- Mar 2, 2004
Ed you're sh*te and you know you are, Ed you're sh*te and you now you are!
So we are finally getting some transparency? Making it possible to have a discussion based on an assumed equal understanding of the happenings inside the club?He is not defending himself. The information from the club that has been published now is an objective description about the recruitment system.
Its far overdue. There is a lot of good posters on here who has tried to describe just whats in the Mail-article and been shot down as Glazer-shills.
Woodward himself has also shot himself in the foot by in principle not doing any interviews except the investor briefings since he turned CEO. Even if Gill did not either tbf.
Its made it easy to villify him for ABU-media.
With todays media coverage he needs to speak out more often so that conspiracy theories like here on the Caf dont spiral out of control. Its a good thing that the club releases/leaks real factual information. And it means more information for us fans. Again: good thing.
Even if I am sure it kills a lot of posters inside here who had convinced themselves that the reality was different.
Managers didn't choose to spend on 'wrong' players! The managers needed very different types of players. No director of football would ever invest heavily for players for for LVG then bring in Jose who has totally different attribute requirements.Define "enough" - I just quoted the numbers he spent on managers players. What else is he supposed to do ? Apart from the state owned clubs, how many has actually spent that much ?
It's not his mistake managers chose to spend it on wrong players or they couldn't make it here. I can give 3 other mistakes of Ed but "not supporting" is not one of them.
While you are largely right, the majority of players were failures even under the manager that bought them. Players that were good enough to be successes would then generally be able to provide more to the next manager even if it wasn't fully playing to their strengths. So it can definitely be said that the managers bought the 'wrong' players.Managers didn't choose to spend on 'wrong' players! The managers needed very different types of players. No director of football would ever invest heavily for players for for LVG then bring in Jose who has totally different attribute requirements.
If Woodward is insistent on controlling the footballing side of the club, which he is evidently clueless about, then he must take responsibility for the outcomes. He chose to lurch from possession based style of play to anti possession(counter attack) style of play. This was after investing hundreds of millions in possession based players for LVG.
So, anti possession Jose comes in and needs to start the rebuild AGAIN from scratch. So we needed to invest the money we spent under Jose PLUS replace the possesion players we bough under LVG. Jose never got this additional investment and Woodward could not sell the deadwood.
As discussed, Jose needed counter attacking giants not possession based midgets like LVG.
This is why its justified to say the managers were not backed 'enough'. Because of the ridiculous lack of planning and mistakes from Woodward.
He needed to choose either possession based or counter attacking style of play. Then hire managers which fit with that style. So there is a progression. Not starting from scratch every time. Please re read my house building analogy in a previous post to you. It really is quite simple.
It has become evident that Woodward is a power hungry, arrogant narcissist who will not hire footballing experts to decide the footballing strategy of the club. He genuinely thinks he knows best.
First question: Are you the right man for the job?
Any chance of a copywriting gig? I could doEach time I enter the blog, it seems as though Woodward has multiple accounts under other names as burner accounts. Johan and Keefy will no doubt deny it, but their mantra that Ed has done a wonderful job and been let down by all around him, hello he appointed them all and there as doubts that the latest leaks assuring all that he has no say in transfers is nothing but nonsense.
I actually laugh everytime I read something this stupid and that the poster either think he is funny or that it would get to whomever.Each time I enter the blog, it seems as though Woodward has multiple accounts under other names as burner accounts. Johan and Keefy will no doubt deny it, but their mantra that Ed has done a wonderful job and been let down by all around him, hello he appointed them all and there as doubts that the latest leaks assuring all that he has no say in transfers is nothing but nonsense.
What is this shit?Speaking to an ITK - apparently in 2013 we had Ronaldo tied up but Woodward decided to reduce the offer by £5m, causing it to break down.
Ronaldo in 2013 really would’ve stopped our demise. What could have been if it wasn’t for the cretin Woodward.
He’d only been there coming on 5 years, at his dream club. It was Moyes incoming as united manager and Ed’s first season as top dog. A summer where we signed fellaini for more than his release clause was. As we have seen since Ed overpays if anything. I just don’t see the logic in your ITK storyHow so? He was trying to play games with Madrid and the deal went under?
The messenger had a daft conclusion with zero critical thinking.Don’t shoot the messenger!
Presumably that wasn’t the case when Sanchez was signed. An ageing player who doesn’t really get on with team mates and wasn’t bothered whether he played for us or City. That doesn’t take much due diligence. City did theirs.When we sign a player, we don't just go through the process and that's it. There's a huge amount of due diligence around the character of the player.
He definitely deserved to be blamed. He choose van Gaal, Mourinho and Ole. He could have made improvements to our recruitment far earlier. It was a problem when Ferguson was still in charge and it still is.
I used to be one of his staunchest defenders on here.