Manchester United Team Talk/Gossip/Rumours Thread 2015 Mod Note Post #2331

Giggsy11

bucketybuck wrote: »

You have to admit though, forget football clubs, if any business in the world appointed a new CEO and then their performance over the next 3 years tanked as incredibly badly as ours has done, then that CEO would quite rightly be held accountable and most likely turfed out on his ear.

We were the league champions and the biggest club in England, now we are worried about Derby County. Forget any crap about Fergie leaving a crap team of league champions, we have been managed horrendously since Woodward was appointed and he should rightly expect scrutiny for what is happening on his watch.

Even today he is making the same mistakes. Van Gaal has been a disaster as manager yet he is still there, there isn't a top club in the world that wouldn't have sacked him months ago. Its remarkably similar to the Moyes situation, another manager who stayed in the job to the point that cost us badly long term. Why isn't Woodward taking action on very obvious problems? Should he not be held responsible for the mess that he is in charge off?

Is he not Van Gaals boss?

Like I said, I blame him for not sacking Van Gaal but not for the on field performance when everything is on Van Gaal and players. His role is to sign players Van Gaal wanted and he has done it.

My initial point was same, I blame him for not sacking Van Gaal and I stick to it. I made similar point few days back, ManUtd success is down to Fergie and not Gill. People might say it's their combination but that's entirely dominated by Fergie.

Next appointment will be huge and if that's also a flop then serious questions should be asked about our manager recruitment methods.

Alf Veedersane

Johnny Giles used to love saying that the players should dictate the system and while I thought that he was probably right, I think that sometimes you have to adapt the system to suit the opposition and make the best choices within each role from the players at your disposal.

But LVG has persisted for too long in not only trying to shoehorn the players into a system but for persisting with a system that is clearly not suited to the players (or winning) and that's why I think he has to go.

The problem is that realistically, the only manager available that would be a big enough name to replace him is Mourinho. There's too much opposition to him within the club. Who else would you have take over until the end of the season? I don't think Giggs is up to it but the optimist in me thinks his naivete might have them go out and play with a bit more invention (but little/no structure) which might actually see an upturn in performance and results.

But I don't think he's going to get the gig and there might well be an agreement that LVG will see out the season and then call it a day, citing the media 'attacks' as he sees it, and that way both he and Woodward save some face.

But as it is, we're stuck with LVG. Fingers crossed for the rest of the season.

beno619

homerjay2005 wrote: »

Lingard would struggle to get into a championship side like Derby and he is playing 90 mins in the premier league...mind boggling.

A bit harsh on Lingard, he's started well missed a few sitters but also scored some well taken goals.

I think he'll be a useful squad option for us but LVG isn't doing him any favours right now, he should have been off at half time vs pool and from what I heard had a stinker against Southampton ?

kstand

The Glazers see the club as a cash cow and they appointed a top man in Woodward to go and push the brand across the world to increase revenue. Now they are not fools and realize that in order to keep their profits flowing, they need to bring players in. However, the problem for the last 3 years hasnt been the players, they brought in two totally inept managers - the first who had never won anything anywhere and never had his teams playing attractive football, the second who ahd had success but came with a huge amount of baggage and who regularly fell out with players and staff everywhere he had been. Both have been abject failures.
Do the Glazers and Woodward really think that they will continue with these global deals when the product they are selling is so second hand and that the club are falling off the radar both on the field and at academy level?
It needs to start with a shake up - leave Woodward in charge of the commercial stuff and bring someone in to handle the day to day running of the football side of the business because right now, it is a shambles.

kstand

The Glazers see the club as a cash cow and they appointed a top man in Woodward to go and push the brand across the world to increase revenue. Now they are not fools and realize that in order to keep their profits flowing, they need to bring players in. However, the problem for the last 3 years hasnt been the players, they brought in two totally inept managers - the first who had never won anything anywhere and never had his teams playing attractive football, the second who ahd had success but came with a huge amount of baggage and who regularly fell out with players and staff everywhere he had been. Both have been abject failures.
Do the Glazers and Woodward really think that they will continue with these global deals when the product they are selling is so second hand and that the club are falling off the radar both on the field and at academy level?
It needs to start with a shake up - leave Woodward in charge of the commercial stuff and bring someone in to handle the day to day running of the football side of the business because right now, it is a shambles.

bucketybuck

Alf Veedersane wrote: »

The problem is that realistically, the only manager available that would be a big enough name to replace him is Mourinho. There's too much opposition to him within the club. Who else would you have take over until the end of the season? I don't think Giggs is up to it but the optimist in me thinks his naivete might have them go out and play with a bit more invention (but little/no structure) which might actually see an upturn in performance and results.

But I don't think he's going to get the gig and there might well be an agreement that LVG will see out the season and then call it a day, citing the media 'attacks' as he sees it, and that way both he and Woodward save some face.

But as it is, we're stuck with LVG. Fingers crossed for the rest of the season.

Not knowing what else to do is a terrible reason to stick with a failed manager and would be a huge indictment of Woodward. Maybe Woodward doesn't want Mourinho or Giggs, who knows, but the fact is that Van Gaal has made a complete hash of it so Woodward needs to suck it up and do something!

In fact, the only thing worse than Woodward acting like a rabbit caught in the headlights is having an "agreement" for Van Gaal to see out the season. Something like that only helps Van Gaal, and helping Van Gaal isn't our priority.

homerjay2005

Giggsy11 wrote: »

His role is to bring money to the club and spend it on players, he is doing his job. Problem is Van Gaal not Woodward.

and the problem before Van Gaal was Moyes, the players, the fans, Fergie etc etc???

and see there is where the problem is, since Woodward came in a certain section of our fanbase equate the role of a CE to money generation and then, how much of that money he spends on players.

You say he is doing his job on players yet, we have one of the smallest squads in the premier league and a squad, that has multiple average players. we have according to most, 1 world class player (i think we have a couple more), and 2, maybe 3 players who could become world class. outside of this, our squad is one of the weakest and poorest weve had in years, yet weve spent more money than every before (while at the same time turfing out 20+ players who were multiple medal winners)

While our wage bill is the lowest in the league v turnover, its still the highest in the league (on 2014/15 figures anyway as 2015/16 season wont be closed until June) and can you honestly say we are getting value for that? no way. several of those players were signed for crazy money, Woodward went into those negotiations in most cases unopposed/unchallenged for the players signature and "won" - nobody else would match the money, so we signed them. how many of these players have actually shown so far, they were worth the money? im struggling to think of any...all our faith in them is based off what we hope they will do in future years.

What Woodward has done as football CEO is very very ordinary, he gets far too much credit for what are basic football things - with an open chequebook going to Everton, Southampton, PSV, Sporting, Ajax and other 2nd tier clubs, its no great achievement to come out of their with good players minus £150m.

you are a great poster man, one of the best on here, but to defend how this club is being run is surprising. and you know what, you dont have to listen to me, go out and read practically every journalist out there. listen to every pundit, former player, etc etc - they will all agree. from the Top down, as a football club United is unrecognisable as a club and priorities and ambition has shifted alarmingly in the last 3 years.

Alf Veedersane

homerjay2005 wrote: »

and the problem before Van Gaal was Moyes, the players, the fans, Fergie etc etc???

and see there is where the problem is, since Woodward came in a certain section of our fanbase equate the role of a CE to money generation and then, how much of that money he spends on players.

You say he is doing his job on players yet, we have one of the smallest squads in the premier league and a squad, that has multiple average players. we have according to most, 1 world class player (i think we have a couple more), and 2, maybe 3 players who could become world class. outside of this, our squad is one of the weakest and poorest weve had in years, yet weve spent more money than every before (while at the same time turfing out 20+ players who were multiple medal winners)

While our wage bill is the lowest in the league v turnover, its still the highest in the league (on 2014/15 figures anyway as 2015/16 season wont be closed until June) and can you honestly say we are getting value for that? no way. several of those players were signed for crazy money, Woodward went into those negotiations in most cases unopposed/unchallenged for the players signature and "won" - nobody else would match the money, so we signed them. how many of these players have actually shown so far, they were worth the money? im struggling to think of any...all our faith in them is based off what we hope they will do in recent years.

What Woodward has done as football CEO is very very ordinary, he gets far too much credit for what are basic football things - with an open chequebook going to Everton, Southampton, PSV, Sporting, Ajax and other 2nd tier clubs, its no great achievement to come out of their with good players minus £150m.

you are a great poster man, one of the best on here, but to defend how this club is being run is surprising. and you know what, you dont have to listen to me, go out and read practically every journalist out there. listen to every pundit, former player, etc etc - they will all agree. from the Top down, as a football club United is unrecognisable as a club and priorities and ambition has shifted alarmingly in the last 3 years.

To be fair, it's LVG's fault more than Woodward's that the players haven't performed. Who is supposed to decide the players they go for? IF the manager isn't given the support to buy the players he wants, then we end up with the same nonsense that they have at Liverpool in terms of transfer targets.

I only want Woodward to deal with the fees. He or whoever performs that role shouldn't really have too much influence on who is being signed or not signed. You either trust the manager or you don't.

I agree that all Woodward has done is made sure that players have been signed but I don't really think that he can be faulted for who was signed or their subsequent performances.

Alf Veedersane

bucketybuck wrote: »

Not knowing what else to do is a terrible reason to stick with a failed manager and would be a huge indictment of Woodward. Maybe Woodward doesn't want Mourinho or Giggs, who knows, but the fact is that Van Gaal has made a complete hash of it so Woodward needs to suck it up and do something!

In fact, the only thing worse than Woodward acting like a rabbit caught in the headlights is having an "agreement" for Van Gaal to see out the season. Something like that only helps Van Gaal, and helping Van Gaal isn't our priority.

I don't disagree with most of that.

But if you sack him because the team is playing badly with results to match, you need to have a plan to appoint someone who is going to do better. There aren't many options. Is Giggs a better option, in the short term anyway? Who knows. Mourinho, as much as I hate to say this, is a better option, but is that going to ever be allowed to happen?

I've no issue with sacking LVG. But maybe not sacking him because it might just be the least worst option is what has been decided upon by more than just Woodward.

Either way, I don't think a decision on a manager is going to be made by Woodward in isolation.

Giggsy11

homerjay2005 wrote: »

and the problem before Van Gaal was Moyes, the players, the fans, Fergie etc etc???

Who appointed Moyes? Was it Woodward or was he appointed before he assumed his role?

and see there is where the problem is, since Woodward came in a certain section of our fanbase equate the role of a CE to money generation and then, how much of that money he spends on players.

And the same certain section forgot even when Gill was in charge, ManUtd was brand and was money making machine.

Before Woodward, ManUtd made money and didn't spend. Now United make money and spend it on players.

You say he is doing his job on players yet, we have one of the smallest squads in the premier league and a squad, that has multiple average players. we have according to most, 1 world class player (i think we have a couple more), and 2, maybe 3 players who could become world class. outside of this, our squad is one of the weakest and poorest weve had in years, yet weve spent more money than every before (while at the same time turfing out 20+ players who were multiple medal winners)

Woodward doesn't decide on squad size, Van Gaal does. If you remember Van Gaal said he prefers smaller squad and that's what he did. What's he supposed to do? Override Manager's decision and keep the player against manager's will?

While our wage bill is the lowest in the league v turnover, its still the highest in the league (on 2014/15 figures anyway as 2015/16 season wont be closed until June) and can you honestly say we are getting value for that? no way. several of those players were signed for crazy money, Woodward went into those negotiations in most cases unopposed/unchallenged for the players signature and "won" - nobody else would match the money, so we signed them. how many of these players have actually shown so far, they were worth the money? im struggling to think of any...all our faith in them is based off what we hope they will do in recent years.

And we paid crazy wages even before Woodward take over. Wages has nothing to do with Woodward. Again, Woodward's role is to sign players manager asked for and he did. He flexed his muscles to sign players which is good. Van Gaal ruined them with his pathetic tactics.

What Woodward has done as football CEO is very very ordinary, he gets far too much credit for what are basic football things - with an open chequebook going to Everton, Southampton, PSV, Sporting, Ajax and other 2nd tier clubs, its no great achievement to come out of their with good players minus £150m.

CEO before him was tight and didn't show the money wanted to sign players.

you are a great poster man, one of the best on here, but to defend how this club is being run is surprising. and you know what, you dont have to listen to me, go out and read practically every journalist out there. listen to every pundit, former player, etc etc - they will all agree. from the Top down, as a football club United is unrecognisable as a club and priorities and ambition has shifted alarmingly in the last 3 years.

Thanks for the compliments man. I enjoy your posts too

I don't agree with the **** woodward gets. Am I happy with how the club is managed? No. Because there are lot of holes in the club from top to bottom. Do I blame it on woodward for everything? No.

He got the best possible manager when he signed Van Gaal and got him the players. But Van Gaal methods failed. Academy has holes? Van Gaal got a free run at everything to appoint various coaches.

Now his role is to find good manager who can take us forward. If he appoints someone like Moyes then that's his mistake. But if he appoints Jose and fails, can we blame Woodward? That's a tough decision again.

For now, I blame everything on Van Gaal. He got everything he wanted and also time but he is not doing acceptable job.

bangkok

FA cup weekend, we are live on the BBC on a Friday night, what more could go wrong :pac: 0-2 United

bucketybuck

Alf Veedersane wrote: »

I don't disagree with most of that.

But if you sack him because the team is playing badly with results to match, you need to have a plan to appoint someone who is going to do better. There aren't many options.

There are hundreds of options, we are still Manchester United, when Van Gaal eventually goes there will be hundreds of managers and agents sniffing around the job. Don't like Giggs or Mourinho? Fine, but they aren't the only names in football, find somebody else.

Sitting here we don't have to know who is the best person to appoint, but Ed Woodward is paid a lot of money to handle situations like these and I would strongly suggest he gets to it.

Alf Veedersane

bucketybuck wrote: »

There are hundreds of options, we are still Manchester United, when Van Gaal eventually goes there will be hundreds of managers and agents sniffing around the job. Don't like Giggs or Mourinho? Fine, but they aren't the only names in football, find somebody else.

Sitting here we don't have to know who is the best person to appoint, but Ed Woodward is paid a lot of money to handle situations like these and I would strongly suggest he gets to it.

Who would you suggest, out of interest?

Genuine question.

Does he take a punt on someone with a good record at a level below where we want United to be or is there someone at the top level they can realistically get?

IamtheWalrus

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=kSnBWCbB1Qo

Flint Fredstone

Which is more likely, the club is struggling to find it's own feet after the end of a 27 year, ridiculously successful institution or "Woodward did it"?

Blatter

If David Gill was CEO with Van Gaal as manager, what would likely be different? Aside from thinking that he may have sacked van Gaal a while back (I wouldn't be convinced of that), what else would he be doing differently that Woodward hasn't managed?

bucketybuck

Alf Veedersane wrote: »

Who would you suggest, out of interest?

Genuine question.

Does he take a punt on someone with a good record at a level below where we want United to be or is there someone at the top level they can realistically get?

Well I'm on record as saying I think we need Mourinho at this point, for various reasons I've outlined before.

Beyond that I rarely suggest names for manager jobs because I feel there is such a fine line between success and failure in these jobs. Good managers fail and it doesn't mean they were a bad appointment, and indeed I don't believe Moyes and Van Gaal were bad appointments. Based on their merits they were perfectly valid choices, the problems arose from not dealing quickly enough with the reality of their under-performance once in the job.

So who does Woodward go for? Thats his job to decide. Is there really much difference between the Simones, Pochettino's, Villas Boas or Mancini's of this world? Each could succeed or each could fail, it comes down to small margins and so its incredibly hard to know until they are given the chance. But whoever it is, whoever he picks in the ends whats important is that Woodward actually makes the choice! Thats his job and his responsibility and he needs to do it instead of waiting until things get terminal.

bucketybuck

Flint Fredstone wrote: »

Which is more likely, the club is struggling to find it's own feet after the end of a 27 year, ridiculously successful institution or "Woodward did it"?

Ah, the old "transition" myth again.

Mitch Connor

Flint Fredstone wrote: »

Which is more likely, the club is struggling to find it's own feet after the end of a 27 year, ridiculously successful institution or "Woodward did it"?

It would be bad planning, bad management for the club to be struggling after the end of the SAF reign.

Gill, and Fergie, must also take the blame for that as I believe they left the club in a worse state than they should have - we have been left behind.

But, Woodward is now in his third year in the job. The current manager failing is his problem to fix. The academy structures failing are his problem to fix. poor scouting and recruitments are, at the end of the day, his problem to fix. He has fixed nothing. Apart from the commercial side, United are falling further behind in football terms as his reign in ultimate charge of United continues. You can say he was dealt a bad hand, but you can also say he has done very little himself to put things right.

LVG is in charge of training and managing the firs team - he is failing at it, sure, but those are the components of his job. Anything else around the club ultimately falls on Woodward or the people woodward has appointed in the relevant position. Such as the club secretary being in charge of the Academy (unbelievable).

Alf Veedersane

bucketybuck wrote: »

Well I'm on record as saying I think we need Mourinho at this point, for various reasons I've outlined before.

Beyond that I rarely suggest names for manager jobs because I feel there is such a fine line between success and failure in these jobs. Good managers fail and it doesn't mean they were a bad appointment, and indeed I don't believe Moyes and Van Gaal were bad appointments. Based on their merits they were perfectly valid choices, the problems arose from not dealing quickly enough with the reality of their under-performance once in the job.

So who does Woodward go for? Thats his job to decide. Is there really much difference between the Simones, Pochettino's, Villas Boas or Mancini's of this world? Each could succeed or each could fail, it comes down to small margins and so its incredibly hard to know until they are given the chance. But whoever it is, whoever he picks in the ends whats important is that Woodward actually makes the choice! Thats his job and his responsibility and he needs to do it instead of waiting until things get terminal.

Again, I don't disagree but he does need one of those options to want to go to United as well. Not sure Simeone or Pochettino would at this point and I don't really think Mancini or AVB would be good appointments.

Again, I'm not saying Woodward is blameless in this whole debacle, as it has become. Just that he's being blamed for elements of it that he shouldn't be.

Mitch Connor

Blatter wrote: »

If David Gill was CEO with Van Gaal as manager, what would likely be different? Aside from thinking that he may have sacked van Gaal a while back (I wouldn't be convinced of that), what else would he be doing differently that Woodward hasn't managed?

It is possible that transfers would have been different. I see a lot of talk that Woodward isn't respected by the football world with regards to football matters and that his approach to transfers is considered naive. While Gill was very well respected and had a better relationship with his counterparts at other clubs, and better contacts.

Obviously I can't back it up as fact either way; but it is what I see being said.

At the same time, Gill is a snake and an unlikable guy himself. GOing on the radio the other day saying the fans need to stick together and help the club - when he absolutely abandoned the fans during the Glazer take over. "Debt is the road to ruin".

Also, Woodward has to take a lot of credit for the sponsorship deals and approach he has taken, which has been a large part of the financial upturn of the club. Gill is on record as saying he didn't see much further scope for monetisation of the club, so financially United would likely be worse off under Gill - assuming the commercial drive and success is mainly down to woodward and not Glazer driven

On the money front, because people on this thread have said GIll idn't spend money (and thus lost out on players) and Woodward is spending money - in neither case is it their money. Woodward doesn't decide what can be spent and neither did Gill. They ask the Glazers what can be spent and they spend it. The reason Woodward is spending more than Gill did is, imo:

1. The financial situation of the club is far better now.
2. The Glazers are allowing money to be spent.

Flint Fredstone

bucketybuck wrote: »

Ah, the old "transition" myth again.

So it's a "Woodward did it" from you?

Flint Fredstone

Mitch Connor wrote: »

It is possible that transfers would have been different. I see a lot of talk that Woodward isn't respected by the football world with regards to football matters and that his approach to transfers is considered naive. While Gill was very well respected and had a better relationship with his counterparts at other clubs, and better contacts.

Obviously I can't back it up as fact either way; but it is what I see being said.

At the same time, Gill is a snake and an unlikable guy himself. GOing on the radio the other day saying the fans need to stick together and help the club - when he absolutely abandoned the fans during the Glazer take over. "Debt is the road to ruin".

Also, Woodward has to take a lot of credit for the sponsorship deals and approach he has taken, which has been a large part of the financial upturn of the club. Gill is on record as saying he didn't see much further scope for monetisation of the club, so financially United would likely be worse off under Gill - assuming the commercial drive and success is mainly down to woodward and not Glazer driven

On the money front, because people on this thread have said GIll idn't spend money (and thus lost out on players) and Woodward is spending money - in neither case is it their money. Woodward doesn't decide what can be spent and neither did Gill. They ask the Glazers what can be spent and they spend it. The reason Woodward is spending more than Gill did is, imo:

1. The financial situation of the club is far better now.
2. The Glazers are allowing money to be spent.

In general, are our transfer dealings any different to what they were? We have always been losing out on the big names linked in the papers. Even to the likes of Chelsea and PSG towards the end of Fergie's reign.

bucketybuck

Mitch Connor wrote: »

At the same time, Gill is a snake and an unlikable guy himself.

It is interesting. Reputation wise, the best thing David Gill ever did for himself was leave United, he becomes more respected every season that passes.

Flint Fredstone wrote: »

So it's a "Woodward did it" from you?

I've written more than a few words on these topics, if you are interested in something more than one liner snark then perhaps you should try reading them.

Julez

I decline these past three years is a lot more likely down to Fergie leaving than Woodward being CEO. Anyone who thinks otherwise is making it up to suit their agenda.

Flint Fredstone

bucketybuck wrote: »

I've written more than a few words on these topics, if you are interested in something more than one liner snark then perhaps you should try reading them.

No thanks, I'll stick to the old snark.

Blatter

Mitch Connor wrote: »

It is possible that transfers would have been different. I see a lot of talk that Woodward isn't respected by the football world with regards to football matters and that his approach to transfers is considered naive. While Gill was very well respected and had a better relationship with his counterparts at other clubs, and better contacts.

Obviously I can't back it up as fact either way; but it is what I see being said.

At the same time, Gill is a snake and an unlikable guy himself. GOing on the radio the other day saying the fans need to stick together and help the club - when he absolutely abandoned the fans during the Glazer take over. "Debt is the road to ruin".

Also, Woodward has to take a lot of credit for the sponsorship deals and approach he has taken, which has been a large part of the financial upturn of the club. Gill is on record as saying he didn't see much further scope for monetisation of the club, so financially United would likely be worse off under Gill - assuming the commercial drive and success is mainly down to woodward and not Glazer driven

On the money front, because people on this thread have said GIll idn't spend money (and thus lost out on players) and Woodward is spending money - in neither case is it their money. Woodward doesn't decide what can be spent and neither did Gill. They ask the Glazers what can be spent and they spend it. The reason Woodward is spending more than Gill did is, imo:

1. The financial situation of the club is far better now.
2. The Glazers are allowing money to be spent.

I'm not sure transfers would be that different. The model of the club is one that lets the manager dictate the targets he wants and the CEO goes out and tries to get them. Van Gaal choose to go down the road of a big overhaul, which gave Woodward a lot of work to do in a short space of time - something that Gill has never been tested with.

Van Gaal is a pretty outspoken, opinionated and honest fella. He has praised Woodward on numerous occasions during his tenure - something which I don't think he'd have done if he thought Woodward was doing a poor job.

Mitch Connor

Julez wrote: »

I decline these past three is a lot more likely down to Fergie leaving than Woodward being CEO. Anyone who thinks otherwise is making it up to suit their agenda.

Fergie would probably be doing a better job managing the current first team squad (and it wouldn't be so painfully small, either). But I personally think other issues at the club (scouting and youth systems) are down to Fergie not moving with the times (as he was the utter leader of United from a football perspective) and letting United's levels decline and fall behind the competition in these areas.

Fergie left an old fashioned structure behind, imo, and while he could work it - it isn't fit for purpose anymore without him to hold it together through reputation and contacts of his own.

When he left, a void was created in terms of overall football management at the club, and a first team manager (be it Pep, LVG, Mourinho etc) can't fill that - new roles and new structures are required. into his third year in the job, Woodward should be overseeing and implementing the changes required at all levels; but he isn't doing it. Sure, there is now a clamour to do something about the youth set up, because it has become a more public problem, but this is something woodward should have been sorting the moment McClair announced he was leaving. It is a massive failure on Woodward's part (and it is his failure) that the youth structures are actually even worse now than when Fergie left.

ericzeking

We're waiting for Pep in the Summer....Be grand.

LVG is deemed the safest least dodgy bet to get us to the top 4 so he hasn't been sacked.

Simples.

KH25

Anyone else not fancy our chances tonight? To be honest at this rate I'd settle for 5 shots on target.

Mitch Connor

Blatter wrote: »

I'm not sure transfers would be that different. The model of the club is one that lets the manager dictate the targets he wants and the CEO goes out and tries to get them. Van Gaal choose to go down the road of a big overhaul, which gave Woodward a lot of work to do in a short space of time - something that Gill has never been tested with.

Van Gaal is a pretty outspoken, opinionated and honest fella. He has praised Woodward on numerous occasions during his tenure - something which I don't think he'd have done if he thought Woodward was doing a poor job.

There isn't really any point in talking about transfers, really. I could point to rumours I have heard - such as Ronaldo back to United was basically a done deal the first summer of Woodward (set up by Gill and Fergie) and that Woodward promised Moyes that either Ronaldo or Bale would be at United that summer - which obviously didn't happen. there are various rumours on various players that paint Woodward's ability to close (or think he could close) certain transfers in a very poor light. But I can point to no emails or faxes or official comments that prove these to be true. So you, and others, can (and have every right) to call BS on it.

End result is we disagree, and proably argue over it for several pages of the thread. Boring everyone.

Similarly you could argue over whether Woodward got the first choice (or second choice, third choice...) players in when he signed Rojo, Blind, Fellaini, Falcao. Whether Mata was actually a player Moyes said we needed to sign.

Transfers are, in general, a crap shoot when it comes to discussions because there isn't enough proof for discussions to be concluded satisfactorily one way or the other.

bangkok

Mitch Connor wrote: »

Fergie would probably be doing a better job managing the current first team squad (and it wouldn't be so painfully small, either). But I personally think other issues at the club (scouting and youth systems) are down to Fergie not moving with the times (as he was the utter leader of United from a football perspective) and letting United's levels decline and fall behind the competition in these areas.

Fergie left an old fashioned structure behind, imo, and while he could work it - it isn't fit for purpose anymore without him to hold it together through reputation and contacts of his own.

When he left, a void was created in terms of overall football management at the club, and a first team manager (be it Pep, LVG, Mourinho etc) can't fill that - new roles and new structures are required. into his third year in the job, Woodward should be overseeing and implementing the changes required at all levels; but he isn't doing it. Sure, there is now a clamour to do something about the youth set up, because it has become a more public problem, but this is something woodward should have been sorting the moment McClair announced he was leaving. It is a massive failure on Woodward's part (and it is his failure) that the youth structures are actually even worse now than when Fergie left.

lol

Mantis Toboggan

We won the fa youth cup in 2007 and 2011, we also have some of the best facilities of any football team in the world. This blaming Fergie for the troubles of the current setup is laughable. He's a huge loss and so is David Gill.

bucketybuck

ericzeking wrote: »

LVG is deemed the safest least dodgy bet to get us to the top 4 so he hasn't been sacked.

Not withstanding the fact that our ambitions were supposed to be higher than that, do you think Van Gaal looks like he can get 4th place?

And I mean based on what we can see, not on faith.

Mitch Connor

Tyson Fury wrote: »

We won the fa youth cup in 2007 and 2011, we also have some of the best facilities of any football team in the world. This blaming Fergie for the troubles of the current setup is laughable. He's a huge loss and so is David Gill.

Changes to the youth system, and the impact of decisions made, won't be felt til a few years after the initial implementation.

Youth recruitment is one of the areas that United are criticised under - it would take a few years to see the benifit of improvements or the problems from negligence. The youth system failing NOW is down to decisions made years ago - when Fergie and Gill would have had responsibility.

There are also issues that Woodward should have addressed almost immediately - such as offering youth coaching contracts at half the wage of comparable clubs. You want the best coaches, you have to pay for them.

Honestly, when players employed by the club or reared (in a football respect) by the club are sending their kids to the City academy, it can only point massive misgivings about the state of the united academy.

Mitch Connor

bangkok wrote: »

lol

Thanks for your response and detailed rebuttal.

I now know to never bother reading your posts again as you can't be arsed putting any effort into discussions.

bangkok

Mitch Connor wrote: »

Thanks for your response and detailed rebuttal.

I now know to never bother reading your posts again as you can't be arsed putting any effort into discussions.

how exactly did fergie leave an old fashioned structure behind?? In what way? We have the best club ground in England and one of the best training grounds in the Europe.


We were the first football club in Europe (under fergie) to complete player medicals at the training ground such was the advancements in our Medical department. We have a better medical department than most hospitals would.

We won the league in his final season and were on our way to knocking Real Madrid out of Europe only for a horrible referring decision.

Young players were coming through to the first team, a couple of new signings under a new manager and everything would have been plain sailing, instead we panic signed fellaini in the final moments of deadline day

Trigger

bangkok wrote: »

how exactly did fergie leave an old fashioned structure behind?? In what way? We have the best club ground in England and one of the best training grounds in the Europe.


We were the first football club in Europe (under fergie) to complete player medicals at the training ground such was the advancements in our Medical department. We have a better medical department than most hospitals would.

We won the league in his final season and were on our way to knocking Real Madrid out of Europe only for a horrible referring decision.

Young players were coming through to the first team, a couple of new signings under a new manager and everything would have been plain sailing, instead we panic signed fellaini in the final moments of deadline day

This is all well and good but he is talking about the youth setup and scouting. He specifically said that.

These both have been pretty poor for a number of years. Before Moyes and Van Gaal took over. Both bemoaned these when they first came to the club. Moyes the scouting and Van Gaal the Youth setup

The_Kew_Tour

I can't buy this argument that United have become a deal making factory instead of worrying about onfield activities.

We have spent like we have never before on transfer market past 2 seasons.

1.we signed Falcao, Di Maria last season
2. This season we bought 4 quality players for 50M.

It's clear even to the likes of me even this late where the problems are.

We were a Sponsorship lover since 1992 and nobody cared back then.

homerjay2005

KH25 wrote: »

Anyone else not fancy our chances tonight? To be honest at this rate I'd settle for 5 shots on target.

5?

we have had 1 in the last two games.

KH25

homerjay2005 wrote: »

5?

we have had 1 in the last two games.

Fair point, 5 may have been a tad ambitious.

The_Kew_Tour

I'm working tonight.

Sadly, I'm kinda glad.

Trigger

KH25 wrote: »

Fair point, 5 may have been a tad ambitious.

I think you mean 5 shots and 1 on target, but don't worry we will win the possession.

jayo26

Nick Powell been linked to loan move to Hull, that would be a good move for him but it just goes to show how messed up in the head lvg is if a player he Brough on to save our champs league dream is out on loan a 2 months later.

bucketybuck

jayo26 wrote: »

Nick Powell been linked to loan move to Hull, that would be a good move for him but it just goes to show how messed up in the head lvg is if a player he Brough on to save our champs league dream is out on loan a 2 months later.

It does rather call into question the belief that Van Gaal develops young players and integrates them into teams. I see nothing of planning or forward thinking in the use of Powell, Varela, Januzaj or Wilson this season, instead I see a manager just throwing them in and shipping them out according to whims.

Mitch Connor

bucketybuck wrote: »

It does rather call into question the belief that Van Gaal develops young players and integrates them into teams. I see nothing of planning or forward thinking in the use of Powell, Varela, Januzaj or Wilson this season, instead I see a manager just throwing them in and shipping them out according to whims.

I see the same.

People have pointed at the amount of debuts he has given but I don't think he has developed any of them.

Many of the debuts have been down to injuries in our painfully small squad rather than, imo, LVG identifying CBJ as a left back with great potential to be a first team star for years.

The lack of game time Pereira has got is baffling and I can't understand how Januazaj can go from starting number 10, to utterly unneeded to ahead of Memphis without any real change in him as a player in the 5 games or so this all occurred in.

Liam O

bangkok wrote: »

how exactly did fergie leave an old fashioned structure behind?? In what way? We have the best club ground in England and one of the best training grounds in the Europe.


We were the first football club in Europe (under fergie) to complete player medicals at the training ground such was the advancements in our Medical department. We have a better medical department than most hospitals would.

We won the league in his final season and were on our way to knocking Real Madrid out of Europe only for a horrible referring decision.

Young players were coming through to the first team, a couple of new signings under a new manager and everything would have been plain sailing, instead we panic signed fellaini in the final moments of deadline day

Because United were never linked with Fellaini under Fergie...

jayo26

bucketybuck wrote: »

It does rather call into question the belief that Van Gaal develops young players and integrates them into teams. I see nothing of planning or forward thinking in the use of Powell, Varela, Januzaj or Wilson this season, instead I see a manager just throwing them in and shipping them out according to whims.

Agree with you here.

There is a difference in developing young players and throwing them in at the deep end and lvg has not actually developed any of the kids.

He has thrown them in under pressure and while some of them at the start look as if they can handle it invariably when the pressure gets tough they loose the way and he loses faith. I think mcnair is a prime example of this.

Pro. F

Mitch Connor wrote: »

LVG is in charge of training and managing the firs team - he is failing at it, sure, but those are the components of his job. Anything else around the club ultimately falls on Woodward or the people woodward has appointed in the relevant position. Such as the club secretary being in charge of the Academy (unbelievable).

Do you have any evidence that LVG isn't in charge of the youth setup at United? I haven't heard either way, but if he isn't then it would be a dramatic change from when SAF and Moyes were managing at the club. So I'd need to see some evidence before I'd believe it.

Mitch Connor wrote: »

Fergie would probably be doing a better job managing the current first team squad (and it wouldn't be so painfully small, either). But I personally think other issues at the club (scouting and youth systems) are down to Fergie not moving with the times (as he was the utter leader of United from a football perspective) and letting United's levels decline and fall behind the competition in these areas.

Fergie left an old fashioned structure behind, imo, and while he could work it - it isn't fit for purpose anymore without him to hold it together through reputation and contacts of his own.

I've an interest in youth develepment and the competing methods that are used in football. From reading around on the topic there is near constant disagreement as to what works and the accusation of being "old fashioned" is thrown around in such a way as to be meaningless. The people who prefer one method will view all contrary methods as old fashioned and vice versa, so I'd be extremely hesitant to just believe what gets said about any club's YD set-up, good or bad. So could you describe the details of the structure that Fergie left behind?

Mitch Connor wrote: »

Honestly, when players employed by the club or reared (in a football respect) by the club are sending their kids to the City academy, it can only point massive misgivings about the state of the united academy.

That's not true at all. It could just as easily point to City taking in a lower standard of youth recruit than United. For all you know, these players would have preferred their kids to go to the United academy, but they didn't make the grade.

bangkok

Liam O wrote: »

Because United were never linked with Fellaini under Fergie...

linked in what "the sun" newspaper??

fellaini had a buyout clause of £24m. If fergie wanted him he would have signed him.

We signed fellaini for £27.5m and it was only confirmed at 12 o clock 1 hour after the transfer deadline had closed