Robbo.. Deary Me..

Originally Posted by Harri Jaffa

I don't know how many times me or anyone else has posted this or similar but you will literally argue black is white at any time.

Anyhoo - in 2013 Giggs was not thought of as being manager. Somehow in 2016 you believe that he is likely to be the answer to our problems, despite us being in a worse and more difficult position and him having a managerial/coaching role in some of the most hideous and uninspiring cupless football we've had for some time.

I don't even know why i'm getting annoyed - Going to sit in the corner take some deep breaths and think about talksport for a bit. I'm not really I just realised I got taken in again ffs #ffs

giggs was a still a 1st team player in 2013 (and still one of the best players in the division). no-one knows that giggs would fail. no-one is claiming they know he would succeed. i have no idea why you can only digest/rationalise this point of view by claiming it has to be a wum or devil's advocate

Originally Posted by Tumescent Throb

Giggs may not be ready now..

End of debate.

Originally Posted by ScholesGingerSheen

... having a one man shortlist has £#%&!ed it twice it's time to kick the tires on a few candidates and see if anyone stands out, if you still end up at Giggs or Mourinho fair enough but at least do some looking around,

United have had a one man shortlist the past three times. The difference is that Fergie was the clear standout choice and Moyes and van gaal weren't. Mourinho was the clear standout choice the past two times. To ignore him a third....

The only reason to have more than a one man shortlist at the level United want to operate is if there's more than one superior choice.

Originally Posted by Tumescent Throb

no-one knows that giggs would fail.

It's this kind of nonsensical argument that weakens every post you make.

No genuine person of intelligence would say such a thing unless they were trying to influence people considered to be simpletons.

The time to hire Giggs would have been straight after Fergie retired. Kept the same staff around him and have Fergie guide from above. Like Liverpool did with dalglish with Paisley guiding him. Now he needs to go away and prove himself, like anyone should who wishes to hold the biggest job in their profession

Originally Posted by Jammy Dodger

End of debate.

it wasn't even the end of the point. that's probably why you didn't 'end the debate' there but continued with this...



United have had a one man shortlist the past three times. The difference is that Fergie was the clear standout choice and Moyes and van gaal weren't. Mourinho was the clear standout choice the past two times. To ignore him a third....

The only reason to have more than a one man shortlist at the level United want to operate is if there's more than one superior choice.

there are different options and different considerations. to not see that is very naive. for example the obvious choice between the desire for short-term success and the more long term desire to build from within - which no-one in their right mind thinks mourinho has shown the slightest taste for doing...

you also have the choice between a big name who could counter the expected guardiola effect, versus the dream of having one of our own as manager backed up by the Co92 which appeals to many traditionalists...

It's this kind of nonsensical argument that weakens every post you make.

the fact you can't or won't accept these options weakens your posts not mine imo

No genuine person of intelligence would say such a thing unless they were trying to influence people considered to be simpletons.

this is gibberish. are you seriously declaring that you believe you posting on here is influencing opinion?

The time to hire Giggs would have been straight after Fergie retired. Kept the same staff around him and have Fergie guide from above. Like Liverpool did with dalglish with Paisley guiding him. Now he needs to go away and prove himself, like anyone should who wishes to hold the biggest job in their profession

dalglish did not succeed paisley.

Originally Posted by S/Side.Red

My fear is that if anyone did feel Giggs was looking a top manager, why did they nail Moyes down for six years and talk as if he was going to do a Fergie. I don't recall Giggs being pegged as a manager until he got the interim job and it looked kinda cool.

That is a great point.

Originally Posted by Zorg

That is a great point.

it really isn't. they made giggs a player/coach at the start of that season for starters, and they didn't just sack motes and then decide to make giggs interim - there was plenty of talk of that as the option as that season rolled on towards impending doom...

Talksport's in full effect here.

Originally Posted by Sparky***

Talksport's in full effect here.

Have a look from post 33 down

http://www.utdforum.com/forum/showth...=235459&page=2

What's funny is nobody actually knows whether Giggs would be good or not. Could Giggs be a fantastic manager? -yes
Do we want to risk it? - no

I don't want mourinho for the same reasons I don't want Van Gaal. Choosing a manager with no experience of managing a club in England worked out ok when Fergie came, not so well with the current man. Taking on a manager with no experience worked ok when Sir Matt came, not so good when Wilf took over. Has Mourinho ever built a team? Will Eddy sign the players mourinho needs to buy success?

I don't miss the trophies half as much as I miss the sight of a full on united display of exquisite attacking football.

I think I'm up for Giggs getting it.

If you recall Gill said in an interview on radio 5 that Giggs would have to go and gain experience somewhere else. That it what I'm clinging to because if he gets the job this summer instead of Jose it'll be a bigger risk than Moyes.

This is all due to the fact that Ferguson, Gill & Charlton don't like Jose and if he is successful would look like simpletons for not giving him the job 3 years ago. Very transparent.

there are different options and different considerations. to not see that is very naive. for example the obvious choice between the desire for short-term success and the more long term desire to build from within - which no-one in their right mind thinks mourinho has shown the slightest taste for doing...

They've just cut the budget for the youth team because they don't think they can compete with city at that level. That doesn't exactly indicate a desire to build from within. They also hired a 63 year old manager and told him to concentrate on the first team, and also took a year to replace the head of the academy. Again, those things don't suggest to me a desire for long term building.

Doing the above and then hiring Giggs wouldn't indicate a desire to build from within. In conjunction, it would indicate a desire to do things on the cheap.

As for being the long term option. Guardiola is always the simplistic argument people use to argue the case for Giggs, which is basically the same kind of technique as saying no one knows Giggs would fail. Yet Guardiola barely lasted three years at barca as he collapsed under the pressure. Too much too soon maybe.

Even a glimmer of evidence that Giggs could be a good bet as a long term builder of success would be appreciated. After all no one knows Giggs would succeed. So some evidence in support of it would be nice. There's plenty to support the idea he'd likely fail.

In the absence of such evidence, it would be the equivalent of handing a novice assistant the top job in a world wide business as his first managerial job, because no one knows he'd fail. Historical evidence may suggest he's 99% certain to fail but there's still that chance. So why not risk the business for that 1% chance the novice succeeds rather than appoint the man with the experience and best record over the past decade. It would be crazy not to.

you also have the choice between a big name who could counter the expected guardiola effect, versus the dream of having one of our own as manager backed up by the Co92 which appeals to many traditionalists...

There doesn't seem to be many traditionalists then, as there's no clamour for Giggs despite the media efforts to stir it up. If such a thing appeals to traditionalists, why have their wishes been constantly ignored during united's history? We've only had one manager since the war who had United connections prior to getting the manager's job. Why weren't best, law, Charlton or Crerand ever made United manager? Not good enough players? Not United enough? Didn't love the club enough?

The only one who did have United connections failed miserably, despite knowing the club every bit as much as Giggs, having more coaching experience, and I'd suggest loving the club far more than Giggs ever will.

It's this kind of nonsensical argument that weakens every post you make.

the fact you can't or won't accept these options weakens your posts not mine imo

It wasn't a comment about any options. It was a comment on your technique.

I always thought Martin Buchan should have got the United job in 1986 instead of Ferguson btw. How about you?

No genuine person of intelligence would say such a thing unless they were trying to influence people considered to be simpletons.

this is gibberish. are you seriously declaring that you believe you posting on here is influencing opinion?

No. I'm suggesting anyone using the technique you are in saying 'no one knows Giggs will fail' can only be thinking they're talking to simpletons, or are one themself. It's only said by people lacking intelligence or by smart people trying to bullshit people they think lack intelligence.

Originally Posted by Tumescent Throb

dalglish did not succeed paisley.

No shit. But Paisley was the one helping him out behind the scenes.

Originally Posted by Silkyray

What's funny is nobody actually knows whether Giggs would be good or not. Could Giggs be a fantastic manager? -yes
Do we want to risk it? - no

I don't want mourinho for the same reasons I don't want Van Gaal. Choosing a manager with no experience of managing a club in England worked out ok when Fergie came, not so well with the current man. Taking on a manager with no experience worked ok when Sir Matt came, not so good when Wilf took over. Has Mourinho ever built a team? Will Eddy sign the players mourinho needs to buy success?

I don't miss the trophies half as much as I miss the sight of a full on united display of exquisite attacking football.

I think I'm up for Giggs getting it.

Sir Matt had plenty of experience at leading men and had excellent people skills. But even then, I doubt he'd have got the job if United was the huge, worldwide money making business it is now rather than the bombed out skint club it was back then.

A nice logical argument though. Those four games with Giggs as caretaker of the league title holders obviously wet your appetite for exquisite attacking football.

One thing I don't understand, having woodward trying to sign players seems to put a question mark against mourinho but not Giggs. Is this because Eddy will sign the players Giggs needs to buy success, or doesn't Giggs need it, because he's going to magic a world class team from an underfunded youth system?

I'd also suggest mourinho has built more teams than Giggs btw.

Originally Posted by Jammy Dodger

They've just cut the budget for the youth team because they don't think they can compete with city at that level. That doesn't exactly indicate a desire to build from within. They also hired a 63 year old manager and told him to concentrate on the first team, and also took a year to replace the head of the academy. Again, those things don't suggest to me a desire for long term building.

Doing the above and then hiring Giggs wouldn't indicate a desire to build from within. In conjunction, it would indicate a desire to do things on the cheap.

As for being the long term option. Guardiola is always the simplistic argument people use to argue the case for Giggs, which is basically the same kind of technique as saying no one knows Giggs would fail. Yet Guardiola barely lasted three years at barca as he collapsed under the pressure. Too much too soon maybe.

Even a glimmer of evidence that Giggs could be a good bet as a long term builder of success would be appreciated. After all no one knows Giggs would succeed. So some evidence in support of it would be nice. There's plenty to support the idea he'd likely fail.

In the absence of such evidence, it would be the equivalent of handing a novice assistant the top job in a world wide business as his first managerial job, because no one knows he'd fail. Historical evidence may suggest he's 99% certain to fail but there's still that chance. So why not risk the business for that 1% chance the novice succeeds rather than appoint the man with the experience and best record over the past decade. It would be crazy not to.



There doesn't seem to be many traditionalists then, as there's no clamour for Giggs despite the media efforts to stir it up. If such a thing appeals to traditionalists, why have their wishes been constantly ignored during united's history? We've only had one manager since the war who had United connections prior to getting the manager's job. Why weren't best, law, Charlton or Crerand ever made United manager? Not good enough players? Not United enough? Didn't love the club enough?

The only one who did have United connections failed miserably, despite knowing the club every bit as much as Giggs, having more coaching experience, and I'd suggest loving the club far more than Giggs ever will.



It wasn't a comment about any options. It was a comment on your technique.

I always thought Martin Buchan should have got the United job in 1986 instead of Ferguson btw. How about you?



No. I'm suggesting anyone using the technique you are in saying 'no one knows Giggs will fail' can only be thinking they're talking to simpletons, or are one themself. It's only said by people lacking intelligence or by smart people trying to bullshit people they think lack intelligence.



No shit. But Paisley was the one helping him out behind the scenes.



Sir Matt had plenty of experience at leading men and had excellent people skills. But even then, I doubt he'd have got the job if United was the huge, worldwide money making business it is now rather than the bombed out skint club it was back then.

A nice logical argument though. Those four games with Giggs as caretaker of the league title holders obviously wet your appetite for exquisite attacking football.

One thing I don't understand, having woodward trying to sign players seems to put a question mark against mourinho but not Giggs. Is this because Eddy will sign the players Giggs needs to buy success, or doesn't Giggs need it, because he's going to magic a world class team from an underfunded youth system?

I'd also suggest mourinho has built more teams than Giggs btw.

Yes of course United wouldn't have hired Sir Matt now. Would they have hired a physio to take over from Ron Atkinson? It's kind of my point to be honest. You don't know what you will get from any manager. It isn't an exact science. What you can do is assume. We assumed that Van Gaal's experience in European leagues would be enough to bring back a modicum of success, it's isn't working. You would have to assume that if the physio takes over he's going to want to sign the type of players he's been accustomed to at Chelsea and Real Madrid etc and spend that kind of budget. You'd have to assume that Eddy is going to fail in that department. Of course you are correct regards Giggs not building any team but he's had a bit of an insight into how it's done. You'd have to assume he's learned a bit.

Jose learned a lot from Bobby Robson, I think Giggs would have learned a lot from Sir Alex.

Thought Mou still looked quite mental on that BT interview. Far from refreshed after a few months out the game. The old swag has gone. If he doesn't get the United job he has a breakdown imo.

Originally Posted by S/Side.Red

Thought Mou still looked quite mental on that BT interview. Far from refreshed after a few months out the game. The old swag has gone. If he doesn't get the United job he has a breakdown imo.

Here he is just 3 months ago being interviewed by balding.

We'll get that old glimmer back, Jose.

Originally Posted by Silkyray

Yes of course United wouldn't have hired Sir Matt now. Would they have hired a physio to take over from Ron Atkinson? It's kind of my point to be honest. You don't know what you will get from any manager. It isn't an exact science. What you can do is assume. We assumed that Van Gaal's experience in European leagues would be enough to bring back a modicum of success, it's isn't working. You would have to assume that if the physio takes over he's going to want to sign the type of players he's been accustomed to at Chelsea and Real Madrid etc and spend that kind of budget. You'd have to assume that Eddy is going to fail in that department. Of course you are correct regards Giggs not building any team but he's had a bit of an insight into how it's done. You'd have to assume he's learned a bit.

Jose learned a lot from Bobby Robson, I think Giggs would have learned a lot from Sir Alex.

Yes you make assumptions, and some of them will be wrong, but that doesn't mean you stop making them because the alternative is a dart board.

Mourinho, if he takes over, no doubt will want the players who can get the job done, and if he is intelligent he won't place all his eggs into a group of targets who are virtually unsignable. What would be the point?

And Mourinho may have learned from Robson, but his first job wasn't Barcelona was it? No one here seems to have an aversion to Giggs as manager so long as he has earned it, which he currently hasn't. Not even close.

Originally Posted by Harri Jaffa

Was there?

You really are scrabbling around here (as per)

It was Moyes decision to make Giggs his number 2. Most of what Moyes did was utter £#%&!. It was obviously a pr stunt, now suddenly it's one of the most incisive things ever or something...

giggs was not moyes' number 2. hth.

Originally Posted by Silkyray

Yes of course United wouldn't have hired Sir Matt now. Would they have hired a physio to take over from Ron Atkinson? It's kind of my point to be honest. You don't know what you will get from any manager. It isn't an exact science. What you can do is assume. We assumed that Van Gaal's experience in European leagues would be enough to bring back a modicum of success, it's isn't working. You would have to assume that if the physio takes over he's going to want to sign the type of players he's been accustomed to at Chelsea and Real Madrid etc and spend that kind of budget. You'd have to assume that Eddy is going to fail in that department. Of course you are correct regards Giggs not building any team but he's had a bit of an insight into how it's done. You'd have to assume he's learned a bit.

Jose learned a lot from Bobby Robson, I think Giggs would have learned a lot from Sir Alex.

i agree with the cut of your jib, although i also think maybe if we assumed van gaal would bring success the club were probably looking for more than that; everyone thinks because we've barely challenged let alone won anything that that means it's not working. suspect that behind the scenes the structure - a structure that is intended to last - is falling into place piece by piece... people claim there is no choice but to bring in the most obvious candidate to bring success. the truth is there is a very clear choice between striving for short term success and trying to build a foundation that might last. the choice of van gaal, given his work at barca and bayern, suggests the latter - a clear plan for the future... so do they chuck that all away and go for mourinho? or do they maybe even think he (mourinho) might be able to take it on? or do they continue down the path they're on?

Originally Posted by Jammy Dodger

They've just cut the budget for the youth team because they don't think they can compete with city at that level. That doesn't exactly indicate a desire to build from within. They also hired a 63 year old manager and told him to concentrate on the first team, and also took a year to replace the head of the academy. Again, those things don't suggest to me a desire for long term building.

Doing the above and then hiring Giggs wouldn't indicate a desire to build from within. In conjunction, it would indicate a desire to do things on the cheap.

As for being the long term option. Guardiola is always the simplistic argument people use to argue the case for Giggs, which is basically the same kind of technique as saying no one knows Giggs would fail. Yet Guardiola barely lasted three years at barca as he collapsed under the pressure. Too much too soon maybe.

Even a glimmer of evidence that Giggs could be a good bet as a long term builder of success would be appreciated. After all no one knows Giggs would succeed. So some evidence in support of it would be nice. There's plenty to support the idea he'd likely fail.

In the absence of such evidence, it would be the equivalent of handing a novice assistant the top job in a world wide business as his first managerial job, because no one knows he'd fail. Historical evidence may suggest he's 99% certain to fail but there's still that chance. So why not risk the business for that 1% chance the novice succeeds rather than appoint the man with the experience and best record over the past decade. It would be crazy not to.



There doesn't seem to be many traditionalists then, as there's no clamour for Giggs despite the media efforts to stir it up. If such a thing appeals to traditionalists, why have their wishes been constantly ignored during united's history? We've only had one manager since the war who had United connections prior to getting the manager's job. Why weren't best, law, Charlton or Crerand ever made United manager? Not good enough players? Not United enough? Didn't love the club enough?

The only one who did have United connections failed miserably, despite knowing the club every bit as much as Giggs, having more coaching experience, and I'd suggest loving the club far more than Giggs ever will.



It wasn't a comment about any options. It was a comment on your technique.

I always thought Martin Buchan should have got the United job in 1986 instead of Ferguson btw. How about you?



No. I'm suggesting anyone using the technique you are in saying 'no one knows Giggs will fail' can only be thinking they're talking to simpletons, or are one themself. It's only said by people lacking intelligence or by smart people trying to bullshit people they think lack intelligence.



No shit. But Paisley was the one helping him out behind the scenes.



Sir Matt had plenty of experience at leading men and had excellent people skills. But even then, I doubt he'd have got the job if United was the huge, worldwide money making business it is now rather than the bombed out skint club it was back then.

A nice logical argument though. Those four games with Giggs as caretaker of the league title holders obviously wet your appetite for exquisite attacking football.

One thing I don't understand, having woodward trying to sign players seems to put a question mark against mourinho but not Giggs. Is this because Eddy will sign the players Giggs needs to buy success, or doesn't Giggs need it, because he's going to magic a world class team from an underfunded youth system?

I'd also suggest mourinho has built more teams than Giggs btw.

i did start reading that but dear me, what a crock of shite

i've never lauded guardiola as an example of what giggs might do, although clearly the barcelona scenario of players coming through from within is not so far removed from what giggs knows from his own experience...

wtf all that balls you've typed about a technique is only you would know...

your appraisal of what's going on with the structure behind the scenes is not very interesting tbph, since not only do you not have access to the full picture but i doubt even you believe the conclusion your own commentary tends towards anyway.

IT has to be Mourhino for me, because we are three years in since SAF and we are in a sorry state. We need the best to sort this mess out and he is the best, whether anyone likes him, or wants him, or doesn't. I like Giggs and he's very young in regards to being a manager and I see no reason why he shouldn't take over from Mourhino after he has left. The best is ready and waiting, it will show us just where we are heading if we get him, or if we don't, then what happens after that will be down to them and their continuous poor decision making.