Amateur Mistakes | How Not To Run A Football Club

[Lentwood]

After seeing the news this morning about Anthony Martial's loan move to Seville, and being reminded of his gigantic weekly salary in the process, I began thinking about mistakes that an 'amateur' would make if they were put in-charge of running a top football club.

I'm not really referring to things like 'buying player X' or 'appointing manager Y' (although you can have those if it's part of a broader point), but I am more interested in mistakes that may SEEM like good ideas to an amateur...but actually a seasoned, savvy Director of Football or CEO would avoid.

I can think of a few examples, go-ahead and contribute your own

Huge Salaries to 'Hot Prospects'

On the face of it, seems like a good idea. Tie your top talent down to long-term contracts by offering them above market rate salaries. Secures your assets and helps the manager plan.

However, as we have seen, it could be argued that this leads to players losing that extra little bit of motivation they need to become a real top player. We have given Sancho £350K per week at 21, Rashford was on 200K per week at 21, and Martial was on £250K.

It also means that players become near-impossible to sell, if it doesn't work out. Martial is a regular in the French squad and in a World where Chris Wood is worth £25m, we should be looking at double that for a player of his undoubted ability. However, because we pay such ludicrous wages, we price-out any 'second-tier' clubs who would love to have a player like Martial (by 'second-tier' I mean those clubs just below the top clubs, not 2nd Division!)

For context, Mo Salah is currently on £220K and Sadio Mane is on £110K

Renewing Contracts to Secure Value of our 'Assets'

Again, seems logical. Footballers are worth money, and in theory, you don't want them leaving on a free. Therefore, it makes perfect sense to renew their contracts and protect them as a saleable asset, right? This is certainly how an accountant would think, if they were running the club (cough...Ed)

Well again, not really no, not if you have absolutely no interest in giving them any reasonable game-time and are paying them above market rate salaries (again). The trouble is, when you renew players like Jones and Lingard just so that you can potentially get a fee at some point in the future, all your really doing is hurting their career (and their market value in the process) and the likelihood is, you'll struggle to shift them if they're not playing regularly because no middle-tier club is going to pay £35m and £150K p/w in wages for a player who averages about 5 starts a season.

Far better to simply renew contracts on merit only. If a player doesn't deserve a new contract, well then that tells you they should be sold! Little bit of foresight and squad-planning would go a long way!

Signing Players Who Were Reluctant to Join

Surely if top players are available, you turn on the charm offensive and throw the kitchen sink at them to get them to OT?

Well...goes without saying really, and I am mainly referring to Angel di Maria here. If you're having to beg a player to sign, that should tell you everything you need to know.

Giving Moyes 8-Months

When Moyes was sacked, we sat 7th in the table and Champions League qualification was mathematically impossible. SAF had won the league with this team the year previous and Moyes looked clueless as to how to get a performance out of the side, surely he had to go?

Well, I am not here to debate whether Moyes was the right man, but what I am saying is that we certainly didn't give Moyes the support or the time he needed to have any chance of making a success of the job. Once we had decided that Moyes was the right man, the club should have been smart enough to realise that choppy waters were likely ahead and it was going to take some time to get things right, particularly since we saw a quick exodus of our (former) top players after SAF left. SAF himself recognised this, and made a point of warning us several times in his farewell speech. I think he knew full-well what was coming.

Of course, as fans, many of us decried the poor results and thought it quite right that Moyes was sacked, but with hindsight, what did we realistically expect? Whoever took the job should have been GUARANTEED 24-months minimum. I am sure that however it would have eventually worked out, we would be in a better position than we ended up in.

Rushing to give Solskjaer the Job Permanently

United had just beaten PSG in the Round of 16 and were on our best run of results post-SAF. The players seemed to be loving their football, the fans were in good spirits and ex-players proclaimed that United we're "back!". Surely they had to give Ole the job permanently?

In fairness, this one was touch-and-go, and I think many of us, myself included, would have made the same mistake. But did we really need to give Ole a long-term deal after that PSG game? He wasn't ever going to hold us to ransom or go and join another club, why didn't we just wait until the end of the season and evaluate then? Again, we might still have made the same decision, and I still believe we're better for having appointed Ole....but I understand many fans don't...so should we have just waited? We certainly had no reason to jump-in with both feet, but we kinda did!

Sacking LvG for Jose Mourinho

LvG hadn't pulled up any trees, had just one-year left on his contract and suddenly, one of the top managers in world football is available, surely it's a no-brainer?

Well, again, I'm not here to comment on whether LvG was a good United manager, or Jose Mourinho was a good United manager...but what I would say is that switching from one to the other in the manner that we did was crazy. As many have pointed out, their two styles could hardly be more polarised. LvG liked very technical footballers, players who could play in multiple position and who were comfortable in possession. Jose liked players with elite physical attributes who had no qualms about getting the ball forward as quickly as possible into a big CF and playing on the counter.

Whether you think we were right to sack LvG or not, the fact that we made this transition without giving any thought to the squad we had just assembled under his stewardship was VERY amateur in my opinion.

So....any more for any more?

 

[Skills]

I almost feel like our fanbase would rather the club not try, rather than try and fail.

The reason we gave the likes of Rashford, Sancho and Martial that kind of money was because the club didn't intend on selling them. I'd say where we fail is, once we back a horse financially we don't fully commit to it. Any manager coming into the club should be made aware the roles/positions of the following X players are non-negotiable. The coach has to fit his system around them, because we've invested too much into them.

 

[macheda14]

However, as we have seen, it could be argued that this leads to players losing that extra little bit of motivation they need to become a real top player. We have given Sancho £350K per week at 21, Rashford was on 200K per week at 21, and Martial was on £250K.

No we haven't - actual reports, not tabloid reports range from 190-250k. Which is still a crazy amount of money. But 350k is a complete myth.

 

[mctrials23]

I almost feel like our fanbase would rather the club not try, rather than try and fail.

I think most of our fans would like us to just make sensible decisions.

None of the OP decisions were ones that were necessary or wise either at the time or in hindsight. The only one that was a good call was sacking Moyes. Nothing about the guy suggested he was up to the job. Good manager at a certain level but that level is where he is now. Giving him a 6 year contract was the first mistake and a quite obvious one.

We seem to make decisions based on best case outcomes. "If everything goes perfectly this is a good decision". Its not even like most of the decisions had any tangible benefits either.

Giving players huge salaries too young almost never ends well, doesn't motivate them and usually backfires.

Giving a manager a 6 year contract when he has never shown any signs of playing the style of football you want and who has never managed an elite level club.

Giving a manager with a massively questionable managerial record a long term contract before the end of the season when he would have 0 suitors boggles my mind. Extending that contract when he had shown nothing in 2+ years of managing us is mind blowing. He literally wasn't even getting par from out squad and our performances were all over the place to put it nicely.

Its like the club thinks its better than everyone else. They behave like a legacy brand that has become too comfortable in its position and couldn't foresee that anyone could knock them off their perch. I mean, how could we be poorly run when we are so wealthy and successful and if we are wealthy and successful then clearly we have top people making the decisions.

In all honestly I can't think of too many good decisions the club has made in the past 8 years. Very very few good value signings. The best things to come out of the club are youth players. Fernandes was a great buy and thats about it.

 

[MartinRed]

It's easy, just do what the Glazers do.

 

[flameinthesun]

After seeing the news this morning about Anthony Martial's loan move to Seville, and being reminded of his gigantic weekly salary in the process, I began thinking about mistakes that an 'amateur' would make if they were put in-charge of running a top football club.

I'm not really referring to things like 'buying player X' or 'appointing manager Y' (although you can have those if it's part of a broader point), but I am more interested in mistakes that may SEEM like good ideas to an amateur...but actually a seasoned, savvy Director of Football or CEO would avoid.

I can think of a few examples, go-ahead and contribute your own

Huge Salaries to 'Hot Prospects'

On the face of it, seems like a good idea. Tie your top talent down to long-term contracts by offering them above market rate salaries. Secures your assets and helps the manager plan.

However, as we have seen, it could be argued that this leads to players losing that extra little bit of motivation they need to become a real top player. We have given Sancho £350K per week at 21, Rashford was on 200K per week at 21, and Martial was on £250K.

It also means that players become near-impossible to sell, if it doesn't work out. Martial is a regular in the French squad and in a World where Chris Wood is worth £25m, we should be looking at double that for a player of his undoubted ability. However, because we pay such ludicrous wages, we price-out any 'second-tier' clubs who would love to have a player like Martial (by 'second-tier' I mean those clubs just below the top clubs, not 2nd Division!)

For context, Mo Salah is currently on £220K and Sadio Mane is on £110K

Renewing Contracts to Secure Value of our 'Assets'

Again, seems logical. Footballers are worth money, and in theory, you don't want them leaving on a free. Therefore, it makes perfect sense to renew their contracts and protect them as a saleable asset, right? This is certainly how an accountant would think, if they were running the club (cough...Ed)

Well again, not really no, not if you have absolutely no interest in giving them any reasonable game-time and are paying them above market rate salaries (again). The trouble is, when you renew players like Jones and Lingard just so that you can potentially get a fee at some point in the future, all your really doing is hurting their career (and their market value in the process) and the likelihood is, you'll struggle to shift them if they're not playing regularly because no middle-tier club is going to pay £35m and £150K p/w in wages for a player who averages about 5 starts a season.

Far better to simply renew contracts on merit only. If a player doesn't deserve a new contract, well then that tells you they should be sold! Little bit of foresight and squad-planning would go a long way!

Signing Players Who Were Reluctant to Join

Surely if top players are available, you turn on the charm offensive and throw the kitchen sink at them to get them to OT?

Well...goes without saying really, and I am mainly referring to Angel di Maria here. If you're having to beg a player to sign, that should tell you everything you need to know.

Giving Moyes 8-Months

When Moyes was sacked, we sat 7th in the table and Champions League qualification was mathematically impossible. SAF had won the league with this team the year previous and Moyes looked clueless as to how to get a performance out of the side, surely he had to go?

Well, I am not here to debate whether Moyes was the right man, but what I am saying is that we certainly didn't give Moyes the support or the time he needed to have any chance of making a success of the job. Once we had decided that Moyes was the right man, the club should have been smart enough to realise that choppy waters were likely ahead and it was going to take some time to get things right, particularly since we saw a quick exodus of our (former) top players after SAF left. SAF himself recognised this, and made a point of warning us several times in his farewell speech. I think he knew full-well what was coming.

Of course, as fans, many of us decried the poor results and thought it quite right that Moyes was sacked, but with hindsight, what did we realistically expect? Whoever took the job should have been GUARANTEED 24-months minimum. I am sure that however it would have eventually worked out, we would be in a better position than we ended up in.

Rushing to give Solskjaer the Job Permanently

United had just beaten PSG in the Round of 16 and were on our best run of results post-SAF. The players seemed to be loving their football, the fans were in good spirits and ex-players proclaimed that United we're "back!". Surely they had to give Ole the job permanently?

In fairness, this one was touch-and-go, and I think many of us, myself included, would have made the same mistake. But did we really need to give Ole a long-term deal after that PSG game? He wasn't ever going to hold us to ransom or go and join another club, why didn't we just wait until the end of the season and evaluate then? Again, we might still have made the same decision, and I still believe we're better for having appointed Ole....but I understand many fans don't...so should we have just waited? We certainly had no reason to jump-in with both feet, but we kinda did!

Sacking LvG for Jose Mourinho

LvG hadn't pulled up any trees, had just one-year left on his contract and suddenly, one of the top managers in world football is available, surely it's a no-brainer?

Well, again, I'm not here to comment on whether LvG was a good United manager, or Jose Mourinho was a good United manager...but what I would say is that switching from one to the other in the manner that we did was crazy. As many have pointed out, their two styles could hardly be more polarised. LvG liked very technical footballers, players who could play in multiple position and who were comfortable in possession. Jose liked players with elite physical attributes who had no qualms about getting the ball forward as quickly as possible into a big CF and playing on the counter.

Whether you think we were right to sack LvG or not, the fact that we made this transition without giving any thought to the squad we had just assembled under his stewardship was VERY amateur in my opinion.

So....any more for any more?

Just on the Ole point, I personally and a few fans I know had started to have doubts by the time the psg match came. If I remember results had settled down and the performances were not great. At the time to me it felt like the club rushed to give Ole the job just in case performances continued dropping as it would have forced them to spend for Poch for example. Where as PSG gave them the perfect excuse to hire him. As a result the performances continued dropping after the psg match.

 

[Lentwood]

I almost feel like our fanbase would rather the club not try, rather than try and fail.

The reason we gave the likes of Rashford, Sancho and Martial that kind of money was because the club didn't intend on selling them. I'd say where we fail is, once we back a horse financially we don't fully commit to it. Any manager coming into the club should be made aware the roles/positions of the following X players are non-negotiable. The coach has to fit his system around them, because we've invested too much into them.

Why do we have to give them £200K per week plus because we didn't intend on selling them? Who were we in real danger of losing them too?

I am also not comfortable with the suggestion that some players HAVE to be selected, regardless of their form

 

[#07]

@Lentwood, for me, most of the problems you have listed (and most of the problems we continue to have come down) to this: Not having a world class Director of Football.

If Manchester United had appointed an experienced, well-respected Director of Football, at any time in the past nine years, we would have avoided a lot of missteps.

A Director of Football is going to have a clear idea of how the team should play, what kind of players to buy to make that idea a reality, what kind of coach will be best placed to make it work.

A lot of the issues we have are the result of swinging wildly from one approach to the other. Van Gaal comes in wants to play 3-5-2, buys a bunch of players to fit it, then changes to 4-3-3 a few games later before ultimately settling on 4-2-3-1. Mourinho comes in, wants to play 4-2-3-1 on the counter attack. Sells all the possession based players Van Gaal recruited and buys counter attacking players. Ole starts off counter attacking, buying really expensive players to fit that, then switches his ideas up and finds there's a bunch of players that can't keep up. With a powerful Director of Football this doesn't happen. The Director of Football will pick the style and formation and make sure the signings and coach suit that.

An experienced Director of Football will also have a better grasp of value in football, what to pay players and what not, where to shop and where not, who to sell and who not.

Instead we've had a succession of people learning on the job and now we've got Murtough, who's also never been a Football Director.

 

[Tom Cato]

After seeing the news this morning about Anthony Martial's loan move to Seville, and being reminded of his gigantic weekly salary in the process, I began thinking about mistakes that an 'amateur' would make if they were put in-charge of running a top football club.

I'm not really referring to things like 'buying player X' or 'appointing manager Y' (although you can have those if it's part of a broader point), but I am more interested in mistakes that may SEEM like good ideas to an amateur...but actually a seasoned, savvy Director of Football or CEO would avoid.

I can think of a few examples, go-ahead and contribute your own

Huge Salaries to 'Hot Prospects'

On the face of it, seems like a good idea. Tie your top talent down to long-term contracts by offering them above market rate salaries. Secures your assets and helps the manager plan.

However, as we have seen, it could be argued that this leads to players losing that extra little bit of motivation they need to become a real top player. We have given Sancho £350K per week at 21, Rashford was on 200K per week at 21, and Martial was on £250K.

It also means that players become near-impossible to sell, if it doesn't work out. Martial is a regular in the French squad and in a World where Chris Wood is worth £25m, we should be looking at double that for a player of his undoubted ability. However, because we pay such ludicrous wages, we price-out any 'second-tier' clubs who would love to have a player like Martial (by 'second-tier' I mean those clubs just below the top clubs, not 2nd Division!)

For context, Mo Salah is currently on £220K and Sadio Mane is on £110K

Renewing Contracts to Secure Value of our 'Assets'

Again, seems logical. Footballers are worth money, and in theory, you don't want them leaving on a free. Therefore, it makes perfect sense to renew their contracts and protect them as a saleable asset, right? This is certainly how an accountant would think, if they were running the club (cough...Ed)

Well again, not really no, not if you have absolutely no interest in giving them any reasonable game-time and are paying them above market rate salaries (again). The trouble is, when you renew players like Jones and Lingard just so that you can potentially get a fee at some point in the future, all your really doing is hurting their career (and their market value in the process) and the likelihood is, you'll struggle to shift them if they're not playing regularly because no middle-tier club is going to pay £35m and £150K p/w in wages for a player who averages about 5 starts a season.

Far better to simply renew contracts on merit only. If a player doesn't deserve a new contract, well then that tells you they should be sold! Little bit of foresight and squad-planning would go a long way!

Signing Players Who Were Reluctant to Join

Surely if top players are available, you turn on the charm offensive and throw the kitchen sink at them to get them to OT?

Well...goes without saying really, and I am mainly referring to Angel di Maria here. If you're having to beg a player to sign, that should tell you everything you need to know.

Giving Moyes 8-Months

When Moyes was sacked, we sat 7th in the table and Champions League qualification was mathematically impossible. SAF had won the league with this team the year previous and Moyes looked clueless as to how to get a performance out of the side, surely he had to go?

Well, I am not here to debate whether Moyes was the right man, but what I am saying is that we certainly didn't give Moyes the support or the time he needed to have any chance of making a success of the job. Once we had decided that Moyes was the right man, the club should have been smart enough to realise that choppy waters were likely ahead and it was going to take some time to get things right, particularly since we saw a quick exodus of our (former) top players after SAF left. SAF himself recognised this, and made a point of warning us several times in his farewell speech. I think he knew full-well what was coming.

Of course, as fans, many of us decried the poor results and thought it quite right that Moyes was sacked, but with hindsight, what did we realistically expect? Whoever took the job should have been GUARANTEED 24-months minimum. I am sure that however it would have eventually worked out, we would be in a better position than we ended up in.

Rushing to give Solskjaer the Job Permanently

United had just beaten PSG in the Round of 16 and were on our best run of results post-SAF. The players seemed to be loving their football, the fans were in good spirits and ex-players proclaimed that United we're "back!". Surely they had to give Ole the job permanently?

In fairness, this one was touch-and-go, and I think many of us, myself included, would have made the same mistake. But did we really need to give Ole a long-term deal after that PSG game? He wasn't ever going to hold us to ransom or go and join another club, why didn't we just wait until the end of the season and evaluate then? Again, we might still have made the same decision, and I still believe we're better for having appointed Ole....but I understand many fans don't...so should we have just waited? We certainly had no reason to jump-in with both feet, but we kinda did!

Sacking LvG for Jose Mourinho

LvG hadn't pulled up any trees, had just one-year left on his contract and suddenly, one of the top managers in world football is available, surely it's a no-brainer?

Well, again, I'm not here to comment on whether LvG was a good United manager, or Jose Mourinho was a good United manager...but what I would say is that switching from one to the other in the manner that we did was crazy. As many have pointed out, their two styles could hardly be more polarised. LvG liked very technical footballers, players who could play in multiple position and who were comfortable in possession. Jose liked players with elite physical attributes who had no qualms about getting the ball forward as quickly as possible into a big CF and playing on the counter.

Whether you think we were right to sack LvG or not, the fact that we made this transition without giving any thought to the squad we had just assembled under his stewardship was VERY amateur in my opinion.

So....any more for any more?

I just want to give opinion on the bolded.

The "Wait and see" argument is probably the most prevalent argument for why Ole should never have been fired, and more importantly never extended.

The important factor for the signing in the first place is feedback. Feedback from the staff, playes and importantly on-pitch result all screamed "Hire". Only the most pessimistic fans were sitting in the "Should have waited" category following the PSG night.

Ole wasn't hired on results alone, but the ambition of the project, and the belief in everyone at the club that this was a chance to take.

That's what you tend to do with managerial appointments, you take a chance. Xavi had some good results in a nothing league in Qatar, he's now been given the reins at Barcelona. Everyone are apparently fine with that, but when Ole had results in a nothingleague in Norway, he's unqualified for the position. (No need to throw the Cardiff stay into the mix, its always the response after that comment)

The point is that: Taking the chance was worth it.

As for the contract renewal. This is the most repetetive argument of all "Should have waited until the summer".

Listen. Ole's contract is marginal in the scope of things at the club. He did not even collect the full term pay when he was let go. The financial impact to the club was neglible.

What Manchester United have been sorely lacking since SAF retired is any semblance of continuity in the backroom staff, managers and squad. What the club did was provide all players and staff with a sense of security. Any organization wants continuity.

The fact that managers get sacked when results go bad is the most frequent thing in football and happens to near everyone at some point. Extending the contracts only provided his staff, new signings and the playres with affirmation that the journey they are on is continuing with the full backing of the club. And again, Oles contract is nothing in relation to the player salaries.

The club tried to sack managers like Chelsea, the club tried to offer continuity. Both of which failed.

There are a lot of players in this club that need a good shaming at the end of this season, and that begins with the captain who almost single handedly steered the project to its ultimate demise. Him giving away the 1-1 goal to Everton is that started the slide to which the club has still to recover from.

As for the salaries. Well, they're too big. The club has attempted to buy players and rather than outmatch the competing teams for the sporting project, they've throw enough money at the problem to secure the signing, and inevitable problem of offloading said players. There are very few clubs in woorld football that will take any of our squad players on loan with full salary, and forget about paying a handsome transfer fee on top of matching salaries. Granted: Salaries over the contract period is offeset against offloading the player now and will impact the transfer value, so there's money saved in he transfer fee as well.

 

[Revaulx]

A fair and objective post, untainted by the ridiculous emotion that so often clouds this sort of discussion.

It’s the inability (until now, maybe) to learn from any of the multiple mistakes that I find so depressing.

Let’s hope that Arnold really manages to get things done more professionally. The early signs are encouraging, at least in that the club seem to be trying to do things in a different way, and proper footballing people have been given power to make real decisions. And yes, I’m aware that we have no idea whether said people are any good or not.

I’ll continue to be optimistic until the next ludicrous contract extension is announced…

 

[Skills]

Giving players huge salaries too young almost never ends well, doesn't motivate them and usually backfires.

Here's the thing though - people seem to think we can dictate exactly how much to pay our players and still get whoever we want. That's not how it works - there's a market out there, the agents aren't idiots. Transfer fees and wages aren't something we can control if we actually want to buy the players we want or keep the ones we've got.

We can stand firm, but then be prepared to let the player walk or go elsewhere. It's way too easy to live in a world of what ifs. Last season it was "what if we backed Ole with Sancho?!". Now it's what if we just went for a cheaper option - but then you'd be complaining about the club being cheap. If you want to play at the top end of the market, you need to pay that kind of money. Or else you need to settle for more Dan James.

 

[Roux]

Who other than Di Maria was reluctant to join?

 

[Bobcat]

The big ones imo are handing out fat contracts who compensates players WAY too much, and additionally being so reluctant to sell players who obviously are surplus and who spend 90% of their time on the bench, this is especially bad if you have players on big wages who never play.

First of all, its a collosal waste of funds and secondly if you pay someone 250k/week to sit on their arse week in and week out its going to to breed discontent among the players who play, but somehow earn half of what the benchwarmer is

 

[Red Indian Chief Torn Rubber]

[...am saying is that we certainly didn't give Moyes the support or the time he needed to have any chance of making a success of the job.]

Its amazing this myth lives on.

 

[sparx99]

I'm not saying we are well-run but an awful lot of things are easier to say in hindsight.

That being said I would say the following are genuine blunders that everyone identified at the time.

- Moyes being given a 6-year contract. Literally, why? Not even Guardiola or Klopp get that long. I understand we were supposed to 'get behind your manager' but that doesn't need a 6 year deal. It should have been 2 years with an option for a 3rd.

- Fellaini being bought for £4m more than his clause.

- Extensions to Phil Jones and others for asset management.

- Long term extension to Ole this past summer. Even though there was some reasons to be encouraged by last season we had no need to extend Ole for 3 years. If you want to give him a 1 year extension so that he isn't going into the season with an expiring deal then that would make some sense. There was simply no need for a new 3 year deal off the back of our performance.

 

[Lentwood]

[...am saying is that we certainly didn't give Moyes the support or the time he needed to have any chance of making a success of the job.]

Its amazing this myth lives on.

What's your counter-argument then? This is a thread for discussion, if you don't agree, fine - but it's a somewhat pointless statement to make if you don't offer your opinion on the matter

 

[Mr. MUJAC]

This stuff is basically what happens every day of the week in businesses throughout the world...it's not confined to football.

It happens every day in incredibly well run, successful businesses.

Should these things happen? No.

Do these things happen? Yes.

Why? The human element.

Because football is constantly under a microscope and over-analysed we are just see and hear more about what's going on...that's all.

No big expose' here.

 

[Lentwood]

This stuff is basically what happens every day of the week in businesses throughout the world...it's not confined to football.

It happens every day in incredibly well run, successful businesses.

Should these things happen? No.

Do these things happen? Yes.

Why? The human element.

Because football is constantly under a microscope and over-analysed we are just see and hear more about what's going on...that's all.

No big expose' here.

Agree...to a point....but I'll offer four counter-arguments

1) We have had very few, if ANY genuine successes. It's not like I have ignored tonnes of good, positive things the club have done and had to dig around to find a few things that didn't go well.

2) Yes, we now have the benefit of hindsight...however, many people (who aren't highly-paid football executives) called out many of these issues at the time, or long before they became problems.

3) In the majority of businesses, the sheer number of failures, u-turns and the amount of money wasted would have led to very senior people being fired....but that never happened or even looked likely at OT

4) My point is not to nit-pick and highlight individual actions that went wrong, hence I haven't said things like "paying £50m for AWB" or "appointing Louis van Gaal". I totally accept your point that these decisions can easily go wrong and it's somewhat unfair to criticise them after the fact. What I am concerned with his the amateur thinking on a strategic level we have made and keep making.

I suppose it comes down to thinking ahead and leaving yourself room for manoeuvre. I play a fair bit of online Poker, and to steal an analogy, you want to play a 'Game Theory Optimised' strategy. When we gave Martial £250K per week (or whatever), we focused only on "the best" outcome i.e. Martial becomes one of the best players in the World, worth £100m+ and we have secured him on a long-term deal. Great. Like the equivalent of going all-in with a good hand, assuming you're ahead, or will be at showdown.

However, we didn't seem to think at all about the other possible outcomes. In effect, we went 'all-in" on Martial's success, didn't consider that he MIGHT not become a top player and left ourselves with very few credible options if it was anything BUT a major success. In this position, you might want to 'raise the pot' i.e. give him a long-term deal on an improved wage...but there's absolutely no need to be committing to one of the largest deals in European football for a player who, at the time, still had much to prove.

Again, just to be clear, it's not about Martial's deal, or Sancho's deal, or Sanchez's deal or any deal in isolation....it's about simple, amateur, rose-tinted thinking that continues to get us in trouble

 

[Plant0x84]

Oh good another whinging thread, cos ya know, we don’t have enough of them already!

 

[Lentwood]

Oh good another whinging thread, cos ya know, we don’t have enough of them already!

Why is it a whingeing thread? I'm probably one of the more positive members to be fair.

I just enjoy this kind of chat more than "Maguire is crap, AWB is crap, Shaw is crap, Rangnick is crap, we're crap" that seems to dominate every other thread

 

[Red Indian Chief Torn Rubber]

What's your counter-argument then? ....

Its kinda been done to death, several other threads. But I'll repeat it since you probably never saw it to be fair:
1. He sacked the entire staff Fergie left behind who knew the club in and out and hired all his own guys who knew squat. He was allowed to do it.
2. Like LVG who came after him. He was left a least of potential deals to ratify. He passed over them all. Save for Fellaini who he managed to miraculously still sign but over priced. On top of ditching a number of them for pursuit of people he had no chance of getting like Bale, Fabregas and de Rossi to name a few.
3 He was allowed to break the bank for Mata in january. Had deals in the pipeline for Kroos. Shaw and Herrera all set for the following the summer. That is the definition of support
4.. It was his poor managerial handling of the squad that made his place untenable.
He took over a squad that won the league by 13 point, the previous year. Failed to strnegthen it isely nor manage it well enough to not be in danger of not even finishing in a european place. It his fault alone he got sacked. No club in their right mind would have given him more time at that point. Sadly for United it cost us the chance to get Kroos because by the time we confirmed LVG Kroos chose to go to Real instead. United has still not fully climbed out of the hole he left it in

This is a thread for discussion, if you don't agree, fine - but it's a somewhat pointless statement to make if you don't offer your opinion on the matter

You kinda jumped the gun here

 

[Someone]

@Lentwood, for me, most of the problems you have listed (and most of the problems we continue to have come down) to this: Not having a world class Director of Football.

If Manchester United had appointed an experienced, well-respected Director of Football, at any time in the past nine years, we would have avoided a lot of missteps.

A Director of Football is going to have a clear idea of how the team should play, what kind of players to buy to make that idea a reality, what kind of coach will be best placed to make it work.

A lot of the issues we have are the result of swinging wildly from one approach to the other. Van Gaal comes in wants to play 3-5-2, buys a bunch of players to fit it, then changes to 4-3-3 a few games later before ultimately settling on 4-2-3-1. Mourinho comes in, wants to play 4-2-3-1 on the counter attack. Sells all the possession based players Van Gaal recruited and buys counter attacking players. Ole starts off counter attacking, buying really expensive players to fit that, then switches his ideas up and finds there's a bunch of players that can't keep up. With a powerful Director of Football this doesn't happen. The Director of Football will pick the style and formation and make sure the signings and coach suit that.

An experienced Director of Football will also have a better grasp of value in football, what to pay players and what not, where to shop and where not, who to sell and who not.

Instead we've had a succession of people learning on the job and now we've got Murtough, who's also never been a Football Director.

Spot on.

 

[romufc]

I understand all the criticism the fans give the club, I do too but as fans we look at it as Black and white when it isnt really.

1. Moyes got a long deal because of SAF and they wanted similar long term stability, for a club that hasn't had to change manager for 26 years, you can forgive that.

2. When we are not battling for major honours, the only way to compete for the best is pay them alot more money, guess how City then and now Newcastle are attracting players... Wages.

3. We were all crying out for top players, like Pogba, Sancho, Martial but when they come and don't do well, we blame the club for spending so much on them...

I remember alot of fans in 2020 saying pay the money for Sancho, we didnt.

4. If players like Martial are on 250k a week and not getting a shot at United and want to move, the club is fair to say this is what we want as a transfer fee. Its up to the player to take a pay cut to leave the club. If not, no point blaming the club for being awkward.

5. So now we are comparing players like Wood to Newcastle for £25m saying Martial is worth x2 that but when we sign players like AWB and Maguire because Walker and VVD went for huge amounts, we criticise the club.

Things always look black or white in hindsight. I agree there have been mistakes the club have made but in the last year or so, it looks like we have learnt and are changing things to improve.

Look at Chelsea, they keep buying players and give players contracts too, CHO, Morata, Torres and now Lukaku.

This happens at every club, you cannot get every decision right.

 

[Mr. MUJAC]

Agree...to a point....but I'll offer four counter-arguments

1) We have had very few, if ANY genuine successes. It's not like I have ignored tonnes of good, positive things the club have done and had to dig around to find a few things that didn't go well.

2) Yes, we now have the benefit of hindsight...however, many people (who aren't highly-paid football executives) called out many of these issues at the time, or long before they became problems.

3) In the majority of businesses, the sheer number of failures, u-turns and the amount of money wasted would have led to very senior people being fired....but that never happened or even looked likely at OT

4) My point is not to nit-pick and highlight individual actions that went wrong, hence I haven't said things like "paying £50m for AWB" or "appointing Louis van Gaal". I totally accept your point that these decisions can easily go wrong and it's somewhat unfair to criticise them after the fact. What I am concerned with his the amateur thinking on a strategic level we have made and keep making.

I suppose it comes down to thinking ahead and leaving yourself room for manoeuvre. I play a fair bit of online Poker, and to steal an analogy, you want to play a 'Game Theory Optimised' strategy. When we gave Martial £250K per week (or whatever), we focused only on "the best" outcome i.e. Martial becomes one of the best players in the World, worth £100m+ and we have secured him on a long-term deal. Great. Like the equivalent of going all-in with a good hand, assuming you're ahead, or will be at showdown.

However, we didn't seem to think at all about the other possible outcomes. In effect, we went 'all-in" on Martial's success, didn't consider that he MIGHT not become a top player and left ourselves with very few credible options if it was anything BUT a major success. In this position, you might want to 'raise the pot' i.e. give him a long-term deal on an improved wage...but there's absolutely no need to be committing to one of the largest deals in European football for a player who, at the time, still had much to prove.

Again, just to be clear, it's not about Martial's deal, or Sancho's deal, or Sanchez's deal or any deal in isolation....it's about simple, amateur, rose-tinted thinking that continues to get us in trouble

Like I said...amateur thinking and activity happens every day. CEO's are often kept in place for a variety of reasons in large corporations for many years regardless of success.

They do what football clubs do. They make others scapegoats and change the structure, operating model, senior management team etc

Customers and employees point out loads of 'amateur' decisions but CEO's ignore them.

Everything you describe is nothing new or a big deal in the big scheme of things.

Look what's happening with political leaders....same thing exactly.

We just feel more emotional about it because it's our club.

No big story here.

 

[Newstyle]

People who believe there will be any difference in the club being run with Arnold in charge are in for a rude awakening.

 

[Red Indian Chief Torn Rubber]

Rushing to give Solskjaer the Job Permanently

United had just beaten PSG in the Round of 16 and were on our best run of results post-SAF. The players seemed to be loving their football, the fans were in good spirits and ex-players proclaimed that United we're "back!". Surely they had to give Ole the job permanently?

In fairness, this one was touch-and-go, and I think many of us, myself included, would have made the same mistake. But did we really need to give Ole a long-term deal after that PSG game? He wasn't ever going to hold us to ransom or go and join another club, why didn't we just wait until the end of the season and evaluate then? Again, we might still have made the same decision, and I still believe we're better for having appointed Ole....but I understand many fans don't...so should we have just waited? We certainly had no reason to jump-in with both feet, but we kinda did!

This is a serious misconception that keeps having legs on here. Solksjaer was given the job full time to complete a rebuild post the mess we found ourselves in after giving up on Mourinho's direction and divorcing on bad terms. It was fairly obvious if we hired a top manager immediately post Mourinho, we were going to be involved in a very expensive direction change. Rather than a soft reboot. We needed club principles reinstalled along with club morale and unity. On top of giving us valuable time to plana longer term direction for the club incase Solksjaer in the ended did not prove the man capable of leading us to the promised land It was a better planned mover than people give it credit for.

I wouldn't put much stock in what 'most fans think' because it was pandering to them that casued us to follishly change footballing direction after LVG's methods were starting to yield results.

Solsjaer's soft reboot went much better than people dare to give credit for. Right now United needs very little to be a ready team to compete. all it need is a solid long term direction a and the right top man to drive the ship back to the wining frontier. With a Ragnick in to to help advise and shape things. Wood ward gone from footballing matters .We actually have clearly light at the end of the tunnel for the first time in a while

 

[Iker Quesadillas]

Whoever took the job should have been GUARANTEED 24-months minimum

No top club should give "guaranteed" time to any manager (beyond something trivial like "we won't fire you in the first three months").

 

[Beachryan]

Essentially the key issue is the same as any other organisation or even person on Earth: accountability. Since Fergie left, there have been countless mistakes. And that's kind of fine, as long as lessons are learned and they're not repeated, ad nauseam. Instead, Big Ed proved that he simply did not learn lessons, and was ill equipped for whatever reason to be a successful leader.

Under his tenure, we spent plenty, achieved nothing bar an FA Cup, after which he fired the manager in a matter of minutes. Despite the narrative, our commercial success pre-dated him, and we've actually not grown nearly as much as our competitors, essentially he oversaw our 'lead' get caught. All the while failing to buy the right players, buying the wrong players at the wrong prices and splashing out cash as if he doesn't understand a balance sheet of a football club is different from other companies - because I seriously doubt he did.

What it always comes down to for me is that Ed showed a fundamental lack of hubris. For most of us professionals, when we jump into a new position in a new industry the first thing is simply to become a sponge for a year, and learn. Look at your org, see what has worked. More importantly, spend time assessing the market. Understand your relative position, and who is moving up and down, and learn from that. Given I'm sure big Ed has an MBA or at least MBA training, I'm shocked he didn't do more of this.

We could have looked to emulate Chelsea's model of a youth factory - we had a great reputation for under-23 football at the time. We could have looked at Dortmund's success. Or we could have shaped ourselves in Bayern's mold. We could have studied what clubs were overachieving their budgets and how (spoiler: lots and lots of young players pressing in systems) and built a squad to do that. We could have done any host of coherent things.

Instead, Ed managed us like you'd do Ultimate Team, which I assume is how he learned about football. Buy best available big name for big price, stick em in an XI and hey presto wins. And when that doesn't work? Rinse repeat.

And the most important bit is that all of that never saw him face any accountability. That's the issue.

 

[ManchesterManchester]

I almost feel like our fanbase would rather the club not try, rather than try and fail.

The reason we gave the likes of Rashford, Sancho and Martial that kind of money was because the club didn't intend on selling them. I'd say where we fail is, once we back a horse financially we don't fully commit to it. Any manager coming into the club should be made aware the roles/positions of the following X players are non-negotiable. The coach has to fit his system around them, because we've invested too much into them.

When Bruno who is our best player, wants 400k a week because De Gea gets that. That’s the issue with paying high wages. It’s ok for Man City as they have unlimited money but it will never work at Man Utd under the Glazers ownership.

 

[Bilbo]

In pretty much every successful business these types of mistakes have been necessary - part of the roadmap to them being able to understand what the right recipe is.

 

[#07]

In pretty much every successful business these types of mistakes have been necessary - part of the roadmap to them being able to understand what the right recipe is.

In pretty much every successful business this kind of drift would not be allowed for nine years. There would have been a shareholder revolt a long time ago and changes instituted upon demand.

 

[Lentwood]

Essentially the key issue is the same as any other organisation or even person on Earth: accountability. Since Fergie left, there have been countless mistakes. And that's kind of fine, as long as lessons are learned and they're not repeated, ad nauseam. Instead, Big Ed proved that he simply did not learn lessons, and was ill equipped for whatever reason to be a successful leader.

Under his tenure, we spent plenty, achieved nothing bar an FA Cup, after which he fired the manager in a matter of minutes. Despite the narrative, our commercial success pre-dated him, and we've actually not grown nearly as much as our competitors, essentially he oversaw our 'lead' get caught. All the while failing to buy the right players, buying the wrong players at the wrong prices and splashing out cash as if he doesn't understand a balance sheet of a football club is different from other companies - because I seriously doubt he did.

What it always comes down to for me is that Ed showed a fundamental lack of hubris. For most of us professionals, when we jump into a new position in a new industry the first thing is simply to become a sponge for a year, and learn. Look at your org, see what has worked. More importantly, spend time assessing the market. Understand your relative position, and who is moving up and down, and learn from that. Given I'm sure big Ed has an MBA or at least MBA training, I'm shocked he didn't do more of this.

We could have looked to emulate Chelsea's model of a youth factory - we had a great reputation for under-23 football at the time. We could have looked at Dortmund's success. Or we could have shaped ourselves in Bayern's mold. We could have studied what clubs were overachieving their budgets and how (spoiler: lots and lots of young players pressing in systems) and built a squad to do that. We could have done any host of coherent things.

Instead, Ed managed us like you'd do Ultimate Team, which I assume is how he learned about football. Buy best available big name for big price, stick em in an XI and hey presto wins. And when that doesn't work? Rinse repeat.

And the most important bit is that all of that never saw him face any accountability. That's the issue.

Agree with the majority of this, good post

 

[Bilbo]

In pretty much every successful business this kind of drift would not be allowed for nine years. There would have been a shareholder revolt a long time ago and changes instituted upon demand.

Of course, but in football its only possible to make certain changes (ie playing squad) in specific periods so the whole process takes longer. The one big glaring error that United have made is allowing Woodward to control footballing decisions for so long. We've never understood the delicate balance between the financial health of the club and the actual team on the pitch. Those should always have been independent departments in the org structure.

 

[#07]

Of course, but in football its only possible to make certain changes (ie playing squad) in specific periods so the whole process takes longer. The one big glaring error that United have made is allowing Woodward to control footballing decisions for so long. We've never understood the delicate balance between the financial health of the club and the actual team on the pitch. Those should always have been independent departments in the org structure.

Its pretty shocking from both the ownership and the executive team.

In most other companies the management consultants would've been brought in awhile back. A proper analysis of the business would have been done and recommendations would have been presented about sharpening things up.

Businesses do not tend to allow such significant drift in their core functions without action. What you see at United is disinterest from the major shareholders, the Glazers, leading to an executive team being allowed to continuously underperform.

I struggle to think of many listed companies that are worse run than United.

 

[luke511]

- Too big a disconnect between the London office and Carrington. No director of football throughout to help this issue. All the trust of 100s millions worth being put into the manager's hands.

- Paying players too much money relative to their skill level. Using huge contracts to convince players to stay/join. Cheers Matt Judge.

- Spending too much money on the wrong type of player needed to win titles, not valuing technical consistency anywhere near enough when doing so. Wan Bissaka the perfect example.

- Abysmal squad management.

- Making the players feel like they're superstars that have made it at "the biggest club in the world". Using following and clout as a way of enticing them, fecking with their motivations and mentality.

If we had a good director of football from the very start, we might've ended up with a midfield of Thiago, Kroos and Fabinho and we'd have been a lot more successful on the pitch because of this. We've simply bought the wrong players 90% of the time for too much money, then given them too big a wage which compounds the issue.

 

[Bilbo]

Its pretty shocking from both the ownership and the executive team.

In most other companies the management consultants would've been brought in awhile back. A proper analysis of the business would have been done and recommendations would have been presented about sharpening things up.

Businesses do not tend to allow such significant drift in their core functions without action. What you see at United is disinterest from the major shareholders, the Glazers, leading to an executive team being allowed to continuously underperform.

I struggle to think of many listed companies that are worse run than United.

I've certainly worked for more than one listed company that is run worse than United, but I take your point.

I think we as fans sometimes underestimate the hangover from the Ferguson/Gill era too. The Glazers have come into a sport that is fairly alien to them and what they been exposed to is a manager and a CEO that were arguably the best we've ever had, and that's probably given them a twisted vision of what you need to have in place to be a successful club. I suspect that Malcolm would have gotten there a lot sooner in terms of realising that an overhaul is required.

I feel somewhat positive about the path we are now on. This forum is addicted to living in the past in so many ways, but this feels like a good moment to put all of that aside and see what happens now. I think we've already hit bottom and are back on an upward curve.

 

[Dr. Dwayne]

I liked the first general examples more than the last three very specific examples.

For example: Rushing appointments is better than specifying Solksjaer's appointment and Lack of managerial continuity or inconsistent philosophies is better than specifying LvG versus Jose. They suit the concept of your discussion better.

 

[Champ]

United, the most amateur run club that makes makes millions and millions of pounds every year, is highly profitable and still a desirable club for many players.

Somethings not quite right with that statement....

For a start Sancho is NOT on £350k a week, this myth needs to die, as does the myth that United are run by amateurs.

Mistakes have been made, but also a lot of good has been done also, but I suppose its easier to cherry pick the mistakes and elevate them even of some of these so called mistakes are not mistakes at all!

 

[sugar_kane]

The two big ones from the original list for me are around the dishing out of stupid contracts either for new players, or in order to tie down existing players. Both of these have created a morale problem in the team, due to fringe players being unhappy at not being played (while also being unwilling to move elsewhere for a lower salary) but also first teamers getting paid less than bench players (eg. Bruno being on half of what Martial is)

I would also add giving out eye watering contracts to promising youth players, it sets a culture of players thinking they've made it before they have. Rashford is an extreme example, but giving him £200k a week at the start of his career was crazy.

I would also add signing players based on reputation rather than their fit for the team, Ronaldo being an obvious one - but there have been others over the years. Pogba, Juan Mata, Van de Beek.

We're also pretty good at signing crocks on big wages eg. Schweinsteiger, Falcoa.

It's fine to say we're not the only other club who does any of the above - but we do it at a crazy scale, and repeatedly. It's no exaggeration to say we pay millions just every week just to have players sit on the bench.

 

[NinjaZombie]

That first one is FM 101. Don't offer your young players a big contract too early or their mental attributes will drop.

I'm guessing Ed Woodward doesn't play FM.