What are you on about? Plenty of companies list on the NYSE, and it's not 'wickedly difficult'. There are initial listing requirements (which we've presumably met) and continuing listing standards for US and non-US issuers but those are in no way inherently stringent.
Ed Woodward 2019 - Until all Arctic ice melts edition
- Thread starter fallengt
- Start date
-
In the latest episode of the United Hour Podcast, Nik and Imran hold a long overdue conversation about United's awful league form with 1 win in 7. They discuss a disappointing draw at Bournemouth, a not so disappointing draw against Liverpool and a crushing defeat at Chelsea - Is time nearly over for Erik Ten Hag?
Then in a special second half of the pod, Nik welcomes Natalie ( https://twitter.com/natalie_17) to discuss the fortunes of Manchester United Women as they booked a place in the FA Cup Final after a historic first ever win vs. Chelsea.
Didn't woody block veto the transfer of maguire under Mourinho because he said he's not better than what we've got? Anyway, who are the brilliant football people we have who are making the decisions these days?
In case of the Agnellis then yes, that helped a great deal. Can't say the same about the Moratti and the Berlusconi though. The Agnellis always saw Juventus as a means to an end. They wanted to improve their reputation as reliable business partners and in a country were football = everything they used their success in football to achieve that. Football was always a means to and end for them so they always worked on ways how to improving efficiency. Moratti JNR was a fan first and foremost. He nearly crippled his family fortunes to make Inter great again. Berlusconi on the other hand used Milan. He bought instant success which helped him both business and political wise only to close the tabs when that was achieved. The guy is shady, very shady and more shady then the average non Italian person think.
I see two main problems with the Glazers
a- they are in it for the money. Success and reputation is secondary for them.
b- they are absolutely clueless about football. They don't understand how football works let alone Manchester United, its strengths, its weaknesses, its history.
So there won't be any luck until we somehow get rid of them basically?
For someone that works as a corporate lawyer I would stick to my opinion that the corporate legislation not just in NY but in all of the US is very difficult compared to the rest of the world. Its also very different than most European jurisdictions.
Also, the IPO itself meant that Woodward is obliged to hold investor briefings, etc. Going from a privately held company to a public one is not a simple feat and the latter demands much more from the CEO in the respects I touched upon. Thats why we we will never have anything but a "glorified accountant" as CEO of United. Not gonna happen.
Last edited:
Weeeeeelll most probably yes. However things might change if sponsors start leaving like rats from a sinking ship.
c- They are not strategical. You can be in football for money, be clueless about the game and still have a perfectly run club because you don't have to do it yourself, there are top administrators-General managers for hire.
The other option is that they hire a manager that isn't a total narcisist and tell them that he needs help with a structure closer to what most continental clubs have.
True. However if you're only in it for the money then you won't be bothered hiring good people in key roles (ie and paying huge salaries to get these people) UNLESS you're hit in your pockets first.
La grande Inter commenced with Angelo Moratti who was an oil tycoon and oversaw the team winning many scudetto's and a couple of CL's. His son, Massimo was a fan first and foremost and spent a fortune trying to elevate Inter back to its former glories. He did succeed in 2010 when the team managed the treble. Then he had to sell to foreign investors.
Berlusconi also elevated Milan to the best team in Italy and the world. Basically won 5 CL's and a bunch of scudetti's but had to sell once his empire (Fininvest, Mediaset, Mondadori) came crashing down following his ouster from politics. My point was not to argue whether or not Berlusconi was corrupt (he certainly is/was), my point was he knew the sport well so he knew what he was doing when he bought the three Dutch maestros or when he gave a relatively unknown Sacchi the reigns of the club.
So one lesson might be never to have the same manager for a quarter of a century, because it inhibits the establishment of an inheritable blueprint for success? Otherwise what's your point?
To be honest it reads like 'none of this is my fault, I'll just point you in the right direction as to who to blame'.
Look mate I followed both clubs. I think the latter assembled the best team I've ever seen in my whole life. Yep better then Pep's Barca. However, anyone who follows the Serie A knows that Massimo was a fool who wasted tons of money with little to show for it. Meanwhile Berlusconi is as shady as hell whose club struggled big time once he stopped buying success. Some of the mistakes these two had done are at par to what the Glazers did. Take Berlusconi as an example. Well, he appointed his daughter Barbara Berlusconi at a high position who was more busy screwing players and messing in things she had no idea about then doing her job
Last edited:
As someone who works as an investment banker, I will insist that listing in the NYSE is not "wickedly difficult." And as someone who advises CEO's on a daily basis, I will submit to you that most of them are not glorified accountants.
It's reads like "boohoo, people are mean to me", now my point is that he is responsible for the hires and their performances but we can't go around pretending that he is the one doing their job. If you look around there are too many people trying to put the blame on a single person and pretends that sacking that person will fix everything when in reality the managers, the brilliant football people and the board are all responsible, they all failed in their respective domains.
My point is that we rely heavily on a single point of failure ie a manager who takes all the football decisions for our behalf whose then managed by people who have no idea about football whatsoever. In fact Sir Alex himself had to live up with some of the most stupid decisions the club has ever taken including
a- stopping him from buying the best striker in the world, a man who could have easily won us at least 1 other CL
b- forcing him to beg Arsenal's manager for a copy of his contract so he can justify the pay rise he's being asked for
c- having to persuade Stam to lose up his signing on fee bonus and then forcing Sir Alex to sell him as the club ran low on cashflow
There are probably worse instances then that but Sir Alex never spilled the beans in public.
Guess what? Those decisions weren't taken by Woodward but occurred during the United way.
I agree. It is a mess all round. Now it is either going to get worse or eventually it will come right. Time will tell, not that I'm hedging my bets here.
Yeah all that aside I think your typical of the big club fan who implicitly believes that the English Giants (us, Liverpool, Arsenal) have the right to expect unmitigated success for sustained periods. It just isn't going to happen and the Ferguson/Busby epochs are all the more remarkable for bucking that fact.
Oh well, lets agree to disagree on this. According to you its normal for a big club to only have 3 managers capable of winning the league title. In reality its not.
Is it only me that suspects he is taking one for the "team" here? At least partially.
Its not like he is stupid; he and the PR-department must know that he would be chainsawed for this or tbf for whatever he would say.
It does take pressure and focus off OGS and the status of the team for awhile and with Liverpool coming up I wonder if this was not the idea to begin with. The timing is eerie.
Yeah, it's probably only you because he isn't actually blaming himself or taking responsibility for the results. He is telling everyone that he isn't the one taking the day to day football decisions but that those people are brilliant, despite the lack of evidence.
I cant blame him for this though. Another way of looking at it is that he is trying to protect his employees. But yeah, probably only me)
Exactly this. He has blamed previous managers but no himself for actually having no vision or direction. Where is the club going? We have shown nothing to show we are proactive. We're just reactive. Poor state to be in, especially the size of the club.
He is protecting himself, he can't actually say that they have been terrible because the next question will be, why did you hire them and why are they still here?
This is a very good and accurate post.
SAF was able to thrive in his own echo chamber, but the rest of the industry evolved into a different operating model. Because he was so successful, there was no need to challenge his methods, and none had the authority at the club to do so, even if they wanted.
The problem comes when he left. I remember reading a very revealing quote after he left: new staff and those from the commercial side were trying to work out how the football side of the club ran itself. But when they look behind the SAF curtain 'There was literally nothing there' in terms of systems and processes. ie: It was all in SAF's head, he was the embodiment of the clubs ways of working, and beyond him, none of it had been institutionalised.
This has been catastrophic, as Woodward has subsequently hired managers with conflicting philosophies, to SAF and each other. When they arrived, they were allowed to disregard the myth of SAF, and impose some of their own ideas. Prior to OGS, we were left with a hotchpotch squad operating within a spaghetti mess of a culture. I've read recently that several senior players are very disillusioned by this, and thats perfectly understandable. And so it's good to hear OGS and Woodward talk alot about instilling culture.
Last edited:
[
We've reached a point when our noise and small protests are finally getting a reaction from the man in charge. If now is the time to decide to fold your arms and claim pedantics, pretending to be impartial, then I can't expect to share any meaningful discourse. Read between the lines, take into account all of what's happened the last six years, be mindful that many leaks have genuine intent behind them (no smoke without fire), and have the gall to stand up for your club. Or keep mum and be content to just see eleven men turn up on the pitch.
Current and past employees and associates say he is involved. Classic case of he says she says. But to blindly believe Woodward, especially with the context of his public statements over the last six years..it's irresponsible of fans.
We've reached a point when our noise and small protests are finally getting a reaction from the man in charge. If now is the time to decide to fold your arms and claim pedantics, pretending to be impartial, then I can't expect to share any meaningful discourse. Read between the lines, take into account all of what's happened the last six years, be mindful that many leaks have genuine intent behind them (no smoke without fire), and have the gall to stand up for your club. Or keep mum and be content to just see eleven men turn up on the pitch.
I said partially. He has probably wanted to say this for a long time.
'But the timing is weird, a couple of days before the Liverpool-game, with a long quiet NT-period just over. He had to know it would cause a shitstorm.
Well, whatever, I am probably wrong as I said.
Have you ever played chess?
A large part of it is about tactical sacrifices. That's what's happening in here. The Glazers are the king, Woodward is the queen, and now he's throwing the rooks and knights under the bus.
You see that's problem, I'm against Woodward and have been for a long time, I'm not impartial and never have been. The only difference is that I'm against him for things he is responsible for, not things that I imagined or read between lines.
Now is a good time to fly another banner 
? What? He is doing the opposite. Who is he throwing under the bus? The "brilliant" footballing people at the club? If anything he is protecting his rooks and knights.
Don't even understand why he had to come out and make these statements. Was he really expecting that this would somehow remedy the situation? Coming out saying "we're brilliant and aiming to win trophies" when we're 12th in the League is really strange. We have eyes and we see what is happening on the pitch.
Strange.
Strange.
I'm not going to ask you to throw caution to the wind; that's not your style and that's fine. But consider how companies are run successfully. When there is year after year of underperformance, first there are perhaps layoffs, management changes but if it still continues then the CEO goes. If it's a public company, often the culling upstairs is done sooner rather than later because a good leader is key. A good leader doesn't do every single minute task but he is ultimately responsible for them. And that's the problem here. Woodward is responsible and his leadership of the club is now seeing us at our worst start in 30 years. Whomever under him is making specific decisions, the well-being of this club isnt on this man or woman, it's on Ed. He needs to be removed or resigned and all fans should be more vocal about it for it to happen.
It's basically like that This is fine meme.
The rook is a brilliant piece to have in chess, but you still need to sacrifice it on occasion to keep your king and queen safe.
Woodward's reign of terror has lasted 6 years and only now, as he coincidentally talks about how the criticism is getting to him and his family, starts talking about who is actually responsible for our recruitment policy. As a previous poster said, he can't exactly call them terrible because it would lead to the question of why they were hired in the first place and why he hasn't sacked them. He's apparently been looking to hire a director of football (of sorts) so he clearly realises that something has needed to change with regards to the recruitment, despite it being "brilliant". It's pretty easy to read between the lines. Workplace politics.
So basically "brilliant" means worthless and this should be easy to read "between the lines"? That makes complete sense.
You are trying to convince me of something that I support and said many times, we don't need Woodward, his expertise is redundant when you have Arnold and Baty. Also as you said he isn't a good manager, he has failed to create an efficient structure and the club has been bleeding money for no good reason. My only issue is with people making stuff up when we have enough elements against him in real life and they generally do that to protect someone that has been terrible at his own job.
That's why when people were suggesting to bring Van Der Sar or Marotta as DOF, I questioned why not as CEOs instead of Woodward. Woodward is good on the commercial side of things but it's not a rare skill, so to me he will always be expendable.
you are looking at this through the lens of a fan who values trophies and not a business owner who values profits, dividends and a gradually increasing share price.
View it from the eyes of the Glazers, and he's done very well thus far.
Have you never heard of the dreaded vote of confidence?
Now, there is a chance that Woodward genuinely thinks those responsible for our recruitment are brilliant and he thinks our squad is great and can't get enough of watching the likes of Fred and Rojo. It wouldn't surprise me too much. But IMO him suddenly mentioning how our recruitment policy actually works is an act of self-preservation in response to all the criticism he's been receiving lately for his alleged role in it.
No one really knew who the brilliant John Murtough was a couple of weeks ago and now we do and we aren't best pleased with his performance, despite the brilliance that no one else but Woodward sees.
Besides, Woodward isn't a 'football man'; so his view on the brilliance (or otherwise) of football folk isn't worth that much.
Ed's statement, Ole's conference and interview, and even recent newspaper opinion pieces, don't seem so much like statements of intent but, instead, appeals for people to stop criticising the two of them.