Fear of changing the manager

[jamesjimmybyrondean]

We've tried a midtable manager in Moyes, we've tried two old school managers in Mourinho and LVG and we've tried a club legend in Ole. I'd give a punt at a modern progressive manager before deciding no manager can succeed under this board. Hopefully the board isn't looking at Graham Potter, Allegri and Giggs as potential replacements for Ole

 

[Van Piorsing]

The financiers in charge are really leveraging the goodwill we built up under the SAF years - when United went from a powerful club to a global brand known for flair, dramatic wins, and iconic players. Since SAF retired, there has been nothing done to improve that goodwill with fans and players alike. We could still offer a handsome compensation package to players and we still have a massive global marketing platform, but the foundations upon which those are built are not getting any better within the club. Now with Covid and the rise of state-backed rivals, the external foundations are weaker too. On the footballing ("product") side, the manager is very important as you rightly pointed out. But the prospects of working with Woodward's team as the top dogs of the corporate hierarchy is a tricky one. Say you are a brilliant designer or engineer and you are interviewing with a large company - formerly one of the best of its kind - with a history of design and engineering excellence that has now given way to marketing and ill-advised acquisitions to "purchase" innovation thanks to its large coffers. The CEO wants you to bring the company back to its former glory but at the same time, admits that you will be reporting to the CFO and Chief Marketing Officers who have the final say over your R&D spend and product direction. You hope that everyone is on the same page but it seems that the CFO and CMO are really ignorant of the company's products despite their best efforts, aiming for splashy launches and headlines and further skimming the company's brand for marketing dollars. They have spent generously on odd acquisitions that turned out to be poor cultural and product fits for the company, adding to overhead and the company's reputation for burning out bright minds.

This is when supporter's range of influence ends as football clubs are more like companies and never democracies when idealistic approach can trump over commercial set of priorities... of course there are some expamples like Gillett and Hicks, but this one looked easier than upcoming battle vs Glazer brothers... but it has to happen, right ? There's gotta be a way to oppose against treating football so instrumentally.

Sometimes feels like Ole will keep his job for long if he won't criticize the owners & CEO, no matter of his credentials, but if results won't improve Woodward can definitely change his tune to shift blame once again on manager. No one will survive this enviroment, I'm guessing Klopp would be furious if he had some Chief Marketing Officer telling him to smile less invasive to the cameras because it's bad for PR and sales.

 

[Raoul]

We had unique luck that we had Fergie. And because of that most of United fans lost sense for reality regarding managers. There are lots of myths there.

Myth 1. New manager must build his team.
No, manager must work with players that he has and make them better with addition of few players. If he thinks that he can't then he simply can refuse a job. In other leagues most of clubs work in a way that manager can't even decide what players will be bought. Not saying that he don't have any input but he can't ask for specific player by name. He says that he needs striker, defender and left back and that is it.

Myth 2. Manager needs time.
Yes he does but not few seasons and which is more important; modern football doesn't work like that. For managers is the same rule as for players; swim or sink.

Myth 3. You can't sack manager every season or two because you will lose stability.
Yes, you can. All big clubs do that. And not just big clubs, every club do it. When things don't work, they change a manager. Look at Bayern, Juve, Chelsea, Inter, Barca, Real...they even sacked managers who just won them titles.

Myth 4. If you give manager time, team will be perfect after few seasons.
That simply is not true. It is like you give playing time to average player and expect from him to be world star. And in manager's world it is even worse because many other things, except his coaching qualities, must click.

My opinion is (while i agree that is great to have one Simeone, Fergie or Wenger) that football is not working like that anymore. Managers (just like players) are expandable today and we should not be afraid to sack and hire managers. That doesn't effect on stability of the club.

Edit ( thanks to @Skills and few other posters ):
Myth 5. Supporting manager = supporting the club
You support the club. And club comes first and second. Manager is just like every player, owner, coach, scout or CEO. Employee of the club. He can be criticised and praised just like everybody else.

You left of the one thing that isn't a myth - the reality that our executive vice chairman doesn't want to change managers for fear of implicating his own ineptness at hiring him in the first place, following a string of other bad hires.

 

[Andycoleno9]

You’re right, it’s just another rant from an OleOUTer who fears he will combust unless he vents his hate for our manager every single day. Forum is now full of them.

It used to be contained to a few threads but they are now determined to take over the entire forum with their moaning.

I told you before; it is not everything about Ole in and Ole out. It is only you who talk about it all day and only you find that (in your head) in every thread. You infest every thread, every topic with that. I bet that you are proud on yourself and in reality you should not be.

 

[amolbhatia50k]

Madrid weren’t just in Barcelonas shadow, before their CL form under Zidane they won it just once in 12 years between 2002 and 2014, 6 consecutive years of which where they couldn’t get past the round of 16.

Chelsea have won 6 league titles in the last two decades, three of which were won by the same guy.

The fact that Leicester have been successful might be more down to the fact of how well thay’ve been managed from top to pitch, especially in recruitment where we’ve been generally abysmal for long before SAF stepped down.

No idea what point you're making. Is Chelsea's return supposed to be bad or something? A league title every 3 years is great.

 

[Andycoleno9]

You left of the one thing that isn't a myth - the reality that our executive vice chairman doesn't want to change managers for fear of implicating his own ineptness at hiring him in the first place, following a string of other bad hires.

That is true plus the fact that he doesn't know much about football. Just like our owners.
For me one of the best jokes about Glazers was when some papers published a story how Joel Glazer blocked Rojo's move to Everton. And comment of someone was: "That can't be true. Joel doesn't know what is Everton and who is Rojo."
Well, it was funny at that moment

 

[amolbhatia50k]

You left of the one thing that isn't a myth - the reality that our executive vice chairman doesn't want to change managers for fear of implicating his own ineptness at hiring him in the first place, following a string of other bad hires.

True. Wish both him and poor appointments would be shown the door. Need real quality both is DoF/CEO and manager positions

 

[Strelok]

The financiers in charge are really leveraging the goodwill we built up under the SAF years - when United went from a powerful club to a global brand known for flair, dramatic wins, and iconic players. Since SAF retired, there has been nothing done to improve that goodwill with fans and players alike. We could still offer a handsome compensation package to players and we still have a massive global marketing platform, but the foundations upon which those are built are not getting any better within the club. Now with Covid and the rise of state-backed rivals, the external foundations are weaker too. On the footballing ("product") side, the manager is very important as you rightly pointed out. But the prospects of working with Woodward's team as the top dogs of the corporate hierarchy is a tricky one. Say you are a brilliant designer or engineer and you are interviewing with a large company - formerly one of the best of its kind but which has been purchased by a private equity firm more concerned with drawing cash from the company than innovating - with a history of design and engineering excellence that has now given way to marketing and ill-advised acquisitions to "purchase" innovation thanks to its large coffers. The CEO wants you to bring the company back to its former glory but at the same time, admits that you will be reporting to the CFO and Chief Marketing Officers who have the final say over your R&D spend and product direction. You hope that everyone is on the same page but it seems that the CFO and CMO are really ignorant of the company's products despite their best efforts, aiming for splashy launches and headlines and further skimming the company's brand for marketing dollars. They have spent generously on odd acquisitions that turned out to be poor cultural and product fits for the company, adding to overhead and the company's reputation for burning out bright minds.

Totally agreed.

Tbh I'd doubt even SAF could succeed if he had to start his career with these clowns, under the current circumstances. Our club is a mess, our board are a bunch of morons and our owners only care about milking the club.

 

[sammsky1]

I told you before; it is not everything about Ole in and Ole out. It is only you who talk about it all day and only you find that (in your head) in every thread. You infest every thread, every topic with that. I bet that you are proud on yourself and in reality you should not be.

Then what is this thread about?
Seems like it’s you thinking you can decide what the culture of Manchester United should be?

 

[sammsky1]

I think it goes both ways - the best managers would not want this job given the poor institutional structure we have. They would want a board and footballing hierarchy that is willing to put operational excellence as top priority. They would want to work with footballing experts too, with the marketing and finance folks focused on their respectice areas of expertise. Instead we have bankers and marketers running operations here. It takes a lot of moving parts for a team to be successful and managers are only one of these parts. Even City, with its strong (purchase) institutional set-up and world class manager, find it tough at times. We do have a powerful history and tradition, ala Bayern and Real, here. But that has been replaced by bankers and ad men. We have the worst of both worlds - folks without operational experience in permanent power yet without the stability that comes with long term hierarchial dominance.

There are companies in other industries that have been run to the ground by finance people who kicked out operations executives. Look at Boeing, GE ... great companies that got taken over by finance types who put quarterly targets over innovation and operational excellence that made these companies great in the first place. This is a cultural problem endemic in the American corporate world that has unfortunately infected Manchester United. When bankers and marketeers start running companies, things usually do not go well.

The financiers in charge are really leveraging the goodwill we built up under the SAF years - when United went from a powerful club to a global brand known for flair, dramatic wins, and iconic players. Since SAF retired, there has been nothing done to improve that goodwill with fans and players alike. We could still offer a handsome compensation package to players and we still have a massive global marketing platform, but the foundations upon which those are built are not getting any better within the club. Now with Covid and the rise of state-backed rivals, the external foundations are weaker too. On the footballing ("product") side, the manager is very important as you rightly pointed out. But the prospects of working with Woodward's team as the top dogs of the corporate hierarchy is a tricky one. Say you are a brilliant designer or engineer and you are interviewing with a large company - formerly one of the best of its kind but which has been purchased by a private equity firm more concerned with drawing cash from the company than innovating - with a history of design and engineering excellence that has now given way to marketing and ill-advised acquisitions to "purchase" innovation thanks to its large coffers. The CEO wants you to bring the company back to its former glory but at the same time, admits that you will be reporting to the CFO and Chief Marketing Officers who have the final say over your R&D spend and product direction. You hope that everyone is on the same page but it seems that the CFO and CMO are really ignorant of the company's products despite their best efforts, aiming for splashy launches and headlines and further skimming the company's brand for marketing dollars. They have spent generously on odd acquisitions that turned out to be poor cultural and product fits for the company, adding to overhead and the company's reputation for burning out bright minds.

Two really brilliant posts which are such an accurate description of our dysfunctional schizophrenia.

bankers should be at the heart of banks. Marketers should be at the heart of consumer goods, lawyers should be at the heart of law firms .... and football experts should be at the heart of a football club!

I appreciate your perspective because you expose the idiocy of the OP. The stated approach of hiring and firing managers at will only works if the rest of the organisation is rooted in football and thriving in its effectiveness.

Sacking Ole in our current guise solves little and we lose someone who has enormous knowledge and equity in our historical idea.

 

[Glideman]

No idea what point you're making. Is Chelsea's return supposed to be bad or something? A league title every 3 years is great.

That's not a good return when 3 is by the same guy. Most of their managerial decisions have been failures...

 

[dove]

When it comes to the managers and youth players, our fanbase is absolutely deluded. The idea that every manager deserves to have at least 3 years before he could be judged even though he shows absolutely 0 progress is baffling. What is more baffling is that quite a lot are convinced that given time basically any mediocre manager will turn out good. Or that sacking an underachieving manager won't solve anything because we have an inept board. That weird obsession that we are not like others and we are "not a sacking club" severely damages our club.

 

[Trex]

The problem with sacking Ole

Let me start with LVG tenure,man utd signed Martial under LVG as a youngster with the hope and promise of turning him into a superstar, it was a 'long term project one that requires trust,patience and proper coaching', Giggs was suppose to take over after LVG departure continue the project involving Martial, Rashford,Shaw and other youngster,Lvg and Giggs were sacked and Mourinho was hired as manager with a totally different philosophy Martial and Shaw fell out of favour while Rashford wasn't given priority, players like Lukaku, Pogba and Sanchez were brought in with a more "win now mentality" after two and the half years,Mourinho was sacked and Ole was appointed Lukaku was side tracked(not a fan but I could imagine the dream that was sold to him while convincing him to sign),Sanchez knew his time was up,Martial and Shaw back in favour after 2.5 yrs out in the cold but with their development stunted for that period,Rashford given more priority again, now we talk about sacking Ole and bring a new Manager, who is going to get side tracked this time bissakka? Greenwood? Martial again? Bruno? Amad diallo?,The lack of continuity is a reason why we Haven't developed further,
Am not saying keep a manager forever regardless of performance or result am saying the more pressing need is to hire someone to run the project regardless of the manager,someone to protect this 'project signings',Haaland's dad said united were not convincing because he felt Ole was the only one pushing for the move, what if we had a DOF,what if said DOF was the one pushing for the move would Haaland had picked united knowing his future and development would be secured regardless of Oles future, our biggest problem is creating a better structure above the playing and coaching staff not firing the manager or overhauling the squad,there isn't a second sir Alex Ferguson,united need to recognize this and move away from their current system period!

 

[Andycoleno9]

That's not a good return when 3 is by the same guy. Most of their managerial decisions have been failures...

In last 10 years, with their manager rotation policy, they won 3 pl, one CL and El and few cups. Pretty good return

 

[Posh Red]

That's not a good return when 3 is by the same guy. Most of their managerial decisions have been failures...

What?

 

[el3mel]

That's not a good return when 3 is by the same guy. Most of their managerial decisions have been failures...

That's a little bit of a stretch. I'll say Grant, Scolari and AVB are the only ones who were totally a failure. The rest even if their tenure weren't a huge success, they end up winning something.

 

[Bobcat]

A lot of people have too much respect for Ole because of his playing achievements for us to call for his sacking. That’s it basically. He’s had thicker ice than his 3 predecessors.

Not necessarily. I would say a lot of fans (and especially those who are 25 or younger) give him less rope than they would another manager.

Reason #1 is because hes never had success at a big club before. Not saying this is not a valid reason, but i think some people put too much emphasis on it. I constantly see the rhetorical question "would x/y/z hire him" which is just arguing in bad faith imo. Does anyone think Juventus would hire Guardiola just out of the blue in 2008? No they would not

Connections and just plain luck plays a huge part in who makes it as a manager. Everyone knows Ole would never been managing us had he not played for us, but a significant amount of top managers start out that way. Even the ones that works their way up like Jose need some amount of luck to make it big because its not like it was written in the stars that Chelsea would hire him in 2004

Reason #2, and this may sound daft, but i think his nationality plays a part in it as well. Had he been British, French, German or Spanish, i think he would have been taken more seriously. Norway is a shite football nation with very few players and no managers of note, so i think this plays a small trick on the subconscious perception of him.

Reason #3 is simply confirmation bias. A lot of people made up their minds somewhere in 2019, so after our catastrophic start to the season that was just the little bit of proof they needed to affirm their stance.

I think he deserves a bit more time to see if he manages to turn it around. Thats not based on blind loyalty or anything, just the fact that he got 3rd last year in a league where we are nowhere near City and Pool at the moment so he was in effect best of the rest and i think that counts for something. If things looks just as grim when we are getting close to Christmas i am going to jump the fence and want him sacked as well.

 

[amolbhatia50k]

That's not a good return when 3 is by the same guy. Most of their managerial decisions have been failures...

It's a great return regardless. Better than sticking duds for long periods and sweeping the "not too many failed managers" awards. I'd be elated if we win 6 titles over the next two decades. Would be absolutely brilliant no matter what the ratio would be

 

[sammsky1]

The problem with sacking Ole

Let me start with LVG tenure,man utd signed Martial under LVG as a youngster with the hope and promise of turning him into a superstar, it was a 'long term project one that requires trust,patience and proper coaching', Giggs was suppose to take over after LVG departure continue the project involving Martial, Rashford,Shaw and other youngster,Lvg and Giggs were sacked and Mourinho was hired as manager with a totally different philosophy Martial and Shaw fell out of favour while Rashford wasn't given priority, players like Lukaku, Pogba and Sanchez were brought in with a more "win now mentality" after two and the half years,Mourinho was sacked and Ole was appointed Lukaku was side tracked(not a fan but I could imagine the dream that was sold to him while convincing him to sign),Sanchez knew his time was up,Martial and Shaw back in favour after 2.5 yrs out in the cold but with their development stunted for that period,Rashford given more priority again, now we talk about sacking Ole and bring a new Manager, who is going to get side tracked this time bissakka? Greenwood? Martial again? Bruno? Amad diallo?,The lack of continuity is a reason why we Haven't developed further,
Am not saying keep a manager forever regardless of performance or result am saying the more pressing need is to hire someone to run the project regardless of the manager,someone to protect this 'project signings',Haaland's dad said united were not convincing because he felt Ole was the only one pushing for the move, what if we had a DOF,what if said DOF was the one pushing for the move would Haaland had picked united knowing his future and development would be secured regardless of Oles future, our biggest problem is creating a better structure above the playing and coaching staff not firing the manager or overhauling the squad,there isn't a second sir Alex Ferguson,united need to recognize this and move away from their current system period!

Promote this man!

 

[passing-wind]

This is a great post I think there's a fine distinction between wanting to sack a manager when it's warranted and getting rid or calls to get rid when it's not warranted. Solskjaer finished 3rd, got crashed out of two semi finals last season ending with a trophy less season. This is permissable as our major league objective was achieved. We have began the new season in abysmal form but even more worryingly the morale and mentality of the team looks questionable.

I'm in no way saying it's the end of the line but fans who act like there's no area for criticisms is laughable. We are still playing absolutely shocking football and I don't care how much a manager is willing to ride his luck when there are clear issues with the coaching and identity in the performances of the team it will always catch back up. Mourinho is a prime example of this when we finished 2nd, we had a decent points tally but our on field displays were dreadful and it transpired into the next season.

 

[UNITED ACADEMY]

This is a great post I think there's a fine distinction between wanting to sack a manager when it's warranted and getting rid or calls to get rid when it's not warranted. Solskjaer finished 3rd, got crashed out of two semi finals last season ending with a trophy less season. This is permissable as our major league objective was achieved. We have began the new season in abysmal form but even more worryingly the morale and mentality of the team looks questionable.

I'm in no way saying it's the end of the line but fans who act like there's no area for criticisms is laughable. We are still playing absolutely shocking football and I don't care how much a manager is willing to ride his luck when there are clear issues with the coaching and identity in the performances of the team it will always catch back up. Mourinho is a prime example of this when we finished 2nd, we had a decent points tally but our on field displays were dreadful and it transpired into the next season.

Our last three league games this season were poor but I do enjoy the football we played last season, the city, Chelsea & spurs games as well as those 14 unbeaten runs at the end. It was miles better than how we played in 17/18 season when we finished 2nd with Mourinho. I think the Mourinho example is just lazy example & comparison.

 

[Robbie Boy]

There came a point in time when I've stopped backing all our managers post-Fergie when it became clear that they weren't cut out for the job. It was never early in any of their stints and Moyes is the only one I never wanted from the get go.

Only after the Spurs game have I changed my 'vote' and now want Ole gone. I wanted him gone during our shit show pre-Bruno but revised my opinion accordingly based on performance and results. Even though we had a super run post lockdown, there were clearly cracks starting to appear and we were quite lucky at times. That, coupled with our start to the season and lack of any discernable playing identity after nearly two years in charge has made me lose all hope with Ole. I really wanted to believe we were onto a great thing after coming 3rd; but if I'm being brutally honest, I was forcing myself to be super positive and clearly letting my heart rule my head.

I have been equally as patient with all managers post-Fergie and for the life of me, I don't - and never will - understand the posters who nail their flag to a managers mast and won't hear a word of criticism against them. It's pretty unhealthy if you ask me. These posters are totally irrational , are totally unwilling to revise their stance and lack basic nuance. Debating with them becomes pointless as any facts get met with smary remarks and blatant denial.

I've always only wanted what's best for the club and I don't see why some feel the need to be gatekeepers for managers. Some of the excuses being reeled out for Ole at the minute are ridiculous and smack of bias and hypocrisy.

 

[Bilbo]

I dont really understand why people think these myths exist within the club. It certainly exists on the message forums, but then the lengths that everybody has gone to in endlessly discussing Ole's position has led to everything thats possible to be said being said multiple times over. Every point of view could feasibly be called a myth by now.

As far the actual club is concerned, there is no basis to support this so-called myth. Moyes was let go very early, basically as soon as the club viewed his position as untenable. LVG's final game in charge won us a trophy. Even so, there was no hesitation there.

Mourinho was a more interesting case. Many, myself included, fell out of love with him the instant he gave his Sevilla post match self-preservation / shit on the club press conference, but ultimately he gave the club little choice. If you combine a poor run of form with openly challenging the board, you are writing your own obituary.

So in reality, these myths do not exist anywhere outside of the Ole in/out argument. United aren’t prolonging his tenure out of romance or principal. They are keeping him because they see progress. He achieved his prime objective last season and did a lot of good things besides. Firing him after a 1-0-2 start to a season would be premature to say the least. It would be a reactionary move, a word that has been used to criticise the club endlessly throughout the transfer window. Not okay to be that when signing players, but totally okay to be that when changing managers it seems.

As should be the case, and i think this has been the position of most Ole supporters, the time to part ways is when its clear that the club have stopped moving forwards. We arent there yet, but theres no denying that we are moving into what could be a defining period. The fixture list is brutal in the coming weeks and he could find himself under real pressure if we dont start winning games. Let's hope the team do just that.

 

[Withnail]

Think it's recognised across the board that he got about 8 months too much, certainly not too little.

I thought that was fairly obvious sarcasm... Apparently not

 

[wolvored]

First and foremost we are supposed to be the biggest club in England.
Saying that the criteria for anyone managing Utd should be to win the league or be in with a shout on the final day. This should be the aim within 2 years. most of Cities and Chelseas managers have achieved this, since they became 'big clubs'.
If we are still nowhere near after 2 years then should we stick with that manager or do like all the big clubs around Europe do and bring in someone else? Eventually we will drop lucky with a manager who can do this, but we need to be progressive and look either to a recent manager who has done it like we nearly did with Mourinho, but sacking him when he failed was correct, or someone who has shown he can vastly improve what he has at his disposal. Rose and Nagelsmann come to mind. Bringing in ex players, especially Ole who couldnt improve Cardiff and got them relegated, was never going to work.
Pocc I dont now as he improved Spurs, but apart from one season, never looked like winning the league.

 

[Bastian]

First and foremost we are supposed to be the biggest club in England.
Saying that the criteria for anyone managing Utd should be to win the league or be in with a shout on the final day. This should be the aim within 2 years. most of Cities and Chelseas managers have achieved this, since they became 'big clubs'.
If we are still nowhere near after 2 years then should we stick with that manager or do like all the big clubs around Europe do and bring in someone else? Eventually we will drop lucky with a manager who can do this, but we need to be progressive and look either to a recent manager who has done it like we nearly did with Mourinho, but sacking him when he failed was correct, or someone who has shown he can vastly improve what he has at his disposal. Rose and Nagelsmann come to mind. Bringing in ex players, especially Ole who couldnt improve Cardiff and got them relegated, was never going to work.
Pocc I dont now as he improved Spurs, but apart from one season, never looked like winning the league.

In City's case, they have ownership that is all about sporting success, it's not about making money. It's a political ambition. And they've got specialist people running the footballing side of things. With Chelsea, it's a bit of an anomaly in that they seem to not have a very coherent vision, but have still managed to win leagues here and there, with different managers. Sometimes they've been great, sometimes nothing special, no linear progress.

I'm not particularly in favour of getting Poch, but it is no slight against his record that he only once looked like he could win the league with Spurs. This is a team with a far lower budget than the rest of the big six (at least in recent years) both with regards to transfer dealings and wage structure, and as a consequence, have a lesser reach. I very much doubt either Klopp or Pep would have won the league (bar maybe that one weird season) there. Poch improved the team and made the collective better than the sum of its parts. If he could do that at United - which is a much bigger ask - he could win things.

 

[Foxbatt]

Yes the Board has no clue and that is the biggest issue as everyone agrees. The fact that they gave Ole the manager's position proves that they have no clue about football. Then their shenanigans in trying to get a suitable player shows that they are imbeciles. Combined with such an incompetent board and an incompetent manager it is rather lucky we are where we are. The incompetent board is not going to go anywhere. So the incompetent manager is the only movable thing. That is why he has to go.

 

[Adnan]

Bayern have made some truly ill-fitting coaching appointments in Ancelotti and Kovac. The difference is that regardless of who is sitting on their bench the club always maintains a squad that fits the way they want to play the game. So when Kovac failed they could just sack him and come back as strong as ever, because they didn't let him buy equivalents of Maguire or Lukaku that his successor would have to work around.

Real as well have built their squad with a clear long-term vision, between Militao, Mendy, Odriozola, Valverde, Ödegaard, Vinicius, Rodrygo, Jovic, Kubo, Reinier, Ceballos, B. Diaz and (god knows who else) they have signed a metric feck ton of super talented youngsters and while not everyone of them will make it I'll take any bet that bottom line the next 5-10 years of their squad have been sorted. If one coach fails they just bring in the next, meanwhile their squad remains competitive and suitable to modern football regardless.

Good post mate.

I've made several posts like this in the past myself and I believe it's the reason for our malaise post Ferguson. Sacking the coach shouldn't be a big problem but when a club is tied up to the vision of the coach going forward rather than the footballing vision of the club itself, then the result will be what we're all seeing currently at Man United.

 

[Sky1981]

Sacked moyes, won fa cup
Sacked lvg, won europa and league

Sack.til you get it right.

 

[ghaliboy]

People haven't seemed to cotton onto that the club's infrastructure is a total mess. You can't just keep connecting new managers to a club that needs massive infrastructure overhaul and expect it to work every time and then blame the manager. I doubt many fans have worked in corporations like this where on the surface everything looks great and you want to work there so bad but then you get there and find it is no different to any other dysfunctional corporate infrastructure.

 

[Adnan]

People haven't seemed to cotton onto that the club's infrastructure is a total mess. You can't just keep connecting new managers to a club that needs massive infrastructure overhaul and expect it to work every time and then blame the manager. I doubt many fans have worked in corporations like this where on the surface everything looks great and you want to work there so bad but then you get there and find it is no different to any other dysfunctional corporate infrastructure.

The clubs football infrastructure is not a total mess. The structure is set up to give prospective managers 'control' at first team level. Our structure at youth level is very good.

But that control at first team level has been given to managers who have signed players for their vision/philosophy rather than the philosophy already set by the club. And recruitment has been poor because the manager can't see past signings who cost ridiculous sums hence we've wasted large sums of money.

 

[RashyForPM]

I don’t like how our tradition supposedly includes us not being a sacking club, as it has held us back for years now. We didn’t sack Sir Alex and Sir Matt because they were doing well, playing good football, building teams with the core being Manchester’s finest and most importantly, winning things constantly. That is why they stayed at the club for almost 30 years each. You don’t sack a manager who is doing well (granted, Sir Alex wasn’t fantastic for his first three years to 1989, but he made progress).

However, while these two men are rightly adored as they built this club with their bare hands, I don’t like how as aforementioned we constantly use them as examples as to why we shouldn’t sack underperforming managers, and because it isn’t the ‘United Way’. So we should keep every manager for 25 years even if we get relegated? Because of this attitude, we’ve kept Moyes, LvG and Mourinho on for too long, and will do the same with Ole when he’s 8th by Christmas. Moyes should have gone in November 2013, LvG Christmas 2015 and Mourinho at the end of 2017-18, as the meltdown was slowly building up. If a manager is doing poorly or not living up to the hefty expectations we have here, they should be sacked.

As examples, take Real Madrid and City. Prestigious managers like Del Bosque, Ancelotti, Mancini, Benitez and Pellegrini have all been shown the door for one season of underperformance. Ancelotti was sacked a year after winning the CL and Pellegrini mid-season just because City found a better candidate. Neither instances of boardroom ruthlessness were classy, granted, but have these clubs continued to win things after that? Yes. They have both been winning machines, one in Europe and the other domestically. This is because their managers know that they have to be consistently successful or they will be sacked. In fact, I’m willing to bet that if Pep only brings home the League Cup this season, he will be packing his bags come May 2021. Also, you never hear these clubs’ managers talk about a 3 year or long-term plan do you? Ours constantly bang on about how wonderful the future will be if they are given time. I don’t give a shit. Instant success or you’re out. It’s how it is at the real top clubs of today, not just Real and City, but Bayern, PSG, Juve etc etc.

To summarise, we have to promote and maintain extremely high standards at this club, or we will never get back to the top.

 

[Stig]

The best post I have ever read on here.

So many of our fan base led by Gary Neville cling on to this Fergusson mantra, give managers time. Its delusional and lazy thinking actually.

No employer will give an underperforming employee time to produce.

Myth number 1 is the biggest myth of them all.

Do you think taking everything into account, not just last week's game that Ole has under performed ?

I don't.

 

[JohnnyLaw]

No idea what point you're making. Is Chelsea's return supposed to be bad or something? A league title every 3 years is great.

It’s actually 5, 2 of which came consecutively in -05 and -06 which means they’ve won once every 5 years since then which isn’t great considering they’re among the absolute biggest spender in the world in that time, even bigger than ourselves.
Apart from the final in 2008 and that miraculous Champions League run in 2012 they’ve been fairly irrelevant in the european top tier aswell and increasingly so.

 

[Acheron]

You guys definitely stick with managers longer than you should. Like with Moyes I don't understand why you didn't sack the guy sooner as it was clear he was out of his depth, I also believe you could hang on with José longer, or LVG for that matter, but it's also an issue about having the wrong timing when appointing managers. If anything Mourinho should had been appointed right after SAF but aside from the that there's not a clear idea in terms if football style as you also appoint managers with radical different ideas, like going from LVG to Mourinho... instead on trying to appoint managers and build on a defined style.

After Ole gets sacked the new manager will have to begin from zero again, as he team isn't coached into anything in particular so aside from appointing a better manager (the bar is currently very low so it shouldn't be hard) the club needs structure and a defined direction that is independent of whoever is manager at the time. In a lot of senses Manchester United feels antiquated in their methods.

 

[tombombadil]

People haven't seemed to cotton onto that the club's infrastructure is a total mess. You can't just keep connecting new managers to a club that needs massive infrastructure overhaul and expect it to work every time and then blame the manager. I doubt many fans have worked in corporations like this where on the surface everything looks great and you want to work there so bad but then you get there and find it is no different to any other dysfunctional corporate infrastructure.

Exactly. Until we resolve the problems upstairs, we're setting any manager up for failure and then blaming the manager.

Maybe Watford should just keep changing managers until they find someone who can take those same players and win the league.

 

[tombombadil]

I dont really understand why people think these myths exist within the club. It certainly exists on the message forums, but then the lengths that everybody has gone to in endlessly discussing Ole's position has led to everything thats possible to be said being said multiple times over. Every point of view could feasibly be called a myth by now.

As far the actual club is concerned, there is no basis to support this so-called myth. Moyes was let go very early, basically as soon as the club viewed his position as untenable. LVG's final game in charge won us a trophy. Even so, there was no hesitation there.

Mourinho was a more interesting case. Many, myself included, fell out of love with him the instant he gave his Sevilla post match self-preservation / shit on the club press conference, but ultimately he gave the club little choice. If you combine a poor run of form with openly challenging the board, you are writing your own obituary.

So in reality, these myths do not exist anywhere outside of the Ole in/out argument. United aren’t prolonging his tenure out of romance or principal. They are keeping him because they see progress. He achieved his prime objective last season and did a lot of good things besides. Firing him after a 1-0-2 start to a season would be premature to say the least. It would be a reactionary move, a word that has been used to criticise the club endlessly throughout the transfer window. Not okay to be that when signing players, but totally okay to be that when changing managers it seems.

As should be the case, and i think this has been the position of most Ole supporters, the time to part ways is when its clear that the club have stopped moving forwards. We arent there yet, but theres no denying that we are moving into what could be a defining period. The fixture list is brutal in the coming weeks and he could find himself under real pressure if we dont start winning games. Let's hope the team do just that.

Agreed. The myth is a... myth... and sacking Ole now would be a knee jerk reaction.

If anything, Ole will be sacked if we fall out of the top 4 this season anyways. So Ole outers have nothing to fear. Heck, if we have a poor run of form running into Dec, that might happen even earlier. It's been done before. It could be done again.

 

[Adnan]

You guys definitely stick with managers longer than you should. Like with Moyes I don't understand why you didn't sack the guy sooner as it was clear he was out of his depth, I also believe you could hang on with José longer, or LVG for that matter, but it's also an issue about having the wrong timing when appointing managers. If anything Mourinho should had been appointed right after SAF but aside from the that there's not a clear idea in terms if football style as you also appoint managers with radical different ideas, like going from LVG to Mourinho... instead on trying to appoint managers and build on a defined style.

After Ole gets sacked the new manager will have to begin from zero again, as he team isn't coached into anything in particular so aside from appointing a better manager (the bar is currently very low so it shouldn't be hard) the club needs structure and a defined direction that is independent of whoever is manager at the time. In a lot of senses Manchester United feels antiquated in their methods.

Good post.

A defined direction which is independent of the manager which would by default make him a head coach.

 

[Adnan]

In almost 2 years in the job, Ole has failed to implement his preferred style of play which is high pressure football.

Is that true or false?

 

[jackal&hyde]

We sacked 2 managers during the course of the season and one immediately after winning the FA cup, I'd say there is no fear there.

Clubs that tend to be successful with chopping and changing also tend to have a clear footballing and recruitment philosophy (Bayern) or they implement the galactico strategy; we have neither. Our only chance is to have the manager be the main football guy and back him for the rebuild for a period of time. You don't do this, you end up like AC Milan or Liverpool for 30 years.

I'm sorry but it's another knee jerk thread after 3 bad games while we've seen clear improvement last season. We are moving in the right direction and the situation will be assessed at the end of the season.