Ryan Giggs. Professional, Legend, Adulterer, Accomplice, Assassin, Usurper?

[Mrs Smoker]

Cursed headlines, we can't have those.


Maybe, just maybe, if we upgrade press facilities (which are outrageous), they'll give that a pass.

 

[RedPnutz]

The issue is not someone not wanting Giggs to get the job; that's a reasonable opinion. To write a bullshit story to come to that conclusion is what I find preposterous.

A few things.

First, I am not even saying I don't want Giggs to get the job. I don't want it, but I wasn't saying it in the post.

Second, I am saying that I think (not that it is true) that his past actions and current shed a lot of light about his character as a person.

Third, the part about his affair wasn't bullshit so I didn't make it up. I merely used to that highlight a part of Gigg's character I thought was notable and extrapolated that.

Lastly, I don't know if he will be a good manager or not. So if it happens, we will wait and see. If Giggs continues to have a role of authority at the club, it may be better that he is made manager (from political considerations) then remain the Assistant Manager - because that is where I think Giggs' position will create the most instability.

 

[RedPnutz]

It will cause headlines for the wrong reasons if he gets the job. You can gurantee if he becomes manager this will suddenly be all over the papers again and more dirt will be dug up.

Tommy Docherty was sacked as United manager for having an affair.

Didn't know this. Was the club doing well result-wise though?

 

[Mrs Smoker]

Didn't know this. Was the club doing well result-wise though?

Relegated, then came back. Also, was an affair with one of the United's staff's wife.

 

[Ish]

There seems to be this belief that ex Utd players have been critical of Van Gaal because they all want Giggs as manager. It's complete nonsense. They all have eyes like the rest of us and have seen this mess unfold in front of them.

This.

In fact, I doubt Gary would reject the chance to manage us, should he be approached ahead of Giggs - assuming he does a mega job at Valencia. I've seen them all criticizing LvG United, but it mostly seems valid, albeit recycled criticism. I've not yet heard anyone of them say LvG is shit & they believe Ryan Giggs should be appointed

I might have missed that though.

 

[Rednotdead]

Let me know where I said Giggs will certainly not be a good manager.

I did however imply and opine that Giggs will not be a good assistant manager to have (for another manager). I think Giggs presence will affect the ability of others to do the job of managing Manchester United. There's a difference.

Explain how his personal life impacts on that.

 

[kouroux]

The link is not that his adultery causes the club to be in a bad shape, though.

The private life matter just shows his character and integrity. It just seems to me that he will not be above using covert underhanded means to serve his own desires, that's all. And in this particular situation, my opinion only (not fact) is that he has various tools at his disposal to stick the knife into LVG and that he will use them to accelerate LVG's demise. Or possibly that of any future manager who shows some weakness. This has nothing to do with whether I think he will be a successful manager or not. I simply predict that difficult situations such as these have a strong likelihood to persist if Giggs remains in position of authority (but not as Manager) at the club.

If you are Giggs' boss and you think he's aiming for your position, and you know that he's been banging his own brother's wife for eight years (for sex only) and keeping a hypocritical front to his family, would you trust him 100%?

Of course, the baseless assumption here is that Giggs does want to be the manager of Manchester United. Maybe he doesn't.

It shows feck all because the two contexts couldn't be any more different. He could be extremely selfish and cnutish with his mistresses and family members just as he can be an absolute pro when working for his club. If I'm Giggs' boss, last thing that would worry me is his behavior when it comes to personal matters. I'd judge him only on what he does for or against the club. I'm sorry you can't just mix anything together.

 

[RedPnutz]

It shows feck all because the two contexts couldn't be any more different. He could be extremely selfish and cnutish with his mistresses and family members just as he can be an absolute pro when working for his club. If I'm Giggs' boss, last thing that would worry me is his behavior when it comes to personal matters. I'd judge him only on what he does for or against the club. I'm sorry you can't just mix anything together.

It's not his behaviour with his mistresses that is the problem. It's the underlying character values that drive the behaviour that are in doubt. The justice system suggests you can mix things sometimes; very often the judge rules or modifies a sentence with reference to and taking into account the behaviour of the accused in other separate contexts.

But ok if you say so. We just agree to disagree then.

 

[Rednotdead]

It's not his behaviour with his mistresses that is the problem. It's the underlying character values that drive the behaviour that are in doubt. The justice system suggests you can mix things sometimes; very often the judge rules or modifies a sentence with reference to and taking into account the behaviour of the accused in other separate contexts.

But ok if you say so. We just agree to disagree then.

The Board also disagrees with you. You're playing the moral outrage card, just for effect.

If it's not an issue in the eyes of the club why is it an issue for you? You're behaving like someone with an axe to grind.

 

[RedPnutz]

Explain how his personal life impacts on that.

You are being obtuse here. The OP is already a shoddy piece of work, no need to try and beat that.

Let me spell it out.

1) Giggs' affair DOES NOT mean he is incompetent as a manager or assistant manager.
2) Giggs' affair displays selfishness, dishonesty, lack of morals, lack of integrity, etc. It INDICATES that he may have questionable character qualities.
3) My OPINION is that he wants to be the Manchester United manager.
4) I PROPOSE that his traits (in point 2) may not stop him from, or may even motivate him to stick the knife in LVG.
5) My OPINION is that he has no problem creating or exacerbating a chaotic environment (extrapolated once again from his long term affair with a family member)
6) Thus I imply that it is possible (probable or not) that he could do the same to other Managers that come in.
7) Following from point 6, therefore creating or promoting an environment that makes it difficult for the next Manager to do the job.

 

[7even]

Ok! Strictly professional. Result first, personal behavior doesn't matter. Who's best?

Jose Mourinho vs. Ryan Giggs.

Those who claims that having a rotten personality and lack a moral compas doesn't matter should use the same logic regarding all candidates.

 

[Rory 7]

You are being obtuse here. The OP is already a shoddy piece of work, no need to try and beat that.

Let me spell it out.

1) Giggs' affair DOES NOT mean he is incompetent as a manager or assistant manager.
2) Giggs' affair displays selfishness, dishonesty, lack of morals, lack of integrity, etc. It INDICATES that he may have questionable character qualities.
3) My OPINION is that he wants to be the Manchester United manager.
4) I PROPOSE that his traits (in point 2) may not stop him from, or may even motivate him to stick the knife in LVG.
5) My OPINION is that he has no problem creating or exacerbating a chaotic environment (extrapolated once again from his long term affair with a family member)
6) Thus I imply that it is possible (probable or not) that he could do the same to other Managers that come in.
7) Following from point 6, therefore creating or promoting an environment that makes it difficult for the next Manager to do the job.

So Giggs is a ruthless Cnut in other words. Sounds like perfect managerial material to me...

 

[kouroux]

It's not his behaviour with his mistresses that is the problem. It's the underlying character values that drive the behaviour that are in doubt. The justice system suggests you can mix things sometimes; very often the judge rules or modifies a sentence with reference to and taking into account the behaviour of the accused in other separate contexts.

But ok if you say so. We just agree to disagree then.

It's just the entire jump you make from those so-called underlying character values showed personal events to what he may or may not be actually be doing to undermine LVG in order to take his place that I find ridiculous to be really polite.

Ok! Strictly professional. Result first, personal behavior doesn't matter. Who's best?

Jose Mourinho vs. Ryan Giggs.

Those who claims that having a rotten personality and lack a moral compas doesn't matter should use the same logic regarding all candidates.

It really is an easy to that. A choice between the two will mostly result in Mourinho's favor.
It still doesn't make me wanna see Mourinho as the Utd manager because I don't like his behavior regarding football matters. He could be a great person, a loyal friend and a loving father for all I care, football is what it's all about for me at the end of the day.

 

[RedPnutz]

The Board also disagrees with you. You're playing the moral outrage card, just for effect.

If it's not an issue in the eyes of the club why is it an issue for you? You're behaving like someone with an axe to grind.

You are funny.

I am not seeking agreement, I am not running for office and I am most certainly not playing any card. I wonder why you are so offended and upset.

It's ok that the board disagrees with me or you in fact. I have no axe to grind, in fact if Giggs has to have a role at the club, it is probably better he gets the managerial job quickly, so he can be truly judged on his managerial merits. I just don't see how it would work well with him as assistant manager.

 

[RedPnutz]

So Giggs is a ruthless Cnut in other words. Sounds like perfect managerial material to me...

Probably yes. But my point was not about him being a poor manager, though. It was about his position as assistant manager being highly likely to undermine the manager's position.

 

[Rory 7]

You are funny.

I am not seeking agreement, I am not running for office and I am most certainly not playing any card. I wonder why you are so offended and upset.

It's ok that the board disagrees with me or you in fact. I have no axe to grind, in fact if Giggs has to have a role at the club, it is probably better he gets the managerial job quickly, so he can be truly judged on his managerial merits. I just don't see how it would work well with him as assistant manager.

I 100% agree with you. It's time for the club to bite the bullet on this one.

 

[Chesterlestreet]

As mentioned before, the Doc situation was very different. For one thing he was the manager at the time. It also involved an employee and could easily be construed as detrimental in a purely professional sense. Lastly and most importantly, it happened a long time ago in a, say, moral climate that was very different.

As for Giggs - yes, it's not unreasonable to claim that what he did suggests something about what kind of man he is: Of course it does. But without knowing the full story it's far too armchair-y to simply conclude that he's a despicable human being. Perhaps this affair is the biggest regret of his life. What if this is the case? Doesn't excuse what he did, but paints him in a less hideous light? Where do you draw the line with a thing like this? Does cheating on your wife make you unsuited for the manager's job? No? But doing so with your brother's wife does? But, again, what if Giggs is genuinely heartbroken and repentant over this? Do we ask him to take a lie detector test before offering him the job?

Absurd, of course. You can't hold a prospective manager to moral standards which aren't relevant to the actual job, it makes very little sense. If his transgression had been of a nature which would likely damage United's reputation, the matter would've been clear. But this isn't the case. Everyone knows what he did, it's water under the bridge at this point.

On a more sinister note, one could also add that being an utter arsehole does not necessarily make you a bad football manager. Some would even say that the very opposite is true.

Standard caveat: No, I don't want him as our manager.

 

[amolbhatia50k]

Get a new manager on board, remove Giggs from the coaching staff and let him build his own career in management.

 

[Rory 7]

Get a new manager on board, remove Giggs from the coaching staff and let him build his own career in management.

That's the other route to take yes. Again it's time for the club to bite the bullet on this.

 

[NK86]

The OP has almost zero credibility, considering I was pretty idle yesterday and speculating. The only concrete thing is that he did have an affair with his brother's wife for eight years and is seemingly unapologetic about it. You could even argue this is not fact, that's your prerogative.

The OP simply opines that this personal side of him shows certain aspects about his character, integrity and values. And therefore it is not outside the realms of probability that he could be adding to the unstable environment to further his own ambitions.

Also don't get me wrong. In no way, is Giggs the sole factor to be blame for our failings. A lot of that falls on LVG and the players - Giggs is just not helping it, in my own opinion.

I thought a conjecture meant a proposition for which no proof can be found... Let me know what the right word is please.

Well, recall the days where ADM body language was analysed to the death. Pseudo-psychology is the in thing these days.

Making baseless accusations is not right, but I think half of the forum opinions here are precisely that. Extrapolations and assumptions based on some journalist's article or some skewed opinion. If you think there is absolutely no chance at all that Giggs is trying to turn the situation to his own advantage, then that's a fine opinion as well.

Again, I am not saying you cannot blame Giggs to be a part of the problem. Most on here would say that either he has very little input and his inputs are ignored by LVG. If you think that he is trying to gun for the main job, even that is not beyond the realms of possibility. What is wrong in being an ambitious man? My sole point of contention was that it is a bit sad that we have to extrapolate something from his sordid affair to put him down, blame him for our shortcomings and then put him down as a man with zero moral compass even in his professional life. I feel we don't need to go to those levels to claim that he might not make a good manager.

 

[amolbhatia50k]

That's the other route to take yes. Again it's time for the club to bite the bullet on this.

A lot of big decisions for the club to take. Next manager, the Rooney situation and Giggs. Let's see how we handle. My guess is it might further reinforce the need for structural changes. Hopefully we get these calls right either way because we simply have to.

 

[Needham]

He should have been up off the bench months ago. The ex post facto nature of Saturday's technical area animadversions leant his behaviour an air of casuistic ulteriority.

 

[Dans]

I am really not sure how anyone can really have anything other than conjecture and at best rumour to throw at Giggs. Whilst I can't believe he's the answer i.e. our next manager, I don't get how so many can be so anti Giggs in such a way that suggests he's been somehow underhand in all of this.

 

[Sad Chris]

At least we didn't print t-shirts to support him.

 

[Manny]

Not really.

Ed: "Come into my office, Ryan"
Ryan: "Suppose you're going to say I'm the big cheese now?"
Ed: "No...feck off down to the dole office. You're sacked"

What has he been sacked for, for being a part of an under performing management team

Very simple

I think Woodward would have to be worried about his own position if he was to sack Giggs. The class of 92 would have their knives out for him too.

 

[Rednotdead]

You are funny.

I am not seeking agreement, I am not running for office and I am most certainly not playing any card. I wonder why you are so offended and upset.

It's ok that the board disagrees with me or you in fact. I have no axe to grind, in fact if Giggs has to have a role at the club, it is probably better he gets the managerial job quickly, so he can be truly judged on his managerial merits. I just don't see how it would work well with him as assistant manager.

So why the reference to his personal life? You made a big play of it.

 

[Thisistheone]

I don't want Giggs as our next manager for the very simple reason he's not qualified to be Utd manager. The private stuff I've never bothered to look into. But one poster saying he was sleeping with her when she was 7 months pregnant? How does anyone know that for a fact? I don't get how anyone knows the exact story of what happened.

If the story is indeed as grim as some report then why do we see such great men, with old school values like SAF & Sir Bobby praise Giggs over and over for being a "great human being"? Why would someone as straight up as Roy Keane still bother with Giggs, why are Neville, Scholes, Beckham etc all still publicly involved with him?

But yeah, the bottom line is he shouldn't be Utd manager.

 

[RedPnutz]

As mentioned before, the Doc situation was very different. For one thing he was the manager at the time. It also involved an employee and could easily be construed as detrimental in a purely professional sense. Lastly and most importantly, it happened a long time ago in a, say, moral climate that was very different.

As for Giggs - yes, it's not unreasonable to claim that what he did suggests something about what kind of man he is: Of course it does. But without knowing the full story it's far too armchair-y to simply conclude that he's a despicable human being. Perhaps this affair is the biggest regret of his life. What if this is the case? Doesn't excuse what he did, but paints him in a less hideous light? Where do you draw the line with a thing like this? Does cheating on your wife make you unsuited for the manager's job? No? But doing so with your brother's wife does? But, again, what if Giggs is genuinely heartbroken and repentant over this? Do we ask him to take a lie detector test before offering him the job?

Absurd, of course. You can't hold a prospective manager to moral standards which aren't relevant to the actual job, it makes very little sense. If his transgression had been of a nature which would likely damage United's reputation, the matter would've been clear. But this isn't the case. Everyone knows what he did, it's water under the bridge at this point.

On a more sinister note, one could also add that being an utter arsehole does not necessarily make you a bad football manager. Some would even say that the very opposite is true.

Standard caveat: No, I don't want him as our manager.

Regarding the bolded part, no. As I said, I don't know if he will be a good manager. As you rightly said, it is irrelevant to his competence as a manager and I have no arguments against that.

I only suggest he might create or exacerbate troublesome conditions if he were an assistant manager.

 

[RedPnutz]

Get a new manager on board, remove Giggs from the coaching staff and let him build his own career in management.

This I agree. Or just let Giggs be manager and be done with it. At least we finally solve the mystery of whether he can be a successful manager at Manchester United.

 

[Rory 7]

I am really not sure how anyone can really have anything other than conjecture and at best rumour to throw at Giggs. Whilst I can't believe he's the answer i.e. our next manager, I don't get how so many can be so anti Giggs in such a way that suggests he's been somehow underhand in all of this.

I agree. But you definitely get the sense that the precise nature of Giggs' role at the club is going to come in to sharper and sharper focus. Personally I'd have given him the job permanently after Moyes, I know the majority don't agree with that but that's my personal take on it. Given the situation now and what looks like another disaster under LVG its times to either give Giggs the job or move him on too. Not because Giggs has necessarily done anything wrong but because it just can't be a healthy situation to have a 'pretender to the throne' always there, waiting in the wings. Its decision time for me; stick with LVG for 18 more months or appoint another manager (Giggs, Jose or Pep). But it really does feel like the endgame is approaching.

 

[Chesterlestreet]

Regarding the bolded part, no. As I said, I don't know if he will be a good manager. As you rightly said, it is irrelevant to his competence as a manager and I have no arguments against that.

I only suggest he might create or exacerbate troublesome conditions if he were an assistant manager.

Yep, I get that - and I can see a sort of logic to it, for that matter, IF we go with the assumption that he is, in fact, a bit of a snake.

My comment was more on a general note, as many do seem to attach some importance to his infamous ways when debating his candidature for manager. But point taken, that wasn't the premise of your thread.

 

[Cina]

I don't give a toss about who or what Giggs is on a personal level, but he shouldn't be in any way involved with our next manager. In fact forcing him on our current manager was daft as feck in the first place.

 

[Sultan]

Tommy Docherty was sacked as United manager for having an affair.

The Doc was having an affair with an employee of the club. Completely different scenario to Giggs.

 

[Enigma_87]

Ok! Strictly professional. Result first, personal behavior doesn't matter. Who's best?

Jose Mourinho vs. Ryan Giggs.

Those who claims that having a rotten personality and lack a moral compas doesn't matter should use the same logic regarding all candidates.

It this even a remotely serious question?

One has none managerial experience, the other(bar the last 6 months) has not finished below 3rd with any club he managed, won 8 league titles in 4 different countries, 2 CL, 1 EL, 7 domestic cups and has finished exactly 1 season without winning silverware in the last 12 years. Not to mention his record in CL which is also quite good - SF or better in 8 out of 11 occasions winning twice.

 

[Badunk]

LVG (addresses squad): "I am aware of the rumours that have been circulating, and I want to put the record straight."

Giggs:" I'm assistant manager! I should know first."

LVG: "Assistant to the manager. Anyway, I'm telling everyone now."

Giggs: "Just tell me quickly. Just whisper it to me."

Rooney: "Can you just tell us?"

Everyone: "Yeah."

LVG: "All right."

Giggs: "Shall I tell them?"

LVG: "You don't know what it is."

Giggs: "All right. You tell them with my permission."

LVG: "I don't need your permission."

Giggs: "Permission granted."

 

[Chesterlestreet]

I don't give a toss about who or what Giggs is on a personal level, but he shouldn't be in any way involved with our next manager. In fact forcing him on our current manager was daft as feck in the first place.

I think that was - and God forbid still might be - part of a plan which LVG knew about from the beginning. So, in that sense I doubt Giggs was positively forced on him.

LVG was to mentor him after a fashion. I suspect that was the thinking. Now, of course I'll be the first to admit that I may be getting ahead of myself here, and that I may be selling Woody (or the board, or both) unfairly short, but I think something of the sort has been the plan. It's not a good plan. And one wonders who came up with it. Is Giggs particularly marketable as United manager? Is the idea to - sort of - merge the United and CO92 brands? Feck knows. It doesn't smack of much football knowledge, whatever it is.

 

[girish]

I think Woodward would have to be worried about his own position if he was to sack Giggs. The class of 92 would have their knives out for him too.

They should stay out of United's issues entirely.

 

[Rory 7]

LVG (addresses squad): "I am aware of the rumours that have been circulating, and I want to put the record straight."

Giggs:" I'm assistant manager! I should know first."

LVG: "Assistant to the manager. Anyway, I'm telling everyone now."

Giggs: "Just tell me quickly. Just whisper it to me."

Rooney: "Can you just tell us?"

Everyone: "Yeah."

LVG: "All right."

Giggs: "Shall I tell them?"

LVG: "You don't know what it is."

Giggs: "All right. You tell them with my permission."

LVG: "I don't need your permission."

Giggs: "Permission granted."

What evidence AT ALL do you have to suggest this is how things play out between them?

 

[Cina]

I think that was - and God forbid still might be - part of a plan which LVG knew about from the beginning. So, in that sense I doubt Giggs was positively forced on him.

LVG was to mentor him after a fashion. I suspect that was the thinking. Now, of course I'll be the first to admit that I may be getting ahead of myself here, and that I may be selling Woody (or the board, or both) unfairly short, but I think something of the sort has been the plan. It's not a good plan. And one wonders who came up with it. Is Giggs particularly marketable as United manager? Is the idea to - sort of - merge the United and CO92 brands? Feck knows. It doesn't smack of much football knowledge, whatever it is.

I'd say it was definitely the plan from the board. However, they clearly expected LvG to be much more of a success than this and be here for the three years with Giggs, so that's probably royally fecked that up for them now. I think (or, I hope) that they have enough sense now to know that 18 months is simply not enough time for Giggs, and the fact that he was assistant to a manager who ultimately failed very badly in the end should be more than sufficient for them to realise he's nowhere close to being up to the task right now.

 

[RedPnutz]

Again, I am not saying you cannot blame Giggs to be a part of the problem. Most on here would say that either he has very little input and his inputs are ignored by LVG. If you think that he is trying to gun for the main job, even that is not beyond the realms of possibility. What is wrong in being an ambitious man? My sole point of contention was that it is a bit sad that we have to extrapolate something from his sordid affair to put him down, blame him for our shortcomings and then put him down as a man with zero moral compass even in his professional life. I feel we don't need to go to those levels to claim that he might not make a good manager.

I don't disagree with your points. Although I am interested to know why most here say that Giggs has very little input or that his inputs are ignored by LVG. Is there proof of that? Or are we extrapolating that because LVG has a reputation of being an evil, iron-fisted dictator? The counter to that argument is that LVG has publicly endorsed Giggs as the next manager and we see during matches that LVG frequently engages Giggs in discussions. This suggests to me that LVG does take Giggs' input into consideration.

Nothing wrong with being an ambitious man at all. And for the nth time, I do not claim he will make a poor manager.