Woodward (old thread)

Should Studward remain as CE of Manchester United?

  • No - he should be sacked also.

    Votes: 40 22.6%
  • Yes - he should stay.

    Votes: 137 77.4%

  • Total voters
    177
  • Poll closed .
Status
Not open for further replies.
Just to keep things tidy here (having read through the last few pages): Both Ronaldo and Rooney were purchased by the old plc - not by uncle Malc.
Purchased yes, but half of money for both those transfers has been paid by the current regime. Likely a deal that had to be paid within a few years.

The biggest problem under plc was their roof about the wages, which looks to have heart us. I also remember in a Sunday show in Italy with Arrigo Sachi when he was talking about his friendship with Sir Alex and how Sir Alex asked him one time to find a strong striker for him. He proposed to sign Batistuta for 30m. Sir Alex replied something like: find me someone less strong. Then Kenyon saying that if SAF wants to sign players, he should sell first.

Point is, it was the same situation under the last regime. Madrid always overspend us, the likes of Milano and Juventus paid twice the wages we did. It hasn't become worse under Glazers, just that some other clubs have won the lottary by getting purchased from Russiand and Arab billionaires who aren't here for profit. That isn't something we can do against. We still spend a lot of money, but compared to those clubs it isn't a big sum. As it was us under plc compared to Madrid, Milan or Juve. Now you can add Barca whose revenue dwarfs our revenue (which wasn't the case a decade ago, but they and Madrid now won a lot more money because what they have done to other teams in the league), City, PSG and Chelsea (although Chelsea now doesn't spend more than us) and remove the Italian teams. Even under plc, what big non-English players we ever signed? It was the identical scenario, sign young talents from outside at time (with occasionally a superstar like Veron) and try to get the best British talent. Something like we do now. We lose at some transfers now like Bale or probably even Baines. But even then there were the likes of Shearer or Gascoine who chose other teams.

People somehow have convinced themselves that it has been better under the last regime, when nothing, absolutely nothing supports that theory. Also, they have panicked so much on the beginning under Glazers when everyone was lead to believe that their regime will be the end of us. While their regime was not even near as bad as expected (and ironically we had the best success under them, although it has been attributed to Fergie, ironically, Fergie was the manager also under the previous regime but that get lost in translation), the opinions on them to a lot of people haven't changed. There are still fears about the perfectly managable debts, and there is fear that they want to do an Arsenal despite there is no evidence at all that supports that.
 
Looking at our acquisitions in the past 10 years or so: We haven't signed an established foreign (non-English) player from a non-EPL team for some time now. Evra and Vidic came here in Jan 2006; Anderson and Nani came the following year-but I'm not sure they were established stars at that time. The remaining big signings were already in the EPL. DDG is the only exception-but again he was a rising talent, rather than an established star.

I suspect we're not at the top of the list among established non-English players to come from non-EPL teams-regardless of who is in charge of negotiating transfers.
 
Looking at our acquisitions in the past 10 years or so: We haven't signed an established foreign (non-English) player from a non-EPL team for some time now. Evra and Vidic came here in Jan 2006; Anderson and Nani came the following year-but I'm not sure they were established stars at that time. The remaining big signings were already in the EPL. DDG is the only exception-but again he was a rising talent, rather than an established star.

I suspect we're not at the top of the list among established non-English players to come from non-EPL teams-regardless of who is in charge of negotiating transfers.
Kagawa ?
 
Hernandez?
He had a great World Cup that year, granted, but not sure he was the kind of star we're trying to get in this window. And, he came from the Mexican league rather than from a top European league. Maybe you think I'm moving the goal posts, but someone like Kroos or Vidal don't fit the profile of our biggest signings lately.

Maybe that's because we thought the best talent was already in the Premier League, or maybe not. Some in this thread have speculated that established non-English players prefer London or Madrid or Barcelona as places to live. Not sure about that-City have done OK bringing in big names from overseas.
 
Last edited:
Erm …. no. The 'experienced manager' is working under him.

When will the penny drop … Woodward runs the club and all report to him, the manager included. He is incredibly powerful at Old Trafford.

Ever since SAF stood down, only the Glazers hold more power than he does.

And he has the Glazers unreserved support and backing. Probably rightly so as his business pedigree is second to none.
Didn't mean 'Under' literally. I should have quoted that better.

I never implied his job was easy. Its a hard task acting as the bridge between the Glazes and the club. I don't know the exact organogram of the club but as a vice-executive chairman its safe to say he's basically running the business.

I understand he advised Glazers to take over United. Thus they hold him in high regards.

Previously he was leading the commercial and media
operations, where he proved to be hugely successful. He was promoted to his current post where results seem mixed from outside. The job looks a little too big even for a smart business mind like his.

So, he appointed LVG, discussed how to take the club forward. LVG have him his targets but budget was not discussed. Money is not a problem and the club is ready to spend. So, responsibility to sign players lies with him.

Who are the targets? We don't know. People will/not choose to believe the media. Its upto them. But the club knows. Accordingly, his performance will be evaluated internally.

I don't care about signing World class talents. Its the cohesion and understanding among its good players that make a world class team.

But if we see more of Fallaini type signings (dross at high price on a long term contract effectively holding the club back), he'll be the one to blame regardless of who the manager was that suggested such targets. Because it is Woodward who establish the monetary terms of the contract.

If the club fail to improve under his stewardship after spending a large amount that we will be spending, who's to blame? Ed.
 
Purchased yes, but half of money for both those transfers has been paid by the current regime. Likely a deal that had to be paid within a few years.

The biggest problem under plc was their roof about the wages, which looks to have heart us. I also remember in a Sunday show in Italy with Arrigo Sachi when he was talking about his friendship with Sir Alex and how Sir Alex asked him one time to find a strong striker for him. He proposed to sign Batistuta for 30m. Sir Alex replied something like: find me someone less strong. Then Kenyon saying that if SAF wants to sign players, he should sell first.

Point is, it was the same situation under the last regime. Madrid always overspend us, the likes of Milano and Juventus paid twice the wages we did. It hasn't become worse under Glazers, just that some other clubs have won the lottary by getting purchased from Russiand and Arab billionaires who aren't here for profit. That isn't something we can do against. We still spend a lot of money, but compared to those clubs it isn't a big sum. As it was us under plc compared to Madrid, Milan or Juve. Now you can add Barca whose revenue dwarfs our revenue (which wasn't the case a decade ago, but they and Madrid now won a lot more money because what they have done to other teams in the league), City, PSG and Chelsea (although Chelsea now doesn't spend more than us) and remove the Italian teams. Even under plc, what big non-English players we ever signed? It was the identical scenario, sign young talents from outside at time (with occasionally a superstar like Veron) and try to get the best British talent. Something like we do now. We lose at some transfers now like Bale or probably even Baines. But even then there were the likes of Shearer or Gascoine who chose other teams.

People somehow have convinced themselves that it has been better under the last regime, when nothing, absolutely nothing supports that theory. Also, they have panicked so much on the beginning under Glazers when everyone was lead to believe that their regime will be the end of us. While their regime was not even near as bad as expected (and ironically we had the best success under them, although it has been attributed to Fergie, ironically, Fergie was the manager also under the previous regime but that get lost in translation), the opinions on them to a lot of people haven't changed. There are still fears about the perfectly managable debts, and there is fear that they want to do an Arsenal despite there is no evidence at all that supports that.

There is no evidence to suggest what you say is true .... (Fails to supply any comprehensive evidence to back up this wide sweeping statement)..

Oh now I see why you ignore any evidence that contradicts any of your opinions and then why you make random claims about things that you think but don't qualify with any sort of credible information.....
 
There is no evidence to suggest what you say is true .... (Fails to supply any comprehensive evidence to back up this wide sweeping statement)..

Oh now I see why you ignore any evidence that contradicts any of your opinions and then why you make random claims about things that you think but don't qualify with any sort of credible information.....
Exactly. You are completely biased so of course I am going to ignore those posts. I don't know what evidence you have ever given on the topic. Making large posts without anything on it doesn't make it 'evidence'.
 
Exactly. You are completely biased so of course I am going to ignore those posts. I don't know what evidence you have ever given on the topic. Making large posts without anything on it doesn't make it 'evidence'.

The evidence is there for all to see. How anybody could equate uniteds success under the glazers as an example of what supportive owners they are is simply astounding.
 
The evidence is there for all to see. How anybody could equate uniteds success under the glazers as an example of what supportive owners they are is simply astounding.
Yep. 5 league titles, an UCL trophy and two other finals (let's not forget that when they took charge we were in rebuilding process). Revenue gettin increased from 246m EUR to 423m EUR, and despite that the wage ratio to revenue is greater than it was under PLC.

On the other side there are 500-600m pounds that have been shipped out of the club. While there is naive to say that without them we would have invested those money (simply that there is no way that PLC would have exploited so well the foreign markets and increase the revenue so much, then there are taxes and dividents and finally Fergie was in open war with two biggest shareholders so it is possible that he would have eventually sacked, especially on those 3 years without a big trophy), still some damage has been done that.

Ultimatelly, I think that we are better and have been more succesful than if we were still a PLC. The other option was of course to become owned by Murdoch, which I am not sure that it would have been better. The final option would have been to get owned by a wealthy man, that while on the first look seems to be much better, it doesn't work always like that. Put it that way, an Abramovich-like owner would have sacked Fergie on the period when we were three years without the league title and also couldn't pass the groups on UCL.

So, I am not saying that it was that good, but compared to other options I think it was ok.
 
The evidence is there for all to see. How anybody could equate uniteds success under the glazers as an example of what supportive owners they are is simply astounding.

That's because you don't realise that except sugar daddies there is no better owners than financial basterds.
 
The evidence is there for all to see. How anybody could equate uniteds success under the glazers as an example of what supportive owners they are is simply astounding.


You're confusing "good owners for the club" and "good owners for the fans".

Nobody ever claimed they were good owners for the fans, they're not. They do run a fecking tight ship when it comes to the club and during their rein despite all criticism every single department has excelled up until last season where a wrong decision was made about for our next manager and that has since been rectified.
 
I have no idea what Ed does behind the scenes except for when he pipes up about a new sponsorship deal.
If his job is to get transfers done then he is pretty poor thus far. I'm not going to praise him for the Mata purchase as A, he was available B, we were willing to pay huge fee C, he jumped at the chance of joining us.

Following Fabregas around like a stalker and then concluding a deal for the Mop at a higher cost than necessary was abysmal last year. Those dodgy Spanish Lawyers trying to complete Herrera deal WTF? Just an all round farce although Moyes shares some of the blame.

I will judge him after this window when he has had since Feb 1st to get our transfers in place. I will not accept more excuses and I do not care if LVG is at the World Cup. It is up to him to get our targets and surely we have numerous targets for each position we are after and not just putting all our effort and time chasing lost causes.

At the moment I do not believe he could successfully give water to an Ethiopian. I hope he proves me wrong.
 
I have no idea what Ed does behind the scenes except for when he pipes up about a new sponsorship deal.
If his job is to get transfers done then he is pretty poor thus far. I'm not going to praise him for the Mata purchase as A, he was available B, we were willing to pay huge fee C, he jumped at the chance of joining us.

Following Fabregas around like a stalker and then concluding a deal for the Mop at a higher cost than necessary was abysmal last year. Those dodgy Spanish Lawyers trying to complete Herrera deal WTF? Just an all round farce although Moyes shares some of the blame.

I will judge him after this window when he has had since Feb 1st to get our transfers in place. I will not accept more excuses and I do not care if LVG is at the World Cup. It is up to him to get our targets and surely we have numerous targets for each position we are after and not just putting all our effort and time chasing lost causes.

At the moment I do not believe he could successfully give water to an Ethiopian. I hope he proves me wrong.

So you only give any credit to a transfer that is cheap, the player doesn't want to come to us or is unavailable?

I think the Mata transfer is very credible, personally.
 
I have no idea what Ed does behind the scenes except for when he pipes up about a new sponsorship deal.
If his job is to get transfers done then he is pretty poor thus far. I'm not going to praise him for the Mata purchase as A, he was available B, we were willing to pay huge fee C, he jumped at the chance of joining us.

Following Fabregas around like a stalker and then concluding a deal for the Mop at a higher cost than necessary was abysmal last year. Those dodgy Spanish Lawyers trying to complete Herrera deal WTF? Just an all round farce although Moyes shares some of the blame.

I will judge him after this window when he has had since Feb 1st to get our transfers in place. I will not accept more excuses and I do not care if LVG is at the World Cup. It is up to him to get our targets and surely we have numerous targets for each position we are after and not just putting all our effort and time chasing lost causes.

At the moment I do not believe he could successfully give water to an Ethiopian. I hope he proves me wrong.

No he hasn't. He's had since Van Gaal has been employed, discarded most of the targets we were working and supplied his own. I'll give you that we should have had Shaw wrapped up by now though.
 
No he hasn't. He's had since Van Gaal has been employed, discarded most of the targets we were working and supplied his own. I'll give you that we should have had Shaw wrapped up by now though.

Yes if we are led to believe about 'LVGs list' however Woodward in interview said transfer plans would not be affected by our search for a new manager and that we have had deals in place for months.
Again this could be bollocks but until club say 'we had to scrap all our potential deals as Van Gaal wanted none of the players we were close to securing'' I will stick to my opinion.
 
Yes if we are led to believe about 'LVGs list' however Woodward in interview said transfer plans would not be affected by our search for a new manager and that we have had deals in place for months.
Again this could be bollocks but until club say 'we had to scrap all our potential deals as Van Gaal wanted none of the players we were close to securing'' I will stick to my opinion.
Too many blatantly briefed journalists for this not to have happened to be honest.
 
I too believe he's the likely source of the leaks but as yet I can't discern any sort of advantage we've gained from it. Using the press to leak to strengthen a hand in a negotiation is understandable but our motivation seems to be 'shits and giggles'
 
Too many blatantly briefed journalists for this not to have happened to be honest.

True. All I know is it is frustrating and worrying so far although window is still not open. I think a lot of fans including myself are more impatient than ever after last years debacle.
I'm just going to enjoy the WC, be positive and hope by August 31st we have strengthened well and are ready for the challenge. September 1st will be very colorful on here if we haven't!
 
I have no idea what Ed does behind the scenes except for when he pipes up about a new sponsorship deal.
If his job is to get transfers done then he is pretty poor thus far. I'm not going to praise him for the Mata purchase as A, he was available B, we were willing to pay huge fee C, he jumped at the chance of joining us.

Following Fabregas around like a stalker and then concluding a deal for the Mop at a higher cost than necessary was abysmal last year. Those dodgy Spanish Lawyers trying to complete Herrera deal WTF? Just an all round farce although Moyes shares some of the blame.

I will judge him after this window when he has had since Feb 1st to get our transfers in place. I will not accept more excuses and I do not care if LVG is at the World Cup. It is up to him to get our targets and surely we have numerous targets for each position we are after and not just putting all our effort and time chasing lost causes.

At the moment I do not believe he could successfully give water to an Ethiopian. I hope he proves me wrong.
Those three criteria are pre requisite ingredients to any transfer deal being successfully concluded . The fact that he was coming from our rivals, having been their best player for two successive seasons make this a very credible deal . The main problem that's been bedevilling our transfer dealings is the identification aspect, sometimes in fact most times a player may suit us down to a tee but if he is playing for a club equal or bigger than us in stature then unless he is unhappy or has an unsettled contractual situation then chasing them is pretty much wasting time because you'd expect a club like Barca to hold on to the players we need . Now identifying targets is the manager's brief and that's where I felt we failed last summer because our list seemed to have Fabregas and Fellaini for midfield but we ignored players in between who could have cost less but contributed more than Fellaini . Now if Woodward interfered in that process then problems, serious problems, would arise . United refusing to go the extra mile, financially, to sign Hazard is a serious feck up on the executive side but when United wilfully ignore the likes of Strootman and McCarthy only to sign Fellaini, the technical side has to carry the can .
 
Those three criteria are pre requisite ingredients to any transfer deal being successfully concluded . The fact that he was coming from our rivals, having been their best player for two successive reasons make this a very credible deal . The main problem that's been bedevilling our transfer dealings is the identification aspect, sometimes in fact most times a player may suit us down to a tee but if he is playing for a club equal or bigger than us in stature then unless he is unhappy or has an unsettled contractual situation then chasing them is pretty much wasting time because you'd expect a club like Barca to hold on to the players we need . Now identifying targets is the manager's brief and that's where I felt we failed last summer because our list seemed to have Fabregas and Fellaini for midfield but we ignored players in between who could have cost less but contributed more than Fellaini . Now if Woodward interfered in that process then problems, serious problems, would arise . United refusing to go the extra mile, financially, to sign Hazard is a serious feck up on the executive side but when United wilfully ignore the likes of Strootman and McCarthy only to sign Fellaini, the technical side has to carry the can .

I agree with your reply but the fact Mata wanted out, WC year, wanted to stay in England and no one else was in for him kind of made it easy. If Mata was happy at the club, had no intention of leaving but we then offered Chelsea a fee they accepted and then convinced Mata to join us with some top notch negotiations I'd give him more credit.
Yes I'm a realist and do not see why the lure of playing for us would make much difference if you are already playing at a European super club. I'm one for buying a less renowned player if he will improve the team but if the likes of Fabregas and Kroos really are available then I cannot see how a manger like Van Gaal would turn them down when he has inherited such a poor midfield.
We either can't afford them or LVG has a super plan up his sleeve.
Hazard and Ronaldinho spring to mind when we just would not budge on price (or with an under the table Agent bribe). Kenyon and Gill are to blame for them though so lets hope Woodward does not follow suit when pursuing a player the club really want and is willing to join us.
 
I don't think as far as owners go, Glazers were bad. They were not ideal, and all this debt stuff had a negative impact, to what tune exactly it's hard to tell, but it did. But club did grow and succeed. So who exactly would you rather want?

Obviously rich guys, that invest heavily is fans favorite. Well maybe they would be better. But think about it, i mean really think. If say Mr. Rich guy would have bought club in 2005, would he kept Fergie after those Chelsea successes? I am not so sure. You look at those wealthy owners and they are not exactly the patient or understanding ones. Because they can basically buy anything - that's what they do. If their is a new "toy" - they want it, and that's it! I mean just think about it. Chelsea has fired Ancelotti, when he delivered them league title in the first year, because Abramovich though AVB is going to be a top-top boss and he wanted him for Chelsea asap. So, not so straight forward that one.

And what, would you rather want Kroenke? Lerner maybe? Or that Sunderland guy? Do you want that Hull City guy, so we could be renamed as Manchester Devils, cause there are so many United's out there. Or would you want these first Liverpool's american, Hicks and whoever. Current one, Henry seems okay, but lets wait and see. Or would you rather have Spurs owners and Levy as CEO. Cause i would take Glazers over every one of them. Yeah, and also there is Ashley, who "trade" him for Glazers?
And there is also some really bad owners, Portsmouth one etc.

So i think we are okay. Many would have wanted the german structure with a fan ownership, and i want it too. But these kind of stuff is completely impossible, delusional even if it's not in national legislation. So it's a political problem, we need a brave and determined sports minister that would get this licensing done. Like it's in Germany, where club are regarded as a community assets of sorts. But you don't really believe anyone would actually consider doing it, do you? I mean come on, all this crazy cash-rich owners, english clubs constantly making huge losses that they cover. And how they make these losses? Cause of salaries. And that's taxes. So politicians are very happy with that system i take it. There is something close to it in Swansea, but that's the only example, an exception and a nice "real-life fairy tale". But it's hard to see how every, even just many of the clubs could be that way. And don't forget that Swans became party fan-owned because they went basically bankrupt and hit the rock bottom.
 
So you only give any credit to a transfer that is cheap, the player doesn't want to come to us or is unavailable?

I think the Mata transfer is very credible, personally.
Fergie and Gill were apparently heavily involved in the negotiations to bring mata in, with both of them pictured with abramovich after the game. I cant give Ed that much credit to be honest. Yes he deserves some but I reckob alot of it was due to fergie and gills influence on the chelsea owner and mourinho.
 
So you only give any credit to a transfer that is cheap, the player doesn't want to come to us or is unavailable?

I think the Mata transfer is very credible, personally.

No not at all, I said I will not praise him. He was doing his job and I'm happy we signed Mata so credit to him and the club.

If we sign a player who is also wanted by several other top European clubs who are also willing to pay the required fee because Ed negotiated well by selling our club, aspirations to him, offered a suitable wage deal all whilst having no European football to offer. Then he will get 'praise' from me.
 
I don't think as far as owners go, Glazers were bad. They were not ideal, and all this debt stuff had a negative impact, to what tune exactly it's hard to tell, but it did. But club did grow and succeed. So who exactly would you rather want?

Obviously rich guys, that invest heavily is fans favorite. Well maybe they would be better. But think about it, i mean really think. If say Mr. Rich guy would have bought club in 2005, would he kept Fergie after those Chelsea successes? I am not so sure. You look at those wealthy owners and they are not exactly the patient or understanding ones. Because they can basically buy anything - that's what they do. If their is a new "toy" - they want it, and that's it! I mean just think about it. Chelsea has fired Ancelotti, when he delivered them league title in the first year, because Abramovich though AVB is going to be a top-top boss and he wanted him for Chelsea asap. So, not so straight forward that one.

And what, would you rather want Kroenke? Lerner maybe? Or that Sunderland guy? Do you want that Hull City guy, so we could be renamed as Manchester Devils, cause there are so many United's out there. Or would you want these first Liverpool's american, Hicks and whoever. Current one, Henry seems okay, but lets wait and see. Or would you rather have Spurs owners and Levy as CEO. Cause i would take Glazers over every one of them. Yeah, and also there is Ashley, who "trade" him for Glazers?
And there is also some really bad owners, Portsmouth one etc.

So i think we are okay. Many would have wanted the german structure with a fan ownership, and i want it too. But these kind of stuff is completely impossible, delusional even if it's not in national legislation. So it's a political problem, we need a brave and determined sports minister that would get this licensing done. Like it's in Germany, where club are regarded as a community assets of sorts. But you don't really believe anyone would actually consider doing it, do you? I mean come on, all this crazy cash-rich owners, english clubs constantly making huge losses that they cover. And how they make these losses? Cause of salaries. And that's taxes. So politicians are very happy with that system i take it. There is something close to it in Swansea, but that's the only example, an exception and a nice "real-life fairy tale". But it's hard to see how every, even just many of the clubs could be that way. And don't forget that Swans became party fan-owned because they went basically bankrupt and hit the rock bottom.
Excellent post! Exactly how I feel for the entire situation.
 
Reus - Not for sale.
Kroos - Not for sale.
Shaw - Wants to go to Chelsea apparently.
Cavani - Wants to stay at PSG.
Muller - Wants to stay at Bayern.

It's just an example of how far we've fallen under the Glazers. In my lifetime I can't remember Madrid ever missing out on a main target yet we seem to do so every season.
 
Yep. 5 league titles, an UCL trophy and two other finals (let's not forget that when they took charge we were in rebuilding process). Revenue gettin increased from 246m EUR to 423m EUR, and despite that the wage ratio to revenue is greater than it was under PLC.

On the other side there are 500-600m pounds that have been shipped out of the club. While there is naive to say that without them we would have invested those money (simply that there is no way that PLC would have exploited so well the foreign markets and increase the revenue so much, then there are taxes and dividents and finally Fergie was in open war with two biggest shareholders so it is possible that he would have eventually sacked, especially on those 3 years without a big trophy), still some damage has been done that.

Ultimatelly, I think that we are better and have been more succesful than if we were still a PLC. The other option was of course to become owned by Murdoch, which I am not sure that it would have been better. The final option would have been to get owned by a wealthy man, that while on the first look seems to be much better, it doesn't work always like that. Put it that way, an Abramovich-like owner would have sacked Fergie on the period when we were three years without the league title and also couldn't pass the groups on UCL.

So, I am not saying that it was that good, but compared to other options I think it was ok.

Can you at least provide links to your "facts" ? Where is the 600million figure coming from?
How much was made back in sales? What is the net spend?

How much have they taken out of the club in comparison to what they have reinvested?

And just look at liverpools previous owners versus the ones they have now. No leveraging of the club makes a huge difference.

The only reason the glazer model worked was pure luck on their part that they had the greatest manager of all time at the helm. It doesn't matter where rivals get their money, in comparison to every one of the top clubs in england and Europe our spending has been extremely tight and conservative.

Your figures or assumptions against the plc are just way off. You don't do any comparisons with rivals (success to spend ratio) and don't provide any data to back up your broad sweeping statements...

If it wasn't for SAF , the glazer model would of destroyed the club....
 
It's just an example of how far we've fallen under the Glazers. In my lifetime I can't remember Madrid ever missing out on a main target yet we seem to do so every season.

We used to miss out on targets before Glazers actually.

See Shearer, Ronaldinho, Kluivert, Robben, Salas, Batistuta and many more who we missed out on before the glazers.
 
It's just an example of how far we've fallen under the Glazers. In my lifetime I can't remember Madrid ever missing out on a main target yet we seem to do so every season.

Every player we are linked to and do not buy even if we bid for them were obviously not on LVGs list. ;)
 
We used to miss out on targets before Glazers actually.

See Shearer, Ronaldinho, Kluivert, Robben, Salas, Batistuta and many more who we missed out on before the glazers.

Not to mention it's very easy to find public comments from Kenyon insisting that Ferguson must sell before he's allowed to buy. The whitewashing of the PLC's record in these matters because people regurgitate the names Ferdinand and Veron, is incredible.

Lest we forget just what an uphill battle it was to convince the PLC that our captain and most influential player, Roy Keane, was worth a pay rise
 
I don't like him. He couldn't sign a goat. Just read today that David Gill and Sir Alex Ferguson had to have secret discussions with Mathias people to get the deal done. So, the one success I thought he had, he didn't have much to do with. Says it all really.
 
I don't like him. He couldn't sign a goat. Just read today that David Gill and Sir Alex Ferguson had to have secret discussions with Mathias people to get the deal done. So, the one success I thought he had, he didn't have much to do with. Says it all really.
We're gonna find out soon and the final verdict will be cast. This window will define Woodward for years to come.

To be honest all he got to do is listen to Van Gaal and incorporate his words with serious amount of resources... and he's quite good in the 'resources' stuff.

We'll see...
 
We're gonna find out soon and the final verdict will be cast. This window will define Woodward for years to come.

To be honest all he got to do is listen to Van Gaal and incorporate his words with serious amount of resources... and he's quite good in the 'resources' stuff.

We'll see...

Yeah, I agree this window will make or break him. But even if he fails, he won't be sacked, he makes The Glazer family a ton of money and he's a yes man to them. We need a director of Football someone who knows the game in and out and is able to sign players imo.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.