227M for Sancho

comment by Donny The King van de Beek (U10026)
posted 2 hours, 58 minutes ago
It is a similar thing with underperforming players actually. Especially when you look at how many signings have failed at the club because of the exact structure that had failed the managers.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Similar, maybe, but not the same. There are different factors to a player failing than a manager.

In the context of United it’s clearly as big a factor as it is with the manager. But it’s not really a good argument that works for either, as some players have done better than others as have the managers. Just because the structure doesn’t work well enough doesn’t mean you stick with players and managers that don’t either.

A better structure identifies a better manager who identifies better players or improves what he's got. I know that sounds simplistic but I think we so need to get back to basics. To his credit I think Ole is trying to do that.

I think with the three seperate entities of board, manager and players you need at least two of them being good at least to succeed. You can get away with a poor board if you have a decent manager and players but if you have it right at the top then everything else usually follows. Look how relatively quickly LFC turned it round with better owners, manager and then players. They lost 6-1 at Stoke last day of 2015 and look at them just three years later in a CL Final. It can be done if the will is there.

To win anything big again under the current regime will take a massive effort I think.

I don’t see why some people can’t see that while slating Ed, maybe just maybe one of the things that can be levelled/attributed to him is also the hiring of Ole.

Another one of his bad decisions.

comment by Robb Pochettino (U22311)
posted 1 minute ago
I don’t see why some people can’t see that while slating Ed, maybe just maybe one of the things that can be levelled/attributed to him is also the hiring of Ole.

Another one of his bad decisions.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
I think it was meant as a caretaker role but he did so well initially it sort of pushed Ed into a corner. I think we all got swept away really but as fans that's understandable. However, for Ed is was a failure in some ways as if he did have a manager he wanted then he should have carried that through.

I do think Ole has done OK so far though but I'm willing to criticise when required and I'm also realistic to realise his tenure as manager can go either way from this point. I do think he has the right idea though but whether he can carry it through is still open for judgement.

On another forum today I saw something that made me think. Might be worth an article one day. The concept of ‘deserved’.

The point was about Ole but it can be about pretty much anything related in football and beyond. The argument was that people thought Ole ‘deserved’ to keep his job but that a football club that wants to win things and move forward should always employ the best possible person for the role. And that someone ‘deserving’ a job isn’t really a reason to keep them there.

It’s a funny word. Does it hold as much weight as people think in this context?

I do think he has the right idea though but whether he can carry it through is still open for judgement.
-----
That's why I'd like to see a DoF come in before he gets replaced. That way, even if he is gone the work he's put in can be built on rather than torn apart and starting over.

Without getting into semantics, no not really. What’s more is that I don’t the argument by many is that he actually deserves the job, it’s more that he doesn’t deserve the sack.

This is problematic, as by framing the argument that way it’s being suggested that you have to be doing a really bad job to deserve the sack.

But what that’s doing is deflecting from the idea that you should be very good at your job to be working for Manchester United.

If we can accept that Woodward and many players aren’t very good at their job, so should be replaced by someone that is, why is it so hard to understand that the same applies to the manager?

comment by Donny The King van de Beek (U10026)
posted 7 seconds ago
Without getting into semantics, no not really. What’s more is that I don’t the argument by many is that he actually deserves the job, it’s more that he doesn’t deserve the sack.

This is problematic, as by framing the argument that way it’s being suggested that you have to be doing a really bad job to deserve the sack.

But what that’s doing is deflecting from the idea that you should be very good at your job to be working for Manchester United.

If we can accept that Woodward and many players aren’t very good at their job, so should be replaced by someone that is, why is it so hard to understand that the same applies to the manager?
----------------------------------------------------------------------

👍

to me Utd seem to flip flop from one approach to another in the window.

You could liken the Maguire deal to LFC getting VVD. That was their target. they bid and were rejected. they didn't panic and get anyone else they stayed Focussed on the man they wanted and in the end paid Saints asking price which seemed very high at the time.

In retrospect it looks like Utd had their pants pulled down on that deal and it is something that has happened a good few times in the past. Now suddenly they are. trying to behave like City, not be ripped off and hope the pull and lure of their club will get a deal done at a fair price. I think the attraction of Utd has been on the wane post-Fergie and now selling clubs see them as a cash cow and demand huge fees while the players can expect ridiculous wages. Uts have created this perception through their dealings and now they're trying to fight against it.