Why are United board/owners so slow to act?

caid said:
Every other club board without exception would have sacked him by christmas. Maybe they're all wrong and we were right to give him till the end of the season but what good did it do? It made him a laughing stock, completely demoralised everyone involved with the club, created a toxic atmosphere with weekly leaks about who's fault it was and what an amateurish clown everyone was and every performance was worse than the last.
When Paddy Power are sending the grim reaper to sit behind your manager for a match and opposition supporters are putting up statues of your manager you've waited too long to act.
Click to expand...

No they would not
 
They are slow to react because:

1- What is their motivation to react? As shit as we have been under Ole, i dont think our league finishes affect the Glazer's opinions. The club is generating revenue because of its brand name, and because of the league its in. We are able to qualify for the CL.

2. Also, the fans won't turn on Ole. We saw how the purse was opened up after the protests at the Liverpool game. The glazers hate bad PR and they want to try to reassure the fans. So if there will be massive unrest and boycotting games, a change could happen quickly. But its not in the nature of this club's fans to turn on players and managers like they do at Madrid, Barcelona etc.

3. Its the fact that they are reacting. Its not like there is a plan, or a target that they have in mind. They just react to move from one catastrophe to the next. See how they gave Ole his contract after PSG without waiting for the season to finish to assess.

To plan and act quickly are traits of an ambitious club that wont accept mediocrity and strives for success. This is not what our owners priorities are.
 
Look the answer isn't complicated. It simply doesn't make any sense from a business perspective.

He just recently signed a new contract, which entitles him to a severance fee and compensation. A replacement would have to be brought in, and right now potential targets are still in the job, which means we need to pay a transfer fee or compensation fee to his club as well. In addition to that almost all of the coaching staff are on new deals which also requires them to be compensated as Ole's penchant for delegating means nothing changes with the same staff. Then you have to pay to get the new manager's preferred staff choices. That alone is going to be costly.

As long as Ole has a chance of progressing through the CL and achieving top 4 it is bad business to sack him for the owners - that doesn't mean it won't happen, but that is really all there is to it - you don't need all these elaborate conspiracy theories. If we keep losing he will get sacked, because the prospect - not mathematical reality BTW- of losing out on CL participation money is untenable and would be far more costly than a total revamp. That is all there is to it. We are very close to that point now - if we're not already there.

Unless things dramatically improve he and his entire coaching staff is gone by Christmas.
 
Last edited:
steffyr2 said:
No, it's more due to neglect of that position. Presumably the club knew how much they had to spend. They chose not to spend it on a midfielder.
It's good that Fletcher walks between the training ground and the analysts office. What good comes from that?
Click to expand...
No, there were no targets available within the budget. Plain and simple.
 
I know this may sound harsh but I also to an extent blame our matchgoing fans. They still sing for Ole when Real Madrid or Barca fans would just leave and boo the team to oblivion. We are nostalgic merchants and glazers capitalize on that. Some so called "top reds" would rather preserve the past by cheering for Ole than protecting the club's interest. No one is bigger than the club, not even Ole or even sir alex. But for some top reds Ole is Manchester United.
 
Champ said:
Considering the conversation was exclusively about Darren Fletcher's role, I will talk about him exclusively.
His job wasn't a 'typical' job, it's not a traditional role in the grand scheme of things.
Which I find ironic, as several people on here claim that United are stuck in the Sir Alex ways and in the past. Yet here is a new analysist role which is a modern appointment yet it's being slagged off.
Fletcher is often in the analysists office, and sometimes on the training ground, he is the go between from the first team and the recruitment team.
I'd say our recruitment so far has been pretty good, although we should of had a midfielder, however this owes more to finances rather than neglect of that position.
Click to expand...

United is a banter club. Darren Fletcher is often seen on the training pitch, joining in on training, playing. Show me a professional club that has a technical director pretty regularly joining in on training. We need a new direction...
 
Mickson said:
United is a banter club. Darren Fletcher is often seen on the training pitch, joining in on training, playing. Show me a professional club that has a technical director pretty regularly joining in on training. We need a new direction...
Click to expand...
This is a new direction...
 
Laurencio said:
Look the answer isn't complicated. It simply doesn't make any sense from a business perspective.

He just recently signed a new contract, which entitles him to a severance fee and compensation. A replacement would have to be brought in, and right now potential targets are still in the job, which means we need to pay a transfer fee or compensation fee to his club as well. In addition to that almost all of the coaching staff are on new deals which also requires them to be compensated as Ole's penchant for delegating means nothing changes with the same staff. Then you have to pay to get the new manager's preferred staff choices. That alone is going to be costly.

As long as Ole has a chance of progressing through the CL and achieving top 4 it is bad business to sack him for the owners - that doesn't mean it won't happen, but that is really all there is to it - you don't need all these elaborate conspiracy theories. If we keep losing he will get sacked, because the prospect - not mathematical reality BTW- of losing out on CL participation money is untenable and would be far more costly than a total revamp. That is all there is to it. We are very close to that point now - if we're not already there.

Unless things dramatically improve he and his entire coaching staff is gone by Christmas.
Click to expand...

That may be too simple, even if possibly correct in its fundamental elements.

Unless they approach football as essentially a chaos field where anything can and will happen and it's no use trying to predict it, they have to assume a trajectory of some sort. It's clear that they would hugely prefer the current regime to work out. But surely they cannot expect it to simply because they want it to.

We don't know what the actual situation is, of course. Best case, there is serious work taking place to secure a preferred successor, with OGS kept in place to minimise the scrutiny, which will be ferocious the second his sacking is announced. If that involves luring away a top and already employed name that's a delicate situation that needs discretion, or it can derail very badly (as with Emery and Newcastle). Worst case, they're working on a gut feeling basis, with the gut feeling coming from how invested they've been in the OGS project rather than from what is being seen on the pitch, reinforced by a breezy sense of reassurance from the several times OGS has turned around crises before.

But returning to the trajectory, I don't understand how anyone can look at this and still think "there's a realistic chance this can be turned around" (not that I think that's what you're arguing, but assuming that decisions at this club does in some form or shape involve making a judgment on that). For one thing, we're not merely stuck but have regressed to a level where we're not a functioning team, in any aspect of the game. For another, the issues have been there pretty much all season, and have been getting steadily worse. And I sure hope they're taking a closer look at the outcome of the fightback after the Liverpool game, and not just thinking "Oh, win, draw, loss, that's not too bad".

Then there's what to take from the post-Liverpool fightback. They've done the thing - post-match team huddle, working out a plan the team buys into, spending a week on the training field working on it and then going out to more or less eviscerate Tottenham. But it's obvious from the two subsequent games that was not turning a corner, and the concept they put in place isn't going to see us through. It's two games now where we started with that setup only to have to abandon it mid-game after going two down. In the first case there was a fightback of sorts, in the second there was not even the shadow of one. In short, the post-Liverpool response has whimpered and died. Where can they possibly go from here?
 
justsomebloke said:
That may be too simple, even if possibly correct in its fundamental elements.

Unless they approach football as essentially a chaos field where anything can and will happen and it's no use trying to predict it, they have to assume a trajectory of some sort. It's clear that they would hugely prefer the current regime to work out. But surely they cannot expect it to simply because they want it to.

We don't know what the actual situation is, of course. Best case, there is serious work taking place to secure a preferred successor, with OGS kept in place to minimise the scrutiny, which will be ferocious the second his sacking is announced. If that involves luring away a top and already employed name that's a delicate situation that needs discretion, or it can derail very badly (as with Emery and Newcastle). Worst case, they're working on a gut feeling basis, with the gut feeling coming from how invested they've been in the OGS project rather than from what is being seen on the pitch, reinforced by a breezy sense of reassurance from the several times OGS has turned around crises before.

But returning to the trajectory, I don't understand how anyone can look at this and still think "there's a realistic chance this can be turned around" (not that I think that's what you're arguing, but assuming that decisions at this club does in some form or shape involve making a judgment on that). For one thing, we're not merely stuck but have regressed to a level where we're not a functioning team, in any aspect of the game. For another, the issues have been there pretty much all season, and have been getting steadily worse. And I sure hope they're taking a closer look at the outcome of the fightback after the Liverpool game, and not just thinking "Oh, win, draw, loss, that's not too bad".

Then there's what to take from the post-Liverpool fightback. They've done the thing - post-match team huddle, working out a plan the team buys into, spending a week on the training field working on it and then going out to more or less eviscerate Tottenham. But it's obvious from the two subsequent games that was not turning a corner, and the concept they put in place isn't going to see us through. It's two games now where we started with that setup only to have to abandon it mid-game after going two down. In the first case there was a fightback of sorts, in the second there was not even the shadow of one. In short, the post-Liverpool response has whimpered and died. Where can they possibly go from here?
Click to expand...

I agree wholeheartedly, and I do think we're at the point where the potential loss of CL revenue would trigger a replacement right now, but I don't think we were at that point earlier on.

Personally he was done after the Liverpool game in my eyes - I don't think any manager turns that around without a proven pedigree of title wins. After that his reign here was doomed. However, I believe that the timing of when to sack him will be a business decision. I agree with the trajectory argument, so I wouldn't be surprised if he was replaced this week, but I equally don't find it implausible that they stick with him for a couple of matches before they sack him. He would have to pull off a miracle to stay in the job at this point, and only a string of solid victories would do that - and I think that is impossible at this point.

As to their analysis of the football on display - I'm not sure that factors into their decision all that much. I think money is the deciding factor right now, but that calculation can quickly change with a continued decline.

On the issue of gut feelings. I don't for a second belive that our owners would let emotional attachment and gut feelings control their business decisions, that seems far fetched given their history as owners of this club. Some people on the board might have emotional attachments, but we all know that at the end of the day a Glazer decides when enough is enough.
 
The recent report that puppet boy Woodward may stay on if we change managers shouldn’t be the scary thought as whoever replaced him will still be a puppet
 
Laurencio said:
I agree wholeheartedly, and I do think we're at the point where the potential loss of CL revenue would trigger a replacement right now, but I don't think we were at that point earlier on.

Personally he was done after the Liverpool game in my eyes - I don't think any manager turns that around without a proven pedigree of title wins. After that his reign here was doomed. However, I believe that the timing of when to sack him will be a business decision. I agree with the trajectory argument, so I wouldn't be surprised if he was replaced this week, but I equally don't find it implausible that they stick with him for a couple of matches before they sack him. He would have to pull off a miracle to stay in the job at this point, and only a string of solid victories would do that - and I think that is impossible at this point.

As to their analysis of the football on display - I'm not sure that factors into their decision all that much. I think money is the deciding factor right now, but that calculation can quickly change with a continued decline.

On the issue of gut feelings. I don't for a second belive that our owners would let emotional attachment and gut feelings control their business decisions, that seems far fetched given their history as owners of this club. Some people on the board might have emotional attachments, but we all know that at the end of the day a Glazer decides when enough is enough.
Click to expand...

Oh, I'm not referring to emotional attachment. But when big decision makers are heavily invested into a certain strategy, they can often be very reluctant to abandon it even in the face of clear evidence that it's not working. Call it a strategic bias against change. The possible dynamic you're pointing out - give him until CL qualification is seriously at risk, which in terms of league position it isn't yet - could play well into that, if they've chosen to define that as a trigger rather than make a qualitative football assessment. That's what I fear.

Otherwise, excellent points and full agreement.
 
justsomebloke said:
Oh, I'm not referring to emotional attachment. But when big decision makers are heavily invested into a certain strategy, they can often be very reluctant to abandon it even in the face of clear evidence that it's not working. Call it a strategic bias against change. The possible dynamic you're pointing out - give him until CL qualification is seriously at risk, which in terms of league position it isn't yet - could play well into that, if they've chosen to define that as a trigger rather than make a qualitative football assessment. That's what I fear.
Click to expand...

Ah, that is a good point. I hope we have the structure in place to avoid that - but it is definitely a legitimate fear.
 
They have very comfortable lives and wall themselves off from stress and reality through concentric circle layers of toadying yes men. When they can't, like Levy couldn't the other week, they act.
 
I've just realised even Villa have sacked Dean Smith.

The football club is not run as a football club. There's definitely an element of dollars and cents thinking in the way it is being run and this is especially evident by the very fact that our bad run of form for the past few months, coupled in with horrible performances against two of our rival clubs (at home mind you) has not resulted in Solskjaer being dismissed.
 
The problem is, they just react, they never are active. Good clubs always have a list of managers to replace the current one. They know who is available and interested. Thats their responsibility. At United everyone seems to react....
 
It’s mostly just ineptitude and ego. They could make the club much more successful whilst spending less money if they knew to employ the right people. But that takes the humility to admit that you’re wrong and don’t know what you’re doing.
 
kafta said:
They are slow to react because:

1- What is their motivation to react? As shit as we have been under Ole, i dont think our league finishes affect the Glazer's opinions. The club is generating revenue because of its brand name, and because of the league its in. We are able to qualify for the CL.

2. Also, the fans won't turn on Ole. We saw how the purse was opened up after the protests at the Liverpool game. The glazers hate bad PR and they want to try to reassure the fans. So if there will be massive unrest and boycotting games, a change could happen quickly. But its not in the nature of this club's fans to turn on players and managers like they do at Madrid, Barcelona etc.

3. Its the fact that they are reacting. Its not like there is a plan, or a target that they have in mind. They just react to move from one catastrophe to the next. See how they gave Ole his contract after PSG without waiting for the season to finish to assess.

To plan and act quickly are traits of an ambitious club that wont accept mediocrity and strives for success. This is not what our owners priorities are.
Click to expand...
It's down to the AMBITION of this club now. This board doesn't seem to have any.
 
Resch said:
The problem is, they just react, they never are active. Good clubs always have a list of managers to replace the current one. They know who is available and interested. Thats their responsibility. At United everyone seems to react....
Click to expand...

It seems they have stopped reacting now as well. Time to react was 2 weeks ago, now they are just digging themselves a bigger hole.
 
Bestietom said:
It's down to the AMBITION of this club now. This board doesn't seem to have any.
Click to expand...
Course it does it’s constantly throwing money at the problem, it clearly wants to be success full, look at the amount of money that has been given to every manager we’ve had since Fergie, look at the size of contracts we are paying, the problem isn’t the ambition it’s simply the board clearly know F all about running the football side of the buissness.

The board has needed help to run the football side of the club since Woodward took over and they haven’t got it because it would mean them giving up some power, and people who have power don’t like to do that even if the don’t know what there doing.
 
romufc said:
It seems they have stopped reacting now as well. Time to react was 2 weeks ago, now they are just digging themselves a bigger hole.
Click to expand...

They have to discuss if it is now the time to start thinking about a possible reaction. So give them time, discussing is impotent aaaaah important
 
Pasting a few lines from Ornstein's column today:

"[...]It appears a significant factor contributing to the stance on Solskjaer is the lack of available or credible options for the post if the former United and Norway striker is to be relieved of his duties. The likes of Antonio Conte and Mauricio Pochettino have been touted as candidates at various stages, but they have taken the reins elsewhere and the market looks sparse.

Solskjaer was appointed permanently in March 2019 after an initial three months in interim charge and signed a new contract in July that lasts until at least 2024, with assistant manager Mike Phelan handed an extended deal. That said, compensation owed to Solskjaer and his staff is unlikely to figure prominently in United’s thinking.

There is a sense in the industry that United ideally want to get to at least next summer with the present set-up and are reluctant to fire the 48-year-old while they are still in contention to qualify for the 2022-23 Champions League."
 
Nytram Shakes said:
Course it does it’s constantly throwing money at the problem, it clearly wants to be success full, look at the amount of money that has been given to every manager we’ve had since Fergie, look at the size of contracts we are paying, the problem isn’t the ambition it’s simply the board clearly know F all about running the football side of the buissness.

The board has needed help to run the football side of the club since Woodward took over and they haven’t got it because it would mean them giving up some power, and people who have power don’t like to do that even if the don’t know what there doing.
Click to expand...
If they had ambition, they would be trying harder to put all the things you have said here RIGHT. Any other club would have sacked the manager already.
 
Bestietom said:
If they had ambition, they would be trying harder to put all the things you have said here RIGHT. Any other club would have sacked the manager already.
Click to expand...
The problem is they don’t know what to do if they sack him.
We are currently 6th, with how badly balanced this squad is and the size of the egos in the dressing room, you bring in the wrong manager and things could very easily get worse.
I don’t think it’s the lack of ambition I think it’s the lack of knowledge of how too correct course. You look at the appointments they have made post Moyes, LVG the biggest name manager available at the time, Mourinho the biggest name manager available at the time, Bring Ole give him the job becuase things seem to be going well.
There is a very clear lack of footballing knowledge at the top level of the club and right now there is no clear way forward so they have no idea what to do.
 
Because our board went all the way in with Ole. They expected him to stay here for many more years. They’re bamboozled and don’t know what to do.

fecking inept really.
 
Nytram Shakes said:
The problem is they don’t know what to do if they sack him.
We are currently 6th, with how badly balanced this squad is and the size of the egos in the dressing room, you bring in the wrong manager and things could very easily get worse.
I don’t think it’s the lack of ambition I think it’s the lack of knowledge of how too correct course. You look at the appointments they have made post Moyes, LVG the biggest name manager available at the time, Mourinho the biggest name manager available at the time, Bring Ole give him the job becuase things seem to be going well.
There is a very clear lack of footballing knowledge at the top level of the club and right now there is no clear way forward so they have no idea what to do.
Click to expand...
Well then it is time to get some people on the board that know about football and let them make the decisions. We are all fed up listening to excuse after excuse. It seems that our whole set up needs refurbishing.
 
JebelSherif said:
This is so very true. I have heard/read conflicting opinions regarding the Ronaldo to Man Utd. (2021) move: some say OGS asked Fergie to help get it done, others say Fergie got it done and Ole couldn't so 'No' - I think the later is true and its causing problems. Consequently, Fergie feels some loyalty to OGS for this recent transfer that has thrown his plans off track and consequently he will back him to the hilt. This is the main reason Ole didn't go after the Liverpool game, I think. SAF still has too much power at O.T. and until people face up to that and start to say something about it, this wont change.
Click to expand...

This reminds me of a trick corporate lawyers use. When companies of this sort are taken to court for gross negligence, their lawyers would try to involve as many parties as possible (government, outside contractors, suppliers etc). Their aim is to distribute the blame on as many parties as possible thus reducing the blame on them. Ultimately cases like that become so complex that the accuser who is often on a limited budget would end up settling often for a pittance.

I think United are on a similar situation. We've got two parties here ie those who are loyal to ole (SAF, Carricky, Fletchery, Gary) some of whom are better off financially because of him. Then there's corporate United. If Ole is fired then he'll be entitled for a huge severance pay and since he's the third manager in a row to be sacked after being given a contract extension it would make the club look silly. Its within both these parties interest to keep Ole at the wheel.

Which leads us to Ronaldo. Ronaldo had been our no 1 player and yet the team look unbalanced. That's the same scenario he had at Juventus (unbalanced side, a shit manager etc) which sets a comfortable springboard for United to build their own narrative upon.Now if the club shifts the blame completely on Ronaldo there's the risk of them looking stupid especially since he is on fire. Cristiano is a big name and might cause rifts in the dressing room as well. So what they are doing is shifting the blame on as many people as possible ie Ronaldo, SAF, Ole for prioritizing RW instead of DM, the Euros, the board for not buying a DM, DDG for not being a sweeper goalkeeper, the team as a whole for looking lost, the fans that are booing Ole, the toxic environment created etc. They hope that the blame is put upon so many people that a sorry + some cosmetic changes (a new coach maybe?) would be enough to calm the waters.
 
::sonny:: said:
Not a yes man, that they like so much

Click to expand...


Absolutely.

The club has nobody at a senior level who properly knows about football. Internal promotions and appointing people to jobs they have no experience in smacks of putting people in place who think they're lucky to be there and therefore, won't rock the boat.

What's needed is someone to come in and start asking the difficult questions but that then exposes the chancers sitting at the top table, so they don't want to do that.
 
The simple answer to this question is that the Glazers do not care about Man Utd.

The Glazers are like landlords who live overseas and have a tenant manager who runs their properties. As long as the rent is paid on time, and its at the level they expect, they do not give a damn about what the tenant manager does. The tenant manager might be skimming off the top, he might be swindling the tenants for other services to line his own pockets, the building might be falling down due to lack of maintenance. As long as the rent gets paid they aren't interested.

The lazy, disinterested way they run the club baffles me. They could actually have made more money from United if they were remotely interested. Look how much the club has spent on transfers without any real return. Most business owners would be demanding answers: How could we have spent close to a billion on players and have nothing to show for it, besides a couple of cups? I don't get the sense the Glazers are asking those questions though. It feels like they have this view of: 'Oh well, the first team will need refreshing. Lets just write that off and compensate by clamping down on any other spending.' You'd think most other owners would've called someone in to analyse why so much money has been wasted. In most businesses where things are going this wrong the management consultants get brought in. With United...?

The Glazers don't give a crap. It was their Dad who went after United. They inherited it and they see it as nothing other than a reliable dividend payer. That's it. Why would they suddenly bother to take a close interest in what's happening now?
 
Bestietom said:
Well then it is time to get some people on the board that know about football and let them make the decisions. We are all fed up listening to excuse after excuse. It seems that our whole set up needs refurbishing.
Click to expand...
I completely agree with that but we all know that isn't going to happen. people with power don't like giving up power.
 
Does nobody vet these threads? We had an almost identical one last week that got shot down pretty quick.

United sacked Moyes after less than a season in charge. We sacked LvG the day after he won the FA Cup. We sacked Jose less than halfway through the season, right after he finished 2nd in the table.

At what point should Solskjaer have been sacked? I agree he should be sacked imminently NOW, but at what point in the last 2/3 years should he have been sacked? After we finished 3rd (with an awful squad) or after he finished 2nd last season?

The Lampard comparison is also inaccurate. Lampard barely scraped 4th in his first season at Chelsea with a very, very good squad. In his 2nd season, he was floundering in 6th/7th position and was sacked mid-January.

Stop winding yourselves up by making things up about the club and convincing yourselves that it's true. Moyes. LvG and Jose were dealt with quickly when results turned. I am sure it will be the same with Ole
 
Lentwood said:
Does nobody vet these threads? We had an almost identical one last week that got shot down pretty quick.

United sacked Moyes after less than a season in charge. We sacked LvG the day after he won the FA Cup. We sacked Jose less than halfway through the season, right after he finished 2nd in the table.

At what point should Solskjaer have been sacked? I agree he should be sacked imminently NOW, but at what point in the last 2/3 years should he have been sacked? After we finished 3rd (with an awful squad) or after he finished 2nd last season?

The Lampard comparison is also inaccurate. Lampard barely scraped 4th in his first season at Chelsea with a very, very good squad. In his 2nd season, he was floundering in 6th/7th position and was sacked mid-January.

Stop winding yourselves up by making things up about the club and convincing yourselves that it's true. Moyes. LvG and Jose were dealt with quickly when results turned. I am sure it will be the same with Ole
Click to expand...

I think you'll find many would disagree with you.
Moyes lasted way longer than he should've. It was literally when it was mathematically impossible for us to finish in top 4 that he was sacked.

LVG had us playing the worst football I've seen in my life and had us out of our CL group and a December which many felt he wouldn't/shouldn't survive. Ultimately, even though we won the FA cup, it led to us finishing outside top 4 again.

For Jose, a ruthless club would've dispensed off him post our debacle against Sevilla. Even then in 2018/19, there were huge calls to sack him in September where arguably he was saved by a Newcastle turnaround 3-2 win. Everyone knew that it was a temporary reprieve and so it proved. All these decisions ensured that the job of the next guy was even tougher.

For Ole, there was the period between his permanent appointment and end of 2018/19 season which should've been enough for us to figure that he's not the top tier of management and wouldn't win us any trophies. The 2019/20 season right up till Bruno signed was a shocker and he could've been sacked any time before that. Last season as well, a club with high standards wouldn't have accepted the CL group stage exit so meekly. A third consecutive trophyless season (2.5 of which he was incharge) was another que for a sacking.

So if you're wondering when these opportunities were, a club with high standards would've sacked him 5 times by now. And if you think that it would've been unfair or unrealistic, then we have 0 trophies and the current mess to show for Ole's entire reign.
 
Double standards.
Had this football been delivered by Mourinho or Van Gaal, everyone would have wanted to sack them. And they would have been sacked.
But Ole is different.

The football is not good enough. The results are not good enough.
New manager is a must. Now.
But the board don't act - because of money.!
 
RedStarUnited said:
as someone already said, even from a financial perspective Ole is doing bad. If all they care about is money then they would be livid that 100m+ was spent and the talent isnt being utilised.
Click to expand...
What does "isn't being utilized" mean? This board doesn't care about winning anything. They care about making top4 so we qualify for Champions League. They only lose money if that doesn't happen. And they LOVE Ole for being super obedient. Right now they are told we will still make top 4. It is a lie, because we cannot even be trusted to win over Aston Villa, and West Ham is far above us. Soon as board understands top 4 is in danger Ole will be sacked and they will bring somebody, who knows who, though. If we wanted to win we should have brought Conte after Liverpool game. Any club management with half brain and an iota of self-respect would have done that
 
NewGlory said:
What does "isn't being utilized" mean? This board doesn't care about winning anything. They care about making top4 so we qualify for Champions League. They only lose money if that doesn't happen. And they LOVE Ole for being super obedient. Right now they are told we will still make top 4. It is a lie, because we cannot even be trusted to win over Aston Villa, and West Ham is far above us. Soon as board understands top 4 is in danger Ole will be sacked and they will bring somebody, who knows who, though. If we wanted to win we should have brought Conte after Liverpool game. Any club management with half braind and iota of self respect would have done that
Click to expand...
People really dont understand the Glazers. All they care about is making money for them. They get dividends and management fees, and just pocketed $150m from the share bounce after Ronaldo signed. Winning trophies is difficult and they dont really care. At some point they will be forced to act as the team collapse continues. But the problem is Woodward and his successor who dont understand professional sports management or football as a game. They are muppets but allowed to carry on as Glazers have already made more money from Utd than they imagined.
 
I think the reality is the Glazers thought they'd finally found the solution. I will say I think the out of left field Solskjaer appointment as caretaker was actually a pretty well informed choice at the time, and everybody can complain now but again, the reality is that the Glazers did what everyone at the time wanted really - fans, pundits, ex players, a vast majority wanted to appoint Solskjaer and called for them to do it, that yes man, cheap hire, United DNA, wouldn't question the board kind of appointment that had backing from the fans, they fell into a perfect situation, in a lot of ways we only have ourselves to blame, because there were multiple times we could have sacked him before this as well and yet he kept getting backed and backed.. both by fans, by spending hundreds of millions on players. I genuinely believe that last summer they thought we were heading in the right direction, in the long term, of being where we wanted to be, and so, in all their naivety and ineptness, they just really haven't bothered thinking about any kind of succession plan, it doesn't sound like anyone in the background has and so now the pendulum has swung too far in the opposite direction they are left scrambling and have no idea what to do. That on top of the hefty severence package they will have to dish out because of his new contract, and the money they will have to pay a new manager. It's a farce, really.
 
clarkydaz said:
im sure the commerical side of the club is world class in every department
Click to expand...
Yep, see the number of minor sponsorship deals as evidence.

As long as they keep rolling in and mid table brands will pay to be associated with us in their droves we can happily continue being a mid table shell of our former selves.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.