What are Manchester United's "values"?

Brwned

Have you ever been in love before?
Joined
Apr 18, 2008
Messages
50,913
sammsky1 said:
1. If LVG had achieved targets set to him by the board, its unethical and unbecoming of a club which aspires to a different set of values from the norm.
Click to expand...

Prompted by Sammy's post in the Guardiola thread about aspiring to a different set of values. What are they? What values immediately come to mind when you think of United now?

Personally for me it's hard to look at the modern iteration of United without seeing commercialism written all over it. They must be the only club in the world with an "official noodle partner" for Christ's sake.

This idea of United being "different" is a bit pretentious for me given they are probably the most commercial football club in the world and commercialism is seen by many as the biggest issue in football behind corruption.
 
Manchester United is different in that it embraced internationalism earlier and more wholeheartedly than any other British club. We're truly global, that's what sets us apart.
 
Brwned said:
This idea of United being "different" is a bit pretentious for me given they are probably the most commercial football club in the world and commercialism is seen by many as the biggest issue in football behind corruption.
Click to expand...

You are right.

They only difference is that Man Utd sold the brand in Asia before anyone else.

Actually, the biggest difference was Sir Alex. He defined what the club is about. Managers rarely stay for 26 years. Those 26 years coincided with the globalization of TV deals, and this brought in new fans, new sales, more money and so on. Man Utd and Sir Alex have been synonymous for many fans. Man Utd "values" were what Sir Alex said that his values were.

Now, we are no different than Chelsea, City etc.
 
Agree with the OP that the club is entirely about profit and it will remain that way I'm afraid.
 
We are different because of our history. From Munich to the Busby Babes, to the 70s and 80s of the club. Then the 26 years of SAF. We are a unique club. We have done things differently with our attacking football, our breading of youth, which has continued with the call up of Lingard into the squad. We do have ethical values. We won't sack LVG if we feel he is doing a good job just because a shiny new manager (Ancelotti/ Pep in this case) has come along. We really tried with Moyes even though after just a few months we all knew he was out his depth. That season could have been saved but we stuck to our guns and kept faith in him.

Now we have coaching staff with Giggs and Butt in it. We have ambassadors such as Charlton, SAF, Robson, Cole. We have kept with traditions and have tried to maintain the culture throughout the club.

It's what makes me proud to be United.
 
Giving youth a chance and playing attacking football.*

*Obviously commercial motives are the same as any other company: profit.
 
Fans love to feel good about themselves.

There's no significant difference between the top clubs these days, it's all about making a profit. You can't uphold traditional values and still expect to compete for the top trophies and sign the best players.
 
Manchester United is just like any other club from the group of the best clubs in the world.

We're no special. And it makes me laugh when I hear fans saying we're unlike others because we give youth chance (not anymore, though), we play attacking football (not anymore, too), we tend to choose local and British footballers (not anymore as well). And it makes me laugh, too, when people write about Munich and Busby. It's past. Those people often smile when Scousers bring up the past, yet they're doing the same.

We're not a special club, and the values we used to associate with the club 10-15 years ago are not the same now. The world evolves.
 
Entertaining, exciting and attacking football regardless of the result.
 
Cina said:
We also have ambassadors like Park Ji Sung. A decent, if rather forgettable player for us, who just so happens to appeal to a huge commercial market for the club.
Click to expand...

I don't mind Park as an ambassador. He was here at the club for a very long time, played a part in winning the trophies that we did whilst he was here. Wouldn't say forgettable.
 
Andy_Cole said:
I don't mind Park as an ambassador. He was here at the club for a very long time, played a part in winning the trophies that we did whilst he was here. Wouldn't say forgettable.
Click to expand...
When you see him alongside the other names you've listed, he's definitely forgettable, and he was made an ambassador for purely commercial reasons, that's obvious.

His little on-field unveiling was also incredibly cringe worthy as I recall.
 
nick2004 said:
Now, we are no different than Chelsea, City etc.
Click to expand...

How so? There's been a soft spot for Man Utd from people all over the world given the adversity we have faced in our past. There are players throughout every decade you can associate with Utd's core values, that is what makes us what we are. First English team to win the European cup, first English team to win the Champions League, we are forever associated with European football, it is what has defined us the world over. Fast forward to the Premier League years when the money came rolling in, OT expanded generating more money and all the while still producing players that befitted the Man Utd ethic. There were some smart business decisions made during that time which paved the way to us entering the modern football era very well equipped. That was not gifted by a sugar daddy it was built on reputation, core values and successful results. You could say we had a head start due to our size but also our manager who was light years ahead of everyone else during that time. Man Utd hasn't changed, football has and it's a case of adapting to that and the only way that can happen is through revenue. Every single football club is a business, always has been now we're seeing the emergence of venture capitalism in ownership which has changed the entire demographic of football in this country forcing others (Arsenal, Utd, Liverpool) to spend big. The impact of failure has also never been greater, the game can't be played in a swash buckling manner anymore, every single minute counts these days given the fact that teams who would generally get steam rolled in the past are significantly stronger nowadays. We never bought our way to the top, we earned it and we're still fighting for it on the pitch, that needs to be supported by money though.
 
Brwned said:
Prompted by Sammy's post in the Guardiola thread about aspiring to a different set of values. What are they? What values immediately come to mind when you think of United now?

Personally for me it's hard to look at the modern iteration of United without seeing commercialism written all over it. They must be the only club in the world with an "official noodle partner" for Christ's sake.

This idea of United being "different" is a bit pretentious for me given they are probably the most commercial football club in the world and commercialism is seen by many as the biggest issue in football behind corruption.
Click to expand...
Couldnt agree more. Before I even opened up the thread the answer on the top of my tongue (fingers) was "making money".

That's management though, its different if you are looking at fans. I dont think United fans have any particularly unique set of values that make them different to other fans. There can be differences but those are largely down to experience, I think. So United fans are probably a bit spoilt, as a rule. A team that has a rich history but has failed to do anything of note for many years will have fans that respond to those circumstances. Another team that is from the same city as a very successful team, but that has itself been abject for as long as anyone can remember, might create a breed of fans that is rather bitter. A team that has traditionally played very pragmatic, ugly football but punched above its weight doing so will create fans that are proud of that achievement. But one that has had success playing another way will find it difficult to accept.

These are values, in a way. And I think a lot of fans see them as set in stone. But in fact that are a little more malleable, or at least they change over time as a team's fortunes change. I dont think of them so much as values as personalities that are a reflection of circumstances.
 
Attacking football, youth development, and never giving up. Those have been the core United values since the Busby Babes era. I agree the Glazers only care about the profit, of course they do, but the club is a lot bigger than them. I don't think the values will change unless we have a era-defining manager again who does things differently.
 
What sets us apart is our heritage, our history makes us a very endearing club. All top sides are pretty much run the same now, teams would be lying if they said profit and success weren't the two most imprtant objectives of the club, we just seem to be better at the financial side than everyone else.
 
Think it left with Sir Alex to be honest. Now we're just like any other big side with an illustrious history.
 
MikeUpNorth said:
Manchester United is different in that it embraced internationalism earlier and more wholeheartedly than any other British club. We're truly global, that's what sets us apart.
Click to expand...

Great post. It goes hand in hand with success IMO, the success Fergie had during the 90s happened to be at the same time as globalisation in football. That's what has made us one of the biggest clubs in the world.

I know people complain about the commercialisation of football, but it has to be said we are fantastic at it, probably the best in the world.

As for the values of the club I would say:
  • Emphasis on youth- Since the days of the Busby Babes and again with the class of 92. I think it's important for the club to hire a manager with a keen interest in bringing through the youth team players.
  • Attacking football- Its one of the things that defines us. Our two most successful periods in history coincede with attacking playing style.
  • European football- Everybody knows the history about Munich and the Busby Babes. The reaction from the Munich Air Disaster is what defined the club. Fergie continued the traditions with the two champions leagues he was able to add, and countless special European nights at Old Trafford.
  • Never give up attitude- The importance of this was highlighted against Bayern in the UCL final. There's always that believe United will get something out of the last 10 minutes.
I think LVG is doing a good job sticking to the values of the club. He has continued to bring through players from the youth team. The attacking football has not been there on a regular basis, perhaps a change in style? Wouldn't be so unreasonable to think United may have hired LVG to implement his possession based philosophy, as that seemes to be the style to copy due to the success of Barca and Spain.
 
Almost like we didn't exist before 1945. Our so called values, traditions,history etc, all seem to originate from the Busby era - not surprising, as it was a largely successful era(our first infact). Not even a whisper about us being a yo-yo club prior to his appointment.

We conveniently leave out certain parts of our history in order to look high and mighty, and a lot of fans overstate the importance of these values and principle - like they were etched in stone when the club was formed, and have been the principles since the very beginning.

The way i see it, you're either an oasis of tradition like Athletic Bilbao* or you're just a pretender.

*- Fully committed to upholding your beliefs, so much so that it hinders your progress both on and off the field.
 
Last edited:
Maciek said:
Manchester United is just like any other club from the group of the best clubs in the world.

We're no special. And it makes me laugh when I hear fans saying we're unlike others because we give youth chance (not anymore, though), we play attacking football (not anymore, too), we tend to choose local and British footballers (not anymore as well). And it makes me laugh, too, when people write about Munich and Busby. It's past. Those people often smile when Scousers bring up the past, yet they're doing the same.

We're not a special club, and the values we used to associate with the club 10-15 years ago are not the same now. The world evolves.
Click to expand...

Nah. That's bollox. History counts for something. Both United and (yes) Liverpool are special clubs because they have special histories, with a fanbase that reflects this. I mean, Liverpool have won relatively little for going on two decades yet still have a global fanbase that shits all over a club like Manchester City. There's a good reason for this.
 
Cina said:
We also have ambassadors like Park Ji Sung. A decent, if rather forgettable player for us, who just so happens to appeal to a huge commercial market for the club.
Click to expand...

Harsh, Park was a super player who in many ways epitomised the Fergie era. He worked his nads of and made the step up that a lot of players couldn't. He was no Ronaldo, but he was no Nani either.
 
Roman Bellic said:
Almost like we didn't exist before 1945. Our so called values, traditions,history etc, all seem to originate from the Busby era - not surprising, as it was a largely successful era(our first infact). Not even a whisper about us being a yo-yo club prior to his appointment.

We conveniently leave out certain parts of our history in order to look high and mighty, and a lot of fans overstate the importance of these values and principle - like they were edged in stone when the club was formed, and have been the principles since the very beginning.

The way i see it, you're either an oasis of tradition like Athletic Bilbao* or you're just a pretender.

*- Fully committed to upholding your beliefs, so much so that it hinders your progress both on and off the field.
Click to expand...

FFS. From one extreme to another. I'm not sure which is more absurd, trying to ignore all of our history, or pretending the last 70 years don't matter because we weren't all that special pre-1945. Fecking hell....
 
Pogue Mahone said:
FFS. From one extreme to another. I'm not sure which is more absurd, trying to ignore all of our history, or pretending the last 70 years don't matter because we weren't all that special pre-1945. Fecking hell....
Click to expand...

It's not pretending like the last 70 years don't matter, it's the convenient omission of the pre-busby era, whilst also trying to pass off the last 70 years as the only piece of history.

You can't uphold values and principles that were adopted 60+ years after the club's formation like they were etched in stone from the beginning. There's absolutely nothing wrong with using those principles as guidelines, but that's about it really.

We can't expect every manager to come in and operate the Busby way (which has been misconstrued as the United way, because it was also adopted by Fergie who was also largely successful).

The game has evolved.
 
Last edited:
Roman Bellic said:
It's not pretending like the last 70 years don't matter, it's the convenient omission of the pre-busby era, whilst also trying to pass up the last 70 years as the only piece of history.

You can't uphold values and principles that were adopted 60+ years after the club's formation like they were etched in stone from the beginning. There's absolutely nothing wrong with using those principles as guidelines, but that's about it really.

We can't expect every manager to come in and operate the Busby way (which has been misconstrued as the United way, because it was also adopted by Fergie who was also largely successful).

The game has evolved.
Click to expand...

Evolution, almost by definition, happens slowly. There's over 60 years of history amassed between the start of Busby's reign and the end of Fergie's. That's more than enough time for the club to establish a coherent identify based on the principles of these two managers (as well as those who tried to adhere to them in the intervening spell between the two greats).

It's madness the way some people in this thread are implying that those 60 years of history counts for nothing, now we've had Moyes and Van Gaal in charge for a combined total of less than 3 years.
 
moses said:
Harsh, Park was a super player who in many ways epitomised the Fergie era. He worked his nads of and made the step up that a lot of players couldn't. He was no Ronaldo, but he was no Nani either.
Click to expand...
Low blow.

He was a pretty good player for us, contributed a good bit, but an ambassador on the level of the others? Don't think so.
 
Pogue Mahone said:
Evolution, almost by definition, happens slowly. There's over 60 years of history amassed between the start of Busby's reign and the end of Fergie's. That's more than enough time for the club to establish a coherent identify based on the principles of these two managers (as well as those who tried to adhere to them in the intervening spell between the two greats).

It's madness the way some people in this thread are implying that those 60 years of history counts for nothing, now we've had Moyes and Van Gaal in charge for a combined total of less than 3 years.
Click to expand...

It doesn't count for much in 2015. The commercialisation of the game has pretty much ensured that.

Which is why clubs like City and Chelsea have been able to amass a huge following in such a short period of time, and the likes of Nottingham Forest are not as popular as they used to be.
 
Roman Bellic said:
It doesn't count for much in 2015. The commercialisation of the game has pretty much ensured that.

Which is why clubs like City and Chelsea have been able to amass a huge following in such a short period of time, and the likes of Nottingham Forest are not as popular as they used to be.
Click to expand...


Notts Forest were never popular. Case of a small club well over achieving.
 
Youth and Winning.

That's about it for me.
 
Spoony said:
Notts Forest were never popular. Case of a small club well over achieving.
Click to expand...

Must have gained prominence in the late 70s though, just failed to build on that.

My overall point had to do with history not accounting for much in the present. Aren't Liverpool always knocked for always talking about history?
 
Pogue Mahone said:
Nah. That's bollox. History counts for something. Both United and (yes) Liverpool are special clubs because they have special histories, with a fanbase that reflects this. I mean, Liverpool have won relatively little for going on two decades yet still have a global fanbase that shits all over a club like Manchester City. There's a good reason for this.
Click to expand...

You'd be surprised. Outside of the UK and Ireland, their fanbases are very much comparable. Ignoring these Isles, across Europe City have a slightly bigger fanbase, Liverpool have a slightly bigger fanbase in Australasia and Asia (particularly China + Thailand for Liverpool, but unsurprisingly the Middle East is in City's favour), City have a slightly bigger fanbase in the Americas. I agree history and heritage counts for something but the impact of success dwarfs it in a big way.
 
Cina said:
Low blow.

He was a pretty good player for us, contributed a good bit, but an ambassador on the level of the others? Don't think so.
Click to expand...

No, not on their level but he's the ultimate team man, and nice that we acknowledge that.
 
Brwned said:
You'd be surprised. Outside of the UK and Ireland, their fanbases are very much comparable. Ignoring these Isles, across Europe City have a slightly bigger fanbase, Liverpool have a slightly bigger fanbase in Australasia and Asia (particularly China + Thailand for Liverpool, but unsurprisingly the Middle East is in City's favour), City have a slightly bigger fanbase in the Americas. I agree history and heritage counts for something but the impact of success dwarfs it in a big way.
Click to expand...

The fact that Liverpool have a bigger fanbase in any continent really just proves my point, considering their relative levels of success over the last decade.

Where are you getting your stats from anyway? The only data I can find on google is an interactive map of twitter followers. Which supports my point about Liverpool shitting all over City in terms of global fanbase.
 
Roman Bellic said:
Must have gained prominence in the late 70s though, just failed to build on that.

My overall point had to do with history not accounting for much in the present. Aren't Liverpool always knocked for always talking about history?
Click to expand...

Liverpool's history clearly counts for a lot in the present. Hence they remain popular despite years (decades?) of under-achievement.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.