bangkok wrote: » Not woodwards fault there isnt much interest in our players. Darmian and Blind will surely move on shortly all the same
Adamocovic wrote: » Tend to agree with you here. Say what you want about Woodward when he is pursuing players for us but when it comes to offloading unwanted fringe players it's understandable that clubs won't be jumping at us to buy them. Really believe that there is only probably one club really interested in each player. Still think they will be gone before the end of the window but I wouldn't be losing any sleep about it, when it inevitably drags out.
Adamocovic wrote: » It may of slipped through the cracks but I saw Southgate's interview after England's win. They mentioned about the regular starters in the team and he went on to say the rest of the squad deserve credit, the players who give their all each time in training, our man Phil Jones was first on his list I do believe. On players moving on, I know Jones is an easy one people link to but I really think José likes him and it may be down to the effort he puts in. Only have heard positive things about his work-rate. Said this many times but I'm interested in seeing us giving the Bailly/Jones combo a go again. It was brilliant for us during the start of last season.
brinty wrote: » M!Ck^ would be so proud of our Phil and his progress. Speaking of has anyone heard from M!Ck^ recently.... I'll await a response on this from Zerks around christmas saying he saw M!Ck^ at the world cup
astradave wrote: » Well there are clubs interested in Darmian and Blind, and according to reports the fees are the sticking point.. they imo seem to be mental for players who haven’t really played at all.. Drop the price a couple of million and free up the space in the squad.
jayo26 wrote: » Mick is still here he has a new mask on pal.
pjohnson wrote: » Daft prices for players who aren't even rotation options for us.
astradave wrote: » So Brinty... Are you calling Mick a woman?
bangkok wrote: » Its all part of the negotiations. Why should we drop a few million when juve are looking for 50m plus for sandro? Id say a few of our players will be gone on loan/sale close to deadline day
Cotts72 wrote: » Im sure if united have targets decided they have the time or donkey work put in to try to sign them and once the world cup ends along with palyers returning from international duty we should see movement
Mitch Connor wrote: » The word is Woodward is looking to not make a financial loss on the players in comparison to what we paid for them - which is pricing them out of moves. So you could blame Woodward for that, if it was proven to be true.
Owryan wrote: » And if he sold them off cheap, people would be complaining that he didn't get what they were worth, a common criticism of previous sales. Poor Woodward can't win, doesn't sign players it's his fault. Signs players, he took too long and paid too much. Can't sell players, he's looking for too much, and if he sell them cheap then......
brinty wrote: » Very well said there.. But as a chief executive he's never likely to win regardless. CEO's, politicians, your boss at work and so on can never do right for doing wrong in the eyes of some people. Woodward suffers from that a huge amount. He botched up his first summer in charge and no matter what he has done since people still use it as a stick to beat him with.. David Gill was widely regarded as the outstanding CEO in world football of his time with United but some people will still tell you he was useless, he sold out to the glazers, sold us up the river by leaving at the same time as Fergie and so on.... but most forget to mention the value of the club he built, how the stadium was expanded and Carrington was built to the envy of most football teams in the world and how he expanded our global footprint which has been carried on by Ed and we now generate huge revenue whilst going through our least successful period in the last 30 years..
Mitch Connor wrote: » Gill deserves criticism. Having good acheivements don't absolve you of your failures. Gill was vocal against the Glazer plan - but was happy out once they gave him a big pay rise As for the value of the club he built. Yeah, he deserves credit. Also, he said the club had grown as much as it could commercially and that there wasn't room for significant growth. Massively incorrect, as evidences by the huge commercial growth under Woodward/Glazers - so yeah, he deserves criticism on that cause he was utterly incorrect. It is the same with Woodward - he has been given plenty of credit when he has got good deals done - Sanchez as a great example. Lukaku another. He does get credit. But that doesn't mean he doesn't mess up at other times or put himself/the club under needless time pressure by not getting deals (in or out) done in a quicker time frame. We get people on here saying Woodward can do no right in some people's eyes (talking about me, I guess) but at the same time if feels for some people he can do no wrong. You talk of Carrington and the Stadium being built up to envious proportions - but don't mention the stagnation in both over the last number of years too where we have fallen behind? Comendation and Criticism equally due, at different times. The world is not black/white. He can both succeed and fail at different things at different times.
brinty wrote: » Mitch, wasn't having a go at you with that at all. I'd never call you out on something like that because i love what you bring to the thread. For some people as i said he can do nothing right regardless and that's why i made the analogy with a boss/politician etc. And to support you i do agree Carrington and the stadium do need upgrades and have stagnated. But i would hope they are working on doing something about all of those things. And if not I'll be with you in condemning the failure to do so. I know they have bought most of the land around Old Trafford so the plan may be to build a brand new stadium with all the supporting business, conference, office facilities etc that it can be self sustaining and won't put us into huge amounts of debt. Also can't imagine they are too happy that Citeh have better training and underage facilities than us and are planning to expand on that too.
Mitch Connor wrote: » Also, its not just CEO's. Should Ferguson get no criticism for his blindness to our CM issues over his last 5 years or so? Or the state he (and Gill) left the scouting structure in? It is pointed to the advances we are making in scouting and the academy now as a point of 'well done' for United and Woodward - but should the fact we got to that position not be a point of criticism for those they let it get to there? Are ferguson and Gill absolved of all blame for the state the club was in (working on an out of date model), because we won the treble in CL in 08? Should Gill and Ferguson be absolved of blame for the appointment of Moyes cause we won the league in 12?
brinty wrote: » Again i agree with you here and very valid points. We have a long way to go to get to the same base level after the neglect that occured and I in no way absolve Fergie and Gill for that. My biggest criticism of Gill was walking away at the same time as Fergie as it left a huge vaccum which we're still feeling the effects off today. Fergie absolutely took his eye of the ball when Citeh became oil rich and was consumed by beating them and letting the foundations crumble around him. Citeh developed everything we had neglected and when Fergie walked away he left us in a worse state than when he took over in '86. Same can be said of the "Rock of Gibraltar" issues too.
astradave wrote: » Well Sandro wasn’t at the WC so don’t think you can use that excuse if we are targeting him
bangkok wrote: » Ferguson also left us as league champions and for a lot of this season (4 years after fergie left) we were still playing a back 5 who were all signed by fergie. Also to say he left us in a worse state than he did when he tookover in 86 is laughable to be honest
Cotts72 wrote: » True so who's to say we are other than duncan castles, maybe the alternate reports of ua being happy with shaw/young for this season are indeed fact!
Drumpot wrote: » The owners ultimately make the call on who to hire and sanction all transfers. The CEO, as I understand it, is their man in the club who tries to keep everything functioning, gives the owners recommendations and possibly negotiates for players. So why is Woodward paid the big bucks? To pass on responsibility to others or to help make sure the club functions as smoothly as possible ? He is paid handsomely for his role, so I don't know why people are so quick to assume he is doing a good job. I know Jose Mourihno has won the major club trophies we would like to win so having confidence that he can do that makes sense. He has form. What has Woodward got form at ? Marketing ? In his first year he did a terrible job in terms of transfers. Since then he has signed players but were they value for money ? Is he a good negotiator ? I honestly don't know but don't presume he is because he signed players with a gargantuan budget at his disposal. He is a Glazer Stooge and his backround is marketing. Is there any reason to not believe that the club has perhaps signed players based on their marketing potential ? Given the way the club value has soared , even during a poor on field period, why do people think that the owners primary target is on field success ? Its a target, but not as important as increasing the value of the club. They don't necessarily go hand in hand if Uniteds valuation as the worlds most expensive club is anything to go by. And then there is club spending that gets airbrushed to sound impressive. Bearing in mind the club is worth the most in the world, how is Uniteds spending impressive in comparison to the top spending clubs ? At times it is at best equal, but generally not that of the worlds "richest" club. You see, Woodward may not be terrible at his job but its not clear how good or competent he is or what his or the owners priorities are when it comes to squad acquisitions. At least with Gill and Ferguson we have a CEO and manager who had priorities set before the newer owners came on board and who could advise and steer the owners in a certain direction. Woodward was only ever a Glazer employee, so all we have now is a CEO whose only interest ever was serving the owners who leveraged the club to potential bankrupt levels . .
