The Argument for Giggs as our Next Manager

[Cheesy]

That is the bit you and I don't agree. I really don't agree with you on that. He's in the running for a whole range of reasons, legend status is not the primary one. In my opinion!

It is, though. Again, I get what you're saying: it's not the only reason, but if we take Giggs' status and connection with the club out of the equation, then the arguments for him being our manager essentially boil down to him being our assistant manager, having his coaching badges, and being someone who comes across as being fairly intelligent when it comes to knowing the game of football.

The basis for Giggs' appointment entirely revolves around the fact that he is one of our greatest players. He wouldn't even be in consideration if that weren't the case. On the other hand, if he wasn't currently our assistant manager, but instead had a more minor coaching role, and was only working on his coaching badges as opposed to already having them, he'd potentially still be talked about as a potential future manager.

 

[Shamwow]

Every single argument against him is based on sound logic - as in you'd be hard pressed to find anyone in any industry with zero experience getting hired into the biggest job available. That is why so many find the idea of Giggs as manager so mindbendingly fatuous.

fecking hell you don't half like to overstate things a bit.

 

[Rory 7]

Nobody tried to shut you down - I just said it was utterly irrelevant to compare Ryan Giggs with Mike Ditka as if there's some rational correlation between a 1960s American footballer transitioning into 1980s coaching and an English league player who just retired last year in a completely different sport - that's why I dismissed it, as would just about everyone who hears it, after laughing out loud of course.

And I explained I mentioned Ditka in response to a poster who claimed 'athletes don't have determination to become coaches'. Think how loud I laughed when I read that. Your response was to dismiss the plethora of examples, including Ditka I mentioned to explode the idea that players can't coach.

 

[Raoul]

fecking hell you don't half like to overstate things a bit.

Its not an exaggeration - no responsible owner, general manager, president would be taken seriously for attempting to hire someone with zero experience into the organization's biggest job. But that's why the blind faith coalition are attempting to justify.

 

[Shamwow]

Its not an exaggeration - no responsible owner, general manager, president would be taken seriously for attempting to hire someone with zero experience into the organization's biggest job. But that's why the blind faith coalition are attempting to justify.

Zero experience at what exactly?

 

[Rory 7]

It is, though. Again, I get what you're saying: it's not the only reason, but if we take Giggs' status and connection with the club out of the equation, then the arguments for him being our manager essentially boil down to him being our assistant manager, having his coaching badges, and being someone who comes across as being fairly intelligent when it comes to knowing the game of football.

The basis for Giggs' appointment entirely revolves around the fact that he is one of our greatest players. He wouldn't even be in consideration if that weren't the case. On the other hand, if he wasn't currently our assistant manager, but instead had a more minor coaching role, and was only working on his coaching badges as opposed to already having them, he'd potentially still be talked about as a potential future manager.

You've just made my point about the Gestalt! We can't take any of these factors out of the equation.

 

[Cheesy]

The primary reason for Giggs taking over is due the meticulous planning that has placed him as LVG's apprentice with a long term view of him being his successor should he be judged fit to do so by LVG , the board and the tea lady.

And the reason why he's immediately been able to jump into a senior coaching position within the club is due to his legendary status as a player. That's not a bad thing either; I'm glad Giggs has a coaching role because he knows the club well, has an interest in coaching, and has seemingly done well in his role thus far.

But it's not particularly evidence which suggests he'll do well as our manager; again, if it had been suggested while Phelan was our assistant that Fergie had hand-picked him to be his successor, then it would have been ridiculed, even if their had been intense planning and approval from the board for the succession. With Giggs, however, his status within the club seemingly makes the idea a lot more acceptable and possible.

 

[Raoul]

And I explained I mentioned Ditka in response to a poster who claimed 'athletes don't have determination to become coaches'. Think how loud I laughed when I read that. Your response was to dismiss the plethora of examples, including Ditka I mentioned to explode the idea that players can't coach.

You'd be on more stable ground attempting to justify Giggs by citing Guardiola's success than inventing some nonexistent relationship between 1960s/80s NFL with the modern day Prem. Different sport, different erasm, no relation.

 

[Rory 7]

Its not an exaggeration - no responsible owner, general manager, president would be taken seriously for attempting to hire someone with zero experience into the organization's biggest job. But that's why the blind faith coalition are attempting to justify.

So how exactly does one become a CEO for the first time?

 

[Cheesy]

You've just made my point about the Gestalt! We can't take any of these factors out of the equation.

But they're not overly strong factors, are they? Assistant managerial experience is nothing that our previous assistants have lacked, coaching badges are generally completed by any manager, and his legendary status is nothing that isn't offered by the likes of Scholes and others. The reasons for appointing himself are massively tenuous and rooted in romanticism. It all links back to his legendary status as a player, no matter how much people try to big up his other supposed attributes that remain entirely unproven and completely hypothetical.

 

[Raoul]

Zero experience at what exactly?

Well to an experienced manager who has demonstrated his competence and credibility by winning major trophies, ideally at multiple clubs. That's how hiring should be done, not based on quaintly naive feeling about a home grown player.

 

[Shamwow]

You'd be on more stable ground attempting to justify Giggs by citing Guardiola's success than inventing some nonexistent relationship between 1960s/80s NFL with the modern day Prem. Different sport, different erasm, no relation.

And yet you have no issue with comparing to promotion within non-sporting corporations?

 

[Shamwow]

Well to an experienced manager who has demonstrated his competence and credibility by winning major trophies, ideally at multiple clubs. That's how hiring should be done, not based on quaintly naive feeling about a home grown player.

So no big company has promoted someone from within to CEO that hasn't been CEO at another major company before? Just going by your own examples like.

 

[Raoul]

So how exactly does one become a CEO for the first time?

In the absence of prior CEO experience, you generally don't. I'm sure there are one off examples but its hardly a standard practice.

 

[MoskvaRed]

But you admit that it possible for a player to also be a successful manager? I hope so. Because your original post seemed to suggest the two were mutually exclusive, we have now established that the two aren't. Good. We're making progress.

Sorry to come across like a patronising cnut but your assertion that playing and managing are 'chalk' and 'cheese' is just so myopic. The arguments against Giggs taking over are put forward in such a binary manner e.g. A great player won't result in A great manager. There could be some grey areas here you know.

I can't prove a negative, that's right. I can however point to many examples of great players being poor managers. Because the two jobs are completely different. Giggs may belong to the 10-20% percent who become a great manager after a great playing career. But I still don't understand why we should be the testing ground for that theory.

 

[Raoul]

And yet you have no issue with comparing to promotion within non-sporting corporations?

Yes, because its a standard business practice to hire qualified experienced candidates and discard inexperienced ones or encourage them to prove themselves at a lesser position before applying.

 

[Rory 7]

You'd be on more stable ground attempting to justify Giggs by citing Guardiola's success than inventing some nonexistent relationship between 1960s/80s NFL with the modern day Prem. Different sport, different erasm, no relation.

Nice try. I really wouldn't compare Giggs appointment to Pep. But nice try.

 

[Raoul]

Nice try. I really wouldn't compare Giggs appointment to Pep. But nice try.

Also a smart move, since at least Pep is an established manager who has done it at multiple clubs.

 

[Šjor Bepo]

@Rory 7

the thread is to big and and im lazy but i would really like to see the arguments for Giggs as i think that would be the worst possible decision and cant think of one good reason why would a serious club do something like that. If you posted before just say on which page is the post, would really appreciate it

 

[Rory 7]

But they're not overly strong factors, are they? Assistant managerial experience is nothing that our previous assistants have lacked, coaching badges are generally completed by any manager, and his legendary status is nothing that isn't offered by the likes of Scholes and others. The reasons for appointing himself are massively tenuous and rooted in romanticism. It all links back to his legendary status as a player, no matter how much people try to big up his other supposed attributes that remain entirely unproven and completely hypothetical.

No they aren't strong, in isolation. But as a collective they could be! That's my point.

 

[Rory 7]

@Rory 7

the thread is to big and and im lazy but i would really like to see the arguments for Giggs as i think that would be the worst possible decision and cant think of one good reason why would a serious club do something like that. If you posted before just say on which page is the post, would really appreciate it

You'll have to read the thread. I'm not going over it all over again.

 

[Cheesy]

No they aren't strong, in isolation. But as a collective they could be! That's my point.

Again, they're not really, though. He's a club legend, is our assistant manager, and has his coaching badges. It's hardly a compelling case for him to be our manager, is it? None of them provide any evidence which suggests he'd make a good manager.

 

[RedFish]

Every single argument against him is based on sound logic - as in you'd be hard pressed to find anyone in any industry with zero experience getting hired into the biggest job available. That is why so many find the idea of Giggs as manager so mindbendingly fatuous.

Every moment sat next to LVG at OT and on opposition benches, every meeting with LVG and his coaching staff, each meeting with the board, each visit to the United's Deaf team, or the youth teams, each press conference he takes part in, each charity match he attends .......is time served for the ultimate purpose of him being United manager. You dismiss it as illogical, but you are so blind yourself that you can't even see what is right there staring you in your Stevie Wonder face.

 

[MoskvaRed]

The primary reason for Giggs taking over is due the meticulous planning that has placed him as LVG's apprentice with a long term view of him being his successor should he be judged fit to do so by LVG , the board and the tea lady.

I remember Stuart Pierce being lined up as Capello's successor. Similarly, Shteeve was lined up to take over from Sven (after having learnt at the high alter of Fergie). Planning means nothing - it all comes down to the ability of the individual and we have no evidence of Giggs' ability in that regard.

 

[Rory 7]

Yes, because its a standard business practice to hire qualified experienced candidates and discard inexperienced ones or encourage them to prove themselves at a lesser position before applying.

You still haven't answered my question about how someone is appointed CEO of a business for the first time. Funny that, is it because you know the answer?

 

[Raoul]

 

[Shamwow]

Yes, because its a standard business practice to hire qualified experienced candidates and discard inexperienced ones or encourage them to prove themselves at a lesser position before applying.

Stats please with regard to CEOs.

Maybe Ed is a bit more forward thinking than yourself: http://sloanreview.mit.edu/article/the-ceo-experience-trap/

 

[Raoul]

You still haven't answered my question about how someone is appointed CEO of a business for the first time. Funny that, is it because you know the answer?

In the rare instances where this happens, they would presumably have a degree of prior experience that would justify the move.

 

[Rory 7]

Again, they're not really, though. He's a club legend, is our assistant manager, and has his coaching badges. It's hardly a compelling case for him to be our manager, is it? None of them provide any evidence which suggests he'd make a good manager.

And that's when you get back into the leap of faith stuff. Something most people aren't prepared to make.

 

[Raoul]

Stats please with regard to CEOs.

Maybe Ed is a bit more forward thinking than yourself: http://sloanreview.mit.edu/article/the-ceo-experience-trap/

I'd be surprised if Ed even considered something like this. It's probably more so a case of Fergie, Sir Bobby, and LvG voting Giggs in. Basically similar to the Moyes appointment.

 

[Shamwow]

I'd be surprised if Ed even considered something like this. It's probably more so a case of Fergie, Sir Bobby, and LvG voting Giggs in. Basically similar to the Moyes appointment.

Toodle off and get those stats please.

 

[Cheesy]

And that's when you get back into the leap of faith stuff. Something most people aren't prepared to make.

But that's the problem with the arguments for Giggs as manager: for all the detailed responses and in-depth reasons, it ultimately comes down to being a massive leap of faith. And why make that leap of faith if we have options available who are proven managers and a lot more likely to be successful?

 

[Raoul]

And that's when you get back into the leap of faith stuff. Something most people aren't prepared to make.

And why should anyone be willing to make it given that virtually every former Fergie era player has flopped at management.

 

[RedFish]

And why should anyone be willing to make it given that virtually every former Fergie era player has flopped at management.

WUM.

 

[Raoul]

Toodle off and get those stats please.

Let's skip dueling google searches and stick to discussing this from a qualitative perspective. What does Giggs offer that every other former United player who has managed over the past decade doesn't ?

 

[Shamwow]

In the rare instances where this happens, they would presumably have a degree of prior experience that would justify the move.

aka I'm making this shit up as I go along.

 

[Raoul]

WUM.

Reality hurts.

 

[Raoul]

aka I'm making this shit up as I go along.

We're all making it up - that's what we do in discussion.

 

[Shamwow]

Let's skip dueling google searches and stick to discussing this from a qualitative perspective. What does Giggs offer that every other former United player who has managed over the past decade doesn't ?

No you just used a "fact" that you can't actually back up as fact and you won't even admit it. Logic and reason indeed.

 

[Raoul]

No you just used a "fact" that you can't actually back up as fact and you won't even admit it. Logic and reason indeed.

Its a qualitative statement, that you can't seem to live with.

 

[Rory 7]

In the rare instances where this happens, they would presumably have a degree of prior experience that would justify the move.

Rare? Think about my question! The answer is EVERY CEO became a CEO for the first time once! Most will have sat on the board of directors before getting the top job, some might be in a deputy role or a CFO role. But they will have never been in the CEO position until they get their first top job.

Giggs is in exactly that place, he's deputy to the man with the top job. So don't try and tell us that what United appear to be doing is any different to any other business. It might not be the usual way of appointing a manager but if they follow through on the idea of LVG effectively training Giggs it will certainly be an innovative one. And one that is used in private business all the time.