21 Dec 2015 10:58:46
Hearing that Giggs could be given the job and it could even happen before Christmas. He would've jumped at the chance of takkng the Swansea job and only stayed because he was told he has a chance of getting the job.


1.) 21 Dec 2015
21 Dec 2015 11:15:23
Giggs over Mourinho for me.


2.) 21 Dec 2015
21 Dec 2015 11:34:45
Appointing Giggs would only confirm to me that our board base decisions on sentiment and emotion. It would very likely, in my opinion, end our competitiveness at the top level at home or abroad for some time to come.


3.) 21 Dec 2015
21 Dec 2015 11:38:52
Sentiment is a fine thing, however it has no place in a results driven industry. The magnitude of the task to rebuild this squad whilst maintaining league position is incredible and people want to hand that task to an unproven guy, just because he's a club man. The club is at tipping point and someone needs to firmly take hold of the reigns and drag it back to where it should be. Is Giggs a good coach, man manager, tactician, motivator and leader. The answer is nobody knows because he's never done the job before, he should try for the Swansea job and work his arse off to earn the opportunity to be the manager of this club.


4.) 21 Dec 2015
21 Dec 2015 11:45:36
Either sell out to Mourinho or keep tradition and hire Giggs, yeah having a CV is impressive and that but Mourinho will never have one thing over Giggs, the passion for this club.


5.) 21 Dec 2015
21 Dec 2015 12:28:20
Giggs has been a key part of two failed coaching teams, and that is his only experience. Hiring Giggs would be the worst form of cronyism, as he has done absolutely nothing to warrant a promotion. If he had any dignity he'd quit if van Gaal is sacked like any other number 2 would.


6.) 21 Dec 2015
21 Dec 2015 12:29:23
Giggs should have left when LVG came in. If he'd gone elsewhere and proven himself at a club like Leicester/Watford/West Ham/Crystal Palace he'd have done enough to earn the chance to manage Manchester United. As it is it seems as though he's hoping to get it by default.

I would love for Giggs to take the job and be a huge success - but he's done nothing to show that he's capable at this point. Unfortunately I don't see him ever becoming a top manager and find it strange that the board are willing to take such a huge risk when we've just come off the back of two incredibly poor managerial appointments.

Bring in Jose and let Giggs go to Swansea. If he succeeds there - let him replace Jose in a few years time. If not - we dodged a bullet.


7.) 21 Dec 2015
21 Dec 2015 13:04:53
redseven
so is pardew in with a shout he has proved himseld at clubs like charlton newcastle and palace .
moyes proved himself at preston and everton.


8.) 21 Dec 2015
21 Dec 2015 13:25:30
Jred - Those other managers also proved their failings. Given Giggs had not managed before - I'd say that had he, for example, taken Leicester from the bottom of the Premiership to the top in 12 months it would then make a lot more sense to give him a go than doing so after 18 months 'assisting' a poor manager. I think it shows a real lack of ambition on his part.

To be honest I'd much rather sentiment be taken out of the equation and the manager that is most likely to bring trophies and entertainment back to OT be selected.


9.) 21 Dec 2015
21 Dec 2015 13:39:29
red
so would that suddenly prove giggs is ready .


10.) 21 Dec 2015
21 Dec 2015 13:54:05
Jred - a hell of a lot more so than the current situation does, yes.

I'd rather give a young manager that had done exceptionally well in 18 months of a small club a chance than somebody who has done nothing. That said; I'd rather go all out for a proven winner than either of those options.


11.) 21 Dec 2015
21 Dec 2015 14:06:52
red
i think if the people at united really want to give giggs the job they should just give him it .
the job at swansea etc for a couple of years is a million miles away from the united job .
i don't see the point really of him going to a "lesser club" if he has what it takes to be a united manager then give him it now .
because he won't suddenly learn how to be a united manager in 2 year at swansea.


12.) 21 Dec 2015
21 Dec 2015 14:27:01
Perhaps you are right. Then again Ancelotti and Jose started out at Reggiana and Benfica/União de Leiria.

If the club was in a good position I'd be a little more open to giving him a chance - but we're in real danger of losing our competitiveness.

Our squad is a mess and we're coming off the back of two extremely poor managerial appointments and no trophies won in 3 seasons. We have no world class players other than DDG (who can't singlehandedly win us a game like a top player can) and are in danger of missing out on Champions League football next season which would make appointing one of those type of players a lot more difficult.


13.) 21 Dec 2015
21 Dec 2015 14:36:30
red
im 50 50 on giggs it would be a risk but it could also work.
i think its impossible to say from the outside .
if they give him the job it would have to be that the people who work with him day in day out think he has what it takes .
i don't think 2 year at swansea adds much as the united job is miles away from that.
so either give it to giggs know or don't .
like hughes etc i think once he goes he prob won't come back.


14.) 21 Dec 2015
21 Dec 2015 14:54:09
Jred. I think the risk is just too big. I can't think of many instances of an unproven manager taking over at a big club and succeeding - and the challenge out next manager faces is a monumental one.

The only unproven manager that springs to mind is Pep - and he had managed the B team for a year previously and took over a squad containing Messi, Xavi, Iniesta, Pique, Puyol, Alves, Abidal, Yaya Toure, Pedro and Busquets. Three years prior they had won the Champions League and the squad was so good that he was able to let Ronaldinho and Deco leave the club.

Our situation is incomparable to Barcelona's in 2007 and Pep is, as far as I can see, a one off. I don't think he has had a real challenge at either of the two clubs that he has managed either and could not say with any real certainty that he (a now proven manager) could succeed at OT - let alone Giggs.


15.) 21 Dec 2015
21 Dec 2015 14:54:09
Jred. I think the risk is just too big. I can't think of many instances of an unproven manager taking over at a big club and succeeding - and the challenge out next manager faces is a monumental one.

The only unproven manager that springs to mind is Pep - and he had managed the B team for a year previously and took over a squad containing Messi, Xavi, Iniesta, Pique, Puyol, Alves, Abidal, Yaya Toure, Pedro and Busquets. Three years prior they had won the Champions League and the squad was so good that he was able to let Ronaldinho and Deco leave the club.

Our situation is incomparable to Barcelona's in 2007 and Pep is, as far as I can see, a one off. I don't think he has had a real challenge at either of the two clubs that he has managed either and could not say with any real certainty that he (a now proven manager) could succeed at OT - let alone Giggs.


16.) 21 Dec 2015
21 Dec 2015 15:17:22
I can't think of another industry in the world where a global multiple hundreds of millions turnover company that's listed would put a rookie in charge so why would this one other than blind stupidity.

If you want to see where sentiment gets you take a look at liverpool, appointing their former heros went really really well didn't it. Oh wait.

{Ed002's Note - Nobody is suggesting putting Giggs in charge of the business. Just the first team - a corner of the business.}


17.) 21 Dec 2015
21 Dec 2015 15:24:53
I appreciate the point that you're making Ed; but is there not a strong correlation between our performances on the pitch and our finances? Wouldn't a sustained poor run without winning any trophies be incredibly damaging to the Manchester United 'brand'?

{Ed002's Note - Not to the "brand", just to the income for a while. The difference of not being in the CL one season could be offset by not wasting money on certain players. You are not looking at the big picture.}


18.) 21 Dec 2015
21 Dec 2015 15:45:46
I suppose you're right. LVG's first season showed that so called 'big' players will still sign for the club if the money is right regardless of whether or not we can offer Champions League football (as did City and Chelski when the money first arrived) . All the same though - I'm concerned that were Giggs to come in and fail - we'd find it very difficult to recover.

{Ed002's Note - It is all just brief moments in time. Managers and players are transient. Fans are becoming more fickle.}


19.) 21 Dec 2015
21 Dec 2015 16:00:13
Ed - Do you think it's unreasonable for fans to expect to be entertained by their team?

Having watched teams like Chelski and Liverpool burn through managers and seeing their fans calling for their heads after things start to go sour - I'd always felt that they were being unreasonable. Since SAF left however, I'm starting to empathise with them.

I would never have dreamed of calling for our manager to be sacked while SAF was at the helm - but there came a point in both DM and LVG's reigns that I could not see the club moving forwards and stopped being entertained by the football. I still support (ed) the team and want (ed) them to succeed - but cannot (and in the case of Moyes, could not) see any signs of success coming under the manager.

In your opinion, does that make me and others like me bad fans?

{Ed002's Note - I think it unreasonable for fans to be as fickle as they are demanding immediate success, change of players, management etc. at the drop of a hat. It doesn't make you bad fans, just fans with unrealistic expectations.}


20.) 21 Dec 2015
21 Dec 2015 16:35:01
I can't speak for the other fans - but I'm not expecting success to be immediate. What I want is to be entertained and to see clear signs that the club is moving in the right direction. Neither Moyes nor LVG were able to provide those things.

I don't think that it's unrealistic to expect £250m or so to furnish a squad with players capable of playing entertaining football. Leicester and Palace have done that with peanuts.

That said; I'd probably be a little more lenient were I not so used to us winning. I think SAF set the bar a little too high!

{Ed002's Note - The money was there to rebuild the squad. If the current set of fans were around when AF arrived he would have been forced out within a year.}


21.) 21 Dec 2015
21 Dec 2015 16:41:47
I agree with Ed002, I have said many times we need to get to grips with the fact we no longer have any right to demand success. There are many of other good teams in our league now with better players and better managers. I have the firm belief that we will get back to the top eventually but we have to be patient. Having said that whether LVG is the right man for the job is another issue entirely.


22.) 21 Dec 2015
21 Dec 2015 16:55:31
The money was there to be spent, sure - but I think it was poorly invested. That kind of money could have assembled a squad capable of winning while playing great football - but I think the position we are in now in terms of the players we need isn't too different than the position Moyes found himself in when SAF left. We have some decent squad players but very few (if any) players who can influence a game. That may well be down to EW's failings as much as LVG's - but I don't think you'll find too many who think that the club's performance in the transfer market post SAF has been up to scratch. Seeing other clubs playing well while spending a fraction of what we have spent really rubs salt in the wound.

I don't think that any manager will ever accomplish what SAF (and to a lesser extent, Wenger) have achieved again - but I think that's as much down to the vast sums of money involved in football as it is fan influence. JM is a good example of this. The majority of Chelski fans were still behind him but still he was shown the door.

Out of interest - do you know if the club have expressed an interest in installing a director of football? I can't help but feel it would help to instill some long term stability given how short term most managers seem to be these days.

{Ed002's Note - The business has shown no interest in employing a Director of Football - it is a "hip" term Liverpool fans often use without any thought as well.}


23.) 21 Dec 2015
21 Dec 2015 17:19:15
By 'Director of Football' - I mean somebody that is responsible for planning the long term style and composition of the squad. It seems a better solution than bringing in a new manager every 2-3 years that wants to completely change the way that we play football and is unhappy with the players in their squad.

Since 2000, Barcelona have had 10 managers, Real have had 13, Bayern 9, Chelsea 12 and Milan 9. That averages out at less than 18 months in charge per manager (I'm not counting managers who came in for 1-2 games there either) . With things changing that much; I don't see how a manager can be expected to plan for the long term.

I'd love to think that we can avoid that trend and find a long term manager - but what makes us any different than those other clubs? Even successful managers don't stick around too long these days.

{Ed002's Note - Unfortunately that is an extremely naive view of the game. Chelsea has a Director of Football and that is one task that is well beyond his remit but something the club do. Barcelona has a Director of Football and that is far from part of his remit. Bayern's Matthias Sammer is again only part of that process. Real Madrid has a policy on constant review given the electoral process continues to be based up making ridiculous promises. I have no idea how it works at Milan. Liverpool had a Director of Football and it was an absolute disaster. Spurs had a Director of Football and it was an absolute disaster.}