Traditions and ruthlessness

[Diabovermelho]

Abramovich invests a lot of money because he views the club as a political investment(He is basically terrified that all the wealth he stole from the collapsing Soviet Union will come back to bite him). Also Abramovich tried to buy out Chelsea fans who own parts of the Stamford Bridge pitch in order to potentially move to a new stadium(Stamford Bridge has been Chelsea home for over a 100 years).

And finally he literally tried to join the super league this year!

I never said Abramovich was a good guy. Of course he's evil. But honestly, so are our owners. We also tried to join the super league, and Mr. Joel was vice Chairman.

Whatever his intentions may be, fact is no english club won more major titles (17) than Chelsea since Abramovich took over. Of Course Chelsea are the club that has spent more money in the same period (or was City?), but we've also spent a lot since SAF left, but with little results.

We shall see if Man Utd new structure with a DoF will bring results. I agree with most posters here that Ole won't go anywhere as long as he keeps delivering top 4, but if he's backed this summer, and fails to deliver a single title next season, then we must be ruthless to let him go and find a better manager.

 

[Jibbs]

More than anything I want a manager who can't get influenced by that incassantly interfering class of 92 in the media. I want our club to be as away from all these pesky ex players as possible and run by thorough professionals.

 

[Halftrack]

People keep pointing to Chelsea, and how sacking managers is working for them. It is, but only because they're also willing to invest heavily in their squad. We do too, but we're shit at it. They have a vision with their transfers, to an extent, while we buy a bunch of players specifically for a manager we then sack, then hire someone who plays a completely different brand of football and wants rid of most of them.

 

[passing-wind]

It comes down to the owners primarily, Abramovic has the mentality of a winner. The Glazers do not hence the clubs expectations are diminished. I questioned the sacking of Lampard given the timing but the replacement was a better manager with a modern tactical approach which has helped the players. Chelsea identified the manager on the premise of the needs of the squad. Tuchel hasn't required the excuses of needing multiple investments in 10 positions to have a chance at success, he brought something to the table.

Compared to the Glazers, Moyes to LVG to Jose to Ole has been a ship wreck. Ole doesn't deserve to be sacked but in the event of him underperforming he should not be dislodged for the sake of it but rather in favour of another manager with better capabilities who will help the team with their own individual qualities. That is where the club have failed I'd argue we actually haven't had a top manager that was considered top when they were appointed.

 

[RedStarUnited]

People keep pointing to Chelsea, and how sacking managers is working for them. It is, but only because they're also willing to invest heavily in their squad. We do too, but we're shit at it. They have a vision with their transfers, to an extent, while we buy a bunch of players specifically for a manager we then sack, then hire someone who plays a completely different brand of football and wants rid of most of them.

This is a big issue and another place where we should improve. If the “United” way was really a tradition, a transfer committee should be formed and tasked with signing players that fit our traditions and needs. This same comitee could then be in charge of finding a new coach when the owners are unsatisfied. This you would think would mean the transfers, manager and style of football is always in sync.

it seems so simple yet somehow we just dont do it.

 

[Crashoutcassius]

A day after the CL final I find my self reflecting on ours and Chelseas seasons. As a player, you could argue Lampard is an even bigger legend to Chelsea than Ole is. Add to this the fact that he got CL into the champions league in a season when Chelsea were banned from making signings. That alone would have got Lampard a new contract at United im sure. And probably bought him enough good will for a season or two at our club.

Flip to United now, By most big clubs standards, Ole is underachieving. But because he is a United legend and is doing slightly better each year, most United fans are willing to accept us not winning anything. I am pretty confident that if Ole keeps finishing top 4 and having seasons like this year he wont lose his job.

Chelsea are European champions now because they saw a good manager available and didn't hesitate to let go of their legend. Imagine we sacked Ole after failing to the CL group stages and hired Tuchel.

Would we not have won the Europa League? Would we have won the league?

We are putting more weight on traditions like standing by the manager and ignoring our other tradition that made Manchester United the club it is today - Winning.

We were a good few points ahead of lampards Chelsea when lampard was sacked. Roles reversed and the reverse would have happened. 2nd place and Europa League final would keep lampard his job at Chelsea this year

 

[Tyrion]

People keep pointing to Chelsea, and how sacking managers is working for them. It is, but only because they're also willing to invest heavily in their squad. We do too, but we're shit at it. They have a vision with their transfers, to an extent, while we buy a bunch of players specifically for a manager we then sack, then hire someone who plays a completely different brand of football and wants rid of most of them.

Yep. You get the squad, then get the manager to fit them together nowadays.

That's why I'm glad we finally have a DOF. I'd like him to be more powerful than the manager tbh.

 

[cyril C]

People keep pointing to Chelsea, and how sacking managers is working for them. It is, but only because they're also willing to invest heavily in their squad. We do too, but we're shit at it. They have a vision with their transfers, to an extent, while we buy a bunch of players specifically for a manager we then sack, then hire someone who plays a completely different brand of football and wants rid of most of them.

Does the same vision include letting go young Salah, KDB, Lukaku because they don't fit into the system?

Both make mistakes, Chelsea makes expensive professional mistakes, Utd makes expensive ametuer mistakes.

 

[Number32]

Ruthlessness if you are playing fm or fifa, to be fair Chelsea is exactly doing what gamers do in a game simulation. But in reality they need a sugar daddy owner to support their achievement. Thier transfer ban was 2 years ago, eventhough they tricked that by signing players in January before serving the ban.

So, regarding last transfer activity it's an ok season for Chelsea, and it's an ok season for United too.
They are overachieve in CL but underachieve in PL, and we are underachieve in Europe but overachive in PL.

I know winning trophy is what matter at the end, but the fans should calm theirself about the future because we ain't that bad this season.

To be fair the money Chelsea spent last summer was self funded money from previous summer's money barely touched due to the ban and then on top of that outgoing transfer sales of players as well.

For quite some time now chelsea have been very good with their dealings in and out of the club, where as we have either giving our players away for pittance or allowed players to out stay their welcome with little resale value and then on the other side of it we have continuously over spent on nearly every player we have brought from mata, to fellaini, fred, sanchez, lukaku, bissaka and maguire. It's no wonder why we struggle to build a world class side with strength in depth

You forgot they had made blockbuster signings 6 month before serving the ban. They sold players quite well because they have a very good management team, superb recruitment team, and invest alot of money on scouts, youth, training facilities, ect.

Roman had invest a lot on everything he could to be a well run football club, while our owners only just waiting for the dividen every year.

 

[sammyk123]

Well, ruthlessness goes both ways. You're bound to occasionally make the wrong call. The "genius" about being ruthless is that it's impossible to prove that it was the wrong call, unless your team starts performing significantly worse, which rarely happens anyways.

Also, ruthlessness typically means that you don't really care too much about a manager's past. If they're not performing right now, then they're out. I think a lot of people have forgotten how shit Pep's first season in charge of City was. He arguably had the best squad in the league and the league was in a pretty shite state(definitely worse than now). He still finished 4th, barely in front of Van Gaal's second season United(which was shit). Based on Chelsea's history, I have no doubt in my mind that Pep would have been out the door if he finished 5th with such a squad.

I'm not saying that being ruthless definitely is the wrong approach, btw. For certain clubs it has made perfect sense up until now(Bayern, Real and Barca etc). But in the PL, I'm not sure if it's better. Chelsea is the only example we have. They are fairly successful, but it comes at a clear cost. I think there is a limit to how successful Chelsea can be with their approach.

Pep finished 3rd in his first season. You're confusing Pellegrini's last season with Pep's first

 

[KungFuCantona]

We don't have that fear factor anymore. Teams would lose before they kicked a ball. We were always relentless and we didn't know when we were beat. We were an angry beast wanting to win right to the whistle, the fans did too.

It took Fergie a while, we gotta gove Ole that time too, he knows what the club and fans want. We are getting better but we have to be consistent, ruthless and scare teams before the kick of a ball. We are still 2-3 players away but Ole is the man

 

[krentz]

To be fair the money Chelsea spent last summer was self funded money from previous summer's money barely touched due to the ban and then on top of that outgoing transfer sales of players as well.

For quite some time now chelsea have been very good with their dealings in and out of the club, where as we have either giving our players away for pittance or allowed players to out stay their welcome with little resale value and then on the other side of it we have continuously over spent on nearly every player we have brought from mata, to fellaini, fred, sanchez, lukaku, bissaka and maguire. It's no wonder why we struggle to build a world class side with strength in depth

Not entirely true. They spent big money on 2 players, Matteo Kovacic £40M and Hakim Ziyech €35M in 19/20. I think some people misunderstood transfer ban greatly. The football gov body said nothing banning chelse to spend money on new players, they only forbade Chelsea to register new players for 19/20. Thats how they "bought" Kovacic because hes played for them a season before, thats how they "bought" Ziyech in January 2020. Chelsea outsmart transfer ban because Roman hires smart and aggressive people, not just bankers and accountants.
Agreed with the rest of your post.

 

[OleBoiii]

Pep finished 3rd in his first season. You're confusing Pellegrini's last season with Pep's first

Ah my bad. He still massively underperformed, though.

 

[Cal?]

Now Zidane is available, we should be doing everything we can to get him.

 

[Stormrage101MUFC]

We as a club have the unique hope/expectation that if you don't sack your manager in the first 6 years and give him time, even when things look bleak at first, he'll end up coming good and winning 40+ trophies within the next 26.5 years. Perhaps not to the same extent but you get what I mean. It seems to contribute to the leniency we show our managers especially when compared to other major clubs.

Whether we're correct to keep clinging on to that dream every time we hire a new manager remains to be seen. I'm leaning towards no, though.

 

[The Corinthian]

I don't think the similarities are as clear as you're making out.

Chelsea sacked Lampard despite investing in Kovacic and Pulisic for him in his first season (£100m+ worth of talent) and then another £240m. He had them floundering in the league and disorganised and chaotic at the back.

Solskjaer in his first season spent a fair bit (approx. £200m) and led us to 3rd. In his second season, we signed first team players in the region of £35m. With such little investment, we still managed to be the 2nd best team in the league, with a strong showing in all other comps we were in.

We've never got two consecutive top 4 finishes post Fergie. If we back him this summer, I think we'll see the benefit of the slower methodological approach. To be honest, in his 2.5 seasons with us, the only black marks I'd hold against Ole is the CL group exit and losing the Europa final. Otherwise, I think he's done a good job all things considered.

 

[Abraxas]

This is something I've touched on in another thread, and certainly the comparison with Chelsea is interesting.

But I don't think it's just about the ruthlessness of our owners and management. They would have to restructure the footballing side to make this model work. If anything it is more about traditions, we seem to be coming towards modern thinking on recruitment kicking and screaming.

There is clearly a reason Chelsea's model works, and that has to be recruiting the right managers for players the club has already decided on. They sign up said manager, benefit from the honeymoon period and potentially get a manager in the peak of his powers, as staying at a job for the long-term is difficult in terms of stress, and quite frankly today's owners and fans get sick of a face pretty quickly when results go south.

We still have a structure where the incumbent manager is critical to transfer operations. Once you allow that you pretty much have to afford the manager a reasonable period in my opinion, it is already suggesting we will keep the manager longer than Chelsea before a ball is kicked. If you keep sacking a manager after giving him transfer funds to mould a squad to his preference, then it simply makes no sense financially. We have seen this with our seemingly random, scattergun approach to transfers since Fergie retired. We are mostly targeting according to the manager's preference, that is abundantly clear despite excuse making from those that have been sacked. You must get the right manager and give them a period of time.

I guess we are trying to rework some of our footballing structures so that we have the right people to make some of the overarching footballing decisions with respect to style of player, cultural fit etc, but this may take time. Clearly you need people of experience and expertise in those roles and it doesn't appear to be something we are quite ready to fully commit to.

 

[Dr. StrangeHate]

People keep mentioning that Chelsea have spent money, just to make it clear:

Team	Net Spend 5 Years	Net Spend 10 Years
Chelsea	£-262.34m	£-496.94m
Manchester United	£-498.42m	£-944.45m
Liverpool	£-119.73m	£-349.31m
Manchester City	£-560.66m	£-1017.69m

Unfortunately I could just find Net Spend stats.

https://www.transfermarkt.co.uk/premier-league/fuenfjahresvergleich/wettbewerb/GB1

 

[Rightnr]

People keep mentioning that Chelsea have spent money, just to make it clear:

Team	Net Spend 5 Years	Net Spend 10 Years
Chelsea	£-262.34m	£-496.94m
Manchester United	£-498.42m	£-944.45m
Liverpool	£-119.73m	£-349.31m
Manchester City	£-560.66m	£-1017.69m

Unfortunately I could just find Net Spend stats.

https://www.transfermarkt.co.uk/premier-league/fuenfjahresvergleich/wettbewerb/GB1

I saw a full version of this with all teams across Europe. Chelsea have actually spent the 2nd most most out of anyone but their amazing selling team has allowed them to recycle until they get success, time and time again.

EDIT: Here it is. This link is since Pep arrived at City, so it's last 5 years.

https://i.redd.it/oypndbr8a6271.jpg

 

[KrasHammerhand]

You are comparing apples to oranges. On the one hand we have Chelsea who have thrived in chaos and have had their most successful season on the back of sacking their full time coach mid-way through the season.

On the other hand you have us who are a fallen giant whose success was built on top of continuity and a GOAT coach. We don't operate under the same economics as Chelsea and so the only way our club can sustain this level of performance is by maintaining continuity, buying emerging players who can become stars, or by taking a gamble through buying youngsters who have the potential to become generational talents.

These talents will only come to us if we have a relatively calmer situation and environment to let them thrive. A constantly chopping and changing environment like Chelsea's is counterproductive to youth and patience. We can't compete in their market and so have to give emerging players what they need i.e., stability.

Given the handicap we are operating under, Ole has done a phenomenal job keeping us where we are. In fact, we have overachieved this season if anything by 1-2 PL places. Our current squad is only good enough to be top 4 and that's it. To maintain our standard, we have to operate more like Leicester than Chelsea.

What utter rubbish, we are arguably the largest club in the world. he two biggest handicaps we have are the owners who have used the club as an atm, sucking the blood of the club dry. The second is thinking Ole has been anything more than a mediocre coach. When he came is as an intern manager he was needed to get the rot out from The Special One and to raise the spirits of the players and the fans. When things went to pot at the end of the year he should have been moved to another position with the club, perhaps as DOF.

We have the second largest spend in the PL, and have fallen further behind City and now Chelsea. We have had opportunities to upgrade the manager but have let it ride with Ole, Bayern decided thier coach wasn’t good enough, boom coaching change, Chelsea see Lampard isn’t ready boom Tuchel comes in and wins the CL. We choke in every semi final or final, boom let’s extend the manager.

 

[wolvored]

As some have said post Fergie is a curse as we are looking for another like him. This is impossible and Ole is nothing like him. Fergie came from a league were he broke the monopoly of the 2 main teams winning everything. Scottish football wasnt as poor as it is now either. He had a fiery temper where he demanded the best or you were subbed. Ole doesnt do this either. The team had a playing style which was adapted to fit the players. We havent got that fluidity under Ole either.
To be successful we need a new blueprint. Forget the old traditions as they wont work nowadays. We do need a successful DOF who has no prior connection to the club. Drop the good ol' boys act and bring in successful coaches who can develop all aspects of play. If successful in winning the big trophies it will become the new 'United way'.

 

[Skills]

Yep. You get the squad, then get the manager to fit them together nowadays.

That's why I'm glad we finally have a DOF. I'd like him to be more powerful than the manager tbh.

That's the case at all clubs. The DOF doesn't "work with the manager" - the head coach works for the DOF. We were just in an awkward situation where we had a manager already in place - so it was difficult putting in place his boss, so we've fudged up some role in which the DOF and the manager are the same level.

I reckon when Ole is eventually replaced, the club will consciously hire a "head coach" rather than a manager from that point.

 

[Tallis]

Your example is the one club who've managed to changed fewer managers than us?

Referring to what they done since Wenger’s departure. The chopping has made them progressively worse.

 

[RedAlert7]

I think the club is just ran very poorly, starting from the higher ups down to the coaching. The hiring of execs, coaches and players etc. We've spent almost the same as city and more than chelsea but have no where near the trophies they have in the last 7+ years. Not to mention our tansfers are so poorly organised and done last minute and we always offer so much salary to new players to join that when they don't work out it becomes impossible to move them on.

I hope ole does workout but if not a major reshuffle is needed starting from the top. We should aim for the best transfer scouts, best negotiators, best manager and best coaches available and then become more aggressive in the transfer market. Time's change, we must evolve the united way to keep up with modern football or sink and become that only gloats on past successes.

 

[Crimson King]

Arguably, it was pretty ruthless sacking LVG within minutes of winning the FA Cup and replacing him with 'proven winner' Mourinho...

The domestic campaign had been pretty awful that season though.

It can be so hit and miss. If we were going to be ruthless and replace Ole I would only want to do it if it was an obvious upgrade in every respect, like Klopp or Pep when they went to pool and city, respectively.

You hear a lot of names thrown about where you just know it would end in disaster. Conte, for instance. He's a good manager and, who knows, maybe he'd win the league, but given who our owners are I think he'd be waging a personal war with them and probably leave fairly quickly. Someone else would then need to fix that broken ruin.

Maybe I'm wrong, maybe we need to take that chance again. If an obvious candidate like I mentioned does suddenly pop up, and we don't snap them up whilst still sort of drifting or making marginal gains under Ole, then I'd be genuinely concerned again.

 

[Polar]

Hard to know what it would have happened, but we know what happened at Chelsea. So I think we shouldn't hesitate to do the same.

I don’t think Chelsea would’ve fired Lampard if they was top 2.

Chelsea’s and Man Utd’s is pretty much on the same level squad wise. Is someone able to compare Man Utd and Chelsea stats after the arrival of Tuchel?

Based on this thread, I suppose Chelsea’s stat after Tuchel is much better then ours (wins, draws, goals scored).

I hope it isn’t all about one loose and one win in a final. People watching both finals clearly saw the result just as well could’ve been the opposite.

Chelsea was a straw from losing both top 4 and the final. Would we have this Tuchel discussion if that had happen.

Are we suppose to discuss good and bad mangers based on small margins which also include luck and unluck?

Securing silver and more points than last year is enough for me to stay loyal to Ole. We cannot replace a manager who improve the team and beat Chelsea and Liverpool, who’s potential and capacity currently is on the same level as ours - at least.

People who say this season wasn’t competitive or the quality was lower than usual, don’t have a clue. Why do many people say the COVID season was our golden opportunity or an advantage for United?

Stop using shitty agenda based arguments or try to talk our league performance down.

 

[RedDevilzFox]

Look at the biggest and more successful clubs than us and you will have an answer that changing managers frequently has not prevented them from being more successful than us.

That just leaves the philosophical argument if we pander more to traditions than what works?

 

[BFernandes]

When it comes to competition, sentimentality is a hindrance.

You really think Chelsea make top 4 and win the Champions League with Lampard still in charge?

 

[NoneBmStore]

If we had Tuchel in Jan, we should be able to win Europa, but not the League. Roman recruited Tuchel because they had just recruited a vast array of Bundesliga players and believe a German / Bundesliga manager would have better chance in reversing their fortune. Ole did reverse our course, but not enough, and failed big time in crucial match. If the choice is Zidane, he might be able to work on Pogba and Martial better, but I doubt Tuchel can do any better, particularly with Pogba's agent.

Or he recruited him because he was the best available coach ?

 

[SAFMUTD]

I don’t think Chelsea would’ve fired Lampard if they was top 2.

They wouldn't have, but there's no way they'd kept a manager after not winning anything in 3 seasons.

Chelsea’s and Man Utd’s is pretty much on the same level squad wise. Is someone able to compare Man Utd and Chelsea stats after the arrival of Tuchel?

Based on this thread, I suppose Chelsea’s stat after Tuchel is much better then ours (wins, draws, goals scored).

I don't know the exact point difference but it's been mentioned here a couple of times the "Tuchel table" has Chelsea sitting 2nd and us 4th.

I hope it isn’t all about one loose and one win in a final. People watching both finals clearly saw the result just as well could’ve been the opposite.

Well the thing is people keep talking about fine margins, as if the cups were of the same level. Their not, one is the UCL and the other one is the EL. There's no fine margin between one and the other, it's a huge difference between winning the UCL and the EL. It's harder to reach the quarter finals of the UCL rather than winning the EL, there's not a single UCL quality team in that competition besides the ones who already failed that year.

Also the manner that the managers impact each final, jeez total opposites. While Ole looked clueless and feck it up big time Tuchel had another masterclass nullifying City. That's no small margins or luck that's tactics. Sure we could have ended up winning the penalties but that wouldn't mean that Ole did ok, we would have ended up winning despise on him not because of him.

Chelsea was a straw from losing both top 4 and the final. Would we have this Tuchel discussion if that had happen.

Yes that would've been some bottle job, but being out of top 4 should had been on Lampard which left Chelsea 9th when he left. Still I think after putting themselves in that position if they would have failed Tuchel would have been the one blamed and deservedly so.

Are we suppose to discuss good and bad mangers based on small margins which also include luck and unluck?

Again you simply don't reach a UCL final by luck, small margins in winning it sure but you have to get to the point where luck can play in your favor. Can't say winning it is on fine margins.

The way I see it Tuchel won it and Ole feck it up getting out in group stages. That's how close the margins are.

Securing silver and more points than last year is enough for me to stay loyal to Ole. We cannot replace a manager who improve the team and beat Chelsea and Liverpool, who’s potential and capacity currently is on the same level as ours - at least.

Well the thing is not only about progress but how much and how fast is that progress, at this rate we can keep progressing for years and years and still be nowhere near the title. Slim progress is not enough in my opinion, we need substantial steady progress.

People who say this season wasn’t competitive or the quality was lower than usual, don’t have a clue. Why do many people say the COVID season was our golden opportunity or an advantage for United?

Stop using shitty agenda based arguments or try to talk our league performance down.

Well they say the quality was lower than usual because top teams made less points that they normally do, not only in England but in all the top leagues. Why do people say it was a golden opportunity? Well the rack that we were at top in January and than we saw a Inter, Atletico, Lille, Sporting won their respective leagues after God knows how much time.

 

[Polar]

Will have the answer next year when Tuchel and Ole have completed one season together. Looking forward to see who wins.

 

[diarm]

I saw a full version of this with all teams across Europe. Chelsea have actually spent the 2nd most most out of anyone but their amazing selling team has allowed them to recycle until they get success, time and time again.

EDIT: Here it is. This link is since Pep arrived at City, so it's last 5 years.

https://i.redd.it/oypndbr8a6271.jpg

Am I blind or is there no Real Madrid on that list?

 

[Tallis]

Am I blind or is there no Real Madrid on that list?

They haven’t really spent much on transfers apart from the one summer when they blew €300m on hazard, jovic, militao etc. They also have been selling players consistently.

 

[Polar]

I don't know the exact point difference but it's been mentioned here a couple of times the "Tuchel table" has Chelsea sitting 2nd and us 4th.

[…] being out of top 4 should had been on Lampard which left Chelsea 9th when he left. Still I think after putting themselves in that position if they would have failed Tuchel would have been the one blamed and deservedly so.

Agree Tuchel would have been the one to blame.
5 wins and 14 goals scored in the last 10 matches, when they fought to be among top 4 in PL, isn’t impressive.

United: 6 wins and 17 goals, but our finish in PL was allegedly only decent according to some people.

When Ole did well in the beginning, many talked about honeymoon. Don’t hear much about Tuchel’s honeymoon. His results is off course because of good management

Sometimes we judge other managers by another standard than the we use judging our own manager. Poch, Tuchel, Klopp and Rodgers have all of them been flooping in the league or international cup the last year, but people seem to forget those facts.

Liverpool is off course excused because they have had injuries . At the same time we earlier said United needed 3-4 more players to compete with Liverpool. With other words: United and Liverpool have competed on equal term this season - and we took them in the league

The grass is NOT always greener on the the other

 

[SAFMUTD]

Agree Tuchel would have been the one to blame.
5 wins and 14 goals scored in the last 10 matches, when they fought to be among top 4 in PL, isn’t impressive.

United: 6 wins and 17 goals.

The grass is NOT always greener on the the other side.

When Ole did well in the beginning, many talked about honeymoon. Don’t hear much about Tuchel’s honeymoon. His results is off course because of good management

Well difference is Ole's hooney moon ended up with us being bullied against Barca in the quarter finals, and that barca wasnt even that impressive. They ultimately ended up being raped by Bayern in the semis.

Im sure if Ole's hooneymoon would had lead us to a UCL title he would have way more credit than he does.

 

[Tyrion]

That's the case at all clubs. The DOF doesn't "work with the manager" - the head coach works for the DOF. We were just in an awkward situation where we had a manager already in place - so it was difficult putting in place his boss, so we've fudged up some role in which the DOF and the manager are the same level.

I reckon when Ole is eventually replaced, the club will consciously hire a "head coach" rather than a manager from that point.

I'd hope so. Coaches are replaced so often that unless you have the top 2 or 3 managers in the world with a long term commitment (e.g. Pep, Klopp, maybe Simeone) then giving them too much power is self defeating.

 

[cyril C]

Hypothetical situation - would you take Conte at United ? Do you think he would be a good fit ?

Unlike other teams he has managed , we won't sell players , we invest decent money every year.

Yep, and a very similar foreboding feel to it.

Without a mega transfer window Ole is going to walk the same path as Jose at United.

Or he recruited him because he was the best available coach ?

Best is a very subjective term. Probably add He was 1 of the few reputable managers that have not been an ex-Chelsea manager before. Harder and harder to find raw meat.

 

[Ali Dia]

Well difference is Ole's hooney moon ended up with us being bullied against Barca in the quarter finals, and that barca wasnt even that impressive. They ultimately ended up being raped by Bayern in the semis.

Im sure if Ole's hooneymoon would had lead us to a UCL title he would have way more credit than he does.

Is it yourself Graham?

 

[SAF is the GOAT]

I don't know how much The United Muppetiers is appreciated on here but they put a tweet out(can't bring it in here because of permission) that according to few of their sources : united is acting like a proper club in the market and there's a significant change from past years. It really makes me happy to here this

 

[justsomebloke]

I never said Abramovich was a good guy. Of course he's evil. But honestly, so are our owners. We also tried to join the super league, and Mr. Joel was vice Chairman.

Whatever his intentions may be, fact is no english club won more major titles (17) than Chelsea since Abramovich took over. Of Course Chelsea are the club that has spent more money in the same period (or was City?), but we've also spent a lot since SAF left, but with little results.

We shall see if Man Utd new structure with a DoF will bring results. I agree with most posters here that Ole won't go anywhere as long as he keeps delivering top 4, but if he's backed this summer, and fails to deliver a single title next season, then we must be ruthless to let him go and find a better manager.

So, to summarise, you basically assume that something you're against (retaining Solskjær) is being done for a really stupid reason (sentimental attachment), and that this equates to choosing not to win trophies when we could have done so.

You then propose to have a discussion about whether the club should be less stupid, and if i'ts good for United to win trophies or not.

Have fun in the echo chamber. This may be the most ridiculously constructed discussion of the year, which is saying something.