Is what we're seeing the long-term effects of success?

[DrZoidberg]

Just to play devils advocate, would SAF have had the same level of success had there been more elite teams to challenge United during the 90s and 00s? Also, would he have had the same level of success and dominance had he managed on after his retirement in 2013?

I do agree that it was always going to be difficult to maintain success after his retirement, but we also benefited from being the main elite team of the 90s and one of a few truly elite teams of the 00s. By the early 10s, the big four (us, Chelsea, Arsenal, Liverpool) grew to a big six and included Man City and Spurs. Most of those teams could now compete with us in the transfer market. We no longer held a clear advantage over our competitors like we did in the 90s and for most of the 00s. So, I would argue that continued success post-Fergie was always going to be difficult due to the influx of money and more competition at the top of the league. Had the influx of money from new owners not occurred, or measures has been put in place to ensure teams only spent within their means, then it is possible we could have maintained our position and continued to win regular premier league titles.

 

[alexthelion]

One of the words I would use to describe the club at the moment is 'tired'. Everything about our play making looks tired, OT stadium looks tired, leaking roof, mice in the kitchens, etc.

In the last eighty or so years we have experienced two major periods of football excellence, the Busby era and the Ferguson era, in between we had years of wandering in the football wilderness, culminating in the lowest point when relegated to Div 2 in 1974.

There are many similarities now, with those 'wilderness years', we swapped managers fairly regularly, even after some had won silverware, they were still dispatched. The various managers had their own brands from teams that were described as 'watching paint dry' under Dave Sexton, to some 'Cavalier' stuff under Ron Atkinson. Although there was at times despair in this period, the 'tiredness' that now permeates throughout the club was not evident and extensions to OT continued, holding on to, as it did, the unshakable belief that one day United would be back.

The start of the long march back was arguably the return to the top flight in 1975/76, with Tommy Doc. The 'Doc' knew he needed a massive clear out of personnel, but that meant negotiating relegation and bouncing straight back, which he did accomplish. However, we were still some ten or so years off from the arrival of Alex Ferguson, and the change of status of the club from being the Edwards family hobby, it became the family business under Martin Edwards, then quoted on the stock exchange and ultimately the eventual arrival of the Glazer's.

We had to wait for the 'second coming' via SAF (who almost didn't make it either) until he led the storming of the EPL, and the mission to knock Liverpool off their perch, throughout the 90's and the 00's, culminating in the Glorious Treble in 1999/2000.

Since then and SAF's stepping down, the pattern for the club moving forward has been remarkably similar to the ending of the Busby Era, we have had numerous managers, some have won silverware as before, but
none have been able to take us forward to the pinnacle of professional football.

There does now seem to be a 'tiredness', a lack of spirit, a sense of nobody really knows what to do, permeating throughout the club. Ownership has of course influenced things, but it had been hoped with the arrival of Sir Jim and INEOS this would change, but whilst the early steps of bringing in top Directors seemed a good start, there have been many missed-steps. Even the idea of a new stadium has not raised the gloom as it slowly sinks in for fans that the 'theatre of dreams' maybe in danger of being lost.

We are in a dark place just now and the way out is not at all clear, if the fall-out from all this is to follow what happened after the Busby era ended, then relegation battle is a reality, are we ready for it?

Was thinking the same, definately some similarities to those 70s teams.

 

[glaspalast]

As I said it's pot luck, liverpool also brought nunez from Portuguese league for 100 million and he has turned out as bad as antony

wow

Nunez is a dud in a stream of successes

Antony is a dud in a stream of other failures

Nunez is worth 50-100% of what they paid

Antony is worth £0

 

[glaspalast]

I dont think SAF really did knock Liverpool off their perch.

SounessBudgie poo’d on the perch and they slipped off.

As an outsider :I fully expected Moyes, Ole and Ten Hag to fail. I was unsure about van gaal and mourinho.

 

[Maticmaker]

Was thinking the same, definately some similarities to those 70s teams.

Indeed, there is too many similarities in my view.

The biggest failure was in substantive succession planning. There was none at all in place after Sir Matt stepped down, except to appoint Wilf McGuiness. Wilf was a former player (retired early because of injury) and Sir Matt's personal choice to follow him. Unfortunately, Wilf as an apprentice, had cleaned the boots of many of the so called 'stars' he was now expected to manage and such was the hierarchy system then in place the poor sod never stood a chance! Then the worst of all worlds, Sir Matt resumed the mantel (for a short time) but it did not last especially when he had to try to control the off field antics of a certain George Best!!

We all know what happened after SAF retired, again the only 'succession planning' seemed to be to offer the job to Sir Alex's own choice , David Moyes, who had no real winners CV at that time (not much since).
Its arguable that by the time SAF had retired the Glazer's were in control and were primarily only interested in preserving their 'cash cow'. However, some few years earlier there had been rumour's that SAF was thinking of leaving, so that alone should have stimulated executive interest in developing an eventual succession plan of more substance.... but it didn't.

Talk about 'not learning from history'... MUFC are a prime example.

 

[noodlehair]

No I think we've juat been managed and run awfully simve SAF retired.

Unfortunately we got lumbered with Woodward at the same time. Losing SAF was a big deal but it didn't do any damage as such. Appointing someone who signed players for purely commercial reasons and thought sponsorship deals were more important than results definitely did.

More than one of our ex managers have told us this was a big problem, and it isn't something that happens as a result of success.

The issue with who we've signed has never been their age or even their quality. It's that they've either been signed primarily for non footballing reasons, or signed by a manager who has a different vision to the club and then gets sacked not long after.

There's also the issue of the contracts quite a lot of them were given as well as our subsequent habit of running contracts down instead of selling players or renewing them.

This is also why when managers or the club talk about culture change it falls on death ears for me, because the "cultural" problem is down to the club over paying players and then trying to act like it's their fault. It won't fix itself until that whole fiasco is out of the system.

This is why we have to take gambles on younger players now rather than sign the established best players...because the only way the best choose us over actual good teams is if we offer them obscene money.

 

[ole@thewheel]

So, if one were to take a scientific approach to the issue of our being so poor, one would change different factors, one by one, and see if that led to a different output. This is in fact what whe have done since SAF retired.

We've tried changing the players: We've bought experienced superstars in later parts of their careers (Zlatan, Ronaldo, Falcao, Sanchez, Casemiro etc); we've bought superstars around their expected peak (Pogba, Di Marìa etc); we've bought potentially emerging superstars (Sancho, Martial); we've bought young, and supposedly hungry, prospects (Højlund, VdB, James etc.); we've bought established, solid players (Mount, AWB, Maguire, etc). The output has been the same, and again and again and again we see good players turn up here and start regressing at an alarming rate.

We've tried changing the manager: We've tried the one hand-picked by SAF (the Moyesiah), managers with great accolades (Mourinho, Van Gaal), one with love for and ties to the club (Ole), up-and-coming and well-respected managers with success on a lower level (ETH and now Amorim). The output has been the same - though jury still out with Amorim.

We've gotten rid of Woodward, chopped and changed backroom staff, finally gotten new ownership in. The output has been the same (if not worse).

We've tried changing the set-piece coach ... enough said about that.


It should by now be quite clear that the problem isn't "the manager" or "the players" or "the director of football" or "the system" or whatnot. Though these are relevant factors, something else has to be fundamentally wrong. And more and more I am thinking that this is a form of complacency or arrogance that has sort of become engrained in the culture of the club itself. Reflected in Manchester United as a brand. Reflected in a fan-base consisting of a lot of people that jumped on the gravy-train of unparalleled SAF success, but without proper heart for the club, expecting to come to Old Trafford to see what another poster here aptly referred to as "the Opera".

What is the solution to this? I do not know. Maybe we need to become so sh*t that the Manchester United brand properly starts fading, and people stop expecting success merely because the club is what it is, that it deserves it. What I do know, is that thinking it's about changing a manager or buying the "right" player is starting to look like the maxim "Insanity is doing the same thing over and over and expecting different results".

Thoughts?

The main issue is that we became too big for our own boots. Suddenly, adding the social media component, everyone was obsessed with us—media, fans, even people who don’t know what an offside trap is. While attention isn’t necessarily a bad thing, the last 10-15 years turned our club into a pressure cooker. And not the fancy Instant Pot kind—more like the old-school one that occasionally explodes. Even the seasoned players you mentioned often looked like they needed a support group just to handle the expectations.

And let’s be honest, as fans, we haven’t exactly helped. Our expectations stayed sky-high, like we were still in the SAF era, adding more pressure than a teenager before prom.

Then, of course, the moment SAF left, instead of a smooth handoff, we basically hit the reset button on our sporting hierarchy. It’s like going from a Michelin-star chef to someone who thinks microwaving leftovers is fine dining. The Gill-to-Woodward switch wasn’t just a mistake; it was a masterclass in what to not do on a major transition. Football priorities? Who needs those, when you can focus on commercial deals and Instagram engagement? The result? A parade of bad decisions: wrong managers, wrong players, and somehow finding ways to make the pressure even worse. It’s like we brought a fire extinguisher to a fire and accidentally sprayed gasoline instead.

 

[Stig]

So, if one were to take a scientific approach to the issue of our being so poor, one would change different factors, one by one, and see if that led to a different output. This is in fact what whe have done since SAF retired.

We've tried changing the players: We've bought experienced superstars in later parts of their careers (Zlatan, Ronaldo, Falcao, Sanchez, Casemiro etc); we've bought superstars around their expected peak (Pogba, Di Marìa etc); we've bought potentially emerging superstars (Sancho, Martial); we've bought young, and supposedly hungry, prospects (Højlund, VdB, James etc.); we've bought established, solid players (Mount, AWB, Maguire, etc). The output has been the same, and again and again and again we see good players turn up here and start regressing at an alarming rate.

We've tried changing the manager: We've tried the one hand-picked by SAF (the Moyesiah), managers with great accolades (Mourinho, Van Gaal), one with love for and ties to the club (Ole), up-and-coming and well-respected managers with success on a lower level (ETH and now Amorim). The output has been the same - though jury still out with Amorim.

We've gotten rid of Woodward, chopped and changed backroom staff, finally gotten new ownership in. The output has been the same (if not worse).

We've tried changing the set-piece coach ... enough said about that.


It should by now be quite clear that the problem isn't "the manager" or "the players" or "the director of football" or "the system" or whatnot. Though these are relevant factors, something else has to be fundamentally wrong. And more and more I am thinking that this is a form of complacency or arrogance that has sort of become engrained in the culture of the club itself. Reflected in Manchester United as a brand. Reflected in a fan-base consisting of a lot of people that jumped on the gravy-train of unparalleled SAF success, but without proper heart for the club, expecting to come to Old Trafford to see what another poster here aptly referred to as "the Opera".

What is the solution to this? I do not know. Maybe we need to become so sh*t that the Manchester United brand properly starts fading, and people stop expecting success merely because the club is what it is, that it deserves it. What I do know, is that thinking it's about changing a manager or buying the "right" player is starting to look like the maxim "Insanity is doing the same thing over and over and expecting different results".

Thoughts?

We got a whole new data analysis team, and that doesn't seem to have done anything.

And we employed a psychologist. ETH or Rangnick said not a single player went to speak with him and I think he left.

I think quite a big part of our problem now is psychology and confidence - and that needs to be addressed to give us more team spirit. That seems to have gone.

 

[Stig]

wow

Nunez is a dud in a stream of successes

Antony is a dud in a stream of other failures

Nunez is worth 50-100% of what they paid

Antony is worth £0

True that.

 

[Adz_99]

Just to play devils advocate, would SAF have had the same level of success had there been more elite teams to challenge United during the 90s and 00s? Also, would he have had the same level of success and dominance had he managed on after his retirement in 2013?

I do agree that it was always going to be difficult to maintain success after his retirement, but we also benefited from being the main elite team of the 90s and one of a few truly elite teams of the 00s. By the early 10s, the big four (us, Chelsea, Arsenal, Liverpool) grew to a big six and included Man City and Spurs. Most of those teams could now compete with us in the transfer market. We no longer held a clear advantage over our competitors like we did in the 90s and for most of the 00s. So, I would argue that continued success post-Fergie was always going to be difficult due to the influx of money and more competition at the top of the league. Had the influx of money from new owners not occurred, or measures has been put in place to ensure teams only spent within their means, then it is possible we could have maintained our position and continued to win regular premier league titles.

Who are the 6 elite teams right now? We're not. Spurs definitely aren't. Chelsea have been god awful for years until this season...

I think the PL only ever has 2 teams who can genuinely win the league or very occasionally 3. It's the same now as it was 20 years ago. We just had a stroke of luck in getting a phenomenal crop of academy players and the world's best manager.

 

[Bondi77]

Just to play devils advocate, would SAF have had the same level of success had there been more elite teams to challenge United during the 90s and 00s? Also, would he have had the same level of success and dominance had he managed on after his retirement in 2013?

I do agree that it was always going to be difficult to maintain success after his retirement, but we also benefited from being the main elite team of the 90s and one of a few truly elite teams of the 00s. By the early 10s, the big four (us, Chelsea, Arsenal, Liverpool) grew to a big six and included Man City and Spurs. Most of those teams could now compete with us in the transfer market. We no longer held a clear advantage over our competitors like we did in the 90s and for most of the 00s. So, I would argue that continued success post-Fergie was always going to be difficult due to the influx of money and more competition at the top of the league. Had the influx of money from new owners not occurred, or measures has been put in place to ensure teams only spent within their means, then it is possible we could have maintained our position and continued to win regular premier league titles.

Obviously not.
As it is obvious that Real or Barca or Bayern or any of the great Italian sides would not have had the success that they have had if all their competitors were on an equal footing.
Even if there was a salary cap across Europe certain teams would get around it by making third party payments to the top players to gain an advantage.
Sad to say but money makes the world go around!

 

[DrZoidberg]

Who are the 6 elite teams right now? We're not. Spurs definitely aren't. Chelsea have been god awful for years until this season...

I think the PL only ever has 2 teams who can genuinely win the league or very occasionally 3. It's the same now as it was 20 years ago. We just had a stroke of luck in getting a phenomenal crop of academy players and the world's best manager.

I’m not saying there are six “elite” teams; however, there is now little difference in spending power between the big six (us, city, Liverpool, Chelsea, Arsenal, Spurs). One could argue Newcastle and Aston Villa can compete with our spending power because they are backed by wealthy owners. That’s clearly not the same as 20 years ago.

Yes, we had a great crop of academy players and a world class manager, but back in the 90s and early 00s we could outbid and pay higher wages than every other team in the league. If we wanted a player, then we usually got them. That started to change in the early 00s when Roman opened his chequebook at Chelsea, and in the late 00s with Sheikh Mansour at City. By the time Fergie called it a day, we were no longer the go to team for young talent and other teams could compete (and sometimes better) our spending power.

So while there is usually 2, maybe 3 title contenders in any given year, you could almost guarantee in the 90s and 00s we would be among those teams. However, through the 10s and 20s that’s not been the case. Obviously part of that has been due to mismanagement. However, I would argue the influx of money and growth of the big six made things trickier to navigate because champions league football was no longer a certainty with more competition at the top of the league.

 

[DrZoidberg]

Obviously not.
As it is obvious that Real or Barca or Bayern or any of the great Italian sides would not have had the success that they have had if all their competitors were on an equal footing.
Even if there was a salary cap across Europe certain teams would get around it by making third party payments to the top players to gain an advantage.
Sad to say but money makes the world go around!

A salary cap across Europe has never been realistic. It’s easier to implement in leagues like the NFL, NBA, NHL and MLB because they’ve got no real competition. However, footballs a different animal. Even if they could agree to a salary cap across Europe, some countries would hold the advantage of more favourable tax rates, living costs and lifestyle to offer players.

 

[Bondi77]

A salary cap across Europe has never been realistic. It’s easier to implement in leagues like the NFL, NBA, NHL and MLB because they’ve got no real competition. However, footballs a different animal. Even if they could agree to a salary cap across Europe, some countries would hold the advantage of more favourable tax rates, living costs and lifestyle to offer players.

I know it would never work as there is too much money involved in football and it is the World Game.

 

[Wing Attack Plan R]

I think there’s a perception problem as well as a bit of myopia. The Fergie years were marked not only by trophies but also entertainment. Then Chelsea came along with their occult finances, and then Man City made Abramovitch look like a schoolboy. Success against that machine looks like what Klopp “achieved” at Liverpool: very little (albeit more than us). Klopp was the second best and it didn’t mean a whole lot of silverware .

If the 130 case results in those titles being stripped from City, then our wilderness years won’t look quite so cold. Ole and Mourinho both win a PL title with us, and Ten Hag gets a 2nd place finish. Then maybe it feels different, like we haven’t been thrashing about wildly for 10 years.

What City did has tainted everything.

 

[glaspalast]

But you've spent even more than the sportswashers and the bond villain

 

[Sandikan]

I still think the universe is highly pissed off at us for the Fergie years, and is hell bent on paying us back with interest for all those years of success.

You do start to wonder don't you.
The amount of wrong decisions over a decade has been staggering.

 

[Sandikan]

But you've spent even more than the sportswashers and the bond villain

Baffled people still genuinely believe this.
Even when just the visible iceberg of City charges includes secret payments off records.

 

[DarkLord1984]

You do start to wonder don't you.
The amount of wrong decisions over a decade has been staggering.

It feels like it doesn't matter what manager we hire, what owners we have or what players we buy. They're always automatically the wrong ones. And even if we bought/hired different ones, they'd still be wrong somehow.

I'm at a bit of a loss as to what to do next because I'm fully expecting every decision to backfire on us.

 

[Who's Kissing Cameras?]

Arne Slot just came from the Dutch league and winning nearly every game, same with people talking about buying players from the Dutch league - Gravenberch and Gakpo are excelling now for Liverpool. But Liverpool were left in good shape by Klopp and a successful club structure, whereas every manager seems to leave the club in a worse place for the next one here.

Slot, Gakpo and Gravenberch would all 100% flop here.

Something is wrong with our club. It’ll be studied for years.

 

[Who's Kissing Cameras?]

It feels like it doesn't matter what manager we hire, what owners we have or what players we buy. They're always automatically the wrong ones. And even if we bought/hired different ones, they'd still be wrong somehow.

I'm at a bit of a loss as to what to do next because I'm fully expecting every decision to backfire on us.

Yep. We’ve tried everything. It’s feels like a curse.

 

[RedDevil [NC]]

Yep. We’ve tried everything. It’s feels like a curse.

Sadly it’s been a lot of right hires, wrong timing! Coincide with the team being rotten from the inside out and a lot of shooting ourselves in the foot. We splurged on the wrong talent. I still feel that with just getting 1-2 signings right from ETH(who I absolutely hated and thought he should have been sacked midway through last season) we would be able to easily build on what we have.

I see that players have just quit in the club, I feel a lot of that is projection from the state our club is in at the moment. I fully believe Amorim is a guy that can eventually win the locker room over and bring success. I also think for him to win the players he needs to rid of some of the locker room cancers.

 

[glaspalast]

Baffled people still genuinely believe this.
Even when just the visible iceberg of City charges includes secret payments off records.

No doubt City have cheated, but have they really secretly spent 40% more than reported?

 

[PlasticRed]

No, Fergie papered over the cracks of the Glazer ownership, and when he left, there was nothing. The past decade and half performance is down to the Glazers soley.

 

[Red in STL]

Baffled people still genuinely believe this.
Even when just the visible iceberg of City charges includes secret payments off records.

City aside we have still spent a lot more money than anyone else, it;s what you spend it on that really matters and we haven't been very good at it

 

[Sandikan]

City aside we have still spent a lot more money than anyone else, it;s what you spend it on that really matters and we haven't been very good at it

Take a look at what Chelsea have spent.

 

[justsomebloke]

Just to play devils advocate, would SAF have had the same level of success had there been more elite teams to challenge United during the 90s and 00s? Also, would he have had the same level of success and dominance had he managed on after his retirement in 2013?

I do agree that it was always going to be difficult to maintain success after his retirement, but we also benefited from being the main elite team of the 90s and one of a few truly elite teams of the 00s. By the early 10s, the big four (us, Chelsea, Arsenal, Liverpool) grew to a big six and included Man City and Spurs. Most of those teams could now compete with us in the transfer market. We no longer held a clear advantage over our competitors like we did in the 90s and for most of the 00s. So, I would argue that continued success post-Fergie was always going to be difficult due to the influx of money and more competition at the top of the league. Had the influx of money from new owners not occurred, or measures has been put in place to ensure teams only spent within their means, then it is possible we could have maintained our position and continued to win regular premier league titles.

Superior finances really isn't a strong argument for United's dominance in the 90s and 00s. Considering that Spurs, Liverpool and Chelsea all outspent us during that period. If you look only at the 90s, in which you accurately describe us as being the main elite team, we were outspent by SIX PL clubs (Newcastle, Liverpool, Blackburn, Arsenal, Leeds and Villa).

If you look at net spend and not just expenditure, we're 4th both for the nineties and for the period 1990-2010. Either way, quite a few PL clubs demonstrably were able to spend as much or more than we did in the transfer market.

https://www.transfermarkt.com/premi...&nat=&pos=&altersklasse=&w_s=&leihe=&intern=0

 

[Denis' cuff]

I’d say Arsenal and then Chelsea were pretty elite. Juventus, Bayern, Madrid and Barca were pretty elite.

City have had virtually no elite European teams and a decent but not elite Liverpool team to contend with.

Fergie saw the writing on the wall. The hush money he enjoyed ensured his compliance with the “no value“ years and Gill followed suit leaving WW a free run at sucking up to the Glazers at the expense of the team and ultimately the club. I think Fergie still had a title or two in him but the writing was on the wall where priorities now lay and he would’ve noted what was happening with city well before we did. It would’ve been hard work and he was getting on a bit. WW shut down any sign of any subsequent manager expecting any support while his sole intent was to find favour from his owners. With the games authorities contriving a levelling out of resources for all clubs and a fair bit of trickery and contrivance going on behind the scenes, we are going to be hard pushed returning to the same dominance we previously had.

Edwards family hardly treated United as a family hobby. With Busby bought, similar to Ferguson, their modest business flourished with them netting the proceeds from the club’s catering side and they made the step from well-off to wealthy. Martin ultimately cashed in his chips and sadly, we’ve never stopped looking back. Far from being advantaged by some fortunate windfall, as some would have you believe, the club has been a cash cow for some greedy cnuts ever since the early 60s and the only windfall we’ve had is being the biggest supported club in all that time.

 

[Urescoredatanfield]

I'd say that what we're seeing is the long-term effects of absolutely and unequivocally failing to plan for the long-term. It started from essentially the moment Sir Alex retired and Moyes was appointed his successor, and has spiralled hopelessly to the point we're at right now.

Ed Woodward was almost uniquely unqualified for the role he was parachuted into during the same summer that Moyes joined the club, and it very quickly became apparent. That first summer post-Ferguson was a disaster, with the singular signing of Fellaini (for 3 million more than he'd have cost had the singing been completed a month earlier, by the way) doing nothing to resolve the issues of a threadbare midfield and an ageing defence. I think what has been really staggering, though, is that somehow this situation didn't improve and, I would argue, got even fecking worse when Woodward was replaced by Richard Arnold and John Murtough.

It'd be absolute nonsense to describe Woodward's tenure as the head of football operations as anything even approaching "sublime" but I guess I'd describe the switch from Woodward to Arnold as less "from the sublime to the ridiculous" and more "from the ridiculous to the absolutely batshite insane". What I mean by this is, perhaps more by luck than judgement, under Woodward there did at least seem to be some recognition of the need for a baseline level of quality in the side that meant that, whilst results were never resoundingly impressive, we seldom fell out of the top half of the Premier League either. Another way I'd state it is to look at all the big money (setting the "big-money" bar here at 50 million pound base fee) signings Woodward made and compare it with the Arnold/Murtough combo.

Woodward	Di Maria Pogba Lukaku Wan-Bissaka Maguire Sancho
Arnold/Murtough	Casemiro Antony Mount Hojlund

There is a consistent theme throughout this table of gross overpayment and a complete lack of thought as to how these signings will fit into a cogent system. With that said, the least you would say about Woodward's list is that, when we signed them, all were either before or in their prime years and all bar AWB had been starting consistently for teams in one of the top five leagues in the world (England, Spain, Italy, France and Germany) over a period of at least three seasons. From Arnold and Murtough's list, only Mount ticks both of those boxes and even he came with injury woes. Case surely ticked the box for experience at the highest level but was 30 when we signed him, Hojlund was signed for 64 million off the back of literally one season in Serie A (in which he scored 9 goals in 32 appearances, which is hardly a spectacular tally for a striker), and Antony was signed for a staggering 85 million off the back of two seasons worth of football in the fecking Eredivisie.

All this is to say that what we're seeing right now is the culmination of a football "strategy" that has gone from staggeringly bad to, somehow, staggeringly even worse to the point where we've assembled a squad which is not just poorly constructed but no longer even has a particularly high level of quality that can bail us out in a good chunk of matches.

I have to agree with the vast bulk of the points you have raised. Perhaps there are additional reasons for our current standing, I will begin with the signings you have listed. di Maria, he didn't want to leave Madrid, but surprise surprise we sign him, on, I would imagine, a very healthy salary. Pogba, I think we all know why he returned and it was not "a new challenge"!! Lukaku I would argue followed the Pogba (a very close friend) reason for signing. Sancho, similarly, came to Old Trafford on a huge salary, and I find it odd that, except di Maria, the other three left as they felt "unloved" and "scapegoats". I have to question the thinking behind these signings as I am in agreement with the Klopp ethos of only signing players who WANT to play for your club. We had parasites in the dressing room, hence, I would imagine a feeling of resentment and loathing would fester.....a breakdown in the "team ethic". This has carried on for season after season, we are seeing it play out now with what appears to be a team of individuals. This plethora of poor purchases has continued with the previous manager bequeathing yet more deadwood for Amorim to remove, we still have Sancho plus De Ligt, Kirkzee, perhaps Hojland, Lindelof, Mount et al. This will surely entail the Docherty and Ferguson solution of a "scorched earth" policy, or as a former employee stated "open heart surgery" is needed. This is just a very small fragment of the problems that have dragged our club down, I do agree it's from the top that should shoulder the responsibility of their decimation of United. We must support and show patience for Amorim and give him the time needed.

 

[Valencia Shin Crosses]

So, if one were to take a scientific approach to the issue of our being so poor, one would change different factors, one by one, and see if that led to a different output. This is in fact what whe have done since SAF retired.

We've tried changing the players: We've bought experienced superstars in later parts of their careers (Zlatan, Ronaldo, Falcao, Sanchez, Casemiro etc); we've bought superstars around their expected peak (Pogba, Di Marìa etc); we've bought potentially emerging superstars (Sancho, Martial); we've bought young, and supposedly hungry, prospects (Højlund, VdB, James etc.); we've bought established, solid players (Mount, AWB, Maguire, etc). The output has been the same, and again and again and again we see good players turn up here and start regressing at an alarming rate.

We've tried changing the manager: We've tried the one hand-picked by SAF (the Moyesiah), managers with great accolades (Mourinho, Van Gaal), one with love for and ties to the club (Ole), up-and-coming and well-respected managers with success on a lower level (ETH and now Amorim). The output has been the same - though jury still out with Amorim.

We've gotten rid of Woodward, chopped and changed backroom staff, finally gotten new ownership in. The output has been the same (if not worse).

We've tried changing the set-piece coach ... enough said about that.


It should by now be quite clear that the problem isn't "the manager" or "the players" or "the director of football" or "the system" or whatnot. Though these are relevant factors, something else has to be fundamentally wrong. And more and more I am thinking that this is a form of complacency or arrogance that has sort of become engrained in the culture of the club itself. Reflected in Manchester United as a brand. Reflected in a fan-base consisting of a lot of people that jumped on the gravy-train of unparalleled SAF success, but without proper heart for the club, expecting to come to Old Trafford to see what another poster here aptly referred to as "the Opera".

What is the solution to this? I do not know. Maybe we need to become so sh*t that the Manchester United brand properly starts fading, and people stop expecting success merely because the club is what it is, that it deserves it. What I do know, is that thinking it's about changing a manager or buying the "right" player is starting to look like the maxim "Insanity is doing the same thing over and over and expecting different results".

Thoughts?

Disagree with a lot of this. Mainly because since SAF left we've hardly had a coherent approach to building and replacing the squad, and have consistently held onto depreciating assets for far too long while overpaying players and not targeting emerging talent quickly enough. We buy Pogba and then don't bother to try and actual build the midfield around his strengths. We bring in aging superstars to hopefully cover up cracks in the squad but obviously that's only a stop gap solution. We hired a series of managers with vastly different outlooks on how the team should play, and allowed all of them FAR too much power in dictating squad building and transfers themselves. And amidst all of this, we probably are overpaying 20-30% on each transfer over a decade while never recouping money from sales because of incompetence from the men in charge.

Essentially what you've seen in the past two years is just the final capitulation that was the result of a decade of horrid choices coming home to roost. I don't really agree with the "oh there's a rot in the club" or that it's "cursed". We've hired poor managers (with ETH being the first "good" hire decision wise but should have cut ties way quicker than we did), and then recruited with a shoddy strategy. That's always going to tank a club's performance far more than incalulable stuff like "attitude" and "complacency", which no doubt has also come into the club.

 

[UpWithRivers]

Its because of our philosophy. Like how Kodak went tits up because they refused to believe that digital was the way to go. We have tried to stick to 'The United way' even though football moved on. This can be seen from hiring Moyes, refusing to get a sporting director and clinging on to academy players for dear life and building around them. Its seen in our Stadium. In our style of play in everything we have done. Its old school and lacks innovation and forward thinking. We need to be the ones driving change and innovation and not just waiting for the next Busby babes. Hopefully should start with our stadium and with Ineos taking a new approach.

 

[2ysur2ysub]

What I find completely puzzling and strange is how little thought/attention is given to the fact that at the end of the 2012/13 season not only did we lose the best manager of more than a generation but at the same time the best CEO in David Gill. Losing one was a body blow. Losing both was a disaster particularly given the calibre of their replacements.

 

[Big Andy]

I firmly believe that somebody in 1992 sold their soul to the devil for 30 years of success after Leeds pipped us to the title. That ended in 2012 and now the devil not only took the cnuts soul, he reverted us back to the 70's/80's United in terms of success in the cups but shit in the league.

Someone needs to step up and sell their soul (@horsechoker ?)

 

[Maticmaker]

What I find completely puzzling and strange is how little thought/attention is given to the fact that at the end of the 2012/13 season not only did we lose the best manager of more than a generation but at the same time the best CEO in David Gill. Losing one was a body blow. Losing both was a disaster particularly given the calibre of their replacements.

It should have been about succession planning in both cases.

In David Gill's case, it was; Ed Woodward was to become CEO (essentially) as part of the Glazer's 0.8B deal with JP Morgan Bank to buy the controlling interest in the club. Whether David Gill was 'pushed', or went voluntarily, we shall never know.

There is a suspicion that once SAF realised he would have to deal with Woodward, he decided to go as well.... there was no real succession planning for Ferguson, the club just took on David Moyes, reputedly at SAF's say so.... we all know what happened after that!!

 

[Nogho]

For me, this is the biggest hurdle going forward. Imagine owners buying your club by money they don't own, then letting the club pay for them. Not even Hollywood could write that kind of tragedy. Them pigs buying our club destroyed everything. They placed the flag of all sad things mentioned in this thread on Carrington and then they let Old Trafford and everything else deteriorate. They are evil in the purest form.

-$0.96 Billion USD

 

[gulli_G]

For me, this is the biggest hurdle going forward. Imagine owners buying your club by money they don't own, then letting the club pay for them. Not even Hollywood could write that kind of tragedy. Them pigs buying our club destroyed everything. They placed the flag of all sad things mentioned in this thread on Carrington and then they let Old Trafford and everything else deteriorate. They are evil in the purest form.

-$0.96 Billion USD

That's the worst form of capitalism. It doesn't make sense but was allowed.