Why should he resign? He was getting 0-0s with the players not fighting. Now he's getting 0-0s with the players fighting.
Surely if we draw or lose against Swansea he should "do the honourable thing and walk"... as we're being told week in week out by the Van Gaal faithful? 45 minutes to stay in his job or walk???
So I was bought a book for Christmas called "A Season in the Red". Just finished it. It's an absolute embarrassment to the publisher and the author who is the Manchester football correspondent for the Guardian. It basically covers the last two seasons, one under Moyes and the other under the, apparent genius, Louis Van Gaal. From the outset it is a first class hatchet job on Moyes. The author would have you believe that he knew from the start that Moyes was going to be a disaster. He picked up on little things Moyes said in his first few press conferences and interviews that indicated that Moyes wasn't up to the job. Even during the LVG section of the book there are snide digs at Moyes. I assume Moyes refused to give the author an interview at some point or possibly gave the author's wife one in the past. On the flip side, he presents LVG as an absolute giant of a manager despite admitting that the football served up is turgid. Achieving 4th place after spending £150million is heralded as a great achievement. He goes so far as to say that LVG and Mourinho are by far the two best managers in the league and only LVG will be able to offer a challenge to Chelsea this season. The book was clearly rushed out at the end of the last season, which would explain the number of typos (no time for proof reading!). There is absolutely no new information in it, nothing that wasn't in the public domain long ago, so I'm not sure what journalistic insights the author thinks he may have provided. In fact he lists the sources for this information as all of the major news outlets plus Wayne Rooney's website and Juan Mata's blog! Avoid at all costs! Disclaimer: Stan is in no way suggesting that David Moyes was a great United manager and//or that he should have been given more time to build an empire. Stan would also like to remind any readers that he was not posting on this forum at the time of David Moyes's sacking and therefore it was impossible for him to criticise any other poster for celebrating the sacking of David Moyes as has previously been claimed but still not proven. He is still prepared to accept any apologies that should be forthcoming.
An extract from the closing pages. "As his former pupil, Mourinho knows what Van Gaal can be next season. In tactical acumen there is not much between them. What this year has shown is what the view was before it began: that the Dutchman and the Portuguese are the two best managers in the league. Comfortably."
Jamie Jackson is a **** with both. He's been banned from pressers I believe. Plus its the guardian Stan, a ****s paper for fruitbats without braincells. Tree huggers as some might call them. I would ignore it. And apologies
No, its another paper that makes **** up. Just a few weeks back they claimed a Greek vessel sank a refugee boat. Shortly after they claimed turkey shot down a Russian jet in Turkish airspace. All lies. That's just recently. It's the tree huggers Daily Mail. If that's high brow I would rather get my news from a 1965 copy of the New York times. More reliable.
Tbf UIR, whatever you may think of a newspaper's general journalistic qualities, the football writers and journos have little to do with them. I remember decades ago, I thought The Mirror was pretty cr@p as a paper but their football journos were very good. Not saying Jamie Jackson is any good, I don't know him, but his standard as a football writer is nowt to do with how good or bad the Guardian is.
All the Guardian readers on earth post on Digital Spy. Makes the old 606 look relaxed. Nazi ran forums.
I used to deal with the cricket journalists. At the time the best two, in my opinion, worked for the Daily Mail and The Mirror. They loved the game and were able to get close to the players so got the best stories / info. It didn't stop their papers being ****e! The journos for the papers that would consider themselves a cut above were, by and large, tossers who had their heads up their arses. You know who you are!
Depends. Certainly not the Guardian as its an awful one. Genuine news is usually reported across the media, lies are limited to one outlet or outlets with the same agenda. Even then some story's slip through. Do you read the Guardian Chief?
