nav[aria-label="Primary Navigation"] { padding: 0; & ul { list-style: none; width: 100%; display: flex; flex-direction: row; justify-content: start; align-items: start; gap: 30px; padding: 0; & li { margin: 0; } & ul li { list-style: none; } } }

Child Item

Manchester United Team Talk/Gossip/Rumours Thread 2015 Mod Note Post #2331

Lord TSC

Merry Xmas everyone.

Hopefully a new thread will see an upturn in fortunes :P

Mod Note - http://www.boards.ie/vbulletin/showpost.php?p=98323109&postcount=2331
Don't be a dick.

Find more posts tagged with

Quick Links

Comments

Adamocovic

TheDoc wrote: »

I can rarely to never recall a situation where an assistant manager cast such a shadow over an established coach, and was essentially a replacement in waiting(in the eyes of the media and pundits)

The post Ferguson era has been a mess so far. Moyes had to contend with the Ferguson shadow, and Van Gaal is having to deal with Giggs.

I don't know what the relationship is like, or where Giggs stands. But there shouldn't be such a clamor for an assitant manager to take over, coming from fans, media, pundits or levels of the club.

For two regimes now Giggs has been an unnecessary distraction and side show, and as far as I'm concerned is as culpable as the managers involved, as he is part of the management team.

He should be cut along with Van Gaal, and allowed shape it in whatever PR way they want so that majority of fans don't comprehend what just happened.

I'm not saying this based on the tweet Lord TSC shared, it's just a clearly mental situation I've never been comfortable with. If he has grand designs to be a no.1 he needs to leave or be shown the door, to go work somewhere else and earn his crednetials and experience. If he stays at United post Van Gaal, then it should be under the clearest terms that he is an assistant and there is no opportunity to take the no.1 role, and that should be made clear by the club and the man himself, to stop this circus once and for all.

I don't see Everton, performing piss poorly this year, having a big circus about ditching Martinez and putting Duncan Ferguson in charge "because he understands the club".

Completely agree.

Also makes me question Giggs mental state in all that's going on. Surely he doesn't want us to do poorly but obviously he's aware that if we do poorly he could well end up with the job that we all know he wants, so it begs the question whether or not he feels his job is on the line like most of the other staff members.

Rayne Wooney

Isn't it kind of funny that Jose leaves an unfathomable trail of destruction behind him yet nearly all the Chelsea fans I know would take him back in a heartbeat and that seems to be a shared opinion with a lot of the Chelsea fans on boards too

TheDoc

When Mourinho first arrived to Chelsea, he was backed with resources, given the trust of signing players he wanted, and was very much on course to totally dislodging Ferguson, and ourselves, from being the dominant force in English football. Only for Mourinho and Chelsea to self implode, spared us from the current situation we are in, happening sooner. It's worth remembering, Ferguson didn't have the answer. I remember the worrying times and the fear. And it was only when Mourinho left, were we able to start re-asserting ourselves.

Guardiolas arrival with City's finances, is very much the same situation manifesting again. How we find ourselves the last three seasons is totally of our own making. There has been no dominance from City, Chelsea or Arsenal that has pushed us aside, we have just made an absolute meal of it. With City and Pep, this is a genuine thread. Compound it with our faffing about, and it's spelling lean years for the club to come.

It's entirely possible to recreate that first Mourinho Chelsea spell. Mourinho happy in charge, confident and trusted, with resources and trust to sign the players he wants and identifies with his scouting teams. I can't see any other ready made, plausible solution to what is coming. And that is forgetting that Klopp has had a good leadtime planning with Liverpool, Spurs on the ascendancy, and Arsenal are remembering where their chequebook is.

Pro. F

I'm glad Giggs was put into the management team by the board. LVG was relatively unknown. Like he was famous and Fergie knew and respected him, but Fegie wouldn't have known as much about him as he would most managers working in England. Fergie wouldn't have had so much of the inside track on him.

There is a strong possibility when you appoint a new manager that he could get up to some dodgy behaviour - doping, bungs, etc - and with one that you know less about that risk is increased. So I think putting one of your own into the management team to keep an eye on things is a good idea. I also think that it is relatively common practice in football, whether with assistant's who are club men, or with structures that control the football operation above the manager (probably not really United's model).

So Giggs's role has been very important imo. If a new manager comes in, and Giggs isn't going to be there, then I expect another appointment of his type. That is unless the new manager is somebody Fergie knows enough about to trust completely.

Liam McPoyle

Rayne Wooney wrote: »

Isn't it kind of funny that Jose leaves an unfathomable trail of destruction behind him yet nearly all the Chelsea fans I know would take him back in a heartbeat and that seems to be a shared opinion with a lot of the Chelsea fans on boards too

Jose is a proven winner.

There will never be another Fergie or Wenger ie a manager that stays in a top job for 10 + years.

So what if Jose brings perceived baggage.

When he left Chelsea, Inter and Madrid he left a damn good squad behind him.

If he can come in for 3 years, get us back on top and leave us in good shape for whomever is next then happy fookin days.

The fact is that anything he could do would be better than the slop we have been eating for the last 2.5 years.

TheDoc

Rayne Wooney wrote: »

Isn't it kind of funny that Jose leaves an unfathomable trail of destruction behind him yet nearly all the Chelsea fans I know would take him back in a heartbeat and that seems to be a shared opinion with a lot of the Chelsea fans on boards too

The destruction however typically comes from the fact that following managers simply cannot utilise the squads he has built to do what they want. And the players themselves seem to go through a period of mourning.

Yes Jose does not have a good track record of promoting youth, or nurturing and managing really good creative flair players. But he has a pretty good track record in building title winning squads. And pretty quickly.

His style and tactics are a source of debate, and while he does(unequivably) play a very defensive and contained system built on countering in big games, that is totally fine. There is a raft of games where Mourinho with Inter,Real and Chelsea blew opponnents away.

His first Chelsea team had an unbelievable midfield. I remember the games. You were fearful, they looked indescrutable. You didn't know how you could beat Mourinhos Chelsea. But with that impenetrable midfield and defence you had flair and creativity. That just overpowered and marauded weaker teams, totally bashing them.

Mourinho has never had to reignite or rebuild a squad. Ever. But he knows when he needs to do it. Its where this seasons fallout came form. He knew he had to make signings to keep the squad fresh after a title win, and the club didn't back him. so he knows when to do it, hes just never stuck around long enough, to actually put it into practice.

A Mourinho with financial backing and trust from the club is the single biggest obstacle United have ever faced in my lifetime as a fan. There looked to be a change of the vanguard after his first two seasons. Ferguson had no answers. And we only got the boot of our neck when Mourinho fellout with Abramovic.

I don't know why the **** we wouldn't want to try go after the formula, that was on course to ending Ferguson and Uniteds dominance years before it actually happened.

Pro. F

TheDoc wrote: »

I can rarely to never recall a situation where an assistant manager cast such a shadow over an established coach, and was essentially a replacement in waiting(in the eyes of the media and pundits)

The post Ferguson era has been a mess so far. Moyes had to contend with the Ferguson shadow, and Van Gaal is having to deal with Giggs.

I don't know what the relationship is like, or where Giggs stands. But there shouldn't be such a clamor for an assitant manager to take over, coming from fans, media, pundits or levels of the club.

For two regimes now Giggs has been an unnecessary distraction and side show, and as far as I'm concerned is as culpable as the managers involved, as he is part of the management team.

He should be cut along with Van Gaal, and allowed shape it in whatever PR way they want so that majority of fans don't comprehend what just happened.

I'm not saying this based on the tweet Lord TSC shared, it's just a clearly mental situation I've never been comfortable with. If he has grand designs to be a no.1 he needs to leave or be shown the door, to go work somewhere else and earn his crednetials and experience. If he stays at United post Van Gaal, then it should be under the clearest terms that he is an assistant and there is no opportunity to take the no.1 role, and that should be made clear by the club and the man himself, to stop this circus once and for all.

I don't see Everton, performing piss poorly this year, having a big circus about ditching Martinez and putting Duncan Ferguson in charge "because he understands the club".

I know that you pay a lot closer attention to the media than I do, but is there really a clamour for Giggs to take over? As far as I can see there is not. It is not a popular idea with the fans and the single biggest source for the idea was LVG himself.

Trigger

Pro. F wrote: »

I know that you pay a lot closer attention to the media than I do, but is there really a clamour for Giggs to take over? As far as I can see there is not. It is not a popular idea with the fans and the single biggest source for the idea was LVG himself.

It would be more Ex players talking him up as the next manager in the media than Journalists writing stories from their own sources

Pro. F

Giggsy11 wrote: »

I would highlight Icardi too

Ah Icardi is good imo and young. I'd just have a concern about his attitude.

beno619

Your Airbag wrote: »

Whats the teams nationaility got to do with anything? What does Napolis result have to do with anything?

Midtjylland beat Southampton, we beat them at home and they did the same to us. Football is unpredicatble like that, Midtjylland could be beaten by us in the second leg or they could progress and defeat Napoli/

FC Copenhagen are Danish also, and they beat us under Fergie, held a Pep manged Barca to a draw.

Writing off a team based on nationality is just plain daft. Just because its not the EPL, la Liga or German league doesn't mean they are walkovers.

Nobody is doing what you have mentioned above.

Strawman ?

Pro. F

astradave wrote: »

It would be more Ex players talking him up as the next manager in the media than Journalists writing stories from their own sources

Oh yeah, that's happened. It's been extremely mild, not like the clamour Doc is describing. And LVG started it.

TheDoc

Pro. F wrote: »

I'm glad Giggs was put into the management team by the board. LVG was relatively unknown. Like he was famous and Fergie knew and respected him, but Fegie wouldn't have known as much about him as he would most managers working in England. Fergie wouldn't have had so much of the inside track on him.

There is a strong possibility when you appoint a new manager that he could get up to some dodgy behaviour - doping, bungs, etc - and with one that you know less about that risk is increased. So I think putting one of your own into the management team to keep an eye on things is a good idea. I also think that it is relatively common practice in football, whether with assistant's who are club men, or with structures that control the football operation above the manager (probably not really United's model).

So Giggs's role has been very important imo. If a new manager comes in, and Giggs isn't going to be there, then I expect another appointment of his type. That is unless the new manager is somebody Fergie knows enough about to trust completely.

For someone quick to point out ludicrous theories not supported by evidence, there is a certain irony here that you are indicating Giggs position on the management team is to effectively act as an inside man or spy.

But I know what you mean, and fair enough. I would have accepted though on the surface, that Giggs appointment was initially in respect to his service to the club, and his desire to enter coaching. And Van Gaal indicated Giggs would be kept on as he likes to have a conduit to the first team players. Like Kluivert with Holland. Don't forget, he did not keep a hold of Scholes(who expected to continue in a coaching position with the first team)

To be honest if that is a genuine thing, then I'd be surprised top managers would agree to those sort of terms. "You need to have this guy on the staff, because we want him to be keeping an eye on you". While I guess you are going to tell me its not explicitly outlined, and covered up with request to have a former player etc. included who knows the club, if its something you have picked up on, I'd expect top managers to be aware of it also, and not be impressed by it.

And you seem pretty confident that Ferguson is responsible for this next appointment. The non-executive with no veto or voting credentials.(Or am I wrong on that point?) I'm pretty sure he is there like Charlton in a consulting capacity(granted a fairly strong one) but there might well be credence for the actual voting executives to take the reigns on who they want, considering the last two have been gash.

Pretty much all the reporting and everything indicates that Van Gaal was Woodwards choice and appointment. Right down to the analysis on why he has not yet been fired, that he is "Woodwards man" and he doesn't want to be shown up as being incorrect. If Van Gaal was Fergusons appointment, Woodward would have fired him long ago, and used it as a very clever PR tool to outline to the fans that Ferguson had now appointed two massive failures, and be able to severely weaken Fergusons position in that regard.

Although I'm now providing a theory to debate your theory, which I thought you hated in the first place?

Not being smart or trying to catch you. This is the first I've ever read, heard or even thought that Giggs is in place as an inside man to keep check on things, as opposed to him being provided that role based on his service to the club and his aspirations.

Giggsy11

Pro. F wrote: »

Ah Icardi is good imo and young. I'd just have a concern about his attitude.

He is a poacher, his all round game make Hernandez look like a Suarez. It's just a waste of money to sign him when we had Hernandez who was better player and more experienced.

Good striker though as he scores goals which is the most important attribute for striker but we should be aiming for better players IMO.

Mitch Connor

I reckon Giggs is simply very highly rated within the club and it was an attempt at succession planning to have him learn from LVG - with the idea being LVG would right the ship, get us competitive again and then hand the reigns over to Giggs after 3 years for a relatively seemless transition.

I wouldn't think it was down to a though LVG would be accepting bungs or anything like that.

Nalz

TheDoc wrote: »

Not being smart or trying to catch you. This is the first I've ever read, heard or even thought that Giggs is in place as an inside man to keep check on things, as opposed to him being provided that role based on his service to the club and his aspirations.

hey Doc. Did someone really say\insinuate this? A little bit out there!

God knows whats going on. I wasn't really happy with either LVG or Giggs appointment. Having said that I was in the pro Moyes camp before he arrived and up until the last 2 months before he got the chop.

Can't help but think we'd be in a better situation with him still in charge, not that I wanted that and again its easy to say.

Giggs is an unknown at this level of management. My money is on him not being a success at it but you just don't know.

sky88

It seems to be more of giggs friends who are saying he should get the job.

One thing that annoys me with most pundits in england is how when its a foreign coach they will turn on him no problem but when its a British or Irish coach like rodgers they plead in the media how they need more time. Rodgers like LVG it was time to go but they were still hoping rodgers kept his job.

Mitch Connor

Giggsy11 wrote: »

He is a poacher, his all round game make Hernandez look like a Suarez. It's just a waste of money to sign him when we had Hernandez who was better player and more experienced.

Good striker though as he scores goals which is the most important attribute for striker but we should be aiming for better players IMO.

Depends on the formation and style. If it is still LVG in charge, then yeah - waste of money and he'd have done feck will with chico too.

A new manager might be better able to utilize the playing style of Icardi or Hernandez.

So saying it is pointless to sign Icardi after selling Hernandez is ignoring the fact it would, hopefully, be two very different managers.

TheDoc

Pro. F wrote: »

I know that you pay a lot closer attention to the media than I do, but is there really a clamour for Giggs to take over? As far as I can see there is not. It is not a popular idea with the fans and the single biggest source for the idea was LVG himself.

Yeah there would be what I'd consider "influential" journalists that are consistently advocating this idea in their columns. And this in turn trickles down to conversations and pieces written by the midranking journalists(Who use the others are justification for their point)

Oliver Holt, Henry Winter, Martin Samuel, Neil Custis and Jonathan Northcroft have pretty influential columns and have all written pieces advocating for Van Gaal to be ditched and Giggs put in place.

Neil Custis, Steve Bates and John Richardson frequently portray what is their opinion and evaluation of the situation (they advocate for Giggs) and then do that horrible thing by outlining "speaking to some fans" or "hearing some fans", referencing a few people they speak to at the stadium, and then morphing that into a representation of a global fanbase.

Typically the media, especially the local correspondants, wont frequently push an agenda or narrative if the supporters themselves are not tied into it, wanting ir or agreeing it. While I'm not English or based in Manchester, I can only deduce that the stories keep coming along because there is a sizeable section of local support that actually want this to take place. IT would be unusual for the journalists involved to keep pushing the story and the opinion, if it was something that fans en mass accepted as a nonsense.

TheDoc

Nalz wrote: »

hey Doc. Did someone really say\insinuate this? A little bit out there!

God knows whats going on. I wasn't really happy with either LVG or Giggs appointment. Having said that I was in the pro Moyes camp before he arrived and up until the last 2 months before he got the chop.

Can't help but think we'd be in a better situation with him still in charge, not that I wanted that and again its easy to say.

Giggs is an unknown at this level of management. My money is on him not being a success at it but you just don't know.

Maybe I've taken Pro.F's post completely incorrectly on my part. My first read, and re-read, came to me that ProF is insinuating Giggs is in place on that bench as an inside man, so that if any unmoral or unethical decisions are made, Giggs can report that back to Ferguson/club.

I thought his inclusion was based on his aspirations to be a coach, and the club out of respect for his service, have provided him a position on the coaching staff at the club.

Or maybe ProF is outlining his point on Giggs role, as an additional to what I'm saying.

TheDoc

Just as a sidebar. Reading some of the papery stuff based on last night.

I get the feeling that a lot of people don't know the meaning of the phrase "Murphys Law", the way Van Gaal getting mocked and slated this morning in various reports by journalists. He did go on to explain specifically why the team lost. Thought it was a nice turn of phrase to sum up his feelings about the way things are going. But it's pretty much a case of any stick to beat him with at this stage really.

beno619

Lord TSC wrote: »

In fairness, it's not just over a single twitter comment. The sentiment has been there for quiet a while now...

Completely unsubstantiated. Also used by some as a deflection method for LVG.

Giggsy11

Mitch Connor wrote: »

Depends on the formation and style. If it is still LVG in charge, then yeah - waste of money and he'd have done feck will with chico too.

A new manager might be better able to utilize the playing style of Icardi or Hernandez.

So saying it is pointless to sign Icardi after selling Hernandez is ignoring the fact it would, hopefully, be two very different managers.

Even if we sign different manager Icardi wouldn't be a good signing. His all round game is poor and he won't even work hard like Hernandez did.

We should look for players who are good on the ball or someone like Costa who can hold the ball and bring others into play when we go deep. I don't there is any top team that plays with poacher or striker who is not good on the ball. (I know we are not top team now)

beno619

TheDoc wrote: »

I can rarely to never recall a situation where an assistant manager cast such a shadow over an established coach, and was essentially a replacement in waiting(in the eyes of the media and pundits)

More unsubstantiated ****e tbh.

The camera's still pans to Fergie but his "cloud" doesnt fit the agenda that the media are trying to portray this time around.

"Evil Gigg's" is an easier story to sell.

Pro. F

TheDoc wrote: »

For someone quick to point out ludicrous theories not supported by evidence, there is a certain irony here that you are indicating Giggs position on the management team is to effectively act as an inside man or spy.

But I know what you mean, and fair enough. I would have accepted though on the surface, that Giggs appointment was initially in respect to his service to the club, and his desire to enter coaching. And Van Gaal indicated Giggs would be kept on as he likes to have a conduit to the first team players. Like Kluivert with Holland. Don't forget, he did not keep a hold of Scholes(who expected to continue in a coaching position with the first team)

To be honest if that is a genuine thing, then I'd be surprised top managers would agree to those sort of terms. "You need to have this guy on the staff, because we want him to be keeping an eye on you". While I guess you are going to tell me its not explicitly outlined, and covered up with request to have a former player etc. included who knows the club, if its something you have picked up on, I'd expect top managers to be aware of it also, and not be impressed by it.

And you seem pretty confident that Ferguson is responsible for this next appointment. The non-executive with no veto or voting credentials.(Or am I wrong on that point?) I'm pretty sure he is there like Charlton in a consulting capacity(granted a fairly strong one) but there might well be credence for the actual voting executives to take the reigns on who they want, considering the last two have been gash.

It is a fairly common sentiment that I have heard plenty of times from managers, coaches and executives; the idea that clubs should exercise healthy oversight in their operations; the importance of being stable, independent of any one manager and having consistent codes of practice that are followed. It is also a common sentiment in the world of management outside of football. I'm surprised that this would be a news to anybody, or that you would equate this idea with theories about power struggles at the club.

Managers accept oversight or they're not given jobs. It's a simple equation for them. And no, it wouldn't be presented as baldly as you describe.

I am confident that Fergie is responsible for the two managerial appointments. Given his history with those two managers and how he talked about the process of choosing Moyes I see no reason to believe that somebody else is calling the shots. His position on the board is irrelevant. If the shot callers want to they can pay anybody to choose the next manager for them.

I certainly hope that it is Fergie who is doing the choosing (preferable with some oversight from Charlton), I don't know why you would want anybody else at the club doing it.

TheDoc wrote: »

Pretty much all the reporting and everything indicates that Van Gaal was Woodwards choice and appointment. Right down to the analysis on why he has not yet been fired, that he is "Woodwards man" and he doesn't want to be shown up as being incorrect. If Van Gaal was Fergusons appointment, Woodward would have fired him long ago, and used it as a very clever PR tool to outline to the fans that Ferguson had now appointed two massive failures, and be able to severely weaken Fergusons position in that regard.

Although I'm now providing a theory to debate your theory, which I thought you hated in the first place?

Not being smart or trying to catch you. This is the first I've ever read, heard or even thought that Giggs is in place as an inside man to keep check on things, as opposed to him being provided that role based on his service to the club and his aspirations.

Pretty much all the reporting is made up and clueless as to what is going on behind the scenes at United. You have said that many times yourself.

Your theories are based on these media stories.

v3ttel

Giggsy11 wrote: »

Even if we sign different manager Icardi wouldn't be a good signing. His all round game is poor and he won't even work hard like Hernandez did.

We should look for players who are good on the ball or someone like Costa who can hold the ball and bring others into play when we go deep. I don't there is any top team that plays with poacher or striker who is not good on the ball. (I know we are not top team now)

I'd have serious doubts about Icardi's attitude too as well as his all round game.

[Deleted User]

Pro. F wrote: »

?!

May have been getting a bit excited with some of them :P

They few you highlighted still might be viable options to an extent...

I would rate Icardi though

Pro. F

TheDoc wrote: »

Yeah there would be what I'd consider "influential" journalists that are consistently advocating this idea in their columns. And this in turn trickles down to conversations and pieces written by the midranking journalists(Who use the others are justification for their point)

Oliver Holt, Henry Winter, Martin Samuel, Neil Custis and Jonathan Northcroft have pretty influential columns and have all written pieces advocating for Van Gaal to be ditched and Giggs put in place.

Neil Custis, Steve Bates and John Richardson frequently portray what is their opinion and evaluation of the situation (they advocate for Giggs) and then do that horrible thing by outlining "speaking to some fans" or "hearing some fans", referencing a few people they speak to at the stadium, and then morphing that into a representation of a global fanbase.

Typically the media, especially the local correspondants, wont frequently push an agenda or narrative if the supporters themselves are not tied into it, wanting ir or agreeing it. While I'm not English or based in Manchester, I can only deduce that the stories keep coming along because there is a sizeable section of local support that actually want this to take place. IT would be unusual for the journalists involved to keep pushing the story and the opinion, if it was something that fans en mass accepted as a nonsense.

I think your understanding about how much influence these journalists have is incorrect. Unless you are just saying that they have influence over other journalists.

I also think your view of how much popular support there is for the he idea of Giggs becoming next manager is incorrect.

You have also failed to address the fact that it was LVG who has been the most important source for the idea of Giggs being the next manager.

Pro. F

M!Ck^ wrote: »

May have been getting a bit excited with some of them :P

They few you highlighted still might be viable options to an extent...

Have you watched them and do you know what ages they are?

Miley Byrne

patmac wrote: »

I remember the pressure Fergie was under after 4&1/2 winless seasons and a cup tie vs Forest which we had to win for him to keep his job cue Mark Robins and his his famous back heel

Famous back heel? What goal was this?

v3ttel

TheDoc wrote: »

I can rarely to never recall a situation where an assistant manager cast such a shadow over an established coach, and was essentially a replacement in waiting(in the eyes of the media and pundits)

On what basis is he casting a shadow?

The man has barely spoken to the media since the LVG has taken over. His role is largely behind the scenes. He's not ranting and raving (rightly or wrongly) and looking to be the center of attention during games. He is sitting quietly on the bench beside the man he is supposed to be helping.

As far as I can see, he's done nothing to bring attention to himself or undermine the manager.

It's the media who are pushing that agenda. He is a club legend, but he is not the right person to be the next manager based on his lack of experience. I don't buy the whole "Giggs is a distraction and casting a shadow" bollocks that the media are pushing. LVG is the biggest part of the problem.