Yes, in so far as, to protect his own position and meet the demands of his board he was forced to take the biggest gamble of his professional career.
Look, just make your mind up - You now say - Liverpool -walked out Blackburn - walked out Newcastle - sabotaged the team to get sacked Celtic - sacked because the board wanted him out - but you haven't given a reason, and presumably you don't know why, or even care. Liverpool - stress related to being there when two huge tragedies occurred and certainly for 1989, being a focal point for the community. Blackburn - still longing to return to Liverpool. I thought I made it pretty clear in my previous post why i thought he left. Either you didn't bother reading it or you're just arguing for the sake of it. Newcastle - Lunatic board. Nuff said the better. Celtic - wtf, getting rid of a manager after 18 games is insane. Any which way you look at this, we're miles away from the original point of the article - if you create skewed statistics, you can make them misrepresent almost anything...
Dont see why some are gettin the huff over what is a very likely scenario. I have not even slagged him off by saying he wont stay long. He is obviously there to bring some stability and direction to the club.
I'm not getting into the how and why this and that as when I started to support Liverpool he was at Blackburn, then Newcastle, etc and I just knew of his achievements as a player and then player/coach. To be honest, i would be ecstatic if in 3 years we tempted Jurgen Klopp over, if we want electric football, that man can deliver and his training methods are loved by his teams ( loads of possession, quick thinking, pass and move, etc). Either way, in the present, I hope we get CL footy and knock you off your f***ing perch ( couldn't be all the way nice to you right?!?!)
So as I said. He walked out on Blackburn. He made a meal out of it but in the end rovers got a title. Newcastle, lunatic board you say? Wrong. A great board who backed managers and supported them. Celtic. You sack a manager after 18 games if he doesnt meet your standards. Kenny clearly didnt. I am not reading up on it all, I have already done to much reading today so if there are other reasons he left/sacked from these jobs then let me know. A quick search on celtic revealed they were desperate to get rid but nothing else.
I fail to see how it is desperate though Dave. Fergie brought players in who he had been slowly bringing into the first team since 1992. United won the league in 92-93 and the double in 93-94. He then sold players who many fans thought were still good enough and brought these kids in, something he has doen plenty before and after ( stam , keane, Ruud and others ). I fail to see the desperation. Fergie says he can see in the players eyes and actions if they are still hungry for success and if they aren't he ships them out. It may have been a slight gamble but desperate ? Come on Dave
Fergie could of bought players yet he saw enough in his youngsters to give them a chance. on of the greatest managerial decisions in football history. No luck at all because if luck comes into it he wouldnt of put them in the team. Its as simple as that.
We are never going to agree on this but to say that it was a "slight gamble" is really downplaying the situation. Ask yourself these questions: If Ferguson had better options would he have done it? Was Ferguson's position at the time secure? Was the club itself at the time secure? All of these types of factors have to be taken into account. To try and be as unbiased as posible I asked myself where Shankly would have been if Ron Yates had turned out to be another Ian Ure. The only answer that i could come up with was - down the road - and the whole course of football history would have changed!
No, this is the thing about fergie. Where other managers take the easy and safe option he doesnt. He has on many occassions got rid of top class players and replaced them with young kids. Its safe to say everything you write about Fergie is bullshit.
Re Newcastle - you're mixing up Newcastle under Sir John Hall with Newcastle under Freddie Shepherd. Shepherd took over the running of the club after Alan Shearer was brought to Newcastle. Shepherd was heavily criticised by Sir Bobby Robson in his autobiography in his running and mismanagement of the club. Like Kenny, Sir Bobby was sacked at the beginning of a season - 4 games in, rather than 2 Of Shepherd, this was said "In March 1998, Shepherd and Douglas Hall (son of Sir John) were the target of a News of the World exposé, led by the “Fake Sheikh” Mazher Mahmood. The pair, believing Mahmood to be a wealthy Arab prince trying to set up a business deal, were caught mocking the club's own supporters for spending extortionate amounts of money on merchandise, calling female supporters “dogs”, and mocking star striker Alan Shearer by calling him the "Mary Poppins of football", all while frequenting a brothel." - Clearly a suitable and balanced individual for proprietor of the club and a 'safe pair of hands' Re Celtic - clearly you in 1987 thought the Manchester board were wrong in showing Alex such leeway, since 2nd and a cup is worthy of sacking, and 11th and no cup is a much better performance... Honestly, you could at least be honest and say that you thought that was precipitous behaviour. But no, just a chance for a low blow. Very disappointing and of a standard of debating I am growing accustomed to ...
I don care what the owners of NUFC are doing in their own time however dodgy it may be. On the pitch though they backed Keegan, Dalglish, Robson, Guillet ( Sp? ) very well. I think Dalglish did the worst out of them but not 100% sure. Man Utd are also different to other clubs, Fergie was given chances others dont get and besides arsenal there isnt another club like that around anymore.
Your comprehension is very limited isn't it! The last 2 posts from liverpool supporters both allude to the same thing - your are childish and unitelligent and therefore a mere irritation. If you are happy with your staus so be it but don't expect to be applauded for it!
Cant help but laugh at the claims I am 'unitelligent' ( whatever that is ). Assuming you are meaning intelligence I fail to see how you can claim I am thick with the comments you have been making. For the record I am anything but thick, too smart for my own good if anything. Gets me into a lot of **** as well.
I used the info about the NUFC owner to show he was a poor judge of character, and by extension was not a person who demonstrates good judgement. His peccadilloes in other areas are of no interest or relevance (although deriding the paying punter has been shown time and again to be a stupid move - ask Gerald Ratner) And you agree that Fergie was shown uncommon patience by Manchester - given that, I think we can agree that had he been at Newcastle or Celtic, he'd have been shown an equal amount of leeway as Dalglish. And done as well (when looking at his record for the same length of service at United compared to Kenny's at Newcastle and Celtic). Well done, a good argument that it was luck that Fergie was given the time needed to turn around the supertanker that Manchester was, and had he been elsewhere, he;d have been sacked in short order on the performances Manchester put out in his first two seasons...
I dont think he woukd. Fergie was a man known for rebuilding sides and making them the best ever ( in terms of their own history ). Fergies one major bit of luck was the Robins goal in 90 Fa cup. Saved his job. His teams were all his work and the team he employed to help him.
Surely that means that you are unitelligent as you cannot learn from experience. ergo - charge proven by your own words. Thanks
In 1986, Alex had no great reputation for rebuilding sides - that was all to be built (ahem) in the future. Had he been anywhere other than at Manchester, he would have been awarded the Order of the Spanish Archer - end of . 11th, 2nd, 11th, 13th Hardly the mark of a good rebuild, was it. One good season out of 4. Deffo sacked at Newcastle and Celtic.
