Up to now we are having another summer transfer window which seems to be very similar to the last one. OK, we have signed Herrera and Shaw and the way it looks now is that may well be it with maybe, maybe, another one or 2 players coming in. For me Woodward is still the Glazers right hand man, I said before this summer window that he has a lot to prove and up to now he has been a dissapointment. The Glazers tell him what he can and cannot do obviously, and when he can spend cash or not. Where does anyone on here think all the money coming in is going to? Some is being invested in players but it seems to me that most of it is heading out of the club I hope I am wrong. But sure does not look like it right now. Come on ED get the damn finger out.
Woodward (old thread)
- Thread starter smallred
- Start date
- Status
Understandable that big deals often take more time but it just seems a bit of a shambles. We didn't manage to get Vermaelen and have now stumbled across a mess in Rojo. We haven't managed to get another midfielder in which means we're starting the league woefully short again and leaving it late if that's to change. It might not all be Woodward but if Delaney and Ladyman are correct then he has to take some of the blame. It wouldn't bother me that much had he kept his mouth shut and not wittered on about the possibility of breaking records and then the "watch the space" line which hasn't exactly worked out well so far. Can only hope we manage to get 2/3 deals over the line by the deadline.
United has every right to seek a lower fee than the stipulated buyout clause - which is rarely activated for Portuguese clubs unlike Spanish or German clubs because they don't have a strong hand in negotiations. It's not a complete failure on our part but merely posturing by Sporting to extract additional value from either us or Doyen. They have a history of haranguing buyer clubs before settling on a lower fee and that can be illustrated with a few examples :
Bruma :
Buyout clause - €30m
http://www.marca.com/2013/08/14/en/football/real_madrid/1376511997.html
Actual selling price to Galatasaray - €10m
http://www1.skysports.com/football/...ign-teenage-winger-bruma-from-sporting-lisbon
Tiago Ilori :
Buyout clause - €30m
http://www.liverpool-kop.com/2013/0...iago-ilori-scouted-liverpool-in-talks-7m.html
Actual selling price to Liverpool - £7m
http://www.independent.co.uk/sport/...tiago-ilori-is-loaned-to-granada-9074143.html
Porto slapped a €40m buyout clause on Joao Moutinho.
http://www.theguardian.com/football/2012/aug/31/tottenham-deadline-day-joao-moutinho
But sold him for €25m
http://www1.skysports.com/football/...c-porto-duo-joao-moutinho-and-james-rodriguez
For the second part, as I've said numerous times before the transfer market is extremely covert and we have only media reports to go by which frankly are mostly guff. So it's nigh impossible to quantify his competence levels.
Anyway that's about it from me. We must agree to disagree since the views are so diametrically opposed. I'm a believer in Woodward.
I find it somewhat strange that those who seek to completely absolve Woodward from any blame over our transfer fiascos because "we don't know it's actually his fault" are able to absolutely credit him for increasing our commercial revenues when there's similarly no shred of evidence it's down to him personally.
In essence - anything good that happens is down to him. Anything bad that happens isn't down to him.
A good CEO doesn't need excuses made for them. A good CEO gets the job done no matter the obstacles. If this were a FTSE100 company questions would rightly be being asked by shareholders.
We're not shareholders but we do have an emotional investment in the club and as such we're questioning what's going on - or not going on, as the case may be.
In essence - anything good that happens is down to him. Anything bad that happens isn't down to him.
A good CEO doesn't need excuses made for them. A good CEO gets the job done no matter the obstacles. If this were a FTSE100 company questions would rightly be being asked by shareholders.
We're not shareholders but we do have an emotional investment in the club and as such we're questioning what's going on - or not going on, as the case may be.
When should we accredit then ? The janitor ?
Quite easy to see why we can credit Woodward for the revenues when the results are there and the responsibility belongs to him and Arnold. Also, that's pure business and easier to analyse. Plus, they've been credited with it by others who aren't fans.
Transfers are more complex and the factors involved and responsibilities are so varied that we can't have a clue. In the end he will be judged for his part in it but we won't be able to.
Transfers are more complex and the factors involved and responsibilities are so varied that we can't have a clue. In the end he will be judged for his part in it but we won't be able to.
I wonder why the Glazers would promote Woody, if he wasn't the most significant person responsible for our commercial growth...
I wish he hadn't given the 'watch the space' interview though.
Said it before, the signings made to date weren't exactly hard from where I see it. Fellaini, Everton snatched our hand off and for 3 mil more than we could have paid for him. Herrera, which the work that was already done in principle from the mess earlier and just came down to money anyway in the end. We paid 27m for a teenager, hardly difficult when your waving that kind of money at a selling club like Southampton. We smashed our transfer record 'in January' for a man who wasn't playing regularly and couldn't get in the Chelsea first team. Hardly hard nose bargaining from Woody.
Who's bright idea was it to give Nani a 5 year contract? Now it's costing us more to keep him cause no one will pay his wages. Would have been cheaper to let him go for free.
Shaw and Herrera IMO were done last season and just ratified by LVG. I can't believe we've not signed a LVG identified player as yet. I don't care if we've still got 2 weeks left, all the other big teams have done their business, the players and their families are settling. Some have even taken part in pre-season.
Let's be real (excuse the pun - but wish we were like Real at times), who realistically would have thought we'd only have bought 2 players a day before the season started? I'm convinced we've reach of transfer budget ceiling for this season.....I guessing no more in without some players going out to help balance the books. There's a lot of smoke and mirrors going on with the transfer policy.
Who's bright idea was it to give Nani a 5 year contract? Now it's costing us more to keep him cause no one will pay his wages. Would have been cheaper to let him go for free.
Shaw and Herrera IMO were done last season and just ratified by LVG. I can't believe we've not signed a LVG identified player as yet. I don't care if we've still got 2 weeks left, all the other big teams have done their business, the players and their families are settling. Some have even taken part in pre-season.
Let's be real (excuse the pun - but wish we were like Real at times), who realistically would have thought we'd only have bought 2 players a day before the season started? I'm convinced we've reach of transfer budget ceiling for this season.....I guessing no more in without some players going out to help balance the books. There's a lot of smoke and mirrors going on with the transfer policy.
Last edited:
Will you also blame the janitor for Woodward's failings in the transfer market?
You can't have it both ways - the responsibility for driving revenues is Woodwards so you credit him when that happens. The responsibility for delivering new recruits is Woodward's so you claim the failures are nothing to do with him (or employ the "we don't know who's to blame" argument).
Apparently we know who to praise but not who to blame.
seems he is doing a great job with the Rojo signing then 
For all we know, those seemingly underperforming players are just following the instructions of a clueless manager, as many on here felt was the case with Moyes. Or perhaps the tactics were great, but the players refused to execute them. The bottom line is we'll never know all the details of what goes on at the club, and yet the finger rightly gets pointed at the man with whom the buck is meant to stop. In the case of on-field performance that was Moyes; as far as bringing in new players, it's Woodward.
Beautifully put.
Again.. What failures ? Which feasible targets has the manager identified with Woodward not being able to deliver ? Vermaelen ? Who else ?
Exactly. The self same thing has now happened two Summer transfer windows in a row and there's only one common denominator.
And the 'ifs' and 'buts' don't really matter. It's a bottom line business, and until now, Woodward hasn't got it done, despite making ill-advised promises that he would. Of course, this could all change with a quick signing or two, but even then, it will have been left very late for a team that has required a comprehensive redo (and thus, a fair amount of time to get ready for the season.)
Clearly none by your estimation - although every man and his dog knows what our manpower problems are. You'd have to be naïve in the extreme to think LVG hasn't given him targets. Has Woodward himself not alluded to deals in the offing (that don't appear to have materialised)?
The failure involves not bringing in adequate new talent to plug the significant holes that we have. Whether that includes Vermaelen, Hummels or some Serbian wunderkind that we've never heard of is a bit beside the point.
I don't get this. I can understand being diplomatic, taking the wait-and-see approach (I don't share that view, but I can understand it.) But what has he produced in terms of bolstering the squad that justifies any belief in his abilities? It's like being a believer in Guillermo Varela (unless you happen to be one of the die-hards who've actually seen him play regularly.)
I guessing we've spent the allocated transfer budget for this season coming, and we can't spend a penny more until we have shipped players out. LVG can't shift players he's not convinced we'll have replacements for so he has looked at the younger players to supplement this instead. Players will only go if the younger players can offer cover which he's not convinced they can week in and out. Hence in my opinion the Mexican stand-off.....
No, that's not right. First of all it's up to LvG and only when he chooses a target, then it's in Woodward's hands.
I'm going to judge this way:
1. When the transfer window closes and if I'm still dissapointed because of missing signings I think we would have needed, I'll wait for LvG to complain about Woodward not getting the targets he gave him (I'm sure he will complain if this happens)
2. If LvG doesn't complain, then I won't be blaming Woodward. I'll be as certain as I can be that LvG didn't ask for any new players (yet)
3. That means I'll watch LvG's system and how it works for us and then decide if he was right or wrong. If we play nice and successful footy then great, if we don't then LvG is to blame for not strengthening the squad.
4. But even if I blame LvG, I won't be too hard on him. All the other top clubs fighting for top 4 have managers that have had at least a whole season with their teams, so of course it's way easier for them to know which transfers they need. By trusting the players we already have and giving everybody a fair chance to impress him, he is building a foundation of trust and confidence that'll last a lot longer than one summer transfer window. And when he does start asking for players, I'll be watching Woody's space very closely.
Allow me to elaborate a bit.
Suppose Van Gaal has handed him a list that includes Vidal and Hummels right ? What is Woodward to do if Dortmund wouldn't sell the latter at any rate ? What is he to do if Juventus are fannying around like they've reportedly done instead of finalizing the terms ? What is he supposed to do if hypothetically the owners aren't willing to go above a predetermined price-band ? There are some major forces at play here and Woodward is a mere component of the machinery.
It's not like Madrid where Perez can identify and offer mind boggling transfer fee as the acting president without consulting the manager. Woodward doesn't have the final say over transfer expenditure because in actuality it's not his money to spend. And even if he does Louis has to ratify them.
Yet people keep banging on about it, demanding his head. What then about the deals that fell through during the PLC era or with Gill incharge when we missed out on a number of players. But with Woodward we conveniently forget that he's already spent 120 million at the manager's behest. The fair thing to do would be to wait and let the transfers unfold (assuming there will be any) instead of getting our panties in a knot when we aren't privy to the inner workings of the club.
Shocking. Last year's transfer window was nothing short of a complete embarrassment and so far we've brought in two players with just over 24 hours until KO when we need closer to five or six. Still no depth or world-class talent at the back or in the middle. Really frustrating.
It's a football forum, no one has the monopoly on knowledge anymore than you do. Your view might be equally wrong. The fact is whatever the constraints, the business has not been done. The issues you've raised are applicable for all transfer cause it's never just about money. The art of doing it well is the ability to navigate the complexities. I agree mistakes have been made in the past but Woody needs to speak less about what he going to do, and go out and prove he can make these deals happen. Others ceo's for the top teams have managed to do it.....
Of course. In fact you'll find that I quite often preface the comment by stating that 'we' aren't privy to confidential club information. That includes me and other genuinely non-ITK folks.
Again a lot of variables are involved and it's a jagged performance curve.
Gazidis signed Sanchez, Chambers etc but he was woeful before that for a long while. Some Arsenal fans might attest to that.
Chelsea have been the most attractive English club for the past decade now - evinced by their ability to whiff Robben, Essien, Mikel, Ballack, Hazard from under our noses so it's not exactly a Woodward exclusive phenomenon.
Werner and Ayer have signed Can, Lallana, Lambert and the like. Hardly world-class signings. And City have made just two additions. One on a Bosman and another by triggering his buyout clause.
With that in mind I struggle to see a measure by which Woodward has under performed in comparison to other CEOs/ Chairmen.
If you're dismissing that as not something they deserve credit for then Woodward has made just one signing of note. He paid almost 30m quid for a teenage fullback with a handful of assists in his entire career to date, in the same summer he allowed both of our existing left backs leave the club (one of whom the manager didn't want to leave)
To stick with City for a moment, they've also re-negotiated contracts with Kompany, Silva and Aguero, signed Frank Lampard on loan and sold an incredibly injury prone fringe player (Rodwell) for 12m quid. They've done all this while being hamstrung by FFP and with a good, young squad that currently hold the league title and haven't lost a single player of note. Compare and contrast with the United side that finished 7th, clearly needs an overhaul and lost a lot of quality and experience over the summer.
So yes, Woodward is clearly under-performing in comparison to his peers.
It seems like we're paranoid to potentially overpay for a player. We always seem to look for a bargain and in most cases it wont work or we overpay anyways (Berbatov, Fellaini). Then you have Madrid, Chelsea or Barca who just pay what they have to and be done with it
Unfortunately Woodward wasn't the one to set the bar Shaw's price. That was ordained by the selling club. It's a catch 22 situation for him anyway. If he pays the 30 million demanded by Southampton he overpays for a teenage fullback with a handful of assists. If he doesn't, mass hysteria ensues amid cries of him pissing about with the target who then proceeds to join a rival club. As for allowing the left backs to leave, again he isn't the one making personnel decisions. It's not as if he sold them off on his own accord. That decision must've been intimated to him by Louis. What was he supposed to do ? Deny that and keep them onboard anyway ? Wouldn't such decisions undermine the manager who has surmounting authority at United ?
Well he re-negotiated terms with Valencia, signed Rooney and Januzaj to a record deals (the latter for a teenager) in recent memory, oversaw a change in manager while letting the previous one go, made background changes, sold Buttner, possibly Hernandez, Zaha and the others on the way out aswell etc. I'd say that's a slightly more momentous period compared to City. We aren't hamstrung by FFP either, the age of our squad is 2 years younger than City's and anyway it's not purely down to Woodward. City have strengthened over a period of time where Sir Alex and Gill presided over the dealings. Also we haven't lost a single player of note - one of our most beloved player Welbeck was close to leaving but didn't owing to the managerial change. In comparing and contrasting I'll again repeat that Ed is not the one deciding transfer targets, he isn't the one releasing funds, he's a mere intermediary for the owners. His hands might very well be tied by financial constraints.
A very interesting article from earlier this year. I do not like Woodwards way of thinking at all, a couple of examples: "we are not afraid of moving in the market in a way that we perhaps have not seen in recent years." Yes it is called slow motion and bullshit talk. and "there is currently no impact on the wider business from current on-pitch performance". So it is not so important how we perform on the pitch? and, "It has taken a long time to build our huge fan base," said Woodward. "That will not go away for a long time." Why even consider such a thought? and also, ""Some of our competitors have not won league for a long time and they still sell a lot of shirts - one of them is just down the road." Fair enough then, so we can do the same and bring in lots of profits for the owners even if we never win a title again, at least "for a long time" until the fan base shrivels up. It seems to me that Ed is not in the least bit worried about the success of the club on the pitch it is the money coming in that matters. If these are the ideas he puts to the Glazers then it is no wonder at all that we are doing so bad in the transfer market. Ed is worse than a chocolate teapot, he is a Glazer teapot.
http://www1.skysports.com/football/...ofits-amid-concern-over-on-field-performances
http://www1.skysports.com/football/...ofits-amid-concern-over-on-field-performances
I'm all for giving Woodward he whole window to get transfers completed, but either way this is a big summer for him IMO. After last seasons horror show, he simply can't afford to keep showing such ineptness at getting deal completed after making big bold statements about doing just that. I'm sorry, but you can't make put your head on the block giving people the impression that were well on our way to a few signings and then deliver very little or nothing at all.
The pressure is on Woodward, and right fully so. So far, he's failed to deliver.
The pressure is on Woodward, and right fully so. So far, he's failed to deliver.
Very interesting quotes there.
They certainly link with my previous suggestion (that is always swept under the rug) that winning trophies isn't crucial in the Glazers eyes, especially if it'll cost more than they'd like to spend. You can remain relevant and a big brand without much success, as shown by Liverpool and City's contrasting kit deals. And were a much bigger brand than Liverpool.
Will our fan base decline hugely or significantly without trophies? Not if Liverpool are anything to go by, and the bar for new deals is set by the previous deals. Unless United truly flop into nothing, their deals will still be large enough to make money, even if they decrease. After all football's only getting bigger.
We were successful when it really mattered. Now we're in such a position where success is less important for the brand. Its position as an elite commercial brand is secure.
minimum spending, maximum return. Milk the club's name and commercial value for all it's worth.
If those quotes are real, there's my argument straight from the horses mouth.
They certainly link with my previous suggestion (that is always swept under the rug) that winning trophies isn't crucial in the Glazers eyes, especially if it'll cost more than they'd like to spend. You can remain relevant and a big brand without much success, as shown by Liverpool and City's contrasting kit deals. And were a much bigger brand than Liverpool.
Will our fan base decline hugely or significantly without trophies? Not if Liverpool are anything to go by, and the bar for new deals is set by the previous deals. Unless United truly flop into nothing, their deals will still be large enough to make money, even if they decrease. After all football's only getting bigger.
We were successful when it really mattered. Now we're in such a position where success is less important for the brand. Its position as an elite commercial brand is secure.
minimum spending, maximum return. Milk the club's name and commercial value for all it's worth.
If those quotes are real, there's my argument straight from the horses mouth.
Last edited:
I've woken up all mellow today.
So on that note, I still think there enough mitigating factors to avoid drawing any conclusions about Ed as of today.
1) LVG arrived late, really late, and rightly wanted to take a glance at his squad. Every other big club had the same manager last year and what they needed was pretty obvious (City centre back, Chelsea creativity & striker, Liverpool squad depth, Arsenal a pair of bollocks).
Our squad on the other hand was all over the place, with no obvious formation, a mass of under-performing players & way too many players in similar positions. So not only is it going to take longer to decide what changes to make, Ed's only got a couple of weeks to do any deals in.
Remember that Chelsea & City were negotiating for Costa and Mangala since the January transfer window. So they hardly got those deals done quickly, they were just able to start sooner. That's how long it takes sometimes.
2) The Vidal deal is complex. Juve can't look like they've bent over, the player has been injured, he also doesn't want to publicly push for a move, was late back from the WC and is now in Australia. Sometimes deals are like that, you don't just get to say a high number and the whole thing happens.
You only need to look at Bale last year to see that its not always easy if the club is intransigent. They offered a world record fee, they were the only bidder (til the last minute anyway), the player refused to train - and yet it still took right up til the end of the window to make it happen.
3) We're not in the CL, which means that easy deals like Di Maria become much harder. Previously an equal offer in terms of pay and transfer fee was normally enough to guarantee a player coming to us. No longer. (Yes Ed made his own bed by hiring Moyes, but that doesn't change the situation right now)
4) We only have 3 league games before the window closes, and they're against Swansea, Sunderland and Burnley. The players we already have should be able to win those games. If we don't the problems won't easily solved by bringing in another couple of players.
Sometimes when you're cooking it looks really unappetising, then it suddenly all comes together at once. I just hope its going to be like that here.
[By the way I reserve the right to change my mind, depending on tomorrow's result/transfer news/sunspots/my blood:caffeine ratio.]
So on that note, I still think there enough mitigating factors to avoid drawing any conclusions about Ed as of today.
1) LVG arrived late, really late, and rightly wanted to take a glance at his squad. Every other big club had the same manager last year and what they needed was pretty obvious (City centre back, Chelsea creativity & striker, Liverpool squad depth, Arsenal a pair of bollocks).
Our squad on the other hand was all over the place, with no obvious formation, a mass of under-performing players & way too many players in similar positions. So not only is it going to take longer to decide what changes to make, Ed's only got a couple of weeks to do any deals in.
Remember that Chelsea & City were negotiating for Costa and Mangala since the January transfer window. So they hardly got those deals done quickly, they were just able to start sooner. That's how long it takes sometimes.
2) The Vidal deal is complex. Juve can't look like they've bent over, the player has been injured, he also doesn't want to publicly push for a move, was late back from the WC and is now in Australia. Sometimes deals are like that, you don't just get to say a high number and the whole thing happens.
You only need to look at Bale last year to see that its not always easy if the club is intransigent. They offered a world record fee, they were the only bidder (til the last minute anyway), the player refused to train - and yet it still took right up til the end of the window to make it happen.
3) We're not in the CL, which means that easy deals like Di Maria become much harder. Previously an equal offer in terms of pay and transfer fee was normally enough to guarantee a player coming to us. No longer. (Yes Ed made his own bed by hiring Moyes, but that doesn't change the situation right now)
4) We only have 3 league games before the window closes, and they're against Swansea, Sunderland and Burnley. The players we already have should be able to win those games. If we don't the problems won't easily solved by bringing in another couple of players.
Sometimes when you're cooking it looks really unappetising, then it suddenly all comes together at once. I just hope its going to be like that here.
[By the way I reserve the right to change my mind, depending on tomorrow's result/transfer news/sunspots/my blood:caffeine ratio.]
I don't think you really understand how big business works. Those are the standard sort of quotes you'd expect from a CEO when the sharks are circling after a poor set of results (in this context, results on the pitch) It's part of his job to reassure potential investors and shareholders that a poor season or two isn't going to derail the business. This is, of course, not even close to being "not in the least bit worried about the success of the club on the pitch".
If anything, that particular interview is an example of him doing one aspect of his job rather well. If only we had similar evidence for him being competent at all the other aspects...
You're not seriously suggesting the Glazers would look to Liverpool as an example of how to run a profitable football club?
No, I don't think I suggested that.
Oh right. Only you mentioned them twice in that post I quoted.
To be fair to them, they've continued winning trophies over the last decade, as well as compete regularly in the CL. Which has helped to just about keep their head above water. Of course, I don't think any owner would want to go through all the drama they've gone through in trying to stay profitable.
Woodworm is just a puppet of the Glazers, they'll never get rid of him cos he's a loyal lackey and is good at getting sponsorship deals. They don't want to spend much money yet expect miracles to fall from the sky. Don't forget, these are owners who know absolutely nothing about football, or soccer as they call it. It's just a money making business to them, as posted by Speak, "minimum spending, maximum return". Maybe another season of missing out on the CL might just finally wake them up. Or make them sell the club.
Well overpaying for a player is one thing, but if we were to sell Hernandez, Anderson, Nani, Cleverly,Fellaini We've probably spent the best part of 2/3 mil on wages through not selling them at the beginning of the window compared to later.
You don't see the major flaw in your argument; you are overlooking the fact that it's not Woodward's remit to select the targets, the manager does that and we know the guy started in earnest just four weeks ago. What if he targeted Vermaelen but Arsenal were unwilling to strengthen a direct rival again ? Do you know that some players just aren't for sale which is why you see no one else bothering Juve for Vidal ? Do we blame him for the Lisbon fiasco when it's clear that Sporting will resist any attempted sale since they will not benefit financially from any deal ? It is clear that they are many parties to a deal and factors beyond his control.
Compare that with the commercial deals where he is dealing with one entity,enticing them and deciding whether to accept their offer. All he has to do is highlight potential benefits of associating with, structure the deals and he is done. Very different from convincing Juventus to part with a priced asset or convince Kroos to forego a year in the CL, snub Madrid and sign for us.
Going forward there is obviously a need to have more technical people at executive level,the ones who will manage the football side because we have lost the one man who was capable of single handedly running the whole football operation. I don't think there is a single manager capable of handling the load Fergi carried here because he was practically the de facto DOF, whilst producing the results on the pitch. LVG and Moyes are more at home on the training ground and less involved in transfers .
Last edited:
I'm sorry but that just isn't true is it? Fellaini £27m - Mata £37m - Shaw £29m - Herrera £29m. That's £122m in one year and our spending isn't done yet IMO. I think Woodwood is getting unfairly judge when the window isn't even closed yet. I think it is because we are after the very best signings which may be hampering us, not because we aren't allowed to spend, that's juts rubbish mate.
- Status