Long Term / Short Term Management

[SAred]

Keep hearing that Conte is not part of the plan as he is not in the for the long term, not the United way I have heard, or should that not be the Sir Alex way. Ever since the Great man retired United have gone the route that we want someone in for the long term hence giving David Bloody Moyes a 6-year deal which lasted 9 months got in the mad Dutchman whose style was completely different to cross a lot Moyes - confusing selection with the players that United had, had to be replaced to suit the Dutchman style. The long-term replacement for Louis was long term plan Jose, right. He won a few trophies in his time then fell out with everyone so a long-term plan failed for the 3rd time running. Then we brought in Ole an unproven coach who brought peace love and happiness but a headless chicken style of football, we are further away from winning the big trophies which is a travesty with the players that are at United than we were when David Long-Term Moyes was fired in the short term. This long-term plan is now moving into its 10 seasons we are miles from winning the major trophies so would it not be a bad idea to get a Conte who is a winner and get the team challenging again for a short term.

If this Long Term plan is the way to go how have Chelsea got it right time and time again short term. Now Kloop and Pep have been at their clubs for 5 seasons, Liverpool had a long term plan has unlike the Oil clubs could not keep chopping and charging, and it paid off but we are talking about one of the best in the business and the City have the best in the business and had plenty of backing. So for the United and its long-term plan which has failed what is the best way forward are we going to keep Ole around for the long term - Does anyone actually believe that Ole can turn this around or do we go for a Conte type who has won everywhere in the short term or do United start again with another long term plan....

 

[roonster09]

Liverpool didn't have long term plan. They were lucky that they got world class coach way above their level, they stuck with him and have no reason to change.

Also long term plan is overrated/oversold imo. You need proper short term plans and have to keep realistic goals.

 

[Bwuk]

If short term plan is successful its worth it. We've tried long term and it hasn't worked yet.

 

[Bebestation]

If short term plan is successful its worth it. We've tried long term and it hasn't worked yet.

Just checking, We have also tried short term isn't it?

Mourinho wasn't any long term plan manager?

 

[Bwuk]

Just checking, We have also tried short term isn't it?

Mourinho wasn't any long term plan manager?

Jose was given a 4 year deal wasn't he, and got an extension during it. That's a long time in football.

 

[RedStarUnited]

The reality is we have never had a long term plan. No one at United thought about the day Sir Alex would retire and how that transition will be handled. We hire someone and then expect them to be great and stay long term, we dont think past the current manager.

City prepared everything for Pep, years before he arrived at the club. I can almost gurantee they have already planned for his exit in 2023 with a manager in mind. My bet would be that once Luis Enrique takes Spain to the World Cup in December next year, he will leave the national team, take a few months off and join City in the summer. If you watch Spain, they already play almost an identical style to Peps team.

Now what United could do is, Hire Conte with a short term contract like say 2/3 years. In the background start preparing the transition in 2 years time for someone like Ten Hag to come in. This way you get the boost of immediately challenging with Conte and this current team. Then, when the team needs rejuvenating you get a younger couch in to take the helm.

 

[anant]

Short term works if and when you have a proper footballing structure in place and the manager is not given the powers he is given here. Or it will work when the team you have has maybe 2 years left in them before you're heading into a major rebuild.

At Utd, we hired the managers for long term, didn't work - but what we've ended up with is no philosophy of where we're headed. We jumped from SAF's football which was relied on width and pace to Moyes' what football it was to LVG's possession football to Mou's defense first and now Ole's counterattcking (well it was that for the 1st 2 years) football.

There is no manager who'll success in a matter of months here if we just jump between managers lying on opposite ends of football spectrums. That's literally been the reason why previous managers' players have mostly been deemed useless for the new manager.

I mean Mou as a Utd manager would have been ok after SAF - the side was on its last legs and Mou could have maximized that side by squeezing last bit of juice. Similarly Conte would have been ok after Mou (2018), because again a lot of starters in that side were in their last legs. And you can find faults with each of the hirings.

I doubt we've ever interviewed 4-5 candidates whenever we've had a vacancy - it's been we're Man Utd, we hire who we want and ofcourse they've joined us as well. We've not had a list of potential replacements available ever who can make transition at this time smoother. Hell, look at the names we've been linked with right now - COnte, ZZ, Potter, Poch, Ten Hag - and you can see that there's minimal similarity between most of these guys and it shows when we make the hiring as well

 

[Bebestation]

The reality is we have never had a long term plan. No one at United thought about the day Sir Alex would retire and how that transition will be handled. We hire someone and then expect them to be great and stay long term, we dont think past the current manager.

City prepared everything for Pep, years before he arrived at the club. I can almost gurantee they have already planned for his exit in 2023 with a manager in mind. My bet would be that once Luis Enrique takes Spain to the World Cup in December next year, he will leave the national team, take a few months off and join City in the summer. If you watch Spain, they already play almost an identical style to Peps team.

Now what United could do is, Hire Conte with a short term contract like say 2/3 years. In the background start preparing the transition in 2 years time for someone like Ten Hag to come in. This way you get the boost of immediately challenging with Conte and this current team. Then, when the team needs rejuvenating you get a younger couch in to take the helm.

I agree with this.

Luis Enrique is destined for Man City because from the start Man City wanted to copy Barcelona at their best.

What would happen after Pep's tenure? Luis Enrique's hattrick at Barcelona attempt at Man City.

Pep has said he wants to leave 2023 - that lines up perfectly with Luis Enrique finishing his Spain national team work.

Whilst at United we go from - Moyes to Van Gaal to Mourinho to Ole to potentially Conte.

No long term plan what so ever, managers of different tactics and different brands of football. Managers leaving as quick as 1 year and as max at 3.5 as a permanent manager.

We are short term and we have no plan - we like Liverpool have to just wait now and wait until the right manager comes and when he will win stuff then keep him as long as we can.

 

[largelyworried]

The problem we have is that our long term plan is the manager. It doesn't go beyond that. We should have a club wide approach to football that includes the manager but is not limited to them. Our long term plan should include the assumption that managers will come and go and we should be assembling the squad with that in mind. Managers that stay 10+ years and go through 2 or 3 rebuilds are vanishingly rare at the highest level. The reality is that most managers, even good managers, generally get sacked in the end. Its part of football, managers come and go. Of course we should recruit managers with the assumption that they'll do well and will be able to stick around but we can't bet the house on that happening.

Look at Chelsea, is their approach to football really more short term than ours? Their view on managers certainly is short term, but overall their approach to running the club is clear - assemble a high quality squad of players with a variety of talents and styles and then pick the manager that suits them best in any given moment. The manager gets a couple of picks, sure, but he doesn't get to completely rebuild the squad when he arrives. When their manager outstays his welcome, they just go onto the next available manager that suits their squad, with a much smoother transition. Their view on how to run a club isn't limited to the guy in charge today.

At United, we can't see beyond the current manager. We let the manager hack and slash at the squad, with no regard for what comes after, telling ourselves that we're planning for the long term. We tell ourselves that this is the manager that will stick around and that if we back them unconditionally then we have a long term plan. We don't. Our plan will never last any longer the guy currently in charge.

 

[Jacko21]

Now what United could do is, Hire Conte with a short term contract like say 2/3 years. In the background start preparing the transition in 2 years time for someone like Ten Hag to come in. This way you get the boost of immediately challenging with Conte and this current team. Then, when the team needs rejuvenating you get a younger couch in to take the helm.

Worth noting that Ten Hag is only a year or so younger than Conte.

Though Conte started his managerial career sooner.

 

[do.ob]

To associate coaches with the long term future of a club is fundamentally wrong imo. Your average coach is hired on a three year contract and almost lucky to actually surivive until the end of it. You hire coaches for the next 2-3 years, you hire a DoF for your long term vision.

 

[dal]

There is nothing wrong at all with short term management as long as the structure supports it.

Ive no problem with this as long as the signings are decided by a technical group and I also have no problem if Ole is a part of that technical group if he is sacked as manager, in fact I’d encourage it as I think he’s been brilliant in that department.

We are having a mini crisis, I’ve said it time and again just over 2 years ago we had starting team of martial, Lingard, Perreira, Mctominay, we’ve managed the change of squad really well.

We really now need to kick on, if ole survives until Christmas I’ll be shocked.

 

[Gordon Godot]

There is nothing wrong at all with short term management as long as the structure supports it.

Ive no problem with this as long as the signings are decided by a technical group and I also have no problem if Ole is a part of that technical group if he is sacked as manager, in fact I’d encourage it as I think he’s been brilliant in that department.

We are having a mini crisis, I’ve said it time and again just over 2 years ago we had starting team of martial, Lingard, Perreira, Mctominay, we’ve managed the change of squad really well.

We really now need to kick on, if ole survives until Christmas I’ll be shocked.

Tend to agree with last couple of posts. One problem is fans are in love with the idea of the next Fergie. He was a one off, we may never see that longevity from a top flight manager again. The pressures are so much greater, the attention to detail and analysis mean the game continues to evolve rapidly. We need a football structure in place, one that is forward and not backward looking, I dont want to hear a reference to the 'Utd way' ever again. If we had Pep and were playing dominating possession football, would people be moaning about a lack of wingers? We are one of the largest clubs in the world, its time we acted like that. And the fans shoud expect nothing less.

 

[Adam-Utd]

Modern football management is just too stressful and chaotic for long term.

Some fans seem stuck in the mindset that once a manager is in place, they are the all mighty power that can never be questioned. They must remain in charge forever until they decide they've had enough.

What other manager in top class football lasts more than 4 years at any club? I think recently Eddie Howe was the longest standing manager at Bournemouth until he left.

It's now a cut throat sport with so much pressure, you either have sustained success, keep progressing or find yourself on the chopping block fairly quickly.

I think United fans are fairly reasonable, Ole has had MANY chances so far. Most of them were swept under the carpet as we were showing signs of progression. This season though and a lot of last season was going backwards.

Too many red flags shown by Ole to continue IMO.

 

[finneh]

It shouldn't be too difficult to calculate the average tenure of a manager winning a trophy across Europe's 5 top divisions (or achieving a different measure of success).

That should tell you the optimum amount of time a manager needs to be successful, before his methods start to stagnate.

I'd imagine it's maybe a couple of years rather than several years.

 

[dal]

It shouldn't be too difficult to calculate the average tenure of a manager winning a trophy across Europe's 5 top divisions (or achieving a different measure of success).

That should tell you the optimum amount of time a manager needs to be successful, before his methods start to stagnate.

I'd imagine it's maybe a couple of years rather than several years.

Depends on the starting squad, we basically had a mid table attack two years ago when lukaku was sold, you need at least 3 years even if your Jurgen Klopp.

 

[Dan_F]

The problem we have is that our long term plan is the manager. It doesn't go beyond that. We should have a club wide approach to football that includes the manager but is not limited to them. Our long term plan should include the assumption that managers will come and go and we should be assembling the squad with that in mind. Managers that stay 10+ years and go through 2 or 3 rebuilds are vanishingly rare at the highest level. The reality is that most managers, even good managers, generally get sacked in the end. Its part of football, managers come and go. Of course we should recruit managers with the assumption that they'll do well and will be able to stick around but we can't bet the house on that happening.

Look at Chelsea, is their approach to football really more short term than ours? Their view on managers certainly is short term, but overall their approach to running the club is clear - assemble a high quality squad of players with a variety of talents and styles and then pick the manager that suits them best in any given moment. The manager gets a couple of picks, sure, but he doesn't get to completely rebuild the squad when he arrives. When their manager outstays his welcome, they just go onto the next available manager that suits their squad, with a much smoother transition. Their view on how to run a club isn't limited to the guy in charge today.

At United, we can't see beyond the current manager. We let the manager hack and slash at the squad, with no regard for what comes after, telling ourselves that we're planning for the long term. We tell ourselves that this is the manager that will stick around and that if we back them unconditionally then we have a long term plan. We don't. Our plan will never last any longer the guy currently in charge.

Glad you wrote all this so I didn’t have to. The amount of people that believe Chelsea just jump from manger to manager without any form of plan is actually crazy.

 

[justsomebloke]

Keep hearing that Conte is not part of the plan as he is not in the for the long term, not the United way I have heard, or should that not be the Sir Alex way. Ever since the Great man retired United have gone the route that we want someone in for the long term hence giving David Bloody Moyes a 6-year deal which lasted 9 months got in the mad Dutchman whose style was completely different to cross a lot Moyes - confusing selection with the players that United had, had to be replaced to suit the Dutchman style. The long-term replacement for Louis was long term plan Jose, right. He won a few trophies in his time then fell out with everyone so a long-term plan failed for the 3rd time running. Then we brought in Ole an unproven coach who brought peace love and happiness but a headless chicken style of football, we are further away from winning the big trophies which is a travesty with the players that are at United than we were when David Long-Term Moyes was fired in the short term. This long-term plan is now moving into its 10 seasons we are miles from winning the major trophies so would it not be a bad idea to get a Conte who is a winner and get the team challenging again for a short term.

If this Long Term plan is the way to go how have Chelsea got it right time and time again short term. Now Kloop and Pep have been at their clubs for 5 seasons, Liverpool had a long term plan has unlike the Oil clubs could not keep chopping and charging, and it paid off but we are talking about one of the best in the business and the City have the best in the business and had plenty of backing. So for the United and its long-term plan which has failed what is the best way forward are we going to keep Ole around for the long term - Does anyone actually believe that Ole can turn this around or do we go for a Conte type who has won everywhere in the short term or do United start again with another long term plan....

I think the key here is to find a successor to Ole who shares a similar vision on the key points: Commitment to a (broadly speaking) fast, attacking form of football, regard for club values, development of youth, club above individual etc.

However, what does all of that actually mean? No one really has a very clear, defined, precise understanding of that, or how it leads to winning. But when Ole came in and said all of these things, it felt very very real, because everyone understood that Jose Mourinho represented everything it was not. And negative definition is as real as any.

At least for a bit. But then that vague vision has to be filled out by actual, specific decisions that taken together gives concrete shape to what the United way is supposed to be. So far under Ole that seems to have amounted to:

1. Drawing together different parts of the organisation around some sort of common direction and functional working relations, where before there seems to have been a lot of separate islands, and a general mood of dysfunctionality.
2. A significantly strengthened investment in academy recruitment
3. Some investment in infrastructure
4. Good structural changes to the organisation (director of football etc), as well as strengthening some parts of it where we have been lagging behind (data analysis, fe)
5. An emphasis on recruitment from within on the management side

I'm not sure if #5 is such a great idea though I'm prepared to have an open mind, but what he has not managed to define is a functioning style of play, although he has remained broadly attuned to the ambition of fast, attacking football.

It is possible for a successor to build on all of this, but with some tweaks - and there's still lots of things that remain undefined (style of play, above all). In short - if we get a manager who sees his job as winning football games and titles by finishing the job of defining what "the United way" means in the 2020s, then that's good. It cannot mean anything you want it to, but it can still mean quite a lot of different things. Basically, I think anyone geared to building a functioning and harmonious organisation with an emphasis on results, with awareness of and fundamental respect for club history and able to effectively implement a type of football that could reasonably be said to emphasise attack and pace would fit the bill.

Alternatively and honestly, I'll take "able to win titles regularly with a form of football that isn't horrible or cynical". But then that has to be for a long period, long enough to redefine the club - not just a couple of good years with someone too unbearable to last longer than that. So that's a firm no to Conte, as far as I'm concerned.

 

[finneh]

Depends on the starting squad, we basically had a mid table attack two years ago when lukaku was sold, you need at least 3 years even if your Jurgen Klopp.

Success has different metrics dependant on who you're managing. It wouldn't be difficult to find the period after commencing management in which the most success is gained. Whether that be via league position, trophies or hell even position as a proportion of transfer spend and wage bill.

Klopp is likely to extend the average; whereas someone like Conte is likely to reduce it. Overall though you'll have an aggregate picture as to when a manager should be at his peak and when he's likely to decline.

 

[DON’T PANIC ™]

Manchester United is too big a club to be considered a project.
All that matters is the current season and the next season on a rolling basis.
As players decline we should upgrade them and the same applies to the coaching staff and facilities.
When Ole & Co. are inevitably replaced, we need to appoint someone who can have an instant impact. I believe Ten Hag to be the right appointment, not because he might stay longer than Conte, but because of his attacking style of play and I think he’ll be able to get more from our current squad without needing a complete rebuild.

 

[DickDastardly]

Long term is the key.

You can't implement your philosophy of football in a short time notice - it's not sustainable.

We gave Ole enough time, there was no improvement. He was a great shot stop appointment.
We don't need that anymore. We needed that because a certain Jose left us a wreck, team spirit was on a low, signigns were wrong, etc.

Ole won't leave us scarred, well, not large scale injuries.

But we need someone who has a long term plan, at least a long term will.
Can't see Conte staying for too long. Zidane was never an option. The rest are taken.

Ten Hag is the only viable option for the board. The youngish german coaches are way to risky for our board.

 

[justsomebloke]

Manchester United is too big a club to be considered a project.
All that matters is the current season and the next season on a rolling basis.
As players decline we should upgrade them and the same applies to the coaching staff and facilities.
When Ole & Co. are inevitably replaced, we need to appoint someone who can have an instant impact. I believe Ten Hag to be the right appointment, not because he might stay longer than Conte, but because of his attacking style of play and I think he’ll be able to get more from our current squad without needing a complete rebuild.

I really don't agree with that, on a fundamental level. It's too simplistic, and doesn't take account of how things work. Any organisation who thinks "all that matters is the current season" becomes less likely to get good results in any given season. The issues you have to solve well in order to be an elite club in many cases simply aren't solveable in a single season, so if you take that approach, you don't solve them.

 

[justsomebloke]

Jose was given a 4 year deal wasn't he, and got an extension during it. That's a long time in football.

A long term contract is not a long term plan. It's just a high willingness for financial risk.

 

[Adisa]

The concept of long-term short term manager is very stupid.
A manager is at the helm as long as he's successful.

 

[Sky1981]

Saf wasnt hired for 20 years.

He was hired for 2-3 years. But because he was good and always perform he always gets extended, up to 26.

We should extend because a manager earns it, not giving him by default

 

[JPRouve]

No manager should be involved in long term plannification and no Football club should be married to long term plans that are not about infrastructure. People need to keep in mind that Football clubs do not control players and coaches beyond their contracts and that both are judged on a short term basis, so long term in Football is 5 years, mid term is 2 to 3 years.
There is only one correct answer here, the first team and head coach are about short and mid term, the academy and DOF are about mid to long term. The reality is that if you want to be continuously successful, you need to think about short term first and go step by step, you need to be successful first and then take long term and appropriate decisions from a position of strength. The reason for that is that success bring money and clout which are the fuel of sustained success.

So the question isn't and will never be long versus short term, because you need and want both but chronogically short term comes first and then it's both at the same time.

 

[the_cliff]

This is one of the main things that confuse me on the Caf, Poch and Ten Hag have no guarantee of being here long term, people think if we get Ten Hag he's gonna take our club back into the Fergie years with success for 20 odd year. Wake up. There's no guarantee of that. But give Conte what he wants for 3 years there's a guaranteed league title. I'll take that any day over a maybe / maybe not Ten Hag.

 

[L1nk]

People want "long term" because they can't let go of the SAF era, football has moved on since then and we're one of the only clubs not moving on from it, doesn't help that a lot of the fanbase don't want to move on, a manager becomes a long term manager if they are successful and can sustain it without any issues, that's it. Even Klopp and Pep won't last that long at City and Liverpool despite how successful they are being, it's just how the modern game is. I wish we would modernise and join the rest of the footballing world because i'm sick and tired of being left behind by all this nepotism, romanticism and moral superiority shit. There's a way to modernise the football club whilst still being faithful to our roots, we are not special we are just another football club that's happened to be mightily succesful over the years.

 

[Adnan]

The vision going forward should be implemented by the person or persons running the football side of the club who would ideally be independent from the Head Coach imo. And prospective Head Coaches should be appointed to fulfil said vision and not become 'The Vision'.

 

[JPRouve]

People want "long term" because they can't let go of the SAF era, football has moved on since then and we're one of the only clubs not moving on from it, doesn't help that a lot of the fanbase don't want to move on, a manager becomes a long term manager if they are successful and can sustain it without any issues, that's it. Even Klopp and Pep won't last that long at City and Liverpool despite how successful they are being, it's just how the modern game is. I wish we would modernise and join the rest of the footballing world because i'm sick and tired of being left behind by all this nepotism, romanticism and moral superiority shit. There's a way to modernise the football club whilst still being faithful to our roots, we are not special we are just another football club that's happened to be mightily succesful over the years.

SAF was an anomaly in all eras, clubs have never followed that logic as a norm, they never had to move on.

 

[the_cliff]

People want "long term" because they can't let go of the SAF era, football has moved on since then and we're one of the only clubs not moving on from it, doesn't help that a lot of the fanbase don't want to move on, a manager becomes a long term manager if they are successful and can sustain it without any issues, that's it. Even Klopp and Pep won't last that long at City and Liverpool despite how successful they are being, it's just how the modern game is. I wish we would modernise and join the rest of the footballing world because i'm sick and tired of being left behind by all this nepotism, romanticism and moral superiority shit. There's a way to modernise the football club whilst still being faithful to our roots, we are not special we are just another football club that's happened to be mightily succesful over the years.

All of this long term thinking is what's put us in this situation in the first place. Ole was the new 'Fergie', imagine, the manager we had with the least experience, the least amount of major honours, the least tactical know how, was given the most time and the most money to spend all because he's got United DNA and could be our new Fergie.

Now, people on here want to make the exact same mistake, get a new 'never won a top 5 league' manager and give him 3 years and another 450 mill. The sad thing is if we actually gave Mourinho the same amount of money as Ole and the same amount of time he probably would've won us a league as well. Meanwhile, there's Conte a world class proven manager sitting on a beach somewhere ready to join at any moment in time.

 

[JPRouve]

All of this long term thinking is what's put us in this situation in the first place. Ole was the new 'Fergie', imagine, the manager we had with the least experience, the least amount of major honours, the least tactical know how, was given the most time and the most money to spend all because he's got United DNA and could be our new Fergie.

Now, people on here want to make the exact same mistake, get a new 'never won a top 5 league' manager and give him 3 years and another 450 mill. The sad thing is if we actually gave Mourinho the same amount of money as Ole and the same amount of time he probably would've won us a league as well. Meanwhile, there's Conte a world class proven manager sitting on a beach somewhere ready to join at any moment in time.

We gave Mourinho the same amount of money and the same amount of time...

 

[Gunnerineverylife]

The vision going forward should be implemented by the person or persons running the football side of the club who would ideally be independent from the Head Coach imo. And prospective Head Coaches should be appointed to fulfil said vision and not become 'The Vision'.

This. Good post.

 

[bond19821982]

Liverpool didn't have long term plan. They were lucky that they got world class coach way above their level, they stuck with him and have no reason to change.

Also long term plan is overrated/oversold imo. You need proper short term plans and have to keep realistic goals.

Exactly this. Can't believe our incompetence. Shit, I can do a better job than anyone there and am just a random internet guy.

 

[the_cliff]

We gave Mourinho the same amount of money and the same amount of time...

No. Ole spent around 70 million more. Also what I meant was in term of backing as well. Mourinho didn't have his team, he wanted rid of Martial and Pogba and also wanted that money to reinvest, the board overruled him. Ole was allowed to get rid of Lukaku and rip up the team.

Ironically most of our fans now agree and want rid of Pogba and Martial.

Oh and we haven't won a trophy since Mourinho either.

My point here is not backing Mourinho, Mourinho did mess up in the end and it's his fault it's more so in defence of Conte, just because Mourinho didn't work out here you don't just stop going for the best manager available which is Conte by far.

 

[roonster09]

All of this long term thinking is what's put us in this situation in the first place. Ole was the new 'Fergie', imagine, the manager we had with the least experience, the least amount of major honours, the least tactical know how, was given the most time and the most money to spend all because he's got United DNA and could be our new Fergie.

Now, people on here want to make the exact same mistake, get a new 'never won a top 5 league' manager and give him 3 years and another 450 mill. The sad thing is if we actually gave Mourinho the same amount of money as Ole and the same amount of time he probably would've won us a league as well. Meanwhile, there's Conte a world class proven manager sitting on a beach somewhere ready to join at any moment in time.

These Jose fans

Jose spent shit loads of money and didn't come close to winning the league. You can't just compare the total spend when the market has changed so much.

Also we spent around 418 million under Jose in 3 seasons, 412 million under Ole in 3 seasons (Both as per transfermarkt). So they spent more or less same. So much for winning the league.

 

[the_cliff]

These Jose fans

Jose spent shit loads of money and didn't come close to winning the league. You can't just compare the total spend when the market has changed so much.

Also we spent around 418 million under Jose in 3 seasons, 412 million under Ole in 3 seasons (Both as per transfermarkt). So they spent more or less same. So much for winning the league.

I'm not a Jose fan mate see my above post.

But after all that Mourinho was our best performing manager in terms of trophies won. If you want to have a nice manager that plays dead football as well but doesn't win anything in 3 and a half years by all means support Ole.

 

[JPRouve]

No. Ole spent around 70 million more. Also what I meant was in term of backing as well. Mourinho didn't have his team, he wanted rid of Martial and Pogba and also wanted that money to reinvest, the board overruled him. Ole was allowed to get rid of Lukaku and rip up the team.

Ironically most of our fans now agree and want rid of Pogba and Martial.

Oh and we haven't won a trophy since Mourinho either.

My point here is not backing Mourinho, Mourinho did mess up in the end and it's his fault it's more so in defence of Conte, just because Mourinho didn't work out here you don't just stop going for the best manager available which is Conte by far.

Those 70m more are nothing, Mourinho increased the wage bill by 120m. The highest wage bill is still under Mourinho though it could be different at the end of this exercise. Mourinho was effectively given a significantly larger amount of money.

 

[the_cliff]

Those 70m more are nothing, Mourinho increased the wage bill by 120m. The highest wage bill is still under Mourinho though it could be different at the end of this exercise. Mourinho was effectively given a significantly larger amount of money.

Again, I'm not defending Mourinho I wanted him out as well. I'm using Mourinho as an example comparing his time to Ole. Who for some reason is rated as doing a better job here than Mourinho even though he's had the full backing of the board in every scenario. Meanwhile Mourinho didn't.

And in that reasoning using it as a summary in why we shouldn't not hire Conte just because he's a short term manager.

 

[JPRouve]

Again, I'm not defending Mourinho I wanted him out as well. I'm using Mourinho as an example comparing his time to Ole. Who for some reason is rated as doing a better job here than Mourinho even though he's had the full backing of the board in every scenario. Meanwhile Mourinho didn't.

And in that reasoning using it as a summary in why we shouldn't not hire Conte just because he's a short term manager.

I don't care if you are defending Mourinho or not. Mourinho has been given the same amount of money and the same amount of time, or at least they are in the same range. Your point is simply invalid, Mourinho failed to win the league and he had full backing.