Rival watch
- Thread starter Spurlock
- Start date
-
Please bear with us on the new site integration and fixing any known bugs over the coming days. If you can not log in please try resetting your password and check your spam box. If you have tried these steps and are still struggling email [email protected] with your username/registered email address
-
Yeah, but he managed to win the league/cup double and reach the champions league final so while you're right about Dortmund (restrictions) , because the German League is weaker (Yes DL, weaker), a club like Dortmund can still challenge for the big trophies, plus having the biggest Stadium in Germany and a superb scouting network helps.
He would need to be slightly insane to want to manage a club like us (with restrictions) it be like swapping Dortmund for an inferior run English version, with huge pressure.
Not that it will happen anyway, as we couldn't attract him. Best hope is still Van Gaal (If Sherwood is sacked).
Dortmund exceed expectations, but they can very rarely challenge Bayern, yet are comfortably ahead of the rest. Klopp does well but is never in a pressure situation. The PL is very different. You're expected to win all the time whichever team you manage. That's unrealistic, but it goes with the high salary and the huge sums of money sloshing about at every club. He's never had to deal with that and is therefore even more of an unknown quantity than Sherwood.
Interesting, if true. And would explain Utd's timing.
http://www.independent.co.uk/sport/...ds-decision-was-made-in-february-9273567.html
http://www.independent.co.uk/sport/...ds-decision-was-made-in-february-9273567.html
Moyes biggest mistake was getting rid of the back room staff. Who in their right mind would sack Howard Webb?
We've got Tim "Sandro's not good enough" Sherwood mate, don't worry.
It was obvious the van Gaal link was too good to be true anyway, something was bound to scupper the slightest of chances we had of getting him.
Moyes' position became untenable. Yes, he had to rebuild. Yes, the transfer window fiasco wasn't his fault. Yes, a lot of the players let him down. But he stopped Utd playing like Utd. No all out attacking, no pushing teams back, no Alamo at the end. The defence may be suspect, the midfield ineffective at times, but with RvP, Rooney, Welbeck, Hernandez, Valencia, Nani, Young, Kagawa, Mata, Fellaini & Januzaj on the books (the last 3 brought in or given a chance by Moyes), creating and scoring goals shouldn't be a problem.
You changed not just manager, but your chief executive, which showed in the screw up over transfers, it was basically a complete overhaul in terms of how the club is run from top to bottom and while you're right about the players not changing, much, what did your owners expect? handing a six year contract to a manager who has never managed a top four club and sacking him after 10 months. They should never have employed him unless they where prepared to write off the first season.
I must admit that I'm finding the way that Moyes has been treated pretty funny.
We've had years of Man Utd fans telling us that teams need to stick by their manager and consistency and stability are the only ways to progress.
That's true, of course, but it's only possible nowdays if the manager is doing well. If not, then the players stop playing and the press crucify the poor bastard.
Only managers that have done well and appear to be virtually unsackable have any real power now.
We've had years of Man Utd fans telling us that teams need to stick by their manager and consistency and stability are the only ways to progress.
That's true, of course, but it's only possible nowdays if the manager is doing well. If not, then the players stop playing and the press crucify the poor bastard.
Only managers that have done well and appear to be virtually unsackable have any real power now.
I find that the most interesting aspect of all of this. They've either not consulted Ferguson / ignored his advice before taking the decision or he's said Moyes should be sacked. I'd love to know which of the 2 is true.
What United are doing is confused. They hire a longterm manager but they want immediate success. They hire a manager who's experienced and gets great value out of the transfer market yet they send an inexperienced chief-exec to mess deals up. They hire someone to grow into the job, like Fergie did, and fire him after one bad season.
Say what you want about Levy's tendency to sack managers but at least he's clear on what he wants.
Say what you want about Levy's tendency to sack managers but at least he's clear on what he wants.
Success has to be instant . The balance of power has so altered in the last decade that 2 clubs can buy constant top 4/trophy's that the older established
winning clubs Utd and Liverpool, are competing with one hand tied . Everybody else really is just making the numbers up.
Moyes has been a disaster , spent net 60 million and they are worse than us, throw in dire football , he has shown he is not worth keeping.
This makes Liverpool Premier achievements this season the greatest this century.
"Say what you want about Levy's tendency to sack managers but at least he's clear on what he wants."
They may have set a number of minimum targets during this first season.
CL next season via a PL placing may have been one of them.
They may have set a number of minimum targets during this first season.
CL next season via a PL placing may have been one of them.
H
Hoddle is a god
Guest
You can bet that a lot of the Glazer's decision was based on financial considerations. The share price was taking a kicking, and looked likely to continue getting a kicking. Those are the kind of things that affect decisions at many major clubs nowadays. Something that Fergie didn't have to contend with.
The Glazers are hard nosed business people first and foremost. As Michael Douglas said in the film Wall St, "it's all about bucks, the rest is conversation"
"You can bet that a lot of the Glazer's decision was based on financial considerations."
The Glazers ability to repay their debt is not based on the share price (which is paper money) .
So unless their creditors are making noises about fears of serious revenue drops affecting
their ability to repay, I cannot see it at the moment.
The Glazers ability to repay their debt is not based on the share price (which is paper money) .
So unless their creditors are making noises about fears of serious revenue drops affecting
their ability to repay, I cannot see it at the moment.
I don't think it's about repaying their debt so much as the concerns of the major shareholders. People with a lot of power whom the Glazers may need to call on again sometime...