United’s Worst Decisions of the Last 12 Years

[glaspalast]

As an outsider:

I thought Moyes would fail. But i thought that any successor to Ferguson would fail, so better to ruin a mediocre candidate than a great one.

The other-universe successor would have had some setbacks as they culled some sacred cows, and had to put up with “why oh why didnt they listen to saf and appoint moysie???”

Id blame the glazers and woodward.

 

[sugar_kane]

Id love to see an alternative history where Micky Phelan was out in charge in 2013 and no other major changes take place

I reckon we might be struggling even more than today if we’re still fielding that 2012/13 lineup

Note I said might

 

[Maticmaker]

Two biggest mistakes;
1. Having no proper thought out/reasoned 'succession planning' process in place when Sir Matt Busby left.
2. Having no proper thought out/reasoned 'succession planning' process in place when Sir Alex Ferguson (and David Gill) left.

Result; in both cases the club experienced a period of 'wandering in the football wilderness' roughly twenty years after Busby and (now) getting on for a similar period after Ferguson.

In the case of (1) it's arguable that the club was still in the Edwards Family domain and viewed as the family 'hobby', not as it became later the family business, when Martin Edwards took over... the saving grace was that it was Martin Edwards who brought SAF to United.

In the case of (2) the club was in the hands of property developers, not sporting franchise developers.

Two other (arguably smaller) mistakes, bringing Poba back after SAF left him go, and later selling James Garner, who despite certain health issues, was one of our most promising midfielders emerging from the United Academy

 

[0161_UNITED]

1. Having no proper thought out/reasoned 'succession planning' process in place

I'd agree to an extent, but allow me a counter-argument. I am assuming you mean by "succession-planning" you're implying the manager.

I'm not saying you and others are wrong, but I would like to posit an alternative evaluation and my perspective and why I disagree with so many people citing the Manager decisions as the biggest issues.

First of all, I'd like to ask: which teams have had successive periods of success that coincide with something resembling "succession planning" for managers?
1) Real Madrid? I'm honestly not sure how Mourinho -> Ancelotti -> Benitez -> Zidane -> Lopetegui -> Salaro -> Zidane -> Ancelotti in any way, shape or form constitutes succession planning. They racked up more Champions Leagues in this period than just about anyone. Any United fan would give a nut for that success. Is that proper succession-planning?
2) Chelsea? Their manager appointments seem to have been haphazard at a minimum. But they had serious run of success where it looked like the manager didn't matter. This is also the Chelsea that shipped out Salah, Palmer and De Bruyne. Marc Guehi, too. What would a Chelsea with those 4 players look like today?
3) Brighton - Ok, this is one we can accept but the expectations aren't anywhere near United's.
4) City - If succession planning meant getting in a structure for Pep, than yep. That was success. But Pep hasn't moved on. So we don't really know what succession beyond Pep would look like.
5) Shitepool - Ok, Klopp to Slot looks great. Give them that. But before Klopp, was it multi-year succession plan? I doubt it.

My point is: In most cases, it's actually about having a good squad with good players, the managers have been almost interchangeable - success comes with the players available.

This is why I don't think United's biggest mistakes are purely down to manager decisions - rather that our manager decisions compounded issues.

Let's go back and look at the managers:
1) Moyes: I'd never be bold be bold enough to question SAF, but we have to be honest and even go back and look at posts around this time - especially before RvP and that last title. The squad was aging, we weren't happy with (quite a lot) of the players.
2) LvG: He was just plain odd. He signed Depay, who showed up in a fur coat - and got played in a different position every match for like 5 matches and then disappeared. He signed a lot Dutch players, and players who he saw in the World Cup when he was with the Netherlands - Rojo, etc.
3) Mourinho: He was a contrarian who always seemed unhappy. He wanted former players, established players, basically anyone but what he had. At the end, the narrative is that United didn't back him in the market - but you have to remember who he wanted to sign at the end of his reign. I'll let others cover this, but it was horrifying.
4) Ole: It was all British, all the time - Brexit FC. Until Ronaldo Mk.2 destroyed everything.
5) EtH: Oh, he was backed. One accusation you could never level at the club is that "we didn't back the manager." It looks like he bought fecking shite.

So, if I had any thoughts now, it's that "maybe we backed the managers too much". This leads to that, "well if we had a proper DOF in charge we'd be successful."

Well, who were these DOFs at Chelsea, Real Madrid, Chelsea, Brighton, City and L'Pool? I mean we finally have City's Berrada now... maybe that''ll be success?

My posit: Success simply comes from having good players. Not even the managers, although they help. Not the owners, although they help. Not "long-term planning", even though that helps. We just haven't had good players.

 

[Valencia Shin Crosses]

Harsh to put Pogba in there. He wasn't as good as we wanted, but he was absolutely lightyears better than anyone else on that list and indeed was one of our better players for his first four years until injuries destroyed him.

I'd argue the bigger mistake was never fecking bothering to actually build the team around him. Our only true DM signing post Pogba arrival was Matic... who lost his legs about 8 months after signing with us.

People wondered why he looked so good for France but they had Kante and Matuidi carrying water for him and letting him concentrate on floating around and running the game. We stuck him at DM and then yelled at him for the constant brain farts defensively instead.

 

[SungSam7]

Letting ETH sign attacking players. Hojlund is not anywhere near ready, Zirkzee, Weghorst, Antony..

 

[sullydnl]

On balance, I'd probably point to the combination of decisions around ETH's first transfer window.

Because at that point the club not only had a new manager but also a new Director of Football, new CEO, months of the Rangnick-era to prepare in advance of the summer window, and the entire Woodward era to learm from. While there had been plenty of disastrous decisions before then, that was the moment things really could have changed, as we had notionally been given the tools to dig ourselves out of the hole we were in in the shape of new people in charge from CEO down.

But instead we dug ourselves into an even deeper hole, to a much more damaging financial cost. The Antony and Casemiro deals being particular killers, as not only did they prove to be ludicrously expensive millstones around the club's neck, they were also symptoms of a continuation short-term thinking and refusal to make real change that have plagued the club.

The club couldn't stomach the idea of the team having to take a step back in the short term under a new manager, or the financial downside of missing out on top four, and panicked in a stupid and ultimately counteproductive way.

 

[Tosicsleftpeg]

The worst thing we've done is the transfer fees paid in the last 3 years. Disgustingly bad deals constantly, we've overpaid so much for very poor players. I feel like Amorim is the first good choice we've made for a while.

The transfers have been the worst though...

Hojlunds fee was so so high I was in total shock when I heard it. Antony as well, for someone I'd barely heard of to pay over 80m was madness.

We've wasted 300m in recent times on shocking transfers.

 

[Leftback99]

The worst thing we've done is the transfer fees paid in the last 3 years. Disgustingly bad deals constantly, we've overpaid so much for very poor players. I feel like Amorim is the first good choice we've made for a while.

The transfers have been the worst though...

Hojlunds fee was so so high I was in total shock when I heard it. Antony as well, for someone I'd barely heard of to pay over 80m was madness.

We've wasted 300m in recent times on shocking transfers.

£600m and we wouldn't even recover half of it if we tried selling all in the summer. Plus wages blown, effectively a £400m+ hole with nothing on the pitch to show for it.

 

[ayushreddevil9]

Phil Jones contract
Luke Shaw contract
Rashford contract
Antony signing
Hojlund signing
Mount signing
Sanchez signing
Casemiro signing
Onana signing
Zirkzee signing
Prematurely making Ole permanent
ETH extension
INEOS (?)

What else did I miss?

 

[ayushreddevil9]

The worst thing we've done is the transfer fees paid in the last 3 years. Disgustingly bad deals constantly, we've overpaid so much for very poor players. I feel like Amorim is the first good choice we've made for a while.

The transfers have been the worst though...

Hojlunds fee was so so high I was in total shock when I heard it. Antony as well, for someone I'd barely heard of to pay over 80m was madness.

We've wasted 300m in recent times on shocking transfers.

I was laughing at their 45m valuation as i had seen nothing to suggest that he is better than a 30m forward.

In comes Here We Go for 72m. Shocking

 

[MadDogg]

I'd argue the bigger mistake was never fecking bothering to actually build the team around him. Our only true DM signing post Pogba arrival was Matic... who lost his legs about 8 months after signing with us.

People wondered why he looked so good for France but they had Kante and Matuidi carrying water for him and letting him concentrate on floating around and running the game. We stuck him at DM and then yelled at him for the constant brain farts defensively instead.

I've never liked the term 'building the team around him', as it implies that he needed something special and for us to go our of our way to get players specifically to suit Pogba. When in reality all we needed was a balanced midfield, with Pogba playing his part and two others playing theirs. The same as any team should be aiming for. The Juventus team wasn't 'built around him', but it was balanced with each player bringing their own strengths.

 

[Valencia Shin Crosses]

I've never liked the term 'building the team around him', as it implies that he needed something special and for us to go our of our way to get players specifically to suit Pogba. When in reality all we needed was a balanced midfield, with Pogba playing his part and two others playing theirs. The same as any team should be aiming for. The Juventus team wasn't 'built around him', but it was balanced with each player bringing their own strengths.

When I say "build around", I mean "compliment the star midfielder you paid almost 100m for" instead of just shoving him into an already poorly built side and hoping he's the savior. You'd think an investment like that would be top priority ensuring he has an ideal environment to suceed. The same way any team ensure's their best player has.

 

[Kopral Jono]

My top five, in no particular order: 1) having certified idiot and rugby union fan Woodward as replacement for Gill, 2) making Solskjaer permanent, 3) giving Ten Hag free reign to sign whoever he likes for two consecutive summer transfer windows, 4) the entire Moyes episode (with it subconsciously letting high standards drop) and 5) overpaying for absolutely everything -- be it incoming transfer fees or player contracts.

 

[utdalltheway]

Nothing wrong with anything said here but feckin hell, that's depressing reading.
Hopefully we've finally learned.

 

[andy0]

Sir Alex Ferguson decision making about his retirement

Ferguson meets Guardiola for dinner in New York and doesn't take a friend who can interpret. He later says he couldn't make a concrete offer as he wasn't considering retirement then

Years later Guardiola will joke that his English wasn't so good then, and maybe Fergie was offering him the job and he didn't realise

Then, when Ferguson was actually considering retiring, and this time did so, maybe he and the club could have been earlier with canvassing other candidates. Mourinho and Ancellotti turned out to be already committed to imminent moves, Klopp and Van Gaal not available then either.

However, I'm not as strong in criticising Moyes as some, though there are points above about letting him churn the coaches. What other future would have happened if the club had not sacked him just as he was about to recruit Toni Kroos [according to the German]? And is he so terrible even now? He seems to have had faster initial results stiffening up Everton than Amorim is having with the admittedly larger scope task at United

 

[We Are Manchester United]

I'm struggling to think of any right decisions!!!! Easy to say in hindsight.

I said in 2010ish that there's a changing of the guard coming - so to speak - City are going to dominate and United wouldn't be the force they have been. You could see it coming back then. It's proved to be correct.

 

[big_jeffstar]

The Mount transfer is the one that really gets to me, I was so disappointed in the club for allowing it to happen, An absolute joke of a decision.. a player we never needed who was at the time struggling for Chelsea, and also another constant sick note.. and we took the problem off their hands and paid silly money for him.. unbelievable really

 

[Ole90+3]

The Mount transfer is the one that really gets to me, I was so disappointed in the club for allowing it to happen, An absolute joke of a decision.. a player we never needed who was at the time struggling for Chelsea, and also another constant sick note.. and we took the problem off their hands and paid silly money for him.. unbelievable really

Yep, worse than the Antony transfer for me. Highest level of negligence from the club.

 

[Nogbadthebad]

Not listening to Ragnick. He was brought for his skill in off the pitch management, and the club ignored everything he said. It was the last chance to truly reset before we slid down to here.

 

[RedStarUnited]

Imho hindsight 20/20 and rose colored glasses and all that but imho firing LvG was terrible timing. Yes the footie shown was extremely dull at times but we also seemed to be hard to break down given an already broken squad. Getting rid of Chicharito was an odd decision and the issues with diva Di Maria were obvious lows - but it also seemed he had the gravitas to shake things up from a performance standpoint that went beyond the pitch alone. I don't recall reading of any other manager since SAF who forced some changes to be made immediately to things like Carrington etc.

Perhaps Im just at the point where im simply tired of getting rolled over with ease which despite all other issues didn't happen often during the LvG and to a degree Mou years either. I guess we can argue that their superstar singings upset the balance of the club etc. - but at least it felt we had some sense of direction. I understand if someone thinks this is all a high questionable or controversial opinion - but dropping a manager off the bounce of winning a trophy when things weren't nearly as dire as the last few years - just seems silly at best.

Nah, Jose took us to another level after LVG. We did not kick on from Jose and that is what ended up derailing us ever since. Jose should have been replaced by a good manager in the summer of 2018 when it was clear the club didnt back him and he was kinda done. But, As usual with United a manager has to absolutely stink the place up to get sacked. We are never proactive

 

[sugar_kane]

The Mount transfer is the one that really gets to me, I was so disappointed in the club for allowing it to happen, An absolute joke of a decision.. a player we never needed who was at the time struggling for Chelsea, and also another constant sick note.. and we took the problem off their hands and paid silly money for him.. unbelievable really

Really miserably shite for England as well. At least with Antony there was some semblance of 'maybe this kid could be good' and in a position where we lacked options.

I don't normally care about shirt numbers and the talk about 7 is tedious but that was such a baffling decision as well.

I get indirectly saying to Garna 'you need to earn it' and bringing him down a peg or two but that's undermined to say the least by giving it immediately to a highly questionable transfer.

 

[Tosicsleftpeg]

The Mount transfer is the one that really gets to me, I was so disappointed in the club for allowing it to happen, An absolute joke of a decision.. a player we never needed who was at the time struggling for Chelsea, and also another constant sick note.. and we took the problem off their hands and paid silly money for him.. unbelievable really

Totally agree mate, I could not understand it at all!

Thing is he's a quality player on his day but we've never seen his day because he's been injured non stop. The transfer fee was absolutely unreal as well, 55m up front with another 5m in add-ons is hilarious.

We could have bought someone class like Sbozslai or Oshimen etc for that money, unforgivable.

 

[andy0]

The Mount transfer is the one that really gets to me, I was so disappointed in the club for allowing it to happen, An absolute joke of a decision.. a player we never needed who was at the time struggling for Chelsea, and also another constant sick note.. and we took the problem off their hands and paid silly money for him.. unbelievable really

Not only getting him, but who were Chelsea aiming to replace him with?

Cole Palmer, said to be a United fan. Should have been in for him instead

 

[Maticmaker]

We just haven't had good players.

That is true, why.....?
Because the proper 'succession planning' was missing, after Busby and after Ferguson.

Good players just don't appear overnight, the systems of Busby (and his Babes) and Ferguson (and his Fledglings) did not appear over night, both managers put their trust in youngsters. Many managers that followed them, didn't.

Finding both SMB and SAF was not just good luck either. Walter Crickmer (Club Secretary) brought in Busby and together they developed the interest in youth. Martin Edwards pursued SAF with relentless vigor, and neither manager was an overnight success, but their mantra was to 'trust in youth'.

I suspect Ruben will do the same, my guess is when he has the team he wants the range of players ages will be 21-24, with the odd teenager and one or two in the late 20's.

It is arguable the demand for instant success means the timescales allowed to Busby and Ferguson to bring forward their youthful successes are unlikely to be repeated and yes there are other 'systems', Real Madrid 'gobble up the top players, usually at their peak, but now both Spanish giants are looking more towards, growing their own. Klopp took a few years to assemble his Liverpool squads, even Pep with all the money in the world available, took time to bring City to prominence.
Both Klopp and Pep were 'head hunted' overtime, lets hope the same underlying approach has been adopted by sir Jim in bringing in Amiron.

 

[AshRK]

Moyes appointment

Murtough era from 2021 to 2024

Sanchez signing

Not sacking eth this summer

 

[tenpoless]

Woodward

 

[Flanders Devil]

I ag

I'd agree to an extent, but allow me a counter-argument. I am assuming you mean by "succession-planning" you're implying the manager.

I'm not saying you and others are wrong, but I would like to posit an alternative evaluation and my perspective and why I disagree with so many people citing the Manager decisions as the biggest issues.

First of all, I'd like to ask: which teams have had successive periods of success that coincide with something resembling "succession planning" for managers?
1) Real Madrid? I'm honestly not sure how Mourinho -> Ancelotti -> Benitez -> Zidane -> Lopetegui -> Salaro -> Zidane -> Ancelotti in any way, shape or form constitutes succession planning. They racked up more Champions Leagues in this period than just about anyone. Any United fan would give a nut for that success. Is that proper succession-planning?
2) Chelsea? Their manager appointments seem to have been haphazard at a minimum. But they had serious run of success where it looked like the manager didn't matter. This is also the Chelsea that shipped out Salah, Palmer and De Bruyne. Marc Guehi, too. What would a Chelsea with those 4 players look like today?
3) Brighton - Ok, this is one we can accept but the expectations aren't anywhere near United's.
4) City - If succession planning meant getting in a structure for Pep, than yep. That was success. But Pep hasn't moved on. So we don't really know what succession beyond Pep would look like.
5) Shitepool - Ok, Klopp to Slot looks great. Give them that. But before Klopp, was it multi-year succession plan? I doubt it.

My point is: In most cases, it's actually about having a good squad with good players, the managers have been almost interchangeable - success comes with the players available.

This is why I don't think United's biggest mistakes are purely down to manager decisions - rather that our manager decisions compounded issues.

Let's go back and look at the managers:
1) Moyes: I'd never be bold be bold enough to question SAF, but we have to be honest and even go back and look at posts around this time - especially before RvP and that last title. The squad was aging, we weren't happy with (quite a lot) of the players.
2) LvG: He was just plain odd. He signed Depay, who showed up in a fur coat - and got played in a different position every match for like 5 matches and then disappeared. He signed a lot Dutch players, and players who he saw in the World Cup when he was with the Netherlands - Rojo, etc.
3) Mourinho: He was a contrarian who always seemed unhappy. He wanted former players, established players, basically anyone but what he had. At the end, the narrative is that United didn't back him in the market - but you have to remember who he wanted to sign at the end of his reign. I'll let others cover this, but it was horrifying.
4) Ole: It was all British, all the time - Brexit FC. Until Ronaldo Mk.2 destroyed everything.
5) EtH: Oh, he was backed. One accusation you could never level at the club is that "we didn't back the manager." It looks like he bought fecking shite.

So, if I had any thoughts now, it's that "maybe we backed the managers too much". This leads to that, "well if we had a proper DOF in charge we'd be successful."

Well, who were these DOFs at Chelsea, Real Madrid, Chelsea, Brighton, City and L'Pool? I mean we finally have City's Berrada now... maybe that''ll be success?

My posit: Success simply comes from having good players. Not even the managers, although they help. Not the owners, although they help. Not "long-term planning", even though that helps. We just haven't had good players.

I agree a lot with this and the reasoning you provide.

If I'm to try to answer this thread question, albeit with not a 'decision', but to me the biggest thing we've done wrong or the thing that has eventuated is that we have hardly had anyone during their prime since Fergie.

You would say the only two players we've had their prime are DDG and Bruno.

You could (or would have to) say Shaw just because we've owned him since 17 and the emerging group eg Mainoo, Garnacho, Amad... but you can see why each has an asterisk.

It's actually scary the teams you could theoretically make up of 'players in their prime' who have played for us, but so many have made such minimal impact.

 

[Red For Ever]

It wasn't willingly sold though. They just bought out the main shareholders and the rest were sold compulsory. Damn shame, facilitated by the premier league and the government at the time. It's a travesty what allowing those parasites in has done to the club.

I was a shareholder ( tiny just a few hundred ) enough to have a framed shareholders certificate, I had no choice, sold without my consent
I still have my 37p dividend cheque uncashed !!

If what we are told is correct, started over a disagreement over ownership of a horse, a dispute that let Glazer in to buy shares

 

[acolyte]

How? He was a very poor appointment but we sacked him relatively quickly before he could do any lasting damage (like signing a ton of expensive deadwood).

His legacy is destroying the aura of near invincibility that Fergie had built up over the previous two decades. Before Moyes teams were beaten before they even came to Old Trafford--that was completely gone by the time his cursed tenure was over, and it's never been recovered.

 

[Big Ben Foster]

His legacy is destroying the aura of near invincibility that Fergie had built up over the previous two decades. Before Moyes teams were beaten before they even came to Old Trafford--that was completely gone by the time his cursed tenure was over, and it's never been recovered.

That aura existed because of Fergie. Sure, Moyes didn't help, but once Fergie retired it's not something we were going to keep forever.

 

[Leftback99]

His legacy is destroying the aura of near invincibility that Fergie had built up over the previous two decades. Before Moyes teams were beaten before they even came to Old Trafford--that was completely gone by the time his cursed tenure was over, and it's never been recovered.

That's due to shocking recruitment since, not Moyes. Moyes even had Kroos lined up. LVG came in, vetoed it and ripped the squad apart for dross. He set us back years.

 

[Ole'sgunnarwin]

5-3-2

 

[SalfordRed18]

Every bad decision leads to ed Woodward (and glazers for sticking with him for however long.)

Every decision.

 

[Lentwood]

Like most incredibly successful organisations, you become a victim of your own success, and the thing that made you strong becomes you're greatest weakness.

SAF ran the club for almost three decades, and had his fingerprints over everything that happened at the club. He was effectively a Director of Football at a time when nobody had a Director of Football.

When he left, we were so far behind modern football structure and thinking because we'd become obsessed with the cult of SAF the 'manager'...but ironically, SAF was really doing what a DoF does and the likes of Kidd, McClaren and Queiroz were doing what a Head Coach does.

As a result, we kept hiring 'managers' when the first thing we should have done to replace SAF was hire a DoF...and let that DoF hire the first 'Head Coach'.

Most of the horrible decisions that happened after SAF left happened because our managers had far too much influence and Ed Woodward was a total buffoon.

 

[justsomebloke]

1. Moyes.
2. Ten Hag.
3. Ronaldo return. Destroyed everything good Ole had done up to that point and set us up for the real disasters ahead.
4. Antony £86m, Maguire £80m, Sanchez. Three absolutely cataclysmic signings.

I'd say much less so in Maguire's case than the two others though. 80m was excessive, but all things considered he's been a fairly good asset.

 

[Adz_99]

I'd say much less so in Maguire's case than the two others though. 80m was excessive, but all things considered he's been a fairly good asset.

Yeah, the Maguire one doesn't feel that bad now. Yes we overpaid but he's into his 6th season at the club and is doing ok, 230 appearances for the club.

It's nowhere near as bad as £60m mount or £40m Van de Beek.

 

[DuruttiColumn]

Fergie not making it clear that Carlos Queiroz was going to take over from him when he eventually retired.

 

[KeanoMagicHat]

Yeah, the Maguire one doesn't feel that bad now. Yes we overpaid but he's into his 6th season at the club and is doing ok, 230 appearances for the club.

It's nowhere near as bad as £60m mount or £40m Van de Beek.

I would say there is a category for the likes of Pogba and Maguire who weren’t good signings in terms of reaching their expectations but neither were flops either and should be long down the list of worst signings. Both contributed well to cups/high placed league finishes.

 

[Ekeke]

I think its hard to pick one because several from the op list are at the same level. Its a pattern rather than 1 decision that has caused where we are.

I will say that I dont think 1 signing like Sanchez is on the same level as some of the others. Yes he was paid a lot and delivered little, but we had signings like that even when we were successful.

Same thing even with the signings of Casemiro and Antony together - Casemiro has mostly been good but even if that wasnt the case we've had plenty of big signings not work out. The problem was that in the past we were so good in other areas, development of the current squad, success, and Sir Alex's control of the overall squad that even when the big signings came in and didnt didnt do a lot, other players would rise and lead us to success. We dont really have that now, or at least not to the same level. You could say Garnacho and Mainoo helped drive us to success in winning the cup last season, but it used to be a premier league title win instead.