It seems like every rat and dog in the media has an opinion on whether or not Mourinho is the right man for United. For those that claim he is not the right man, I have yet seen their argument on alternatives. The irony to this is that if United were to go another manager, they would be the first to point out that United made a mess by not appointing Mourinho when he was available. The question is; could we have really done any worse by initially going with Moyes over Mourinho? The answer to that is 100% "NO". And given where we are now after LvG, surely this is perfectly setup for Mourinho to exceed expectations.
Exactly, LvG is officially toast - so apart from JM, what other world-class manager with PL/CL experience is there (Giggs excluded). By that measure alone it is a no-brainer.
Giggs would have been an absolute gamble as well given he has never managed a team other than the 4 games after Moyes. I can see him winning 3 out of every 6 games, but that's it! We could afford such gamble 3 years ago, but not today and I think the Board knows it.
Money , not managers , get titles these days . Look at when Mourinho was dumped his first time at Chelsea , Chelsea had some of their best results ever after that that season with Grant . Grant went quietly about his business ( something Mourinho could take a lesson from ) treating the entire team like they were all untouchables., instead of dividing it .
And won fck all tbf. I think he was a token front man while John Terry was the real manager. A bit like RDM when they won the CL. RDM is about as plastic a manager as you could get. I remember Terry making the fcking substitutions in one match!
Jose Mourinho has been confirmed as Manchester United's new manager. http://www.skysports.com/football/news/11667/10293151/jose-mourinho-appointed-manchester-united-boss
What ? This is such a surprise Sceptical but as I would have taken anyone besides LVG he deserves support. Besides he's got a better record against the RS than any manager
Leicester is the super exception, who else besides the money clubs of London or Manchester have won the Premier . Even Blackburn wouldn't have won their title if it would have been 2 points for a win instead of 3 .
They were , only referencing clubs outside of London and Manchester . It's why I never referenced them together
Besides Blackburn was the City of their day...they spent relatively huge amounts on the likes of shearer and Sutton.
Yes , it only proves my point about money bought titles . All I was saying is Leicester was the only no money team to win it outside the two cities I only brought Blackburn up because they weren't from Manchester or London before someone corrected me .
Tis a fair point. Even when we won the title without spending much in 93, 96, 97, 01, 07 and 11 we still spent a heck of a lot on wages. Possibly even more back then than Leicester did this year. Pretty sure there was a study done a few years back which showed that spending on wages had a very strong correlation with success, although it was never quite clear if that was a result of needing to buy players with high wages to progress, or players demanding more money when their club moved up the table.
Wages is possibly more an indicator. Even Leicester will now need to renegotiate all their contracts otherwise the stars are going to be snatched up by rivals. Transfers are misleading. Pool has been spending so much over the years yet they remain an abject failure when it comes to value for money.
Will end in tears, please stop this spunkfest ffs please log in to view this image please log in to view this image It is very embarrassing lads
I see you've stuck with the new username in honour of your manager. Most of the Dippers ditched it after you started sliding down the table!
