Why is Richard Arnold getting a free pass from the fans?

A large segment of our fan base have been incredibly easy to dupe throughout the glazers tenure, swallowing obvious spin and pr without much critical thought.

Arnold might be slightly better than Woodward but he is basically cut from the same cloth
 
afrocentricity said:
I'm up to date, still don't know enough to be calling for the mans head... but that's just me
Click to expand...
I think it shows poor leadership if you've made an internal decision, with such shit comms, that you've essentially got whistle blowers going to the media about it.

That hostile vs supportive list is fecking grotesque.
 
Lash said:
Thought we were ushering in a new era, football related decisions seemed to have improved, but has absolutely ballsed up the decisions when run a global brand and massive organisation with a massive and diverse workforce.
Click to expand...

Because it's the same issue that defined the old era the wrong and unqualified individuals in influential positions in the hierarchy. So when the club announces change, gullible fans lap it up but when you assess the semblance of impact, there's absolutely nothing substantial.
 
Goldbridge in crisis. Oh wait United in crisis. Lots to get into , it’s Friday and tomorrow is Saturday but yesterday was Thursday. but lots to get into. Why have United not signed the the reserve left fullback who plays in Mongolia ,I have been telling you about for the last two years. It’s a shit show and you heard it here first. Lots to get into and lots to get into . If you are really dumb please subscribe.
 
pascell said:
The decision has been made and was made a while back, he just got outed on his decision by Adam Crafton and had to try and save face.

Anyone who thinks the decision hasn't been made is getting played a fiddle.

Look at the timing of the Adidas sponsorship extension to when a few journalists got briefed of when we'd made our decision.
Click to expand...

I read some of the article and it does sound a bit sensationalist. Did the plans really include the a list of 'hostile' parties to the plan or is it actually a list of stakeholders? Quite an easy twist to make when you do not need to provide a picture of said plans, and one not at all surprising for a newspaper.

I trust the media as much as anything else, which is not far. In the end, an announcement of a decision has not been made and, until it is, then the decision is still up in the air. What if Manchester United come out tomorrow and say he will never play for the club? I guess people will assume that they changed their mind due to public reception, but that may not be the case at all. It is better to wait for a real announcement before getting mad over something that may never happen.

Besides, depending on what was written in the contract, it may be a more complicated issue to deal with than people believe.
 
Redstain said:
Because it's the same issue that defined the old era the wrong and unqualified individuals in influential positions in the hierarchy. So when the club announces change, gullible fans lap it up but when you assess the
semblance of impact, there's absolutely nothing substantial.
Click to expand...
No, there has definitely been improvement from a football operations stand point. That's undeniable.

Lecland07 said:
I read some of the article and it does sound a bit sensationalist. Did the plans really include the a list of 'hostile' parties to the plan or is t actually a list of stakeholders? Quite an easy twist to make when you do not need to provide a picture of said plans, and one not at all surprising for a newspaper.

I trust the media as much as anything else, which is not far. In the end, an announcement of a decision has not been made and, until it is, then the decision is still up in the air. What if Manchester United come out tomorrow and say he will never play for the club? I guess people will assume that they changed their mind due to public reception, but that may not be the case at all. It is better to wait for a real announcement before getting mad over something that may never happen.

Besides, depending on what was written in the contract, it may be a more complicated issue to deal with than people believe.
Click to expand...
Remember the Athletic and crafton have direct sources at the club, so this is clearly someone (or a few people) who is furious with how this is all being conducted.
 
Lecland07 said:
I read some of the article and it does sound a bit sensationalist. Did the plans really include the a list of 'hostile' parties to the plan or is it actually a list of stakeholders? Quite an easy twist to make when you do not need to provide a picture of said plans, and one not at all surprising for a newspaper.

I trust the media as much as anything else, which is not far. In the end, an announcement of a decision has not been made and, until it is, then the decision is still up in the air. What if Manchester United come out tomorrow and say he will never play for the club? I guess people will assume that they changed their mind due to public reception, but that may not be the case at all. It is better to wait for a real announcement before getting mad over something that may never happen.

Besides, depending on what was written in the contract, it may be a more complicated issue to deal with than people believe.
Click to expand...
You really think the women's team would really need consulting if the decision was made to get rid of him?
 
Lash said:
No, there has definitely been improvement from a football operations stand point. That's undeniable.


Remember the Athletic and crafton have direct sources at the club, so this is clearly someone (or a few people) who is furious with how this is all being conducted.
Click to expand...
On the football operations point, I would say we have improved in the sense we are less shit, rather than actually good
 
Lash said:
Thought we were ushering in a new era, football related decisions seemed to have improved, but has absolutely ballsed up the decisions when run a global brand and massive organisation with a massive and diverse workforce.
Click to expand...
How have the football decisions improved exactly? Apart from binning Ronaldo I guess that was the right thing to do. But we're still making absolutely brainless signings like Mount and Antony.
 
Lash said:
I think it shows poor leadership if you've made an internal decision, with such shit comms, that you've essentially got whistle blowers going to the media about it.

That hostile vs supportive list is fecking grotesque.
Click to expand...
Don't forget the guy is a marketing man and this is a marketing disaster. Just total shambles in my opinion.
 
Matt851 said:
On the football operations point, I would say we have improved in the sense we are less shit, rather than actually good
Click to expand...
For sure, it was a low bar, but that's what I mean by the start of a new era. I'm not proclaiming they have improved immeasurably.
Blood Mage said:
How have the football decisions improved exactly? Apart from binning Ronaldo I guess that was the right thing to do. But we're still making absolutely brainless signings like Mount and Antony.
Click to expand...
I think this summer we've been very efficient in signing our top targets, we've started to move people on. Also our younger players have been getting more effective loans and moving on players for fees and buy backs if they're not ready for the first team.

Sure it's not perfect, but it's certainly better than what we used to do.
 
Lecland07 said:
I read some of the article and it does sound a bit sensationalist. Did the plans really include the a list of 'hostile' parties to the plan or is it actually a list of stakeholders? Quite an easy twist to make when you do not need to provide a picture of said plans, and one not at all surprising for a newspaper.

I trust the media as much as anything else, which is not far. In the end, an announcement of a decision has not been made and, until it is, then the decision is still up in the air. What if Manchester United come out tomorrow and say he will never play for the club? I guess people will assume that they changed their mind due to public reception, but that may not be the case at all. It is better to wait for a real announcement before getting mad over something that may never happen.

Besides, depending on what was written in the contract, it may be a more complicated issue to deal with than people believe.
Click to expand...
I think it did as they would have had to put a plan in place to fight the fires of those 'hostile' parties. These plans have been in place for months, it's not just list that have been formed this week.

They're playing the politics game, drip feeding what they want to do to gauge reaction and then eventually they announce said decision. That's exactly what it would be, if you don't think the club have made their mind up, I do feel sorry for you, because you're lapping up the shit they're feeding you.

The only problem contractually is that we cannot sack him without him taking legal proceedings against us, that's it.
 
Lash said:
No, there has definitely been improvement from a football operations stand point. That's undeniable.


Remember the Athletic and crafton have direct sources at the club, so this is clearly someone (or a few people) who is furious with how this is all being conducted.
Click to expand...

Maybe he does, but it is still only words until real evidence is provided. It is not enough to believe. The best evidence is when Manutd actually announce something, which will happen. I'm not saying they won't choose to keep him, just that this is pointless until they actually come out with their decision.

Matt851 said:
You really think the women's team would really need consulting if the decision was made to get rid of him?
Click to expand...

Well, it is possible that it is in regard to contractual issues. I don't think you can force someone to leave through a payout (I'm not solicitor, but I'm guessing you cannot force it), but I do wonder what happens if the contract contains a minimum display clause. Will Manutd be forced to fulfil that as part of the contract?

One thing I'm sure of is that Manutd cannot simply get rid of him. I don't think it is that simple.
 
I'd wait for them to present their case first, no point in rushing to judgment.

Although I do have to admit I'm somewhat receptive to the idea of having him back if he's truly regretful of his actions and has grown as a person, people can grow and he was basically still a kid back then, I see no reason to ruin his life forever if he's actually a better person now than he was back then.
 
adexkola said:
For those who feel Arnold should be out the door, shouldn't EtH be out alongside him for being open to the idea?
Click to expand...
It's not EtH's decision and certainly not his responsibility to manage the risks associated with the decision and the PR campaign to convince people his 'no dickheads' statement from last summer is not a complete lie.
 
Rightnr said:
Don't forget the guy is a marketing man and this is a marketing disaster. Just total shambles in my opinion.
Click to expand...
Very good point. I also don't see how if you consulted any PR firm on this matter, how they wouldn't see the obvious pitfalls in how they've handled this. Also with such an emotive and contentious subject, that there wouldn't be objectors at every level and in this day and age wouldn't have any leaks to the press?
Lecland07 said:
Maybe he does, but it is still only words until real evidence is provided. It is not enough to believe. The best evidence is when Manutd actually announce something, which will happen. I'm not saying they won't choose to keep him, just that this is pointless until they actually come out with their decision.
Click to expand...
I mean there's so much culminating evidence that they are building up to that. He's been added back to game partners, squad lists, leaks testing the water about his return and finally all out whistleblowing against the process after the official statement.
 
Rightnr said:
It's not EtH's decision and certainly not his responsibility to manage the risks associated with the decision and the PR campaign to convince people his 'no dickheads' statement from last summer is not a complete lie.
Click to expand...
PR ALERT! PR ALERT! Nothing is ever just a report, everything is a PIECE OF PR!
 
pascell said:
I think it did as they would have had to put a plan in place to fight the fires of those 'hostile' parties. These plans have been in place for months, it's not just list that have been formed this week.

They're playing the politics game, drip feeding what they want to do to gauge reaction and then eventually they announce said decision. That's exactly what it would be, if you don't think the club have made their mind up, I do feel sorry for you, because you're lapping up the shit they're feeding you.

The only problem contractually is that we cannot sack him without him taking legal proceedings against us, that's it.
Click to expand...

I'm not lapping up anything as I don't particularly put much stock into hearsay. Decisions can be made and unmade at any time. Until it is announced and set in stone that this is how the club are going to handle it, the decision has not actually been made.

Manchester United have not yet announced how they are going to deal with this and, until they do, my view is that the decision has not actually been made. There is no point in getting riled until they actually say they are going to do 'that'.

But what if there are other clauses regarding playing time etc.? Do these need to be fulfilled? What is the penalty if they are not fulfilled as Manutd would be in breach of contract? What would count as playing time? Would it reserves be enough or does it have to be first team? A clause may not exist, but it could create complications if it does. I don't know how enforceable these things are, though.
 
tomaldinho1 said:
Cant see him not stepping down here. Even ignoring the media articles - how have he let it get to this stage? It’s madness to think his plan seems to essentially have been wait a while and then, what, assume people will have forgotten about it.
Click to expand...

Yeah the fact that Athletic found out he was planning to announce Greenwood return on Aug 4 then pulled back looks like curtains.

Maybe Edwin would be interested in the job now he's on the mend and he suits that role more than a DOF. Then again if Murtough endorses we could well need one of them too.
 
Lash said:
I think it shows poor leadership if you've made an internal decision, with such shit comms, that you've essentially got whistle blowers going to the media about it.

That hostile vs supportive list is fecking grotesque.
Click to expand...

Yeah that makes grim reading to say the least
 
croadyman said:
Yeah the fact that Athletic found out he was planning to announce Greenwood return on Aug 4 then pulled back due to not speaking to women's team yet looks like curtains.

Maybe Edwin would be interested in the job now he's on the mend and he suits that role more than a DOF.
Click to expand...
Pretty sure he doesn't need another aneurysm, I'm nearly having one with the shite that's coming out.
 
Arnold shouldn’t get a pass, and frankly I can’t respect a number of posters on this forum who voted to bring you-know-who back into the fold.

Where is the fecking dignity of these people?

I have no doubts that he’ll be forced to step down to save some skin.
 
Lecland07 said:
I'm not lapping up anything as I don't particularly put much stock into hearsay. Decisions can be made and unmade at any time. Until it is announced and set in stone that this is how the club are going to handle it, the decision has not actually been made.

Manchester United have not yet announced how they are going to deal with this and, until they do, my view is that the decision has not actually been made. There is no point in getting riled until they actually say they are going to do 'that'.

But what if there are other clauses regarding playing time etc.? Do these need to be fulfilled? What is the penalty if they are not fulfilled as Manutd would be in breach of contract? What would count as playing time? Would it reserves be enough or does it have to be first team? A clause may not exist, but it could create complications if it does. I don't know how enforceable these things are, though.
Click to expand...
Talk about burying your head in the sand, crikey. If that's your way of thinking then I do feel for you as everything must be rosy in the garden.

We don't do playing time guarantees, how can we when it's a variable, things like injuries and suspensions happen, things not in the clubs control.
 
Lash said:
I think it shows poor leadership if you've made an internal decision, with such shit comms, that you've essentially got whistle blowers going to the media about it.

That hostile vs supportive list is fecking grotesque.
Click to expand...

How do you know the "whistleblower" is being entirely genuine and doesn't just hate his and someone else's guts, wishing to undermine the club from the inside (or even outside) and so releasing dodgy sounding information to try and shift perceptions?

It won't be the first time a rat has tried to undermine the club with leaks.

There are a lot of people out there trying to bring Utd down, and they will be working overtime to try and find angles to bring things in to disrepute, and have sensed an opportunity to create speculation where there is clearly likely intentionally, necessarily and understandably a lot of secrecy. The club will have been having to discuss a lot of sensitive information as part of the investigation and so it will have needed to be behind closed doors, and there will naturally be a lot they will be unable to say to the public - so some bad faith PR people and journalists will claim they are saying questionable things on their behalf.

As an additional note, some of what has been reported is weird spin on what is a completely understandable and standard process - it would have been incompetent of the club, or any organisation, to have not drawn up plans considering the ramifications of whichever decision they will end up taking, in advance of the decision being finalised.
 
Rightnr said:
I'll let you do some research and delete this post. Or I can embarrass you.
Click to expand...
The guy’s background is an accountant. He’s not been involved in marketing whatsoever.

He’s been the commerical director but he wasn’t part of the marketing.
 
UnitedSofa said:
The guy’s background is an accountant. He’s not been involved in marketing whatsoever.

He’s been the commerical director but he wasn’t part of the marketing.
Click to expand...
Disagree (but also edited my post because I didn't like my tone).

He was trained as an accountant but he's been involved in commercial deals and held positions to do with marketing. He's definitely a marketing man.
 
I think this has been handled pretty badly whatever the outcome to be honest.
 
Rightnr said:
Disagree (but also edited my post because I didn't like my tone).

He was trained as an accountant but he's been involved in commercial deals and held positions to do with marketing. He's definitely a marketing man.
Click to expand...
I didn’t mind your tone in fairness

Just because he’s held positions at the commercial side negotiating deal’s doesn’t mean he works with the marketing arm of the commercial team, he’s just the guy who’s head of the commercial team and negotiates the deals.

I saw his other parts working for other companies as a media manager but again by the looks of things he was the guy negotiating deals for the media arm.

To call him a “marketing man” is very loose indeed.

Anyway, I’m derailing what you we’re talking about
 
UnitedSofa said:
I didn’t mind your tone in fairness

Just because he’s held positions at the commercial side negotiating deal’s doesn’t mean he works with the marketing arm of the commercial team, he’s just the guy who’s head of the commercial team and negotiates the deals.

I saw his other parts working for other companies as a media manager but again by the looks of things he was the guy negotiating deals for the media arm.

To call him a “marketing man” is very loose indeed.

Anyway, I’m derailing what you we’re talking about
Click to expand...
Hm, I actually think it's relevant. For some reason, I had a recollection he worked in the marketing side of United and I cannot for the life of me find where I got that from.

My point in bumping this thread is that this whole fiasco does not reflect well on him and I just wonder how long he can hang on for.

Which would be hugely ironic because the Glazers supposedly staying (I don't believe it) meant he might evade the chop and now this happens :lol: .
 
He definitely needs to cop flack for the handling of this situation. It has been completely shameless and is making the club look amateurish.
 
CM10 said:
He definitely needs to cop flack for the handling of this situation. It has been completely shameless and is making the club look amateurish.
Click to expand...

Yeah has handled this dreadfully and much like the Glazers has damaged reputation of club
 
I was impressed with Arnold initially. I liked the fact he insists on working at OT and not in London. I liked the way he handled the protesters at the pub and he has been more open and honest in his short time incharge than Woodward was in his whole time here.
That said this decision will make or break him, depending which way he goes and how he handles it. On that point so far, it’s not looking good.
 
Red the Bear said:
I'd wait for them to present their case first, no point in rushing to judgment.

Although I do have to admit I'm somewhat receptive to the idea of having him back if he's truly regretful of his actions and has grown as a person, people can grow and he was basically still a kid back then, I see no reason to ruin his life forever if he's actually a better person now than he was back then.
Click to expand...

He's probably just the same. It's been 18 months and in that time he's flouted his ball conditions. He and the club will say he is, but they're going to say a lot of stuff to paint a nice picture of him. A lot of gullible people, along with those that simply don't seem to care what he's done, will accept it.

He's had a growing list of misdemeanours in his very short career, and I get the impression it's because he thinks he can do as he pleases because there is zero authority at the club these days, and the players seem to have all the power.
 
pocco said:
He's probably just the same. It's been 18 months and in that time he's flouted his ball conditions. He and the club will say he is, but they're going to say a lot of stuff to paint a nice picture of him. A lot of gullible people, along with those that simply don't seem to care what he's done, will accept it.

He's had a growing list of misdemeanours in his very short career, and I get the impression it's because he thinks he can do as he pleases because there is zero authority at the club these days, and the players seem to have all the power.
Click to expand...

I dunno pocco, SAF was the ultimate authority and look how Ronaldo and Giggs turned out…

I think high level sports is a place where psychopathic traits are celebrated - coldness under immense pressure, won’t accept losing, ruthless in game behaviour.

Added to that the obscene wealth and thus power and you have a powder keg for some individuals.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.