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

sky88 wrote: »

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.

LVG has been given an incredibly easy ride at United from the media.

M!Ck^ wrote: »

Yes I have watched them recently, those few you pointed out are older I admit. Rooney is in the same bracket if that's what your getting at.

Rooney is 30. Aduriz is 35 and Di Natale is 38. That is not the same bracket!

Mitch Connor wrote: »

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.

It would be possible that Giggs is highly thought of and so was given the opportunity, while at the same time the club wanted to ensure they could keep a close eye on LVG.

I'd be very worried if the club weren't exercising strong caution when bringing in managers they don't know intimately.

Pro. F wrote: »

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.

Yeah when I said influence, I meant on other journalists. Numerous mid ranking journalists will reference the higher ranking ones, or pundits, as some form of validation for their arguement Giggs should get the job.

I'm also pretty confident that from both the theme here on this forum, and in my circle of United supporting friends, there is little to no support for Giggs to get the job on a fulltime basis.

however that is the point I'm trying to convey here in text. The stories keep circulating, the opinion pieces keep coming. So whilst it is evident to us that on this forum and in our circle of friends that the idea is pretty outragous, there must be strong local support in the stadium or among the big supporter groups, or journalists would not keep pushing the narrative and shaping their opinion pieces around Giggs.

And I know Van Gaal said that Giggs would be the next manager, when Martial signed. But I didn't take that as anything anymore then Van Gaal supporting his assistant who has managerial aspirations, as many other managers have done. I didn't take it as some form of confirmation Giggs would be taking over

TheDoc wrote: »

Yeah when I said influence, I meant on other journalists. Numerous mid ranking journalists will reference the higher ranking ones, or pundits, as some form of validation for their arguement Giggs should get the job.

I'm also pretty confident that from both the theme here on this forum, and in my circle of United supporting friends, there is little to no support for Giggs to get the job on a fulltime basis.

however that is the point I'm trying to convey here in text. The stories keep circulating, the opinion pieces keep coming. So whilst it is evident to us that on this forum and in our circle of friends that the idea is pretty outragous, there must be strong local support in the stadium or among the big supporter groups, or journalists would not keep pushing the narrative and shaping their opinion pieces around Giggs.

And I know Van Gaal said that Giggs would be the next manager, when Martial signed. But I didn't take that as anything anymore then Van Gaal supporting his assistant who has managerial aspirations, as many other managers have done. I didn't take it as some form of confirmation Giggs would be taking over

I wouldn't take it as confirmation either, but it is just as likely to be the inspiration for these stories as anything else. I'd also be weary of the thought process that if the journos keep writing it then there must be support for the idea in the stadium or local area.

Pro. F wrote: »

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.

This is very much news to me to be honest. I know the situation your are outlining, and I equate that to a club having resistant infrastructure that allows the club to remain competitive or strong while being resilient to a managerial change.

But I expect this to come in the form of a sporting director, a technical director, or answerable to the board of a club. That an assistant manager being in this position is extremely contradictory, as the assistant is effectively a subordinate to the manager, responsible for tasks delegated by the manager.

I find it hard to believe a top class manager would accept these sort of terms with that check of standards and practice coming from the assistant manager, as opposed to a sporting director or technical director.

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.

This is contrary to what is being portrayed as accepted. While yes, I don't believe everything that is written and spoken, sometimes you have to accept somethings are so widely reported and accepted that it is most likely the case.

And that acceptance seems to be that Woodward appointed Van Gaal, and chose Van Gaal, and that Van Gaal's success or failure is representative directly onto Woodward himself. If Ferguson was the driving force behind Van Gaal, then I'm not sure why Woodward would be holding onto him, as it really is not reflection on himself, and I'd have expected Ferguson to be spoken much more directly about when reflections are made on the clubs hierarchy.

The narrative is very much Woodward and Van Gaal, Ferguson is not fitting into it anywhere[/quote]

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.

I don't think this is an accepted view as you make out to be honest. I'm reacting to it very differently, maybe others can chime in here. But I'm under the impression Van Gaal was very much Woodwards choosing.

I think the view of Ferguson would drastically change among the fanbase, if it transpired that Ferguson was steadyfast in his recommendation of Moyes and Van Gaal, and that Woodward was effectively "carrying out orders". That would raise some serious question marks about Ferguson, his decision making, and his actual role in the clubs hierarchy.

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.

Yes to an extent. But you are outlining statements that and indicating that it shouldn't be news to anyone, but your statements are effectively the first mention anywhere of this.

I have not once read, heard or watched a journalist, pundit, commentator or anything of the sort, indicate that Ferguson has been the decision maker behind Van Gaal. If so, surely HE would be the one where the targets are pointed towards, instead of Woodward. No ?

I hope I'm conveying this properly and understanding what you are saying.

TheDoc wrote: »

But that is what I mean. It's allowed became a sideshow and a circus. Ex-players publicly supporting Giggs to replace Van Gaal. Frequent stories and opinion pieces on why Giggs should take over.

The fact we have had pages of debate since November about the validaty of Giggs taken over, is the consequence of the clamour I described. It's not coming from fans, but its coming from elsewhere.

All the Van Gaal sacked stories in December, all came with a mention of Giggs or some form or outline as to what he will be doing.

Aslong as Giggs continues on the bench, any manager that begins to flounder, will immediately have to start dealing with the issue of Giggs being a manager of waiting. It doesn't matter where it comes from, the issue is that it arises.

And the club are being extremely poor in dealing with it, and managing it.

Most of that post is pretty meaningless IMHO. Giggs can't control what the media write nor can the club.

He hasn't created the situation. We can't see from outside the club if he is doing a good or bad job in his role as assistant. We don't see what he does day to day. He should be left alone and not painted as the problem unless there is some proof of that.

The only situation that has been handled badly is that fact that LVG is still at the club when it's clear he can't turn this around. Things are just going from bad to worse with no end in sight.