the average players looked like very good players.
It is not just about billions. As much as we hate Glazers, United does spend a lot of money and our club still makes way more money than City do, but that will also change if we keep being a mid-table team, quality-wise.
Much more importantly than the billions, City has the combo of Txiki Begiristain and Pep. Of course, they wouldn't have them or the star players without the money, but money is just enabler, those two are the locomotives of their success. Alternatively, Liverpool spends even less than us and has less money but they are way better and are certainly competing because they actually spend their money even better than City.
Our problem is Glazers! And incompetent board + executives.That is the truth. It was obvious Ole was nowhere near Pep or Klopp and that our recruitement was a joke, and yet they kept at it until we totally collapsed
Much more importantly than the billions, City has the combo of Txiki Begiristain and Pep. Of course, they wouldn't have them or the star players without the money, but money is just enabler, those two are the locomotives of their success. Alternatively, Liverpool spends even less than us and has less money but they are way better and are certainly competing because they actually spend their money even better than City.
Our problem is Glazers! And incompetent board + executives.That is the truth. It was obvious Ole was nowhere near Pep or Klopp and that our recruitement was a joke, and yet they kept at it until we totally collapsed
He aspired to manage a team as good as that City team you mean
What changed in 2015 compared to 2011-2015?
I follow the backroom staff stuffs in Football so I know that Edwards impressed FSG when it came to data analysis and teamwork which is why he ended up being Klopp main outlet but it only became a thing in late 2016.
My issue with your take is that Liverpool quite obviously did things backward, they landed the best manager in the world and a little bit more than a year later changed their inoperative structure. That's not an example to follow, it's an example to not follow, because it explains why they were underperforming before hiring Klopp, they gave Klopp the same position that his predecessor had and he eventually declined it in favor of A DOF-Head coach system.
Liverpool under FSG and without Klopp are very similar to United under the Glazers without SAF. And I do think that it's important because United need to take all the wrong of FSG and realize that it applies to them, they also need to realize that there is only one Klopp and that the club needs to be able to function at an elite level without having the best or second best manager in the world, the head coach cannot be the backbone of the club.
Well Michael Edwards was promoted in 2016, that is far closer to when they actually started winning things. He was the real MVP (that is a joke).
Yes you need a very good head coach, I literally said that in my initial post. You also need to have patience with them, give them good coaches, good people in recruitment, scouting and funds for the required players. Liverpool have done all of this. As good as Klopp is and he is very, very special he is not special enough to get record breaking points, Champions League's and compete with Pep's City team all by himself. Imagining that he is would be naïve and based on the old view of Sir Alex where he ran nearly every aspect of the club.
A simple exercise for me is if you take Klopp out of Liverpool right now and put in Ten Hag I would still have a lot more confidence that their next 3 signings would be sensible and of good value than I do with us.
That's a perfect example, do the same exercise for Liverpool in 2015.
United are that one neighbour that you dont really care about
Difference of around 40 trophies says other story. So /thread
Well I think you would have to look from 2016 for obvious reasons.
That season they brought in Matip, Mane and Wijnaldum whilst making a net profit. In the next season they brought in Salah, Robertson and Van Dijk and still made a net profit.
I am not being rude but I find this utterly pointless as a discussion. We can agree to disagree.
I dont buy this idea that City are wonderful with money and we're useless. They bought a 100m attacker last summer that hasn't really worked out, so they're buying another one.
And all this investing in their academy, it was going backwards a couple of years ago. Foden is the only player of any note to ever come through it, whilst we are still churning out Premier League calibre players on a regular basis.
They're better than us because they have a blank chequebook and no accountability for the spending.
Firstly, pathetic thread.
The key is patience. Let ETH do his thing and hope the structural changes will help facilitate smarter and more long term moves.
The key is patience. Let ETH do his thing and hope the structural changes will help facilitate smarter and more long term moves.
Just wait till the UK has an issue with Abu Dabi.
As much as hate the Glazers for me Ed Woodward, excuse my poor comand of English, was the real cancer.
I don't think that they spent that badly since 2015, before that it was ridiculous. Since then they have only had a handful of flops like Aké, Torres, Mendy, Danilo and maybe Grealish.
I think they will overtake our league title tally in all our lifetimes. Luckily the CL still avoids them although I’m sure with Haaland they might do it next year.
It never stopped Liverpool signing good players when they went 30 years without a title and it never stopped City recruiting good players when they went 60 years without a title and it won't stop Newcastle either. You know why? Money is more important that anything.
It's all Klopp.. every body is singing praises when the team is winning..
Long term plan, wait for the world to move to renewable energy.
I get that we're in a pretty sad state at the moment but feck me some of you lot almost seem like you'll be disappointed when we overtake city and you don't have anything more to moan about.
We don't until the people in charge of the game turn an eye to blood money we never dominate Manchester again, simple as.
Doesn't mean we can't win a trophy here and there but we will never have a monopoly over city until football clears up it's act.
I can't agree with that. For one simple reason, United is one of the few clubs that can purchase players from the same clubs City can and that also can keep the best players if they want to. The only issue is that we have been worse when it comes to purchases and coaching players, and it's not a money issue.
Premier league calibre players on a regular basis. Such as?
You are fighting against a colossus, they are paying staff the wage we see and separate wage in secret so all the wage bill that is reported is a load of rubbish we can't compete with the true sums some of these people will be receiving.
I don't think people actually realise what other clubs are competing against and this is before Newcastle who have 10x the wealth of city's owners.
As i said we could win the league if we got it perfect like Liverpool recently but we will never with the current people in charge of both clubs ever be able to consistently come out on top year after year against City.
Think how many clubs the city group now own think of all the ways they can manipulate that to hold a monopoly on the best youngsters while giving them playing time (remember when NYC bought lampard and suddenly he was back at city on loan)
It's a very strange take, I don't think that you carefully thought about what you are writing. Let me ask you this, how many top players and managers is there in the world? How many upcoming players and managers appear every year? How many actually go or went to City?
Your point could make a little bit of sense if top level Football was built around a single dozen of players but it's not the case and the vast majority of top players or future top players do not play for City and will never play for them because you can only field 11s player at a time. So even if you considered that City can in theory bring whoever they want, in reality they can't and currently their team isn't made of incredible players or players that were unattainable, they look good because they are will coached but it's not a team of all time greats.
The reason you have sold 60000 for a Youth Cup final is because you are having an awful time with the first team so people are almost going in 'protest' or to see tomorrows future. In 1985-86 when City were going through the start of their awful 25 years the Youth Cup final was between United and City (2 legs). There were less than 8000 at Old Trafford and over 18000 at City. And yet at the time United averaged 46000 (highest) in the top division and City averaged 24000 (4th). Again, United had nothing to protest about but City had a larger crowd because they were clinging onto what they could in terms of paucity of success
The strange take is pretending unlimited wealth specifically in football won't come out on top more often then not, imo.
We aren't talking about the old days when budgets could be relatively close.