United thread 2017/18

Status
Not open for further replies.
FogBlueInSanFran said:
Said this before, when he left, many times after, and I'll say it again. See this article (which is hilarious in retrospect) on his eight mantras for running a successful organization.

http://www.businessinsider.com/sir-alex-ferguson-reveals-8-secrets-to-success-2013-9

Number 4 is "Never, ever cede control." He was an autocrat. Autocrats -- and this is important -- do not care about the state they leave an organization in when they leave. They aim to maximize success while they are there. The afters are the next guy's problem, and a win/win for the autocrat, because if the successor leadership fails, the autocrat's proven to be more successful, and if it succeeds, he can claim credit for laying the seeds. The problem is that autocrats don't build benches (they're a threat), nor organizational capabilities (that can endure past the autocrat's tenure). They must "never, ever cede control" of any aspect of running the business. The idiot Glazers were only too happy to let him, because they know dick about football. Everyone else had a niche specialty like Woodward, but no ability to master all the aspects of the business. 4/5 years on, they are STILL struggling to fill the vacuums at EVERY key control element of the business.

It's wonky to say so, but their failure -- which is far from complete and has only just begun IMO -- will make an excellent business school case someday.
Click to expand...

Yeah I was just having that "case study" thought myself a few minutes back.

It occurs to me that all their moves since red-nose left have been primarily reactive and very short-term in orientation. Not the appointment of Moyes, but pretty much everything past their wretched start under him. In that season, Pellars took over here and (somewhat unexpectedly) finished second to Liverpool whereas the Traffords went all to hell under Moyes.

There began the crazy spending on shiny toy du jour and managerial merry-go-round. Even appointing Moaninho was more or less reactive to us getting Pep. They needed a big name to keep up the marketing freak show.

I'm not as dialed in as some/many to the numbers involved, but I sense that the business idea is to make official noodle sponsor #15 happy and/or keep the terms of said deal in effect by finishing top 4 each year. And sell shirts, etc with flashy signings like Carlton and whatnot.

Does this on a basic level tie in to the Glasers needing to service their debt? I think that would be the subject of the case study if so. The overall drag of debt-service forcing bad/short-term decision-making. Or maybe their share price in NY is such a big deal to them that an eye is always on that.

Ironically, you would think that organizationally they could afford to take a more long-term orientation. Outbid City and Chelsea on younger players (i.e. Jesus) rather than outbid the world on shirt-sellers like Carlton or Ibrahimovich. Find some hot property younger manager and try to give him 5 years and a great budget with which to work. This type of approach actually costs much less and probably will always give you more long-term bang for the buck. Most likely would lead to longer-term sustainable success on the field of play as well. But again, maybe the debt-service albatross/Wall Street pressure precludes this.

Whatever is the reason, long may it continue. Hopefully Moaninho melts down and the next big name is brought in along with some Galactico or other swallowing the already bloated transfer budget to little marginal benefit. And I imagine this is exactly what will happen. And then next thing you know they are Liverpool and a generation removed from meaningful success and merely going on about HISTORY. Which precisely no one other than their own fanbase will give a solitary fuck about.
 
TCIB said:
That is very insightful, thanks for this. I knew a bit that an autocrat was a singular type figure but never knew the finer details as you point out nicely. Head docs must be like "yep, that is totally correct and exactly why they are a bit screwed". Why the hell could they not see this, i mean with the cash around the Glazers should be seeing stuff the man on the street does not. What you say about autocrats is almost the living definition of what happened to them so it was not like they were blindsided and this hit them out of the blue, well summat blue hit them :-D
Click to expand...

Thanks mate. Stories of entrepreneurs/founders/autocrats who can't let go and the decimation of their businesses in the wake of their departures are legion, not just in business, but in politics (think dictators). The Glazers couldn't see this because they are dim (they don't have the best rep as real estate moguls over here; lotta leverage too) and the toadies left over like Woodward are all hat, no cattle as they say in Texas -- exactly how Purple Nose wanted it.

They only way they rebuild is to go wandering in the desert (or the abyss) for a while -- meaning break down the organization to its core and start over, place in the table be damned -- new players, new management, probably new ownership. They aren't complete morons -- they know this. But they're unwilling to do it because the cash cow doesn't survive a period of prolonged failure. My guess is they become Arsenal (who, by the way, are going to go through the same thing when Wenger leaves -- difference being Purple Nose knew when to leave) or Liverpool -- always "big" enough to generate funds, but not enough to win titles consistently.

Utd's cock-ups aren't surprising to me when looked through the lens of business management and leadership transition. Predicting even more difficulty isn't hard either.

And by the way, I've also always thought of HRH SM's investment in City as no different than a venture capital investment, which is one reason why FFP pissed me off so much. Can you imagine what would happen to business if early-stage venture capital-backed entities were somehow made illegal because they lost money for openers? Inane.

They are Walmart and City is Amazon. IMO the future is (sky) bluer than almost anyone in England thinks.
 
Pam said:
Watch this rag prick from just over five minutes in. "Forget about City", he says. Then he spends the rest of the segment talking about City. Can't get enought of this shit. Toooo funny.

Click to expand...

That fat Rag twat is one arrogant gobby individual, I'm loving his pain.
 
Javi Garcia's Hairstylist said:
Yeah I was just having that "case study" thought myself a few minutes back.

It occurs to me that all their moves since red-nose left have been primarily reactive and very short-term in orientation. Not the appointment of Moyes, but pretty much everything past their wretched start under him. In that season, Pellars took over here and (somewhat unexpectedly) finished second to Liverpool whereas the Traffords went all to hell under Moyes.

There began the crazy spending on shiny toy du jour and managerial merry-go-round. Even appointing Moaninho was more or less reactive to us getting Pep. They needed a big name to keep up the marketing freak show.

I'm not as dialed in as some/many to the numbers involved, but I sense that the business idea is to make official noodle sponsor #15 happy and/or keep the terms of said deal in effect by finishing top 4 each year. And sell shirts, etc with flashy signings like Carlton and whatnot.

Does this on a basic level tie in to the Glasers needing to service their debt? I think that would be the subject of the case study if so. The overall drag of debt-service forcing bad/short-term decision-making. Or maybe their share price in NY is such a big deal to them that an eye is always on that.

Ironically, you would think that organizationally they could afford to take a more long-term orientation. Outbid City and Chelsea on younger players (i.e. Jesus) rather than outbid the world on shirt-sellers like Carlton or Ibrahimovich. Find some hot property younger manager and try to give him 5 years and a great budget with which to work. This type of approach actually costs much less and probably will always give you more long-term bang for the buck. Most likely would lead to longer-term sustainable success on the field of play as well. But again, maybe the debt-service albatross/Wall Street pressure precludes this.

Whatever is the reason, long may it continue. Hopefully Moaninho melts down and the next big name is brought in along with some Galactico or other swallowing the already bloated transfer budget to little marginal benefit. And I imagine this is exactly what will happen. And then next thing you know they are Liverpool and a generation removed from meaningful success and merely going on about HISTORY. Which precisely no one other than their own fanbase will give a solitary fuck about.
Click to expand...

We were typing at the same time and we are saying the same things. Completely agree. They are between a rock and a hard place. I'd be more worried if they fucked off their stars, concentrated on the basics (the academy, youth, a long-term manager, and actual plan) even if it meant 3-4 years in 8th or worse than I am if they continue on their current path.

As long as their supporters/apologists say, "But we're MANCHESTER UNITED . . . !" and refuse to embrace their new reality I am not worried. At. All.
 
Anyone else absolutely baffled by this weird line that they keep coming up with explain why it doesn't matter that we haven't actually spent ore than them, because they mainly blew it on two players whereas we bought more players, cheaper? I mean, did someone force them to spunk £200m on flat track donkey and the myth? I genuinely don't understand how that's supposed to mitigate anything?
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Unread Posts

Don't have an account? Register now and see fewer ads!

SIGN UP
Back
Top
✖
  AdBlock Detected
Bluemoon relies on advertising to pay our hosting fees. Please support the site by disabling your ad blocking software to help keep the forum sustainable. Thanks.