Hippo, so every season is a disaster for either Real or Barca ?
Or Pool, City, Chelsea ?
Or any Italian club not Juventus ?
Of course it's not a disaster, just mildly disappointing.
Even relegation is a blip in the history of the club.
You support Manchester United, so you know what a disaster really is.
Comment deleted by Site Moderator
Comment deleted by Site Moderator
comment by Hippo - Mr Right! (U1301)
posted 1 minute ago
comment by Big McTominay (U22257)
posted 17 seconds ago
comment by Hippo - Mr Right! (U1301)
posted 2 minutes ago
comment by Big McTominay (U22257)
posted 3 minutes ago
comment by Hippo - Mr Right! (U1301)
posted 1 minute ago
I don't think we will be relegated but there will be times this season when we are worried. such as now. we are 2 points above the relegation zone.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
I'm not worried.
If we are nearer the bottom than top 6 come Xmas I'm confident the club would take action
----------------------------------------------------------------------
even then, finishing in midtable should be seen as an absolute disaster. some people on here think it is enough to just avoid relegation. to be even in and around relegation zone at any point in the season after the first 5 games is an absolute disaster and shows a total failure of everyone involved at the club.
for the other big clubs around the world finishing second is a disaster, for us now it seems finishing 6th is a decent season.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Nonsense. Nobody associated with the club thinks 6th is a decent season.
As for the key executives at the club, I really do worry that our fans think we can just go to the football executives shop and pick up 2 or 3 off the peg who will instantly find world class coach after world class coach and players that our current scouts and agents arent aware of.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
are you really worried that somebody else would do a worse job than woodward? what would that look like?
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Things could be a lot worse. We could have someone tighten the purse strings. We could have an exec who tries to get involved in picking the team. We could have someone who thinks naming rights are a good thing, or ticket prices can be increased, and so on.
comment by Hippo - Mr Right! (U1301)
posted 7 minutes ago
comment by manusince52 (U9692)
posted 28 seconds ago
Hippo, so every season is a disaster for either Real or Barca ?
Or Pool, City, Chelsea ?
Or any Italian club not Juventus ?
Of course it's not a disaster, just mildly disappointing.
Even relegation is a blip in the history of the club.
You support Manchester United, so you know what a disaster really is.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
yes, for barca or real that is a disaster. for psg as well. bayern would sack everyone involved with footballing operations and would sell half of the team if they finished 2nd. don't know enough about juventus but probably they would see it as that.
the premier league is tougher, but giggs used to always talk about how he would sit at the pool during his summer holidays angry and sad whenever we finished second. carrick fell in to a deep depression when we lost the cl final.
now we have lingard and pogba dabbing on instagram because we finished 6th.
to me this is the strangest thing, how quickly the fans have lowered their standards for no clear reason.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
'bayern would sack everyone involved with footballing operations and would sell half of the team if they finished 2nd'
Sorry, that's just nonsense
comment by Big McTominay (U22257)
posted 0 seconds ago
comment by Hippo - Mr Right! (U1301)
posted 7 minutes ago
comment by manusince52 (U9692)
posted 28 seconds ago
Hippo, so every season is a disaster for either Real or Barca ?
Or Pool, City, Chelsea ?
Or any Italian club not Juventus ?
Of course it's not a disaster, just mildly disappointing.
Even relegation is a blip in the history of the club.
You support Manchester United, so you know what a disaster really is.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
yes, for barca or real that is a disaster. for psg as well. bayern would sack everyone involved with footballing operations and would sell half of the team if they finished 2nd. don't know enough about juventus but probably they would see it as that.
the premier league is tougher, but giggs used to always talk about how he would sit at the pool during his summer holidays angry and sad whenever we finished second. carrick fell in to a deep depression when we lost the cl final.
now we have lingard and pogba dabbing on instagram because we finished 6th.
to me this is the strangest thing, how quickly the fans have lowered their standards for no clear reason.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
'bayern would sack everyone involved with footballing operations and would sell half of the team if they finished 2nd'
Sorry, that's just nonsense
----------------------------------------------------------------------
We had players that loved the club and manager and were supremely talented.
We have none of that now. Hence expectations being lowered
Comment deleted by Site Moderator
comment by Hippo - Mr Right! (U1301)
posted 8 minutes ago
comment by Big McTominay (U22257)
posted 3 minutes ago
comment by Hippo - Mr Right! (U1301)
posted 7 minutes ago
comment by manusince52 (U9692)
posted 28 seconds ago
Hippo, so every season is a disaster for either Real or Barca ?
Or Pool, City, Chelsea ?
Or any Italian club not Juventus ?
Of course it's not a disaster, just mildly disappointing.
Even relegation is a blip in the history of the club.
You support Manchester United, so you know what a disaster really is.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
yes, for barca or real that is a disaster. for psg as well. bayern would sack everyone involved with footballing operations and would sell half of the team if they finished 2nd. don't know enough about juventus but probably they would see it as that.
the premier league is tougher, but giggs used to always talk about how he would sit at the pool during his summer holidays angry and sad whenever we finished second. carrick fell in to a deep depression when we lost the cl final.
now we have lingard and pogba dabbing on instagram because we finished 6th.
to me this is the strangest thing, how quickly the fans have lowered their standards for no clear reason.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
'bayern would sack everyone involved with footballing operations and would sell half of the team if they finished 2nd'
Sorry, that's just nonsense
----------------------------------------------------------------------
yeah it's not though, because that is exactly what happened in 2011. in his first season van gaal won the league and got them to the cl final. the next season he was sacked in april because it was clear he would not win it again. shortly afterwards christian nerlinger, the director of football was also sacked.
last season kovac was close to being sacked all the time, only once he won the double was his job safe.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Maybe they sacked him because he was a miserable old fart .
comment by Robb : Time for a change (U21234)
posted 2 hours, 52 minutes ago
comment by BerbaKing11 (U6256)
posted 1 minute ago
comment by Robb : Time for a change (U21234)
posted 9 minutes ago
comment by Shugs (U14253)
posted 16 seconds ago
comment by Robb : Time for a change (U21234)
posted 12 seconds ago
And why do people bring up money spent with Jose?
I thought the vast majority of his signings were bad. You can’t have both.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Surely that is the point... He spent lots and most of it on rubbish
----------------------------------------------------------------------
But the argument here was that he had an advantage over Ole because he had £400 million of signings
If they were rubbish how was that an advantage? 🤔
----------------------------------------------------------------------
This might be one of the most daft things you've ever posted on here.
Spaffing £400m on duds isn't an advantage. The advantage is actually being given money. It stops being an advantage if you spend it badly. Jose blew his advantage on a bunch of failed signings. Only you could attempt to be confused by this.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
I think you’re the one being confused here
Go read Kung Fu’s post again. He was saying that Jose played that way even with half a billion worth of players as if those players were an advantage
----------------------------------------------------------------------
But Jose signed those players. Your entire 'logic', if that's what we're calling it, collapses completely when you bizarrely fail to factor that in. It's pretty important!
Jose had a spending advantage over Ole. He had several transfer windows and he had time.
He - and Woodward no doubt - sabotaged that clear advantage through a combination of poor buys, poor football and creating a toxic environment.
comment by Robb : Time for a change (U21234)
posted 2 hours, 55 minutes ago
People can’t use the money spent by Jose argument to slate him by saying he had advantages because of that money spent but also say they were duds.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Jesus, I wish I'd seen this comment before I'd responded above.
You can't be serious, surely?
Why can't they use that argument? Jose signed the duds. He sanctioned the player deals. Not only could he not get his team playing decent football with his own purchases, most of those purchases - signed for big money - are widely considered failures. Who's fault is that? That he had the time and financial backing to make such deal is an advantage that Ole hasn't yet had.
That Jose failed to capitalise on the clear advantages he had doesn't mean those advantages never existed in the first place.
Comment deleted by Site Moderator
comment by BerbaKing11 (U6256)
posted 23 minutes ago
comment by Robb : Time for a change (U21234)
posted 2 hours, 52 minutes ago
comment by BerbaKing11 (U6256)
posted 1 minute ago
comment by Robb : Time for a change (U21234)
posted 9 minutes ago
comment by Shugs (U14253)
posted 16 seconds ago
comment by Robb : Time for a change (U21234)
posted 12 seconds ago
And why do people bring up money spent with Jose?
I thought the vast majority of his signings were bad. You can’t have both.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Surely that is the point... He spent lots and most of it on rubbish
----------------------------------------------------------------------
But the argument here was that he had an advantage over Ole because he had £400 million of signings
If they were rubbish how was that an advantage? 🤔
----------------------------------------------------------------------
This might be one of the most daft things you've ever posted on here.
Spaffing £400m on duds isn't an advantage. The advantage is actually being given money. It stops being an advantage if you spend it badly. Jose blew his advantage on a bunch of failed signings. Only you could attempt to be confused by this.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
I think you’re the one being confused here
Go read Kung Fu’s post again. He was saying that Jose played that way even with half a billion worth of players as if those players were an advantage
----------------------------------------------------------------------
But Jose signed those players. Your entire 'logic', if that's what we're calling it, collapses completely when you bizarrely fail to factor that in. It's pretty important!
Jose had a spending advantage over Ole. He had several transfer windows and he had time.
He - and Woodward no doubt - sabotaged that clear advantage through a combination of poor buys, poor football and creating a toxic environment.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
How did ed contribute to poor buys, poor football and a toxic envirobment?
comment by BerbaKing11 (U6256)
posted 22 minutes ago
comment by Robb : Time for a change (U21234)
posted 2 hours, 55 minutes ago
People can’t use the money spent by Jose argument to slate him by saying he had advantages because of that money spent but also say they were duds.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Jesus, I wish I'd seen this comment before I'd responded above.
You can't be serious, surely?
Why can't they use that argument? Jose signed the duds. He sanctioned the player deals. Not only could he not get his team playing decent football with his own purchases, most of those purchases - signed for big money - are widely considered failures. Who's fault is that? That he had the time and financial backing to make such deal is an advantage that Ole hasn't yet had.
That Jose failed to capitalise on the clear advantages he had doesn't mean those advantages never existed in the first place.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
I think Robs point is that the 'he spent £400m' argument' is normally used in the following equation
The more you spend, the better you are, no matter the player or how he performs = Manager cant even do well with a brilliant (expensive) squad.
To simplify it, if United spent £300m in the summer on Callum Wilson, he isnt suddenly going to be the best player on the planet.
Comment deleted by Site Moderator
comment by Big McTominay (U22257)
posted 2 hours, 14 minutes ago
To simplify it, if United spent £300m in the summer on Callum Wilson, he isnt suddenly going to be the best player on the planet.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
No... But who bought him for that... And whoever it was deserves criticism
If you spend the money badly its your fault...
comment by Big McTominay (U22257)
posted 2 hours, 18 minutes ago
comment by BerbaKing11 (U6256)
posted 22 minutes ago
comment by Robb : Time for a change (U21234)
posted 2 hours, 55 minutes ago
People can’t use the money spent by Jose argument to slate him by saying he had advantages because of that money spent but also say they were duds.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Jesus, I wish I'd seen this comment before I'd responded above.
You can't be serious, surely?
Why can't they use that argument? Jose signed the duds. He sanctioned the player deals. Not only could he not get his team playing decent football with his own purchases, most of those purchases - signed for big money - are widely considered failures. Who's fault is that? That he had the time and financial backing to make such deal is an advantage that Ole hasn't yet had.
That Jose failed to capitalise on the clear advantages he had doesn't mean those advantages never existed in the first place.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
I think Robs point is that the 'he spent £400m' argument' is normally used in the following equation
The more you spend, the better you are, no matter the player or how he performs = Manager cant even do well with a brilliant (expensive) squad.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
The point is... The more you spend the better you should be
He spent... And we weren't 450 million better off on the pitch
You were sounding reasonably sensible against hippo... Don't f*ck it up trying to rescue nobb
comment by Shugs (U14253)
posted 19 minutes ago
comment by Big McTominay (U22257)
posted 2 hours, 14 minutes ago
To simplify it, if United spent £300m in the summer on Callum Wilson, he isnt suddenly going to be the best player on the planet.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
No... But who bought him for that... And whoever it was deserves criticism
If you spend the money badly its your fault...
---------------------------------------------------------------------
But what if the manager wanted him and the fans want the execs to back the manager?
comment by Shugs (U14253)
posted 18 minutes ago
comment by Big McTominay (U22257)
posted 2 hours, 18 minutes ago
comment by BerbaKing11 (U6256)
posted 22 minutes ago
comment by Robb : Time for a change (U21234)
posted 2 hours, 55 minutes ago
People can’t use the money spent by Jose argument to slate him by saying he had advantages because of that money spent but also say they were duds.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Jesus, I wish I'd seen this comment before I'd responded above.
You can't be serious, surely?
Why can't they use that argument? Jose signed the duds. He sanctioned the player deals. Not only could he not get his team playing decent football with his own purchases, most of those purchases - signed for big money - are widely considered failures. Who's fault is that? That he had the time and financial backing to make such deal is an advantage that Ole hasn't yet had.
That Jose failed to capitalise on the clear advantages he had doesn't mean those advantages never existed in the first place.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
I think Robs point is that the 'he spent £400m' argument' is normally used in the following equation
The more you spend, the better you are, no matter the player or how he performs = Manager cant even do well with a brilliant (expensive) squad.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
The point is... The more you spend the better you should be
He spent... And we weren't 450 million better off on the pitch
You were sounding reasonably sensible against hippo... Don't f*ck it up trying to rescue nobb
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Should. But it very rarely happens.
Robb therefore is correct. You cant argue both that Jose wasted £450m AND that we should be much better because we have £450m of players
What if the manager didn't, but the CEO decided it was a good idea to buy him?
comment by Big McTominay (U22257)
posted 9 minutes ago
comment by Shugs (U14253)
posted 19 minutes ago
comment by Big McTominay (U22257)
posted 2 hours, 14 minutes ago
To simplify it, if United spent £300m in the summer on Callum Wilson, he isnt suddenly going to be the best player on the planet.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
No... But who bought him for that... And whoever it was deserves criticism
If you spend the money badly its your fault...
---------------------------------------------------------------------
But what if the manager wanted him and the fans want the execs to back the manager?
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Who's responsible if he's crap
comment by Big McTominay (U22257)
posted 5 minutes ago
comment by Shugs (U14253)
posted 18 minutes ago
comment by Big McTominay (U22257)
posted 2 hours, 18 minutes ago
comment by BerbaKing11 (U6256)
posted 22 minutes ago
comment by Robb : Time for a change (U21234)
posted 2 hours, 55 minutes ago
People can’t use the money spent by Jose argument to slate him by saying he had advantages because of that money spent but also say they were duds.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Jesus, I wish I'd seen this comment before I'd responded above.
You can't be serious, surely?
Why can't they use that argument? Jose signed the duds. He sanctioned the player deals. Not only could he not get his team playing decent football with his own purchases, most of those purchases - signed for big money - are widely considered failures. Who's fault is that? That he had the time and financial backing to make such deal is an advantage that Ole hasn't yet had.
That Jose failed to capitalise on the clear advantages he had doesn't mean those advantages never existed in the first place.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
I think Robs point is that the 'he spent £400m' argument' is normally used in the following equation
The more you spend, the better you are, no matter the player or how he performs = Manager cant even do well with a brilliant (expensive) squad.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
The point is... The more you spend the better you should be
He spent... And we weren't 450 million better off on the pitch
You were sounding reasonably sensible against hippo... Don't f*ck it up trying to rescue nobb
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Should. But it very rarely happens.
Robb therefore is correct. You cant argue both that Jose wasted £450m AND that we should be much better because we have £450m of players
----------------------------------------------------------------------
No he's not
If we should be better... But we're not... Because his judgement was poor
Then its his fault... And he's wasted the money
If he's spent it... It's his responsibility if we're not better
comment by manusince52 (U9692)
posted 4 minutes ago
What if the manager didn't, but the CEO decided it was a good idea to buy him?
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Then you certainly couldnt use the transfer fee spend to judge the managers ability.
comment by Big McTominay (U22257)
posted 7 minutes ago
comment by Shugs (U14253)
posted 18 minutes ago
comment by Big McTominay (U22257)
posted 2 hours, 18 minutes ago
comment by BerbaKing11 (U6256)
posted 22 minutes ago
comment by Robb : Time for a change (U21234)
posted 2 hours, 55 minutes ago
People can’t use the money spent by Jose argument to slate him by saying he had advantages because of that money spent but also say they were duds.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Jesus, I wish I'd seen this comment before I'd responded above.
You can't be serious, surely?
Why can't they use that argument? Jose signed the duds. He sanctioned the player deals. Not only could he not get his team playing decent football with his own purchases, most of those purchases - signed for big money - are widely considered failures. Who's fault is that? That he had the time and financial backing to make such deal is an advantage that Ole hasn't yet had.
That Jose failed to capitalise on the clear advantages he had doesn't mean those advantages never existed in the first place.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
I think Robs point is that the 'he spent £400m' argument' is normally used in the following equation
The more you spend, the better you are, no matter the player or how he performs = Manager cant even do well with a brilliant (expensive) squad.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
The point is... The more you spend the better you should be
He spent... And we weren't 450 million better off on the pitch
You were sounding reasonably sensible against hippo... Don't f*ck it up trying to rescue nobb
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Should. But it very rarely happens.
Robb therefore is correct. You cant argue both that Jose wasted £450m AND that we should be much better because we have £450m of players
----------------------------------------------------------------------
But rarely happens is balls btw
Clubs buy players... Why?
To get better... To improve... To play better football...
If it doesn't work who's fault is it
The managers
Or if its a DOF... His
comment by Big McTominay (U22257)
posted 3 seconds ago
comment by manusince52 (U9692)
posted 4 minutes ago
What if the manager didn't, but the CEO decided it was a good idea to buy him?
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Then you certainly couldnt use the transfer fee spend to judge the managers ability.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
So you blame ed?
Cool... Got there in the end
Sign in if you want to comment
An article that nails it imo
Page 3 of 5
posted on 21/10/19
Hippo, so every season is a disaster for either Real or Barca ?
Or Pool, City, Chelsea ?
Or any Italian club not Juventus ?
Of course it's not a disaster, just mildly disappointing.
Even relegation is a blip in the history of the club.
You support Manchester United, so you know what a disaster really is.
posted on 21/10/19
Comment deleted by Site Moderator
posted on 21/10/19
Comment deleted by Site Moderator
posted on 21/10/19
comment by Hippo - Mr Right! (U1301)
posted 1 minute ago
comment by Big McTominay (U22257)
posted 17 seconds ago
comment by Hippo - Mr Right! (U1301)
posted 2 minutes ago
comment by Big McTominay (U22257)
posted 3 minutes ago
comment by Hippo - Mr Right! (U1301)
posted 1 minute ago
I don't think we will be relegated but there will be times this season when we are worried. such as now. we are 2 points above the relegation zone.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
I'm not worried.
If we are nearer the bottom than top 6 come Xmas I'm confident the club would take action
----------------------------------------------------------------------
even then, finishing in midtable should be seen as an absolute disaster. some people on here think it is enough to just avoid relegation. to be even in and around relegation zone at any point in the season after the first 5 games is an absolute disaster and shows a total failure of everyone involved at the club.
for the other big clubs around the world finishing second is a disaster, for us now it seems finishing 6th is a decent season.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Nonsense. Nobody associated with the club thinks 6th is a decent season.
As for the key executives at the club, I really do worry that our fans think we can just go to the football executives shop and pick up 2 or 3 off the peg who will instantly find world class coach after world class coach and players that our current scouts and agents arent aware of.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
are you really worried that somebody else would do a worse job than woodward? what would that look like?
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Things could be a lot worse. We could have someone tighten the purse strings. We could have an exec who tries to get involved in picking the team. We could have someone who thinks naming rights are a good thing, or ticket prices can be increased, and so on.
posted on 21/10/19
comment by Hippo - Mr Right! (U1301)
posted 7 minutes ago
comment by manusince52 (U9692)
posted 28 seconds ago
Hippo, so every season is a disaster for either Real or Barca ?
Or Pool, City, Chelsea ?
Or any Italian club not Juventus ?
Of course it's not a disaster, just mildly disappointing.
Even relegation is a blip in the history of the club.
You support Manchester United, so you know what a disaster really is.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
yes, for barca or real that is a disaster. for psg as well. bayern would sack everyone involved with footballing operations and would sell half of the team if they finished 2nd. don't know enough about juventus but probably they would see it as that.
the premier league is tougher, but giggs used to always talk about how he would sit at the pool during his summer holidays angry and sad whenever we finished second. carrick fell in to a deep depression when we lost the cl final.
now we have lingard and pogba dabbing on instagram because we finished 6th.
to me this is the strangest thing, how quickly the fans have lowered their standards for no clear reason.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
'bayern would sack everyone involved with footballing operations and would sell half of the team if they finished 2nd'
Sorry, that's just nonsense
posted on 21/10/19
comment by Big McTominay (U22257)
posted 0 seconds ago
comment by Hippo - Mr Right! (U1301)
posted 7 minutes ago
comment by manusince52 (U9692)
posted 28 seconds ago
Hippo, so every season is a disaster for either Real or Barca ?
Or Pool, City, Chelsea ?
Or any Italian club not Juventus ?
Of course it's not a disaster, just mildly disappointing.
Even relegation is a blip in the history of the club.
You support Manchester United, so you know what a disaster really is.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
yes, for barca or real that is a disaster. for psg as well. bayern would sack everyone involved with footballing operations and would sell half of the team if they finished 2nd. don't know enough about juventus but probably they would see it as that.
the premier league is tougher, but giggs used to always talk about how he would sit at the pool during his summer holidays angry and sad whenever we finished second. carrick fell in to a deep depression when we lost the cl final.
now we have lingard and pogba dabbing on instagram because we finished 6th.
to me this is the strangest thing, how quickly the fans have lowered their standards for no clear reason.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
'bayern would sack everyone involved with footballing operations and would sell half of the team if they finished 2nd'
Sorry, that's just nonsense
----------------------------------------------------------------------
We had players that loved the club and manager and were supremely talented.
We have none of that now. Hence expectations being lowered
posted on 21/10/19
Comment deleted by Site Moderator
posted on 21/10/19
comment by Hippo - Mr Right! (U1301)
posted 8 minutes ago
comment by Big McTominay (U22257)
posted 3 minutes ago
comment by Hippo - Mr Right! (U1301)
posted 7 minutes ago
comment by manusince52 (U9692)
posted 28 seconds ago
Hippo, so every season is a disaster for either Real or Barca ?
Or Pool, City, Chelsea ?
Or any Italian club not Juventus ?
Of course it's not a disaster, just mildly disappointing.
Even relegation is a blip in the history of the club.
You support Manchester United, so you know what a disaster really is.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
yes, for barca or real that is a disaster. for psg as well. bayern would sack everyone involved with footballing operations and would sell half of the team if they finished 2nd. don't know enough about juventus but probably they would see it as that.
the premier league is tougher, but giggs used to always talk about how he would sit at the pool during his summer holidays angry and sad whenever we finished second. carrick fell in to a deep depression when we lost the cl final.
now we have lingard and pogba dabbing on instagram because we finished 6th.
to me this is the strangest thing, how quickly the fans have lowered their standards for no clear reason.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
'bayern would sack everyone involved with footballing operations and would sell half of the team if they finished 2nd'
Sorry, that's just nonsense
----------------------------------------------------------------------
yeah it's not though, because that is exactly what happened in 2011. in his first season van gaal won the league and got them to the cl final. the next season he was sacked in april because it was clear he would not win it again. shortly afterwards christian nerlinger, the director of football was also sacked.
last season kovac was close to being sacked all the time, only once he won the double was his job safe.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Maybe they sacked him because he was a miserable old fart .
posted on 21/10/19
comment by Robb : Time for a change (U21234)
posted 2 hours, 52 minutes ago
comment by BerbaKing11 (U6256)
posted 1 minute ago
comment by Robb : Time for a change (U21234)
posted 9 minutes ago
comment by Shugs (U14253)
posted 16 seconds ago
comment by Robb : Time for a change (U21234)
posted 12 seconds ago
And why do people bring up money spent with Jose?
I thought the vast majority of his signings were bad. You can’t have both.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Surely that is the point... He spent lots and most of it on rubbish
----------------------------------------------------------------------
But the argument here was that he had an advantage over Ole because he had £400 million of signings
If they were rubbish how was that an advantage? 🤔
----------------------------------------------------------------------
This might be one of the most daft things you've ever posted on here.
Spaffing £400m on duds isn't an advantage. The advantage is actually being given money. It stops being an advantage if you spend it badly. Jose blew his advantage on a bunch of failed signings. Only you could attempt to be confused by this.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
I think you’re the one being confused here
Go read Kung Fu’s post again. He was saying that Jose played that way even with half a billion worth of players as if those players were an advantage
----------------------------------------------------------------------
But Jose signed those players. Your entire 'logic', if that's what we're calling it, collapses completely when you bizarrely fail to factor that in. It's pretty important!
Jose had a spending advantage over Ole. He had several transfer windows and he had time.
He - and Woodward no doubt - sabotaged that clear advantage through a combination of poor buys, poor football and creating a toxic environment.
posted on 21/10/19
comment by Robb : Time for a change (U21234)
posted 2 hours, 55 minutes ago
People can’t use the money spent by Jose argument to slate him by saying he had advantages because of that money spent but also say they were duds.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Jesus, I wish I'd seen this comment before I'd responded above.
You can't be serious, surely?
Why can't they use that argument? Jose signed the duds. He sanctioned the player deals. Not only could he not get his team playing decent football with his own purchases, most of those purchases - signed for big money - are widely considered failures. Who's fault is that? That he had the time and financial backing to make such deal is an advantage that Ole hasn't yet had.
That Jose failed to capitalise on the clear advantages he had doesn't mean those advantages never existed in the first place.
posted on 21/10/19
Comment deleted by Site Moderator
posted on 21/10/19
comment by BerbaKing11 (U6256)
posted 23 minutes ago
comment by Robb : Time for a change (U21234)
posted 2 hours, 52 minutes ago
comment by BerbaKing11 (U6256)
posted 1 minute ago
comment by Robb : Time for a change (U21234)
posted 9 minutes ago
comment by Shugs (U14253)
posted 16 seconds ago
comment by Robb : Time for a change (U21234)
posted 12 seconds ago
And why do people bring up money spent with Jose?
I thought the vast majority of his signings were bad. You can’t have both.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Surely that is the point... He spent lots and most of it on rubbish
----------------------------------------------------------------------
But the argument here was that he had an advantage over Ole because he had £400 million of signings
If they were rubbish how was that an advantage? 🤔
----------------------------------------------------------------------
This might be one of the most daft things you've ever posted on here.
Spaffing £400m on duds isn't an advantage. The advantage is actually being given money. It stops being an advantage if you spend it badly. Jose blew his advantage on a bunch of failed signings. Only you could attempt to be confused by this.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
I think you’re the one being confused here
Go read Kung Fu’s post again. He was saying that Jose played that way even with half a billion worth of players as if those players were an advantage
----------------------------------------------------------------------
But Jose signed those players. Your entire 'logic', if that's what we're calling it, collapses completely when you bizarrely fail to factor that in. It's pretty important!
Jose had a spending advantage over Ole. He had several transfer windows and he had time.
He - and Woodward no doubt - sabotaged that clear advantage through a combination of poor buys, poor football and creating a toxic environment.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
How did ed contribute to poor buys, poor football and a toxic envirobment?
posted on 21/10/19
comment by BerbaKing11 (U6256)
posted 22 minutes ago
comment by Robb : Time for a change (U21234)
posted 2 hours, 55 minutes ago
People can’t use the money spent by Jose argument to slate him by saying he had advantages because of that money spent but also say they were duds.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Jesus, I wish I'd seen this comment before I'd responded above.
You can't be serious, surely?
Why can't they use that argument? Jose signed the duds. He sanctioned the player deals. Not only could he not get his team playing decent football with his own purchases, most of those purchases - signed for big money - are widely considered failures. Who's fault is that? That he had the time and financial backing to make such deal is an advantage that Ole hasn't yet had.
That Jose failed to capitalise on the clear advantages he had doesn't mean those advantages never existed in the first place.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
I think Robs point is that the 'he spent £400m' argument' is normally used in the following equation
The more you spend, the better you are, no matter the player or how he performs = Manager cant even do well with a brilliant (expensive) squad.
posted on 21/10/19
To simplify it, if United spent £300m in the summer on Callum Wilson, he isnt suddenly going to be the best player on the planet.
posted on 21/10/19
Comment deleted by Site Moderator
posted on 21/10/19
comment by Big McTominay (U22257)
posted 2 hours, 14 minutes ago
To simplify it, if United spent £300m in the summer on Callum Wilson, he isnt suddenly going to be the best player on the planet.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
No... But who bought him for that... And whoever it was deserves criticism
If you spend the money badly its your fault...
posted on 21/10/19
comment by Big McTominay (U22257)
posted 2 hours, 18 minutes ago
comment by BerbaKing11 (U6256)
posted 22 minutes ago
comment by Robb : Time for a change (U21234)
posted 2 hours, 55 minutes ago
People can’t use the money spent by Jose argument to slate him by saying he had advantages because of that money spent but also say they were duds.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Jesus, I wish I'd seen this comment before I'd responded above.
You can't be serious, surely?
Why can't they use that argument? Jose signed the duds. He sanctioned the player deals. Not only could he not get his team playing decent football with his own purchases, most of those purchases - signed for big money - are widely considered failures. Who's fault is that? That he had the time and financial backing to make such deal is an advantage that Ole hasn't yet had.
That Jose failed to capitalise on the clear advantages he had doesn't mean those advantages never existed in the first place.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
I think Robs point is that the 'he spent £400m' argument' is normally used in the following equation
The more you spend, the better you are, no matter the player or how he performs = Manager cant even do well with a brilliant (expensive) squad.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
The point is... The more you spend the better you should be
He spent... And we weren't 450 million better off on the pitch
You were sounding reasonably sensible against hippo... Don't f*ck it up trying to rescue nobb
posted on 21/10/19
comment by Shugs (U14253)
posted 19 minutes ago
comment by Big McTominay (U22257)
posted 2 hours, 14 minutes ago
To simplify it, if United spent £300m in the summer on Callum Wilson, he isnt suddenly going to be the best player on the planet.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
No... But who bought him for that... And whoever it was deserves criticism
If you spend the money badly its your fault...
---------------------------------------------------------------------
But what if the manager wanted him and the fans want the execs to back the manager?
posted on 21/10/19
comment by Shugs (U14253)
posted 18 minutes ago
comment by Big McTominay (U22257)
posted 2 hours, 18 minutes ago
comment by BerbaKing11 (U6256)
posted 22 minutes ago
comment by Robb : Time for a change (U21234)
posted 2 hours, 55 minutes ago
People can’t use the money spent by Jose argument to slate him by saying he had advantages because of that money spent but also say they were duds.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Jesus, I wish I'd seen this comment before I'd responded above.
You can't be serious, surely?
Why can't they use that argument? Jose signed the duds. He sanctioned the player deals. Not only could he not get his team playing decent football with his own purchases, most of those purchases - signed for big money - are widely considered failures. Who's fault is that? That he had the time and financial backing to make such deal is an advantage that Ole hasn't yet had.
That Jose failed to capitalise on the clear advantages he had doesn't mean those advantages never existed in the first place.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
I think Robs point is that the 'he spent £400m' argument' is normally used in the following equation
The more you spend, the better you are, no matter the player or how he performs = Manager cant even do well with a brilliant (expensive) squad.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
The point is... The more you spend the better you should be
He spent... And we weren't 450 million better off on the pitch
You were sounding reasonably sensible against hippo... Don't f*ck it up trying to rescue nobb
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Should. But it very rarely happens.
Robb therefore is correct. You cant argue both that Jose wasted £450m AND that we should be much better because we have £450m of players
posted on 21/10/19
What if the manager didn't, but the CEO decided it was a good idea to buy him?
posted on 21/10/19
comment by Big McTominay (U22257)
posted 9 minutes ago
comment by Shugs (U14253)
posted 19 minutes ago
comment by Big McTominay (U22257)
posted 2 hours, 14 minutes ago
To simplify it, if United spent £300m in the summer on Callum Wilson, he isnt suddenly going to be the best player on the planet.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
No... But who bought him for that... And whoever it was deserves criticism
If you spend the money badly its your fault...
---------------------------------------------------------------------
But what if the manager wanted him and the fans want the execs to back the manager?
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Who's responsible if he's crap
posted on 21/10/19
comment by Big McTominay (U22257)
posted 5 minutes ago
comment by Shugs (U14253)
posted 18 minutes ago
comment by Big McTominay (U22257)
posted 2 hours, 18 minutes ago
comment by BerbaKing11 (U6256)
posted 22 minutes ago
comment by Robb : Time for a change (U21234)
posted 2 hours, 55 minutes ago
People can’t use the money spent by Jose argument to slate him by saying he had advantages because of that money spent but also say they were duds.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Jesus, I wish I'd seen this comment before I'd responded above.
You can't be serious, surely?
Why can't they use that argument? Jose signed the duds. He sanctioned the player deals. Not only could he not get his team playing decent football with his own purchases, most of those purchases - signed for big money - are widely considered failures. Who's fault is that? That he had the time and financial backing to make such deal is an advantage that Ole hasn't yet had.
That Jose failed to capitalise on the clear advantages he had doesn't mean those advantages never existed in the first place.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
I think Robs point is that the 'he spent £400m' argument' is normally used in the following equation
The more you spend, the better you are, no matter the player or how he performs = Manager cant even do well with a brilliant (expensive) squad.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
The point is... The more you spend the better you should be
He spent... And we weren't 450 million better off on the pitch
You were sounding reasonably sensible against hippo... Don't f*ck it up trying to rescue nobb
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Should. But it very rarely happens.
Robb therefore is correct. You cant argue both that Jose wasted £450m AND that we should be much better because we have £450m of players
----------------------------------------------------------------------
No he's not
If we should be better... But we're not... Because his judgement was poor
Then its his fault... And he's wasted the money
If he's spent it... It's his responsibility if we're not better
posted on 21/10/19
comment by manusince52 (U9692)
posted 4 minutes ago
What if the manager didn't, but the CEO decided it was a good idea to buy him?
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Then you certainly couldnt use the transfer fee spend to judge the managers ability.
posted on 21/10/19
comment by Big McTominay (U22257)
posted 7 minutes ago
comment by Shugs (U14253)
posted 18 minutes ago
comment by Big McTominay (U22257)
posted 2 hours, 18 minutes ago
comment by BerbaKing11 (U6256)
posted 22 minutes ago
comment by Robb : Time for a change (U21234)
posted 2 hours, 55 minutes ago
People can’t use the money spent by Jose argument to slate him by saying he had advantages because of that money spent but also say they were duds.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Jesus, I wish I'd seen this comment before I'd responded above.
You can't be serious, surely?
Why can't they use that argument? Jose signed the duds. He sanctioned the player deals. Not only could he not get his team playing decent football with his own purchases, most of those purchases - signed for big money - are widely considered failures. Who's fault is that? That he had the time and financial backing to make such deal is an advantage that Ole hasn't yet had.
That Jose failed to capitalise on the clear advantages he had doesn't mean those advantages never existed in the first place.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
I think Robs point is that the 'he spent £400m' argument' is normally used in the following equation
The more you spend, the better you are, no matter the player or how he performs = Manager cant even do well with a brilliant (expensive) squad.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
The point is... The more you spend the better you should be
He spent... And we weren't 450 million better off on the pitch
You were sounding reasonably sensible against hippo... Don't f*ck it up trying to rescue nobb
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Should. But it very rarely happens.
Robb therefore is correct. You cant argue both that Jose wasted £450m AND that we should be much better because we have £450m of players
----------------------------------------------------------------------
But rarely happens is balls btw
Clubs buy players... Why?
To get better... To improve... To play better football...
If it doesn't work who's fault is it
The managers
Or if its a DOF... His
posted on 21/10/19
comment by Big McTominay (U22257)
posted 3 seconds ago
comment by manusince52 (U9692)
posted 4 minutes ago
What if the manager didn't, but the CEO decided it was a good idea to buy him?
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Then you certainly couldnt use the transfer fee spend to judge the managers ability.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
So you blame ed?
Cool... Got there in the end
Page 3 of 5