Desperation from Utd?

[Neil Young]

I had a long reply typed out but I can't be arsed .

He's a cunt, on that we can all agree

Agreed. If only for the pretending to be a dog thing, let alone everything else.

[G]

Agreed. If only for the pretending to be a dog thing, let alone everything else.

[kris90210]

Decline is a long process. Look at us - we've been declining for over twenty years and we're still top 8, maybe a little higher this season.

Man United have plenty of players who know what it takes to win and it helps they have an aura of invincibility, especially at Old Trafford. By buying into the myth of the F3rguson Effect, we would basically be reinforcing that myth.

I don't think Man United are in decline, although if the Glazers keep plundering them, we might look back and see that this is when it started.

The trouble with the evidence of repeated success for F3rguson's greatness is that throughout that period they have been the richest club in the country, apart from the instances I've mentioned, and often the richest club in the world. Yet he's only won the European Cup twice. If anything, he's underachieved there.

Of course it's fair to say he could have f*cked up on many occasions over the years and he hasn't. If so, then he's great because he hasn't wasted the opportunities luck has given him. And, to my mind, that's a funny kind of greatness.

I don't think it's necessarily that long a process. You say 'look at us' to back your position, but I don't think it does actually. Houllier arrested the decline and we were on the up for a number of years under him. We have an even better example of how quickly things can fall apart from what happened with Benitez. Just 3(!!!) years ago we were favouites among many pundits and bookies for the title. It doesn't take much mate. Losing a star player, a dreadful transfer window... F3rguson seems almost impervious to these. I remember when the 3 non-EU players rule was brought in and everyone thought that would do for Utd. Then when they lost Schmeichel, Stam, Beckham, Keane, Ronaldo. Giggs and Scholes getting on... we've been saying for years how they look like this could be the year they final implode. But they never do.

Utd are in decline mate. Obviously you're entitled to think otherwise, but you can tell just by looking at their team. It's nowhere near the best in the league - it's hard to quantify something so subjective with stats. But in my opinion, F3rguson is squeezing every last drop out of them. You can also tell from their activity in the transfer market. A few years ago they would think nothing of shelling out big money on players. Now they're being beaten to the best players by other clubs. And that's been true for a number of years now. So while F3rguson may well have been operating with an advantage for many years, I don't think he's had that now for a good while.

I don't think he's that stupid to forget he's spent £30m on Rooney, I just think he's spinning the situation (knowing the press won't dare contradict him) to make things seem better than they actually are at the club.

When he retires, he will most likely go down as the greatest British manager in history. And as much as it pains me to say it, his achievements speak for themselves. He's certainly right up there with Paisley, Shankly, Clough et al.

I can't wait to see him retire, because then I think we really will see the wheels fall off at Utd. Certainly if the Glaziers are still in charge at that point (and haven't changed their attitude).

[kris90210]

Ok take Chelsea. The same squad of players that mourihno had winning things stopped winning when he left, coincidence? United meanwhile began winning again when he left. It's not all down to who has the best players but how the manager uses them.

If you remember, Chelsea were juuust beginning to show signs of vulnerability towards the end of Mourinho's reign. Abramovich had compromised the style of play by buying players like Shevchenko and Ballack, which led to them having to change their system. Mourinho timed his departure to absolute perfection in my opinion.

[kris90210]

Ok, I've been thinking about what i've said and I don't want to come across as saying I think the manager is unimportant. So, for the record, he's probably the most important individual at the club.

The best managers bring something different to their club, the league, even the game. Whether it's a process thing designed to get more out of the players (e.g. better nutrition, more training with the ball, etc.), a playing innovation designed to improve the team on the pitch (e.g. Hodgson's 442 in Sweden in the 1970s, Rafa's tactical sophistication), man-management (e.g. Shankly's building up of his players and denigration of the opposition), they all bring something new.

I don't know enough about Man United to know what F3rguson has brought. It's obviously something. But whatever it is, it's not magic.

If you want to look at an undoubtedly great management team, then look at the success of - yes, you've guessed it - the GB cycling team. They've had the money, sure. They've had the talent at their disposal. And they've brought it all together and totally dominated the last two Olympic games, and made history in between with winning both the world championship and the ultimate prize (Tour de France obviously).

Of course there are important differences between the competitive set-ups of cycling and football. I think the crucial point here though is that we can discuss the specific things done by the GB cycling management team that have contributed to their success.

It's not so clear quite what F3rguson (or, to be fair, any other manager) has done that's made such a difference. All too often it's talked about in terms of generalities, with the underlying assumption that his success speaks for itself. Well, I don't think it does.

What I would say he has brought is the arrogance the truly top sides have. They're almost German in the way it almost doesn't matter what team they put out, they will always be there or thereabouts. It's the same mentality that's seen them scraping 1-0 wins when they've been outplayed for 90mins. It's very, very impressive.

I'd also disagree with Alex (a rarity) on a manager being worth +10 / -10 points. The manager is everything! Provided there's no director of football, the manager is capable of ****ing up a team for years if he makes the wrong moves in the transfer market - just look at what Souness did to us! We still haven't recovered 20 years later.

[Liverpel]

Agreed. If only for the pretending to be a dog thing, let alone everything else.

[Neil Young]

What I would say he has brought is the arrogance the truly top sides have. They're almost German in the way it almost doesn't matter what team they put out, they will always be there or thereabouts. It's the same mentality that's seen them scraping 1-0 wins when they've been outplayed for 90mins. It's very, very impressive.

I'd also disagree with Alex (a rarity) on a manager being worth +10 / -10 points. The manager is everything! Provided there's no director of football, the manager is capable of ****ing up a team for years if he makes the wrong moves in the transfer market - just look at what Souness did to us! We still haven't recovered 20 years later.

No, the manager clearly isn't everything. He's important - as I said, the most important individual - but he's still only one man.

But what you're completely missing is that if it wasn't him, it would be someone else. And what we've seen is that there is a correlation approaching 1 between spending power and success. Man United may not currently be spending the most but they have done throughout nearly all of F3rguson's period of dominance.

As for your earlier comment about not being in decline, we clearly are - we haven't won the league in all that time. Houllier and Benitez each made a difference for a short while but no one ever said gradual decline has to be a smooth curve. Houllier's achievements are explicable I feel by simply random chance, allied to spending power. Benitez is a little more difficult to explain that way, and does give some credence to the idea that a manager can have a significant impact.

I'm not arguing this from a tribalist perspective at all. It's simply that I have yet to hear a convincing explanation of why it's always the best team that happens to have spent the most money.

[Chazza]

Man Utd lowers stock float value

Manchester United has been forced to cut the value of its imminent share flotation in New York.

The football club said it would sell shares at $14 each, below the $16-$20 range that it announced just weeks ago.

It is selling shares representing 10% of the club, which will raise $233m (£150m) to pay off some debt, below the $333m hoped for.

The lowering of the debut share price suggests that it could not find buyers at those higher prices.

The business has been controlled since 2005 by billionaire US sports investors the Glazer family, who paid £800m for the club, which this sale now values at double that.

They also own the Tampa Bay Buccaneers American football team.

The shares will begin trading in New York on Friday under the ticker name Manu.

The club currently has hundreds of millions of pounds of debt despite its sporting success.

Some supporters had hoped that the money raised by selling shares in the club would all go towards reducing the debt load.

A statement from the Manchester United Supporters Trust (MUST) criticised the money-raising plan: "We have made it clear that on the Glazers' terms, the share sale is a bad deal for fans, investors and the club.

"For the club, this is a bad deal because more than half of the funds raised will now be paid direct to the Glazer family, with a smaller portion being used to pay down some of their debt which they have saddled the club with since 2005."

Earlier this month, MUST called for a boycott of the club's sponsors in protest at the planned share issue.

It said this was intended to send "a loud and clear message to the Glazer family and club sponsors that, without the support and purchasing power of the fans, the global strength of the Manchester United brand doesn't actually exist".

The club, which has one of the largest fan bases of any Premier League team, was recently called the most valuable in sport and worth $2.23bn, according to Forbes magazine.

Sir Alex Ferguson, the manager, recently denied speculation that he stands to benefit financially from the imminent share flotation, after reports that club employees would benefit from a share incentive scheme.

"There is not a single grain of truth in this allegation," he said in a statement.

The Premier League giant came second last season and has won a record 19 titles.

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/business-19201427

[Resu]

I would have thought these share would be more attractive, but then again for a total value of $333m they probably need some big investors in.

[Neil Young]

The FT reported yesterday that investors were hostile to the idea of two different types of shares, meaning that the Glazers get the money from new shareholders without any risk of relinquishing control. Some of the language used was scathing.

[fah-q]

It does seem like a massive risk for little return.

Large outlay for no control of a company with massive debts.

[dww]

No, the manager clearly isn't everything. He's important - as I said, the most important individual - but he's still only one man.

But what you're completely missing is that if it wasn't him, it would be someone else. And what we've seen is that there is a correlation approaching 1 between spending power and success. Man United may not currently be spending the most but they have done throughout nearly all of F3rguson's period of dominance.

As for your earlier comment about not being in decline, we clearly are - we haven't won the league in all that time. Houllier and Benitez each made a difference for a short while but no one ever said gradual decline has to be a smooth curve. Houllier's achievements are explicable I feel by simply random chance, allied to spending power. Benitez is a little more difficult to explain that way, and does give some credence to the idea that a manager can have a significant impact.

I'm not arguing this from a tribalist perspective at all. It's simply that I have yet to hear a convincing explanation of why it's always the best team that happens to have spent the most money.

I think this is an interesting discussion. I think I hold to the weaker form of your argument. For me Fergie has had a significant impact both in terms of consistent choice of good coaches who have changed how his team have played and keeping players happy. That said I do agree that managerial influence is often overstated.

Do we have figures for the spending power/success correlation? I'm sure that Jonathan Wilson or the Swiss Ramble must have something somewhere.

I remember reading somewhere that the correlations was strongest between wage bill and success. Which I suppose suggests that confidence in long term financing is what is important.

[Lecter]

Of course F3rguson has been an excellent manager. But my point is it's more about right time and right place than any unique talent on his part.

He's good and he's lucky.

And that's enough.

They are interesting points and most probably a great reflection of what actually happened

My best mate is an Evertonian and hes long argued that Ferguson wouldnt have been as successful had Dalglish not walked away from Liverpool

Ties in with the right place at the right time and an element of luck doesnt it?

[Lecter]

The trouble with the evidence of repeated success for F3rguson's greatness is that throughout that period they have been the richest club in the country, apart from the instances I've mentioned, and often the richest club in the world. Yet he's only won the European Cup twice. If anything, he's underachieved there.

This to me is a critical point regarding him

Hes had nearly 20 attempts at the European Cup and has only managed to win it twice

It must gripe with him when he looks at Uncle Bobs record of entering the competition 6 or 7 times and winning it 3

His failings in the European Cup are a big black mark against him in my book

I do think this was his ultimate goal in staying on he hoped to overtake Bob in terms of European Cups

Pity the level of competition has gone up a notch or two and the chances of him achieving that are probably quite slim - thankfully

[Rich]

I think we're all guilty of bias when it comes to Fergus0n.

He'd been very successful in Scotland before coming to England, sure there was an element of luck in it, he was fortunate that LFC was in decline by the end of the 80s. The disasters had taken their toll on Dalglish physically and mentally and the club had stopped properly planning for the future seemingly - some of the purchases towards the end of Kenny's reign were really sub-standard.

At the same time over in Manchester Fergus0n had been busy rooting out the troublesome aspects of the club - booze culture, McGrath etc, and had started buying in decent talent. The club was then able to benefit from the Sky money better than anyone, and they realised how to make money and quickly from it. I very much doubt Fergus0n would have been instrumental with any of the commercial aspects of the club, but he sure did benefit from it - he had the pick of domestic talent for years. Just like LFC had in the 70s and 80s.

The competition were much too slow to change and were left trailing.