United Thread - 2023/24

SebastianBlue said:
My answer would be “Yes”, at least in the timeframe we have seen them turn out club in to the immense powerhouse it is now.

Because I believe the rot runs that deep in that club.

Our owners actually saw in opportunity with us, but everyone at the club (and the city)—the previous ownership, the management, the players, the staff, and the fans—wanted a tear down and rebuild. That gave them the freedom to to take many of the necessary but painful actions to right the ship.

And to answer your question more fully: I am not even sure ADUG, after initial discovery, would have wanted to takeover United. Dysfunction had set in well before the Glazers arrived. I think the Glazers largely saw the opportunity in the chaos.
Click to expand...
Ok, well we’ll have to disagree as what you are basically saying (given my question was whether they would be ‘the same basket case’) is that having Sheikh Mansour would have made no meaningful difference at all, which suggests united’s systemic problems were incurable in 2008, and I simply cannot accept that. I think he (or Khaldoon, rather) would have spotted the rot, restructured the club, invested in the infrastructure, got the right people in and the footballing landscape today would look very different.
 
As much as I don’t really like him and the change of owners can be argued to be due to him, the lack of succession cannot.

The owners needed to sort that, they didn’t.

Ferguson left at a time he knew the tide was changing. He was probably one RVP signing away (if we had got him instead of them), of being in our rear view mirror.

Lucky for him they got him and he could leave as champions.

It was always going to be a tough job for United to replace him as he had been there so long and had so much control.

The choice of just getting Moyes and hoping he would do the same job was flawed and they have not caught up since.

Now Tan Hag is the new saviour and I feel he had a decent enough first season.

However, I’m a bit unsure of the current plan. They seem to want to play a brand of football not that dissimilar to ourselves. Assuming based on the theory City are a great team let’s play like them. However, they cannot really do it. All games seem like they play like Ole had them, defend deep and counter or they have the ball more and concede good chances.

They have a handful of decent players, that can help them win some games. But ultimately all their games there is a decent case for them losing/ drawing in all.

The FFP rules are beginning to hurt them, whilst we 115 charges pending aside seem to be managing with ease.

Bit of a rant but the owners are to blame for everything at United, but they are on for record revenues whilst ensuring they are in the box seat for future commercial opportunities. Whilst I believe they would like them to win the league, their operation is based around CL participation.
 
gordondaviesmoustache said:
Where did I say that?

When? You say ‘well before’, but they won the Treble four years before the Glazers bought the club.
Click to expand...
I was interpreting your post; happy to be corrected if you are not arguing that new owners could fix everything fairly quickly.

Funny you should mentioned the treble, as the dysfunction in the club really began in earnest in 1999 when the MMC blocked the Murdock-backed takeover, which wreaked havoc behind the scenes and created major rivalries across the club management. It lead to a power struggle with McManus and Magnier (and a few other stakeholders) which Ferguson capitalised on, gradually gaining more and more power beyond merely managing the playing and coaching staff. The Rock of Gibraltar affair was merely the final straw by then, and the resulting fallout allowed the dysfunction to grow, especially as Ferguson ultimately won out in that battle, as well.

As I have argued for many years now, I maintain that most of the state of that club is in now can be traced back to Ferguson’s hubris, selfishness, and ineptitude in business, especially after the treble.

It all didn’t just start when the Glazers took over.
 
gordondaviesmoustache said:
Ok, well we’ll have to disagree as what you are basically saying (given my question was whether they would be ‘the same basket case’) is that having Sheikh Mansour would have made no meaningful difference at all, which suggests united’s systemic problems were incurable in 2008, and I simply cannot accept that. I think he (or Khaldoon, rather) would have spotted the rot, restructured the club, invested in the infrastructure, got the right people in and the footballing landscape today would look very different.
Click to expand...
Thankfully they are OURS, fuck united :P
 
gordondaviesmoustache said:
Ok, well we’ll have to disagree as what you are basically saying (given my question was whether they would be ‘the same basket case’) is that having Sheikh Mansour would have made no meaningful difference at all, which suggests united’s systemic problems were incurable in 2008, and I simply cannot accept that. I think he (or Khaldoon, rather) would have spotted the rot, restructured the club, invested in the infrastructure, got the right people in and the footballing landscape today would look very different.
Click to expand...
I didn’t say no measurable difference, I said the timeline would be much longer. I think the Sheikh and the Shrewd could have righted the ship, but it would have taken 2+ decades of struggle, especially with their own fans.

And I am not convinced they would have been at all interested in that, as their aims when buying us were far, far different to those of the Glazers when they bought United.
 
Fuzzy80 said:
As much as I don’t really like him and the change of owners can be argued to be due to him, the lack of succession cannot.

The owners needed to sort that, they didn’t.

Ferguson left at a time he knew the tide was changing. He was probably one RVP signing away (if we had got him instead of them), of being in our rear view mirror.

Lucky for him they got him and he could leave as champions.

It was always going to be a tough job for United to replace him as he had been there so long and had so much control.

The choice of just getting Moyes and hoping he would do the same job was flawed and they have not caught up since.

Now Tan Hag is the new saviour and I feel he had a decent enough first season.

However, I’m a bit unsure of the current plan. They seem to want to play a brand of football not that dissimilar to ourselves. Assuming based on the theory City are a great team let’s play like them. However, they cannot really do it. All games seem like they play like Ole had them, defend deep and counter or they have the ball more and concede good chances.

They have a handful of decent players, that can help them win some games. But ultimately all their games there is a decent case for them losing/ drawing in all.

The FFP rules are beginning to hurt them, whilst we 115 charges pending aside seem to be managing with ease.

Bit of a rant but the owners are to blame for everything at United, but they are on for record revenues whilst ensuring they are in the box seat for future commercial opportunities. Whilst I believe they would like them to win the league, their operation is based around CL participation.
Click to expand...
Ferguson had the power the years before the retirement. And the fans made it almost impossible to change that.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
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.