The Argument for Giggs as our Next Manager

[Walrus]

Just because something is happening does not mean that logical steps have been taken during it's consummation. If this happens then it would mean that we have learnt nothing from the Moyes debacle and our policy is simply we are Manchester United we can do whatever the feck we want. The major protagonists of this appointment have simply identified Giggs and worked the equation backwards and that's not a logical step at all because logic dictates that you state the person specifications of the job and then identify those who meet these and proceed to select the best amongst them.

I find it really bizarre how many fans are willing to just assume that there is no logic or justification for our selection process. Yes, Moyes was a mistake, we all know that. There were a combination of reasons why it didnt work out, and the truth of it is that after 25 years with Ferguson, those in charge probably were willing to just take his word/advice and give his recommendation a shot, he had that much credit in the bank.

It seems daft that fans here are prepared to spend 50 pages dismissing the arguments made in favour of Giggs, and then just assume that the businessmen who run our club will blindly appoint someone in a manner similar to pin the tail on the donkey.

 

[RedChip]

Because we are not run by fans, we are run by businessmen. Even if we go under the assumption that the Glazers will just take whatever recommendation SAF/LVG throws at them - do you truly believe that they will not even ask for some sort of justification? A thought process and business plan behind the appointment?

I sincerely doubt the Glazers and Woodward decide these things just by rolling a dice. They will not appoint Giggs unless a logical explanation for it is given, and I really dont think that is debatable.

They appointed Moyes. So I would not declare it indubitable that any decision they reach is logical. Not saying it couldn't be logical, especially to them

 

[Walrus]

They appointed Moyes. So I would not declare it indubitable that any decision they reach is logical. Not saying it couldn't be logical, especially to them

Great word, indubitable. Not enough people use it.

Anyway I just posted something along similar lines explaining why I think it is ludicrous to assume that any and all future managerial appointments at the club will be made with no thought to logic or planning. Or should it be "any future appointments that the fans dont agree with"?

 

[RedChip]

Great word, indubitable. Not enough people use it.

Anyway I just posted something along similar lines explaining why I think it is ludicrous to assume that any and all future managerial appointments at the club will be made with no thought to logic or planning. Or should it be "any future appointments that the fans dont agree with"?

Thanks! Seemed like the right word.

On the second part: for me only the Giggs appointment seems illogical at this point. Guess, we have to weigh each appointment as and when it happens. FWIW, I did think the Moyes sacking and the LvG appointment were rational.

 

[itso 7]

I find it really bizarre how many fans are willing to just assume that there is no logic or justification for our selection process. Yes, Moyes was a mistake, we all know that. There were a combination of reasons why it didnt work out, and the truth of it is that after 25 years with Ferguson, those in charge probably were willing to just take his word/advice and give his recommendation a shot, he had that much credit in the bank.

It seems daft that fans here are prepared to spend 50 pages dismissing the arguments made in favour of Giggs, and then just assume that the businessmen who run our club will blindly appoint someone in a manner similar to pin the tail on the donkey.

The fact that you have failed to grasp from the onset is that arguments for Giggs to be appointed to such a top post aren't enough to land him the job when put in contention against the best in the business. On merit there is no way Ryan Giggs is getting the job ahead of three time CL winner Ancelotti, for example. His backers know this hence the attempt to talk up his credentials which in reality fall under the 'added advantages' column when a proper person specification has been drawn up. He can get the job, win five CLs thereafter but the fact will always remain that passing Guardiola, Ancelotti and Mourinho to appoint him was not a logical decision.

We, currently, aren't in the best position to absorb the implications of a catastrophic failure and chances are high that this will end in failure and heartbreak.

 

[Bastian]

I find it really bizarre how many fans are willing to just assume that there is no logic or justification for our selection process. Yes, Moyes was a mistake, we all know that. There were a combination of reasons why it didnt work out, and the truth of it is that after 25 years with Ferguson, those in charge probably were willing to just take his word/advice and give his recommendation a shot, he had that much credit in the bank.

It seems daft that fans here are prepared to spend 50 pages dismissing the arguments made in favour of Giggs, and then just assume that the businessmen who run our club will blindly appoint someone in a manner similar to pin the tail on the donkey.

I confess that I've not trawled through all the thread, but what are the core arguments? I.e. outside of him having been a great player, having been with the club for so long as a player and for him having the opportunity to learn from great managers. What is there to suggest he will be a great choice?

 

[Raoul]

I confess that I've not trawled through all the thread, but what are the core arguments? I.e. outside of him having been a great player, having been with the club for so long as a player and for him having the opportunity to learn from great managers. What is there to suggest he will be a great choice?

Walrus lays out his case in the opening post. Its well worth a read.

 

[Shamwow]

Giggs camp is very insistent.

I really don't see any relation between a manager of a football club and a CEO of a big company. In one you need to be good at tactics, motivation, transfer market and you have to deal with 20 'emplyees', in the other you have far more responsibilities, most likely you need to be far more intelligent, and you have to deal with tens of thousands of emplyees. Ed's job with CEO of big companies, is more related, though not exactly the same.

Obviously, the reason why you (and others) need to go into other sports to find examples and then in CEO jobs at Apple and Microsoft, is that in modern football (which is what it matters if we are discussing appointments in modern football) we have a single example of a club legend who was relatively inexperienced, getting the manager job at a big club and then doing well. If Pep Guardiola didn't exist, no-one would have entertained the idea of Giggs (who is not near as intelligent, knowledgable and charismatic as Pep) to become our manager.

Anyway, if we want to go at CEO analogy, we need to go deep into details. There are generally three ways of becoming a CEO of a big company:

- Founding the company and then making it a big company. Similar to Jobs, Gates or Page.
- Being experienced in some other company and then getting the CEO job at an another company who want some fresh air. A typical example is Marissa Mayer of yahoo.
- Getting promoted from within (which I think is related to Giggs). Obviously, in order to achieve that, the candidate generally has a few decades (or at least a decade) in executive branches of a company. He would have spend a quality time on performing CEO duties in branches of the company, has leaded hundreds or thousands of employees and his job could easily be quantified. Sundar Pichai is probably the best example. He got his job as CEO of google (which considering all things will be more a CEO of a department of alphabet, rather than CEO of google) not because he was a legendary programmer who spent some time assisting Larry Page, but because he showed fantastic results in making products of google like Google Chrome, Google Maps, Google OS etc. He had to make tough decisions in those parts, not just advice Page/Brinn and then let them make their decisions. If his decisions were bad, he would have been throwed out of the google. If Giggs' advises (see, it is advises, not decisions) are bad, we'll blame Van Gaal. Cause after all, Giggs advises, Van Gaal executes. Being good at advising other people, and being good at non-executive stuff (in Giggs case, football) has really no correlation on being good as a manager, or football manager.

But, I guess that this is something we know. So, now I am waiting for the new analogy of how inexperienced princes became great kings, and so we should give the job to unexperienced Giggs.

First of all, it wasn't my analogy so don't turn this back on me. I was only countering an assertion from a few who have been repeatedly asserting that a CEO would hardly ever be hired without previous experience as a CEO at another major company. All I wanted them to do was back up their assertions, which they were unable to do, therefore showing that they are at least some of the time just making shit up as they go along rather than using logic and reason. A little knowledge is a dangerous thing eh?

I'm glad that someone has attempted to show a more considered view of this.

I don't think being the CEO of a company and being manager of a football club are anything alike really, so the differences in experiences are somewhat irrelevent. Giggs won't go from managing no one to being responsible for hundreds of thousands of people. It's highly likely that he already has some responsibility to delegate (I doubt he scouted Martial all on his own for one and would have been getting scouts to help him put together the reports), in addition to that, he won't be responsible for nearly as many people as your average top CEO. There will be the first team squad, and I'm guessing he will almost entirely delegate work on the other sides of the club (medical team, reserve team, youth squads etc) - we've all Fergie's skill here was being able to choose the right person and deal with that person, not knowing how to do it himself. Anyway I'm not sure that getting into this in too much detail is worth it as every company is going to be very different.

What the CEO example does show us is that the whole assertion that there are no benefits to being promoted from within is probably false and therefore shouldn't be used an example in this argument any more.

Maybe Van Gaal take public criticism for any 'bad advice' that Giggs has given. That's fair enough - he is still the person with whom the buck stops (until Ed). That doesn't mean that the quality of Giggs' work can't be measured by those within the club an we don't know if he's been responsibilities to delegate and/or make the final decision on matters that don't relate to the first team. We know very little of what he actually does, aside from scouting other teams and the scouting work he has done that apparently led us to getting Martial. We also don't know if he has done anything prior to Moyes joining and what has led him to be the one seemingly trained for the job over the likes of Neville or Scholes or Cantona if you really want to bring him into it. It correlates with him being one of the club's all time greats but no one here knows the real reasons.

I'm just gonna leave it in this thread because I don't think anyone here really knows what they are talking about and it's a conversation that's been going round in circles for over 50 pages.

All I will say for my final word on this is that I will be very happy if say we signed Pep (not so much for Carlo and definitely not for Jose). I'll also be excited if we sign some other up-and-coming young manager from elsewhere. However, if the club do decide that Giggs is the man for the job, I'll trust their decision was made for the right reasons. Personally, I'd be very excited, and nervous, about what the coming months, and hopefully seasons will bring us. Which is part of what being the supporter of a football club should be all about right?

 

[Red Dreams]

one other consideration. I think the Giggs appointment may mean the Glazers are selling the club in a couple of years. It would make sense. A man approved by both the key insiders. SAF and Charlton..which will ensure they remain with teh club no matter what...even when sold.

 

[Bastian]

Walrus lays out his case in the opening post. Its well worth a read.

Thanks. I just read that, and @Walrus makes the points well. The problem, as far as I'm concerned, is that there is an underlying assumption that Giggs is a clever football man who can make the transition to management pretty seamlessly. A lot of players do not seem convincing in the same way some excellent managers are when talking about the game, and I've never heard anything insightful from Giggs. He has the passion, he commands respect, but there are so many different things required.

I'd also say that appointing someone like Pep is not risky in terms of "transition". He is well suited to take over from Louis and he would, in all likelihood, enhance us quite considerably. If the question is posed: Pep or Giggs then I really fail to see pros in the Giggs column...

I'd rather take a chance on Giggs than doing another Moyes, but I'd prererably do neither.

 

[Walrus]

I confess that I've not trawled through all the thread, but what are the core arguments? I.e. outside of him having been a great player, having been with the club for so long as a player and for him having the opportunity to learn from great managers. What is there to suggest he will be a great choice?

Its a combination of a few things, including those in the OP. Basically the abridged version is something like;

1) Assuming LVG leaves a good team and setup behind (which I think he is/will), Giggs will be the strongest choice from a "continuity" point of view. ie avoiding another lengthy transitional phase, but rather carrying on LVGs work with his own adaptations and ideas.
2) If Giggs is a success, he is likely to stick around for longer than any other candidate would do.
3) Giggs' existing knowledge and connections within the club should allow him to hit the ground running. He knows the expectations, the duties, the role etc from his time at the club as a player. He knows the players strengths and weaknesses, and knows/can surround himself with an experienced and successful backroom staff. He is familiar with the youth and scouting setups and their current prospects.
4) Those inside the club know Giggs far better than we do as fans, and they seem to believe that he has what it takes to be a success.

These are some of the things that I would say Giggs offers that other candidates dont. There are other, more general factors such as "being able to command respect" which arent really unique or specific to him, but would still be relevant in the decision making process. There are also, of course, plenty of reasons of romance/sentimentality.

The discussion isnt so much about why Giggs would be a miles better choice than the other names touted around, but more that he clearly appears to be in contention, and there is enough merit to his case for him to be in the mix. I am not, and have never said that it wouldnt be a gamble, but my belief is that any appointment would be almost equally as big of a gamble. I also think (conversely to others) that if Giggs' was a failure, it would be pretty easy to get rid of him swiftly.

 

[Walrus]

Walrus lays out his case in the opening post. Its well worth a read.

To be honest, if I still had the willpower then I would have gone back and rewritten the OP, as various things have been argued and brought up in the 2000 posts since then

 

[Bastian]

@Walrus
Yes, I get the point from where you argue. He might be the likeliest choice and he does have things in his favor. If we argue from a "Pep or Giggs" starting place, it's a no contest. With regards to point 4, I'd validate people's doubts in the decision making process at the club with the Moyes appointment. It was a travesty. There is no gurantee that those in executive positions are the best people for their own jobs either.

I would just really really really like to see something from him where he is talking about the management side of the game, tactics etc.

 

[JPRouve]

one other consideration. I think the Giggs appointment may mean the Glazers are selling the club in a couple of years. It would make sense. A man approved by both the key insiders. SAF and Charlton..which will ensure they remain with teh club no matter what...even when sold.

A potential buyer would, I think, prefer to have a top manager with a solid resume than a novice, SAF and SBC aren't crucial to the point that a great manager could be discretionary.

 

[Red Dreams]

A potential buyer would, I think, prefer to have a top manager with a solid resume than a novice, SAF and SBC aren't crucial to the point that a great manager could be discretionary.

a potential buyer can easily replace Giggs or anyone else. SAF and SBC Are the club. To retian them gives creds to long time supporters. And tbh...a Qatari group purchase for example will simply pump funds into the club to get any manager and any players we need.

 

[Walrus]

A potential buyer would, I think, prefer to have a top manager with a solid resume than a novice, SAF and SBC aren't crucial to the point that a great manager could be discretionary.

Conversely, if Giggs does well then we can offer a potential buyer stability in the long term, which owners such as the Glazers' would surely prefer to a managerial merry-go-round.

 

[JPRouve]

a potential manager can easily replace Giggs or anyone else. SAF and SBC Are the club. To retian them gives creds to long time supporters. And tbh...a Qatari group purchase for example will simply pump funds into the club to get any manager and any players we need.

If Sir Alex Ferguson and Sir Bobby Charlton decide to abandon the club because Giggs isn't the manager than they are not the club, and to me the club is the supporters, if the Mancunian supporters are behind the club everything is fine.

 

[JPRouve]

Conversely, if Giggs does well then we can offer a potential buyer stability in the long term, which owners such as the Glazers' would surely prefer to a managerial merry-go-round.

That's an other matter, but you are right. And that's probably the only real reason to take the gamble even though Guardiola showed that a club legend can leave his beloved club.

 

[C'est Moi Cantona]

Surely if Pep is available then it's an easy choice, I just can't see Woodward or the Glazer's taking a punt again, and taking on Giggs would arguably be a bigger punt than taking on Moyes ever was.

Could Giggs not take on the U21 role when LvG goes, he will then still be able to watch what Pep does, and gain more knowledge in the chance he gets the job one day

But all thing considered I just don't see Giggs as the United manager.

 

[Red Dreams]

If Sir Alex Ferguson and Sir Bobby Charlton decide to abandon the club because Giggs isn't the manager than they are not the club, and to me the club is the supporters, if the Mancunian supporters are behind the club everything is fine.

you are right of course. I think new owners will very much need the rubber stamp of such key figures. Continuity being the key.

 

[Revan]

one other consideration. I think the Giggs appointment may mean the Glazers are selling the club in a couple of years. It would make sense. A man approved by both the key insiders. SAF and Charlton..which will ensure they remain with teh club no matter what...even when sold.

You're seeing what you like to see.

I think that it is very unlikely that Glazers are planning to sell the club, especially considering that the money in football is still increasing. Ed has already mentioned ideas for the future of football, with pay per view and other stuff. Glazers are here for long term. Which I think is actually great, the least thing we need is a bunch of owners who will fight between them. The club is already too big to be sold to a single person/company.

Anyway, who is the manager and who are in board of directors won't have any importance in a potential buyout of the club. We are talking for a 3 billion dollar business, all individual persons (yes, even Sir Alex, Sir Bobby and Giggs combined) are small in comparison.

 

[Gazza]

Send him to Aberdeen, see how he's doing in five years.

 

[Red Dreams]

You're seeing what you like to see.

I think that it is very unlikely that Glazers are planning to sell the club, especially considering that the money in football is still increasing. Ed has already mentioned ideas for the future of football, with pay per view and other stuff. Glazers are here for long term. Which I think is actually great, the least thing we need is a bunch of owners who will fight between them. The club is already too big to be sold to a single person/company.

Anyway, who is the manager and who are in board of directors won't have any importance in a potential buyout of the club. We are talking for a 3 billion dollar business, all individual persons (yes, even Sir Alex, Sir Bobby and Giggs combined) are small in comparison.

we have read about offers. thought this would happen a couple of years ago. Sure it is speculation. The money being mentioned would be small change to a group like the Quataris. I hope I am wrong about Giggs and this.

 

[Revan]

we have read about offers. thought this would happen a couple of years ago. Sure it is speculation. The money being mentioned would be small change to a group like the Quataris. I hope I am wrong about Giggs and this.

Qatari backed off from United a few years ago, and then got PSG. They are rich, but still 3 billions is a lot.

 

[devilish]

Conversely, if Giggs does well then we can offer a potential buyer stability in the long term, which owners such as the Glazers' would surely prefer to a managerial merry-go-round.

You seem to be obsessed with this long term managerial thing aren't you? First of all what makes you think that a manager will stay with the club for long term? Do you think that Giggs loves United more than Sacchi/Capello/Ancelotti love AC Milan, Dalglish love Liverpool and Conte love Juventus etc. Even SAF considering leaving the club at least 2 times before he actually did. Being a manager is different to that of being a players. Sometimes leaving is also good for the club.

Also if you exclude SAF, how many managers were successful in the long term? The great Sir Matt Busby and Brain Clough fecked up royally at the end of their career, Arrigo Sacchi who build il grande Milan ended up 11th in his second stint, Capello ended up 10th, LVG had a nightmare of a season in his second stint at Barcelona and his last year with Bayern was horrible, Wenger hasn't won the league since 2004 and it looks set that Mourinho may join the fray to these greats at Chelsea. We're talking here about great managers here not someone with just 4 games under his managerial belt. If Giggs have a quarter of their success he would consider himself to be a good manager.

The long term thing is more of a concern than anything else. If Giggs ends up fluking a cup or two than it will be mathematically impossible to sack him irrespective of what he does next. We might well end up with another Busby or a Clough in our hands.

 

[devilish]

one other consideration. I think the Giggs appointment may mean the Glazers are selling the club in a couple of years. It would make sense. A man approved by both the key insiders. SAF and Charlton..which will ensure they remain with teh club no matter what...even when sold.

I doubt that the new owners gives a feck of who is managing the club. Actually if United fails to qualify to the CL because of some rookie manager, than the share prices will go down which isn't exactly what the Glazers would want

 

[Walrus]

You seem to be obsessed with this long term managerial thing aren't you? First of all what makes you think that a manager will stay with the club for long term? Do you think that Giggs loves United more than Sacchi/Capello/Ancelotti love AC Milan, Dalglish love Liverpool and Conte love Juventus etc. Even SAF considering leaving the club at least 2 times before he actually did. Being a manager is different to that of being a players. Sometimes leaving is also good for the club.

Also if you exclude SAF, how many managers were successful in the long term? The great Sir Matt Busby and Brain Clough fecked up royally at the end of their career, Arrigo Sacchi who build il grande Milan ended up 11th in his second stint, Capello ended up 10th, LVG had a nightmare of a season in his second stint at Barcelona and his last year with Bayern was horrible, Wenger hasn't won the league since 2004 and it looks set that Mourinho may join the fray to these greats at Chelsea. We're talking here about great managers here not someone with just 4 games under his managerial belt. If Giggs have a quarter of their success he would consider himself to be a good manager.

The long term thing is more of a concern than anything else. If Giggs ends up fluking a cup or two than it will be mathematically impossible to sack him irrespective of what he does next. We might well end up with another Busby or a Clough in our hands.

I was just responding and putting another slant on a point being discussed by other posters mate. I have never said that anything is guaranteed, but I dont think you can reasonably say that (assuming he is successful) Giggs is less likely to stick around than other candidates.

Your final paragraph sums it up - you are already adamant and resigned to your view that Giggs will be a failure, and that nothing can mitigate this 'fact'. It doesnt really make for a good discussion when one party refuses to entertain any opinion other than their own, im afraid.

 

[devilish]

I was just responding and putting another slant on a point being discussed by other posters mate. I have never said that anything is guaranteed, but I dont think you can reasonably say that (assuming he is successful) Giggs is less likely to stick around than other candidates.

Your final paragraph sums it up - you are already adamant and resigned to your view that Giggs will be a failure, and that nothing can mitigate this 'fact'. It doesnt really make for a good discussion when one party refuses to entertain any opinion other than their own, im afraid.

I can't understand your 'longevity is an asset' kind of thing. If you take SAF out of the equation that is rarely a good thing. Usually a manager ends up winning at a club for 4-6 years and than he moves elsewhere. Longevity either by staying at a club throughout the entire time or through second stints usually end up in misery (Busby, Clough, Sacchi, Capello, LVG, Wenger, Dalglish etc) which get into tragedy if the club is so attached to the manager that they refuse to show him the door despite him not performing well (ex Busby, Clough). That's a scenario I can see developing if Giggs is initially successful with us and then turns into shit with us.

Also kindly note that I am not associating him with failures but with great managers. Giggs will consider himself lucky if he manages to win as a manager 1/3 of the trophies these people won. I am only saying that he'll probably won't be SAF. You cant blame me from not thinking that he will become an absolute genius, one of a kind type of manager like the old man was

 

[Walrus]

I can't understand your 'longevity is an asset' kind of thing. If you take SAF out of the equation that is rarely a good thing. Usually a manager ends up winning at a club for 4-6 years and than he moves elsewhere. Longevity either by staying at a club throughout the entire time or through second stints usually end up in misery (Busby, Clough, Sacchi, Capello, LVG, Wenger, Dalglish etc) which get into tragedy if the club is so attached to the manager that they refuse to show him the door despite him not performing well (ex Busby, Clough). That's a scenario I can see developing if Giggs is initially successful with us and then turns into shit with us.

Also kindly note that I am not associating him with failures but with great managers. Giggs will consider himself lucky if he manages to win as a manager 1/3 of the trophies these people won. I am only saying that he'll probably won't be SAF. You cant blame me from not thinking that he will become an absolute genius, one of a kind type of manager like the old man was

Honestly that sounds like a pretty unlikely scenario for me.
I believe that longevity is an asset as long as it doesnt come at the cost of performances and silverware. In our setup with no DoF etc, having a long term manager is (in my opinion) important for matters of ongoing youth development, the philosophy and identity of the team, and having a settled staff/coaching setup that can deliver success.

Maybe my opinion is weighted on this by the fact that I have grown up throughout the Fergie years (I am 28), but there it is.

 

[Siorac]

I was just responding and putting another slant on a point being discussed by other posters mate. I have never said that anything is guaranteed, but I dont think you can reasonably say that (assuming he is successful) Giggs is less likely to stick around than other candidates.

Your final paragraph sums it up - you are already adamant and resigned to your view that Giggs will be a failure, and that nothing can mitigate this 'fact'. It doesnt really make for a good discussion when one party refuses to entertain any opinion other than their own, im afraid.

You said this earlier:

The "rewards" I was speaking of were that if Giggs succeeds then it is highly possible that we have our manager sorted for the next 20+ years.

This is quite different from "not less likely to stick around".

I'd also say that even if he does succeed in the short term, it's extremely unlikely he'll be here for 20+ years. Because short-term success and long-term success are completely different things. Barcelona didn't have their manager sorted for 20+ years by appointing Guardiola, for example... or look at José Mourinho. Or Van Gaal himself.

So yeah, longevity really shouldn't be an argument in favour of Giggs. We know absolutely nothing about potential managerial longevity. Zero.

 

[devilish]

Honestly that sounds like a pretty unlikely scenario for me.
I believe that longevity is an asset as long as it doesnt come at the cost of performances and silverware. In our setup with no DoF etc, having a long term manager is (in my opinion) important for matters of ongoing youth development, the philosophy and identity of the team, and having a settled staff/coaching setup that can deliver success.

Maybe my opinion is weighted on this by the fact that I have grown up throughout the Fergie years (I am 28), but there it is.

As I had already shown with loads of top quality managers it rarely does. You can throw Klopp to the mix too. Saf is one of a kind

 

[Walrus]

You said this earlier:

This is quite different from "not less likely to stick around".

I'd also say that even if he does succeed in the short term, it's extremely unlikely he'll be here for 20+ years. Because short-term success and long-term success are completely different things. Barcelona didn't have their manager sorted for 20+ years by appointing Guardiola, for example... or look at José Mourinho. Or Van Gaal himself.

So yeah, longevity really shouldn't be an argument in favour of Giggs. We know absolutely nothing about potential managerial longevity. Zero.

"Highly possible" doesnt mean "highly likely", nonetheless I take your point. If we are splitting hairs, then I could argue that whilst we know nothing about Giggs (as you said), we do know something about Pep - and that is that even managing his childhood club with a great team, he burnt out after four years. With that in mind, and the fact that if we get him, his Bayern spell will only have been 3-4 years, I dont think you can reasonably expect more than that if he came to United. So whilst Giggs is perhaps an unknown quantity, most other managers are a known quantity in that we know they are unlikely to stick around, even if things are going well.

 

[Revan]

"Highly possible" doesnt mean "highly likely", nonetheless I take your point. If we are splitting hairs, then I could argue that whilst we know nothing about Giggs (as you said), we do know something about Pep - and that is that even managing his childhood club with a great team, he burnt out after four years. With that in mind, and the fact that if we get him, his Bayern spell will only have been 3-4 years, I dont think you can reasonably expect more than that if he came to United. So whilst Giggs is perhaps an unknown quantity, most other managers are a known quantity in that we know they are unlikely to stick around, even if things are going well.

Why having a manager for only 3-4 years is a bad thing though? Something that no-one here who advocates longevity has been able to explain me.

 

[Shamwow]

Why having a manager for only 3-4 years is a bad thing though? Something that no-one here who advocates longevity has been able to explain me.

Depends what their overall motives in that 3-4 years are.

 

[Rory 7]

Still there's no where near to United. Its like comparing Valletta FC (Malta's top team) and Barcelona FC (Spain's). That's totally ridiculous

Oooo kay. Benfica and Estudiantes. O. Kay.

 

[devilish]

Oooo kay. Benfica and Estudiantes. O. Kay.

Do you think that Estudiantes are as big as United?

 

[Rory 7]

Do you think that Estudiantes are as big as United?

Nope. Neither are Benfica obviously. But you are comparing these clubs to tiny clubs. Come on.

 

[devilish]

Nope. Neither are Benfica obviously. But you are comparing these clubs to tiny clubs. Come on.

I am intentionally exaggerating to make you realise the flaw within your argument.

 

[Rory 7]

I am intentionally exaggerating to make you realise the flaw within your argument.

Intentionally exaggerating? One could be forgiven for describing that as making things up. Okay that's an interesting approach. In fact it's kind of been the approach many posters in this thread .

 

[McUnited]

Its a combination of a few things, including those in the OP. Basically the abridged version is something like;

1) Assuming LVG leaves a good team and setup behind (which I think he is/will), Giggs will be the strongest choice from a "continuity" point of view. ie avoiding another lengthy transitional phase, but rather carrying on LVGs work with his own adaptations and ideas.
2) If Giggs is a success, he is likely to stick around for longer than any other candidate would do.
3) Giggs' existing knowledge and connections within the club should allow him to hit the ground running. He knows the expectations, the duties, the role etc from his time at the club as a player. He knows the players strengths and weaknesses, and knows/can surround himself with an experienced and successful backroom staff. He is familiar with the youth and scouting setups and their current prospects.
4) Those inside the club know Giggs far better than we do as fans, and they seem to believe that he has what it takes to be a success.

These are some of the things that I would say Giggs offers that other candidates dont. There are other, more general factors such as "being able to command respect" which arent really unique or specific to him, but would still be relevant in the decision making process. There are also, of course, plenty of reasons of romance/sentimentality.

The discussion isnt so much about why Giggs would be a miles better choice than the other names touted around, but more that he clearly appears to be in contention, and there is enough merit to his case for him to be in the mix. I am not, and have never said that it wouldnt be a gamble, but my belief is that any appointment would be almost equally as big of a gamble. I also think (conversely to others) that if Giggs' was a failure, it would be pretty easy to get rid of him swiftly.

I understand these reasons with which you favour the appointment of Giggs, but I just don't give them the same weight that you do. The first three points you mention are, for me, peripheral considerations that don't stack up to create a strong case for taking the job. I would rather have someone who has demonstrated excellent qualities as a manager and is weaker on 1-3, than have someone who is an unknown quantity as a manager and is strong on 1-3.

One could even argue, I think, that 1-3 has very little relevance.
1) This assumes continuity is a 'good thing', but this doesn't seem to be self-evident. I wouldn't say no to change if it is change for the better - I'd like someone who can move us forwards, not keep us where we are. The major teams in world football seem to do just fine, with no transitional phase, when they switch managers.
2) You're probably right that he'd stick around for a while if he were successful. Again, though, not self-evidently a good thing (bar SAF).
3) True. But not knowing the club inside out hasn't stopped managers at other clubs from succeeding. I don't think not knowing the club's personnel would've counted against Klopp one jot at Liverpool. If so, then it shouldn't count for someone if they do.
and
4) I'm suspicious of arguments from authority. I doubt the fans would've selected Moyes.