1.) 06 May 2016
06 May 2016 05:20:57
Biggest club in the world and run like a corner shop. And yes I know we always have been.

Like any disaster it's mult-factorial:
- the wheels came off for us with a shocking December. Prior to that we had topped the league even though our play was bang average.
- LVG is Woodward's man hence failure by LVG is failure by Woodward. That builds in a level of hesitancy that to be blunt just shouldn't exist in a so-called (on a day to day basis) chief exec
- Mourinho's availability suddenly got people putting 2+2 together and the assumption he could take over relatively quickly. That availability coincided with a poor run. So I think the January buys were scrapped because through December, when a lot of the real leg work to finalise deals would be done, we were awful and the Special One's 'for hire' sign had suddenly lit up. But crucially I think the Board were split whether Jose was the right man. So lilted into limbo - not sacking LVG but not supporting him further in the January window either.
- then of course there's the money. Whilst we will see it as you've saved £Xm in not sacking LVG 'too soon' but lost £XXXm in Champs League qualification, one of those is an absolute and one of them is conjecture. Would Mourinho have got us Top 4 or higher? Quite possibly. But it's not a known fact. The 'we can pay less to get rid of you' LVG bit is. Also need to remember Mourinho's immediate form and losing a dressing room before his becoming available wasn't exactly sparkling.

In the final analysis we chose to stick with LVG in the hope that he could turn it around. As a parallel process we have recognised that maybe he is not the right man and in any case is only here for a further year anyway.

Appointing LVG wasn't the wrong thing to do from a CV perspective. Appointing a then 62yo on a 3 year contract and then having to go through the entire process again was.

We had the right idea in picking a younger manager in Moyes. We had the right idea in picking a Champs League winning manager with 'big club' experience in LVG. What we needed from the day after Fergie's retirement announcement was someone who had both of those: right experience and calibre coupled with the longevity to build a club that can challenge for a decade. There have only ever been 2 real candidates. One's at City and hopefully one starts 1st June.


2.) 06 May 2016
06 May 2016 06:46:56
As posted above by Halesini, Lvg is woodwards man and they seem to get along so Woodward may be reluctant to damage a friendship and be made to look an incompetent chief exec if his appointment is a failure.

Im sure if we win the fa cup lvg will retire in somewhat of a blaze of glory and mourinho will be appointed soon after thus leaving both Lvg and Woodward with the faces saved.


3.) 06 May 2016
06 May 2016 07:48:55
redseven
Even at 14.4 million to get rid, it would seem to me to be a small price to pay when compared with money wasted on Di Maria, Falcao and Rojo.

14.4 million - bargain! But as you argue, might well be less.


4.) 06 May 2016
06 May 2016 08:20:43
Wheels came off in December - when the injuries mounted

Champions League qualification is still possible - come on the Gunners, do us a favour

The board will wait until the end of the season to make any decision, if we get into the Champions League and win the FA Cup it would be harsh to call the season a disaster.


5.) 06 May 2016
06 May 2016 08:54:00
I am not sure what's difficult to understand, the manager has targets and no matter how dire the team are playing, until he can't reach them targets the club will honour the contract they made with there manager.
I did want van gaal out in Dec/ Jan yes, but if we sacked every manager when he went through a bad spell we would be changing every 6 months.
Hopefully he will go after the fa cup final. But if he's reached his targets I can see him unfortunatley staying on.


6.) 06 May 2016
06 May 2016 09:26:12
Call me pessimistic, but the way this season has been going I can see us just snatching 4th, but Liverpool winning the Thursday night trophy and getting the last champions league spot with us being pushed into the Thursday night competition.

As LVG said at Xmas it is Murphy's law, and I can see it happening again.


7.) 06 May 2016
06 May 2016 09:46:07
All of this assumes he's doing a bad job behind the scenes and he is not meeting the clubs expectations. What if, the club did a root and branch review prior to LVG's recruitment and it showed massive problems throughout the playing side of the business? What if he's hitting his KPI's?

what if he's actually doing a very good job behind the scenes, putting in place infaustructure and culture that meets with the long term strategy of the club? What if the exec team knew the squad was pony and need a complete rebuild?

Ok so the football is pragmatic, how do you know that the management don't understand that in order to facilitate change whilst maintain league position the style of football will be pragmatic for a period of time.

We as supporters know nothing of the strategy, structure and management of the business (club) . For all we know LVG has done wonders behind the scenes but we'll never know.


8.) 06 May 2016
06 May 2016 10:33:15
Huggy,

That CANNOT happen now as City have not won the Champions League, if Liverpool win the Europa we will have 5 teams in the Champions League, it really isn't that difficult to understand is it?


9.) 06 May 2016
06 May 2016 10:40:36
It's worth noting that should we not sack him it will cost us another 3.3m next year for the privilege of his service, another year of boring, dull dross!


10.) 06 May 2016
06 May 2016 11:36:51
GDS2,

Thanks for the response. I missed that the rules were changed from a max 4 teams from any association to a max 5 for the 2015-16 tournament.

Consider me suitably chastised.


11.) 06 May 2016
06 May 2016 11:39:26
Rewz - But if that was the case why pull the plug on the January transfers?

Halesini - I think you've pretty much hit the nail on the head from where I'm sitting.

The three options the club had seem to have been:

Keep the manager and back him (which could potentially leave the next manager with expensive players that he doesn't want whilst still not guaranteeing Champions League qualification) .

Keep the manager but pull the plug on transfers (thus limiting the potential loss whilst not fully discounting the possibility that we will qualify for the Champions League and having to admit they had hired the wrong man) .

Sack the manager, bring in a new one and back them in the January window (but still face the risk of missing out on Champions League qualification as well as risk picking the wrong manager for a third time in 24 months) .

It seems as though the board picked what they considered to be the safest option in terms of money at the expense of fixing a problem that they knew was there. To me that's a little disappointing. They effectively condemned us to 6 months of turgid displays because they didn't have the stomach to admit they'd made another mistake and double down.


12.) 06 May 2016
06 May 2016 13:19:35
Did the club actually pull the plug on January deals?

{Ed004's Note - Yes which is a real shame because of those lined up apparently}


13.) 06 May 2016
06 May 2016 14:21:53
Sack him regardless of the cost - the money is a drop in the ocean compared to what he is and has already cost us.


14.) 06 May 2016
06 May 2016 15:12:03
Knowing in advance that LVG will walk away at the end of next season is a recipe for crippling all meaningful decision making for another year. This comment would be equally valid for any manager as it is for a government in its last year of office.
Keeping LVG (or even any manager) in these circumstances simply will not work to the benefit of the club. This is why he should go and the argument is valid regardless of whether we win the FA cup or qualify for the champions league.
If we were contemplating or LVG wanted to extend his contract then there would be a debate worth having.
In reality, I believe the club will keep him if he meets his targets, though I would have a real issue with that because he would be a "Dead man walking" regardless of performance.