"Backing the Manager"

[bosnian_red]

Why do people keep bringing up that the board has to back the new manager as if they didn't do this with previous managers? We back them too much if anything. Look at Salah with Liverpool and Klopp. Klopp wanted Brandt, board gave him Salah, he adapted and made it work.

Look at United's history post Sir Alex.

• Moyes is the only manager who can say he wasn't backed with signings. A lot of change at the time, nobody understanding the task at hand with the squad. Got 1 season. Understandable the way it all panned out, was always a shit appointment
• Van Gaal. Spent a feck ton. Sold a player like Di Maria right after signing because they didn't get along. Spent big on Memphis and then didn't really use him. Got 2 seasons. Wasn't backed though?
• Mourinho. Signed Pogba, Ibra, Mkhitaryan. Then signed Lukaku and Matic to replace Herrera who was his POTS. Then picked fights with Pogba and everyone. Then wanted Sanchez and didn't want Mkhitaryan anymore. The amount of money spent and turnover we had under him is staggering. The board backed him and again, got rid of some recent signings because that's what he wanted. They drew the line at Martial and Pogba as by that point, they probably were ready to pull the plug on Mourinho. Gets 2.5 seasons.
• Solskjaer. Instantly sells our only recognized striker in Lukaku. Gets rid of a bunch of other players. We spend stupid amounts on "his guys" in Wan Bissaka and Maguire. Add Varane/Sancho/Ronaldo this summer. Gets 3 years.

The reality is that the single biggest problem over the past decade has been really bad managerial appointments. Moyes proceeded to do feck all off 5 years until getting West Ham to be a decent upper mid table punching above their weight team. Van Gaal managed no other club team in the past decade. Mourinho proceeded to fail at Spurs and do ok at best at Roma now. Ole was doing feck all in Norway and is back to doing feck all. The second biggest problem? Giving the managers too much say in player turnover. The third, not sacking them when the first signs came in (both Ole and Mourinho probably shouldn't have been in charge at the start of their final seasons).

Hopefully Ten Hag gets confirmed, as he is the first truly positive coaching appointment that ticks a lot of boxes. Ticks the important football coaching boxes, not "intangibles". And hopefully the player recruitment is more streamlined and less reliant on the manager, but even then, I don't hate the manager having a big say. It hasn't worked for us recently but that could also just be because of the managers we had having dumb targets.

 

[Andy_Cole]

Agreed. We need to be ruthless

 

[sullydnl]

They need to back the manager with competence.

It won't matter who we appoint if the recruitment process isn't right and that isn't (or shouldn't be) within the manager's gift.

 

[RedDevil@84]

Manager wants Rice, but board extends Matic. The manager should just adapt.

 

[90 + 5min]

Another thread going after managers in a sneaky way. That is the spirit. Now we wait for a sack the (new) manager thread.

 

[Swedish_Plumber]

The managers, whether you look back on them fondly or not, have typically seen their top targets discarded for poor choices.

That has to change if we want to see progress on the pitch.

 

[thegregster]

Backing the manager would be having at least 4 new players in place by 1st July. That won't happen. We will be fecking around in the last week of August as per usual.

Its only 10 weeks between our last PL game and the start of 2022/23 season.

 

[Skills]

Good post.

Btw Moyes would've been sacked about 5 times during his tenure if he was at any other big european club.

 

[bosnian_red]

Manager wants Rice, but board extends Matic. The manager should just adapt.

Manager wants 100m defensive midfielder. Board says can't afford him. Manager wants nobody else but him. Board extends Matic. Let's be honest here why don't we? Its not like Ole kept saying "sign a midfielder" and the board said no here is Ronaldo and Ole said "no I want a midfielder". You have to be flexible as a manager. I go back to Liverpool with Klopp. He wanted Brandt. They said no, here is Salah. He made it work.

No manager gets every single one of his top targets. Football doesn't work like that.

 

[Abraxas]

Indeed. History suggests the problem will not be one of backing. You don't put your eggs in this EtH, stylised basket without a plan to follow through with a plan to support his plans for the squad.

The question is one of will we get it right, or will we make a pigs ear of it? We need a pretty high success rate over the next few years to get back on track.

 

[AndySmith1990]

With the current state of the squad it's going to be just as important to back the next manager when it comes to removing bad apples, as it will be backing him with new signings. We need every player pulling in the same direction.

 

[RedDevil@84]

Manager wants 100m defensive midfielder. Board says can't afford him. Manager wants nobody else but him. Board extends Matic. Let's be honest here why don't we? Its not like Ole kept saying "sign a midfielder" and the board said no here is Ronaldo and Ole said "no I want a midfielder". You have to be flexible as a manager. I go back to Liverpool with Klopp. He wanted Brandt. They said no, here is Salah. He made it work.

No manager gets every single one of his top targets. Football doesn't work like that.

Isn't this basically assuming the board to be highly competent, mostly right? Didn't the Pool board also get in Karius and Keita? Also I am not so sure I believe your board rejected Brandt story.

The story I had heard was Brandt demanded guaranteed play time and that was not possible and the deal could not progress. And as a result the opportunity fell to Salah.

 

[Van Piorsing]

With the current state of the squad it's going to be just as important to back the next manager when it comes to removing bad apples, as it will be backing him with new signings. We need every player pulling in the same direction.

Yup. In order to have ruthless signing policy, club needs to sort out stagnating players and be ruthless in selling.

Rangnick and next 3 months could be key in that regard.

 

[Leftback99]

As many new players as possible should be in for his first training session. The last thing we need is summer long sagas chasing over priced targets.

Draw up a list of realistic targets who fit his style and don't mess about. If clubs want to get silly with their asking prices move on to the next target.

 

[Bubz27]

There are other ways to back managers, rather than just financially.

 

[diarm]

Backing the manager isn't about how much you get the chequebook out.

It's about the players signed being players the manager needs and wants, rather than players suits in a boardroom think will sell jerseys and attract sponsors.

It's about getting rid of players who are hamstringing him on the pitch or the training ground.

It's about letting him decide who gets new contracts and who he gets to fill his backroom team with.

It's about providing him with nothing short of the best in class scouting, facilities, analysis and everything else he needs to compete at the top.

Throwing money at the wrong players and their agents, and then using that money spent as a stick to beat him with when those same overpaid spoofers let him down isn't backing him.

 

[Red00012]

I’m backing the manager to sort the following
Maguire
Jones
Bailly
Rashford
McTominay
Martial

 

[Glorio]

Backing the manager isn't about how much you get the chequebook out.

It's about the players signed being players the manager needs and wants, rather than players suits in a boardroom think will sell jerseys and attract sponsors.

It's about getting rid of players who are hamstringing him on the pitch or the training ground.

It's about letting him decide who gets new contracts and who he gets to fill his backroom team with.

It's about providing him with nothing short of the best in class scouting, facilities, analysis and everything else he needs to compete at the top.

Throwing money at the wrong players and their agents, and then using that money spent as a stick to beat him with when those same overpaid spoofers let him down isn't backing him.

This. Backing the manager's authority is key

 

[C3Pique]

Moyes was known as 'Dithering Dave' for a reason, plus it was Woodward' s first transfer window IIRC which he wasted chasing Fabregas and Bale.

You can criticise the board for lots of things but if anything they have been too loyal to badly chosen managers, digging themselves an ever deeper hole of incompetence and throwing bad money after good.

 

[Andycoleno9]

That "back the manager on transfer market by buying every player who he wants" is one huge bs which our ex players were preaching during Ole era. Even Pep in City doesn't get every player who he wants. Not to mention other managers. Managers must adapt and find middle with the owners. Because players cost real money not monopoly money.
When manager wants specific player; if that player cost too much, backing from the board is to offer to manager other players for that position.
Also board (and that is why you need DoF) must think about future. We spent 130 mil on two defenders who can play only in specific system. That was not backing. That was pure stupidity.

 

[bosnian_red]

Isn't this basically assuming the board to be highly competent, mostly right? Didn't the Pool board also get in Karius and Keita? Also I am not so sure I believe your board rejected Brandt story.

The story I had heard was Brandt demanded guaranteed play time and that was not possible and the deal could not progress. And as a result the opportunity fell to Salah.

The point is that not every manager gets their top targets all the time and sometimes it works out anyway! People always point to managers bitching about not getting top targets, it's not valid IMO. Of course the board recruitment has to be good and make sense anyway, but I've never been fussed about the top target thing.
Not sure what the full story was, but gist of it was Klopp wanted Brandt and ended up with Salah. And every board makes shit signings. That's also the point. The manager still has to get on with it and their quality should shine through regardless.

 

[bosnian_red]

Backing the manager isn't about how much you get the chequebook out.

It's about the players signed being players the manager needs and wants, rather than players suits in a boardroom think will sell jerseys and attract sponsors.

It's about getting rid of players who are hamstringing him on the pitch or the training ground.

It's about letting him decide who gets new contracts and who he gets to fill his backroom team with.

It's about providing him with nothing short of the best in class scouting, facilities, analysis and everything else he needs to compete at the top.

Throwing money at the wrong players and their agents, and then using that money spent as a stick to beat him with when those same overpaid spoofers let him down isn't backing him.

But isn't that what we do anyway? We got rid of Mkhitaryan pretty swiftly. Got rid of Di Maria right away. Got rid of Lukaku right away even. All at losses. They all were able to bring their own backroom team in, part of the problem with Moyes. You're kidding yourself if Mourinho for example didn't actually want Pogba, Ibra, Mkhitaryan, Lukaku or Matic. Or Ole with Maguire and Wan Bissaka. The list goes on. Our board always gives the manager a ton of say. Too much say if anything. Other clubs you'll see the manager say "I don't have much say in that" for transfers and contracts. Whether they got the best of these players is a different matter. Or the board refusing to sell Pogba and Martial after Mourinho was picking fights with everyone and probably close to sacking is again, a different matter.

Our problem has forever been that "backing the manager" has been an absolute thing for our board. They get full backing. In everything. Too much backing it has turned out to be. The current best clubs in the world have structures that leave the coach to coach a set of players suited to them, but a lot of the buying and selling is done above them. Their job is to coach the players they have to the best of their ability, and plain and simple we have had bad coaches post Sir Alex, apart from Van Gaal. And with Van Gaal the problems were more his mentality, along with just a lack of suitability between his ideas and United.

 

[JPRouve]

Backing the manager isn't about how much you get the chequebook out.

It's about the players signed being players the manager needs and wants, rather than players suits in a boardroom think will sell jerseys and attract sponsors.

It's about getting rid of players who are hamstringing him on the pitch or the training ground.

It's about letting him decide who gets new contracts and who he gets to fill his backroom team with.

It's about providing him with nothing short of the best in class scouting, facilities, analysis and everything else he needs to compete at the top.

Throwing money at the wrong players and their agents, and then using that money spent as a stick to beat him with when those same overpaid spoofers let him down isn't backing him.

Who do you think was signed for these reasons?

 

[dove]

We even back them too much at times. There must be a gradual progress year after year, or you are gone.

 

[mikeyt]

Backing the manager isn't about how much you get the chequebook out.

It's about the players signed being players the manager needs and wants, rather than players suits in a boardroom think will sell jerseys and attract sponsors.

It's about getting rid of players who are hamstringing him on the pitch or the training ground.

It's about letting him decide who gets new contracts and who he gets to fill his backroom team with.

It's about providing him with nothing short of the best in class scouting, facilities, analysis and everything else he needs to compete at the top.

Throwing money at the wrong players and their agents, and then using that money spent as a stick to beat him with when those same overpaid spoofers let him down isn't backing him.

100% just cannot see it happening while our owners continue to prioritise marketing over football

 

[diarm]

Who do you think was signed for these reasons?

Well Van de Beek for sure. But I'd say there were several incidents over the last 10 years where people like Woodward were far too involved in football decision making.

There's also the stories about Glazer thinking Martial was the next Pele or whatever. Now that might obviously be bullshit, but it's not more stupid than any other reason you could offer that he's still at the club.

 

[JPRouve]

Well Van de Beek for sure. But I'd say there were several incidents over the last 10 years where people like Woodward were far too involved in football decision making.

There's also the stories about Glazer thinking Martial was the next Pele or whatever. Now that might obviously be bullshit, but it's not more stupid than any other reason you could offer that he's still at the club.

Van de Beek signed in order to sell jerseys and attract sponsors?

 

[Regulus Arcturus Black]

We even back them too much at times. There must be a gradual progress year after year, or you are gone.

Yup.
I can deal with year one simply seeing a recognisable style of play from the manager and hints at what is to come.
From season two though it’s all about big strides and tangible improvements.

 

[Regulus Arcturus Black]

Van de Beek signed in order to sell jerseys and attract sponsors?

 

[diarm]

Van de Beek signed in order to sell jerseys and attract sponsors?

What's your goal here?

To argue that we're not an abjectly run football club that has spent the last decade with its priorities in all the wrong places?

Do you think Van de Beek was requested and wanted by Ole? Who then went on to play him for roughly 4 and a half minutes?

 

[JPRouve]

What's your goal here?

To argue that we're not an abjectly run football club that has spent the last decade with its priorities in all the wrong places?

Do you think Van de Beek was requested and wanted by Ole? Who then went on to play him for roughly 4 and a half minutes?

You wrote something, I asked you about it. There is no goal.

 

[Regulus Arcturus Black]

Do you think Van de Beek was requested and wanted by Ole? Who then went on to play him for roughly 4 and a half minutes?

Well why the feck would Ole call him and “convince” him to join otherwise. Gun held at his head?

 

[R'hllor]

Why do people keep bringing up that the board has to back the new manager as if they didn't do this with previous managers? We back them too much if anything. Look at Salah with Liverpool and Klopp. Klopp wanted Brandt, board gave him Salah, he adapted and made it work.

Look at United's history post Sir Alex.

• Moyes is the only manager who can say he wasn't backed with signings. A lot of change at the time, nobody understanding the task at hand with the squad. Got 1 season. Understandable the way it all panned out, was always a shit appointment
• Van Gaal. Spent a feck ton. Sold a player like Di Maria right after signing because they didn't get along. Spent big on Memphis and then didn't really use him. Got 2 seasons. Wasn't backed though?
• Mourinho. Signed Pogba, Ibra, Mkhitaryan. Then signed Lukaku and Matic to replace Herrera who was his POTS. Then picked fights with Pogba and everyone. Then wanted Sanchez and didn't want Mkhitaryan anymore. The amount of money spent and turnover we had under him is staggering. The board backed him and again, got rid of some recent signings because that's what he wanted. They drew the line at Martial and Pogba as by that point, they probably were ready to pull the plug on Mourinho. Gets 2.5 seasons.
• Solskjaer. Instantly sells our only recognized striker in Lukaku. Gets rid of a bunch of other players. We spend stupid amounts on "his guys" in Wan Bissaka and Maguire. Add Varane/Sancho/Ronaldo this summer. Gets 3 years.

The reality is that the single biggest problem over the past decade has been really bad managerial appointments. Moyes proceeded to do feck all off 5 years until getting West Ham to be a decent upper mid table punching above their weight team. Van Gaal managed no other club team in the past decade. Mourinho proceeded to fail at Spurs and do ok at best at Roma now. Ole was doing feck all in Norway and is back to doing feck all. The second biggest problem? Giving the managers too much say in player turnover. The third, not sacking them when the first signs came in (both Ole and Mourinho probably shouldn't have been in charge at the start of their final seasons).

Hopefully Ten Hag gets confirmed, as he is the first truly positive coaching appointment that ticks a lot of boxes. Ticks the important football coaching boxes, not "intangibles". And hopefully the player recruitment is more streamlined and less reliant on the manager, but even then, I don't hate the manager having a big say. It hasn't worked for us recently but that could also just be because of the managers we had having dumb targets.

Ehm, could swear that Di Maria never wanted to join us, he just used us as a bridge for PSG and a way to get out from RM that summer. Dunno why PSG couldnt/wouldnt sign him that year, maybe my memories are wrong.

 

[TwoSheds]

Good post.

Btw Moyes would've been sacked about 5 times during his tenure if he was at any other big european club.

I'd rehire him now if I got to sack the prick 5 times tbf.

 

[JPRouve]

Ehm, could swear that Di Maria never wanted to join us, he just used us as a bridge for PSG and a way to get out from RM that summer. Dunno why PSG couldnt/wouldnt sign him that year, maybe my memories are wrong.

If I understood it correctly, he preferred PSG due to his wife preferring Paris but United were his second choice. He couldn't go to PSG due to FFP.

 

[R'hllor]

If I understood it correctly, he preferred PSG due to his wife preferring Paris but United were his second choice. He couldn't go to PSG due to FFP.

Oh yea that was it why he couldnt go there that summer.

 

[Spaghetti]

The problem with the board is not so much how much they spend, but what they spend it on. And clogging the squad up with unhappy, overpaid, toxic waste.

 

[Adnan]

I completely agree with your posts @bosnian_red

We have to ask ourselves as Man Utd supporters, that when does our support for the manager become blind and irrational, and hence a **** like following develops to defend a manager that is becoming detrimental to the cause?

If we go back to 2018, and the advent of the transfer committee where it was reported that the club's recruitment team of Bout, Lawlor and Court had vetoed signings like Maguire, Alderweireld, Yerry Mina, etc, and hence Mourinho was furious that he wasn't allowed to bring his players in. It was after that period where the fans were riled up by Gary Neville on Sky Tv, who said 'who was Woodward to veto a football man like Mourinho' when it was well documented that the club had created a transfer committee with people who had the right to veto Mourinho. Woodward was correct to veto Mourinho and back the club's recruitment staff but the **** of the manager couldn't see this, which includes the like of Gary Neville whose influence due to his background and platform meant the fan channels on YouTube with big followings started to parrot the same lines and a false narrative was created, which caused anger and resentment towards the wrong people and the manager was then viewed as the victim and by the end of his reign he had achieved Martyrdom.

I also keep hearing that it was due to signing shirt sellers for commercial reasons that we have fallen as a football club. But from my observation that's not true, and even players like Ronaldo were signed due to the manager pushing for the signing according to credible media outlets where it was reported that Solskjaer ignored the advice of his own staff (which included his personal scout) to sign Ronaldo because he felt the goals would make up for the players deficiency off the ball.

In my opinion, it's not the so called shirt sellers that have contributed to our malaise but rather the very expensive non shirt sellers that were bought for ridiculous prices that have created a bigger mess.

When the board appoints a manager and allows him to have his personal recruitment staff (Mourinho/Ole) when the club already has a recruitment department that is vastly resourced both when it comes to scouting and data analysis, then it shouldn't surprise anyone that we can't see past the most obvious signing for ridiculous prices. And then when the Manager is backed with expensive players ,which eats away at most of the budget, then we as fans complain that the manager wasn't backed because he also wanted a midfielder.

The manager then realises that the two CBs he's bought aren't good enough (Bailly-Lindelof) and wants the club to back him for a 3rd CB which is a request that is knocked back due to the players targeted by the manager and his recruitment team not being deemed good enough by the club's recruitment staff, who veto the signings. Soskjaer is then allowed to sign Maguire and AWB for hefty fees and the club even pay up in one instalment for both players. And a few years later we discover that that a CB and RB are still required and we sign Varane and attempt to sign Trippier before Solskjaer is relieved of his duties.

 

[ti vu]

Ehm, could swear that Di Maria never wanted to join us, he just used us as a bridge for PSG and a way to get out from RM that summer. Dunno why PSG couldnt/wouldnt sign him that year, maybe my memories are wrong.

RM threw him out of the door.

PSG and Man City were recently fined by FFP at the time. They already made a big signing in David Luis, so they couldn't meet RM asking fee in that window.

 

[gregor]

If you tell rival fans that United's managers didn't have backing from owners, they will laugh at you. We are one of the top spenders if not top in world football after SAF.

The manager needs to have realistic wishes and a clear idea of what he wants and most importantly needs to have a plan B.