United thread 2017/18

Status
Not open for further replies.
Good time to bring this back out I reckon:


51ZWS%2BH80yL._SX327_BO1,204,203,200_.jpg
 
He's nothing more than a corrosive, toxic wanker and it is only because the rags are such a collective bunch of self-pitying, deluded cults that they continue to exculpate the twat rather than kicking his embarrassing arse out of the swamp door.
 
Trippier was in, they were alternating games, he wasn't automatic first choice. Poch was happy to see him go, Levy was delighted with the dough for an ageing full back, Trippier being, in their vision, the better option. I think we won that one though.
Total revisionist nonsense.

Trippier started 6 league games last season. All of them coming AFTER Walker and Poch fell out when Walker told the manager he wanted to go in the summer. If you don’t believe me then read Poch’s bloody book.

As for ageing. He’s twenty fucking seven.
 
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
7
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.
I had never thought of it like this. You are so right. I once worked for a company that had an autocratic CEO. When he retired, the company went rapidly downhill because there was nobody in key positions who had actually done any serious thinking. It went bankrupt.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.

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.