If Jose left in the summer.....

Originally Posted by suedeshoes

I like him. He's a c*** like Fergie was. Wish he'd let the team play football though.

With Fergie it felt like he was one of us: the love he had for the club was palpable. I genuinely thought we'd end up with a manager with a similar attitude in Jose - it felt like he really wanted to come to OT and make it the club he'd stay at long-term (could be just bullshit I'd read somewhere or my own preconceptions). Either way it's all starting to feel very much like he's here just for the business. Granted, maybe that's not his fault (family problems, perhaps due to the constant separation from his Mrs; could be burnout or maybe the vast amounts of cash he's earned is weighing him down, who knows apart from the man himself and those nearest to him?).

Definitely an improvement on the last two to come through the doors, and I would be gutted if it didn't work out overall, but unless he gets that glint back in his eye and shows some real passion, some enjoyment for the job, I am just not sure it will work out for either him or the club and would wish him all the best.

(at least that's how it seems from someone who no longer goes to many games or watches every minute of every match and press conference) .

Originally Posted by Red Al

Not calling for him to be sacked but if he £#%&!s off at the end of the season I wouldn't be gutted

this. Would like for him to remain however.

#prayforjose

Originally Posted by BarryX

With Fergie it felt like he was one of us

"I am comfortable with the Glazer situation. They have been great,"

Originally Posted by waynes ear's

"I am comfortable with the Glazer situation. They have been great,"

just like "us" then.

Originally Posted by waynes ear's

"I am comfortable with the Glazer situation. They have been great,"

Not sure what he could have done, tbh. Had he spoken out before the takeover, he would have put himself in an untenable position should it have still gone ahead (which, of course, it did). Had he walked out in protest when the deal was done he would have endeared himself more to the fans, sure, but left the club he loved before his time was up and in a quasi-state of civil war. He was damned if you do, damned if you don't. But either way he was and still is United through and through.

Originally Posted by BarryX

Not sure what he could have done, tbh. Had he spoken out before the takeover, he would have put himself in an untenable position should it have still gone ahead (which, of course, it did). Had he walked out in protest when the deal was done he would have endeared himself more to the fans, sure, but left the club he loved before his time was up and in a quasi-state of civil war. He was damned if you do, damned if you don't. But either way he was and still is United through and through.

you say he would have put himself in an untenable position if the deal went ahead "which it did", but the whole point in him speaking out is that it probably wouldn't have gone ahead. if he'd threatened to leave.... same as if there were a credible threat of a boycott.... the people lending glazer the money (all of it) would have had to think pretty seriously about backing the takeover. he was in a unique position to question the whole basis of it - lumbering the club with debt and not getting anything for it except a new name over the door - and it is easy to see what he could have done. easy to see what he could have done with more of a transfer budget, too.

also, you say fergie is united through and through, but some would say he put his own personal and financial interests ahead of the interests of the club on a number of occasions.

so.... no.

Originally Posted by BarryX

Not sure what he could have done, tbh. Had he spoken out before the takeover, he would have put himself in an untenable position should it have still gone ahead (which, of course, it did). Had he walked out in protest when the deal was done he would have endeared himself more to the fans, sure, but left the club he loved before his time was up and in a quasi-state of civil war. He was damned if you do, damned if you don't. But either way he was and still is United through and through.

He could’ve handled it better tbh, If it was the club that he loved. Played their “no value” game etc..

How old is he now? Still on the gravy train. How much $$$$$$$ does he need? Never had a rapport with the fans beyond the obligatories....

Awesome manager and grateful for the trophies.

Originally Posted by jem

you say he would have put himself in an untenable position if the deal went ahead "which it did", but the whole point in him speaking out is that it probably wouldn't have gone ahead. if he'd threatened to leave.... same as if there were a credible threat of a boycott.... the people lending glazer the money (all of it) would have had to think pretty seriously about backing the takeover. he was in a unique position to question the whole basis of it - lumbering the club with debt and not getting anything for it except a new name over the door - and it is easy to see what he could have done. easy to see what he could have done with more of a transfer budget, too.

also, you say fergie is united through and through, but some would say he put his own personal and financial interests ahead of the interests of the club on a number of occasions.

so.... no.

Saying 'it probably wouldn't have gone ahead' is highly debatable and there's just no way to ascertain whether or not that's true. Who's to say American banks/funds wouldn't have lent them the money anyway - after all Fergie was no spring chicken at the time, so replacing him would have been part of their business plan. Of course, I wanted him to speak out at the time too, but now the dust has settled and looking at the state of the modern game I prefer to look back at his tenure with red tinted glasses. The man is a legend, not perfect by any stretch of the imagination (horsey-gate/and a wee bit of nepotism), but for better or worse he's part of the very fabric of the club and the betters far, FAR outweigh the worse moments....

Originally Posted by Denis Irwell

He could’ve handled it better tbh, If it was the club that he loved. Played their “no value” game etc..

How old is he now? Still on the gravy train. How much $$$$$$$ does he need? Never had a rapport with the fans beyond the obligatories....

Awesome manager and grateful for the trophies.

I don't know anyone that would turn down a chance to get paid for doing what he does for the club now.

Originally Posted by BarryX

Saying 'it probably wouldn't have gone ahead' is highly debatable and there's just no way to ascertain whether or not that's true. Who's to say American banks/funds wouldn't have lent them the money anyway - after all Fergie was no spring chicken at the time, so replacing him would have been part of their business plan.

we do debates here, you know?

stability and continuity in the short-term was important. if fergie had led, the fans would have followed and the deal would have collapsed without management or cash flow. banks aren't stupid. soz.

Originally Posted by jem

stability and continuity in the short-term was important.

But not as important as their long term business plan, which I guess would have had a post-Fergie contingency strategy included, along with lots of ways to increase the revenue stream and overall value of the 'asset' (tractor/paint/mattress and pillow suppliers ffs ).

Originally Posted by jem

if fergie had led, the fans would have followed and the deal would have collapsed without management or cash flow.

I agree he should have been more vocal and anti-Glazer - at least that's what we as a collective all wanted. But even if Fergie had supported a boycott, there would have almost certainly been fans to fill those empty seats and a new high profile and well paid manager to appease those not wearing green and gold. Besides, if it wasn't the Glazers, someone else could have stepped in. My point being is that Fergie clearly loves the club, just as we do, and it wasn't just about the money for him.

Originally Posted by BarryX

But not as important as their long term business plan, which I guess would have had a post-Fergie contingency strategy included, along with lots of ways to increase the revenue stream and overall value of the 'asset' (tractor/paint/mattress and pillow suppliers ffs ).



I agree he should have been more vocal and anti-Glazer - at least that's what we as a collective all wanted. But even if Fergie had supported a boycott, there would have almost certainly been fans to fill those empty seats and a new high profile and well paid manager to appease those not wearing green and gold. Besides, if it wasn't the Glazers, someone else could have stepped in. My point being is that Fergie clearly loves the club, just as we do, and it wasn't just about the money for him.

there wouldn't have been any empty seats and, if think they would have found 40k+ willing to step in to thwart the wishes of the fans, you mad, brah. and there would have been no sponsors and no hostile takeover from anyone else with such a toxic solution. the fans had (and have) all the power, just no collective direction, desire or belief. fergie would have provided that.

Originally Posted by jem

there wouldn't have been any empty seats and, if think they would have found 40k+ willing to step in to thwart the wishes of the fans, you mad, brah. and there would have been no sponsors and no hostile takeover from anyone else with such a toxic solution. the fans had (and have) all the power, just no collective direction, desire or belief. fergie would have provided that.

I genuinely think (or at least would like to believe) that he thought bloody hard about whether to step up and lead such a revolt, but at the end of the day he was not responsible for how the business side of things were run or who could/couldn't buy up those shares (Glazers had been nibbling away for a couple of years prior to the takeover, so were already part owners during the takeover talks don't forget).

Am also not quite sure how he was supposed to have managed the football side of things whilst orchestrating an anti-takeover campaign against people who were already (in effect) his employers, as you have suggested he could have done. He would surely have risked the sack had he done that and for what gain? Just so someone else that was more popular with the fans could have come along and bought us?

Maybe he should have just said 'if the Glazers take control, I walk', but thank God he didn't. He stuck around and led us to yet more glory (5 more Premier League titles, overtaking the scousers in the process, 3 League Cups, a Champions League and a World Club Cup to boot).

Given the fact that there's no way he could have stopped Magnier and McM@&%! selling to who they liked (Glazers or A.N.Other) and then what he went on to achieve, in hindsight I think he made the right decision - both for himself and the club.

Originally Posted by BarryX

I genuinely think (or at least would like to believe) that he thought bloody hard about whether to step up and lead such a revolt, but at the end of the day he was not responsible for how the business side of things were run or who could/couldn't buy up those shares (Glazers had been nibbling away for a couple of years prior to the takeover, so were already part owners during the takeover talks don't forget).

Am also not quite sure how he was supposed to have managed the football side of things whilst orchestrating an anti-takeover campaign against people who were already (in effect) his employers, as you have suggested he could have done. He would surely have risked the sack had he done that and for what gain? Just so someone else that was more popular with the fans could have come along and bought us?

Maybe he should have just said 'if the Glazers take control, I walk', but thank God he didn't. He stuck around and led us to yet more glory (5 more Premier League titles, overtaking the scousers in the process, 3 League Cups, a Champions League and a World Club Cup to boot).

Given the fact that there's no way he could have stopped Magnier and McM@&%! selling to who they liked (Glazers or A.N.Other) and then what he went on to achieve, in hindsight I think he made the right decision - both for himself and the club.

I completely disagree, obvs.

the point is that no one could take over the club without the acquiescence of the fans. and the glazer acquiescence was really based on not seeing how there was any palatable alternative (down to misdirection of shareholders united, for example, and narrow field of vision); it certainly wasn't due to wanting the glazers. fergie had the platform to provide an alternative, but not the wisdom. I don't blame him for that; he's just a football manager.

again with the history lesson. are you saying that, if fergie had been allowed to spend the money the club generated and the club hadn't had to feed the debt, that we'd have been less successful. a bold statement.

maybe you think moyes, king louis and mourinho having one leg tied behind their back has been good enough, too?

funny that the wonderful socialists on here are all for re/nationalising everything, but can't see past the ends of their noses when it comes to united.

Originally Posted by jem

I completely disagree, obvs.

the point is that no one could take over the club without the acquiescence of the fans. and the glazer acquiescence was really based on not seeing how there was any palatable alternative (down to misdirection of shareholders united, for example, and narrow field of vision); it certainly wasn't due to wanting the glazers. fergie had the platform to provide an alternative, but not the wisdom. I don't blame him for that; he's just a football manager.

again with the history lesson. are you saying that, if fergie had been allowed to spend the money the club generated and the club hadn't had to feed the debt, that we'd have been less successful. a bold statement.

maybe you think moyes, king louis and mourinho having one leg tied behind their back has been good enough, too?

funny that the wonderful socialists on here are all for re/nationalising everything, but can't see past the ends of their noses when it comes to united.

Socialist I'm pretty much bang, smack in the middle when it comes to my position on the political compass. Maybe it looks like it, from way out on the right, though?

As for the acquiescence of the fans, I'd suggest speaking to those lifelong reds who walked away to set up FC Utd. And in spite of all kinds of protests that were planned (and taking place) at the time and constant anti-takeover reports in the media, the Glazer's still got their money, the demand for tickets was still there and people who hated the new owners still went to games (including myself when I lived in Manchester).

The idea that Fergie should have got up on his pedestal and led a fan revolt which put the ownership of the club back into the hands of the fans (presumably what you are implying should have happened) is very romantic, but all a little bit unicorn, especially given the fact that he'd had heart problems not long before. It would have been amazing, yes, but considering the circumstances, just not very realistic Jem . And whilst his hands (along with his successors) may have subsequently been tied, there's no way you or anyone else can say with certainty that we would have been able to consistently outbid our PL rivals in terms of player acquisition had they not been.

Anyway, no point in keeping this thread off track. I stand by my opinion that Fergie bloody loves Manchester United and is part of the fabric of the club. Who wouldn't want a manager in the same vein to be in charge of us now? I still hope it will be Jose, but just think he's been coming across as more interested in his own success (both in terms of trophies and personal wealth) than he is of that of the club's.

I wasn't saying you personally are a socialist, but was speaking of the collective. this was not unicorn. it was absolutely practicable. it just required explanation in simple terms to an audience with an open mind. oh.

also... another history lesson. yes, the glazers got their money because the protests were the wrong kind of protests - ultimately a distraction which really only served to reinforce the perception that there was nothing that could have been done.

i'd be gutted because for all the doom, we have improved a lot under him. that much is clear.

i'd like him to finish the job, or at least lay the foundations for the next manager to take us further, which is what van gaal should have done.

His orders were to lay the foundations for Giggs. I don't think we can complain too much that he didn't lay the foundations Mourinho apparently needed. Which he's only chosen to mention now.

Originally Posted by andyroo

His orders were to lay the foundations for Giggs. I don't think we can complain too much that he didn't lay the foundations Mourinho apparently needed. Which he's only chosen to mention now.

Exactly. For there to be continuity you need a thread of similarity between the managers. If a youth-driven manager had taken charge we may well have Shaw, Mensah, Lingard, Rashford and Martial starting every week. Perhaps Blind at CB if he'd been LvG-minded.

Same will happen post-Mou. Will the next man see Lukaku as his type of striker? Hopefully, as it's a big investment.

That said, as much as I don’t have any love for Mou or faith in the logic or reasoning of the club, if they still believe in Mourinho then surely in theory the best idea would be to offer him a reduced extension, say maybe one year, which would give him two years left and essentially mean he’s halfway through.

Then back him again in the market and tell him he just has to compete for the title next year. No excuses, no complaining about City’s spending, just do what you came here to do and compete for a title.

I don’t think he could really have any complaints. He wasn’t hired to beat Southampton in Carling Cup finals; after £300m spent the results progress doesn’t distract from how mediocre a side we really look. This is a huge challenge at a crucial point of his career.

What would concern me most would be the club just giving in and offering him a long-term contract out of fear or lack of other ideas. Even many of his fans are concerned he doesn’t warrant quite that much trust or dependence. Let him earn his future here; again - he needs us as much if not more than we need him.

Originally Posted by BarryX

Saying 'it probably wouldn't have gone ahead' is highly debatable and there's just no way to ascertain whether or not that's true. Who's to say American banks/funds wouldn't have lent them the money anyway - after all Fergie was no spring chicken at the time, so replacing him would have been part of their business plan. Of course, I wanted him to speak out at the time too, but now the dust has settled and looking at the state of the modern game I prefer to look back at his tenure with red tinted glasses. The man is a legend, not perfect by any stretch of the imagination (horsey-gate/and a wee bit of nepotism), but for better or worse he's part of the very fabric of the club and the betters far, FAR outweigh the worse moments....



I don't know anyone that would turn down a chance to get paid for doing what he does for the club now.

I’m sure you’re right, Baz. Not the point though. But still.... his goods outweigh the bads. Edwards was the real culprit with this lot. Can of worms etc cba.