I think there really is now a disconnection between the men who played for us and the brand - business and media - that they've created. As soon as it sounds like I have to take them as a package deal, I baulk at it.
When I view them as individuals, I've no problem. When I view them as a manifestation of club policy on youth development, I see them as a triumph. When I look at them as a real estate, football team ownership, punditry, job agency, lobby group, TV production company - I cringe. There are good things and bad in there and I'm not surprised if some fans feel a bit of Schadenfreude when one of their projects goes belly up.
Me, I like Scholes, and I like Neville, even if I'm not fond of their over-exposed brand. It didn't surprise me that their management adventures didn't work out. Most managers fail. Most managers have to go through a series of learning experiences before they're ready to succeed.
Personally, I don't like the CO92 pundit crew doing more than analysing a game. As soon as they start talking about those things about attitude or personality, that aren't about what we're seeing on the screen, it bothers me. Why? Because unlike us lot on here, who we all know have zero idea about what's going on behind the scenes, their words get extra credibility/visibility because of who they are. People imagine them to have special insider knowledge and that means they're taken too seriously. When it turns out they don't know the whole story (or when they turn out to be nothing special when they try to do a job themselves) we're bound to be more critical, because we took them too seriously before.