Harry Maguire, Cristiano Ronaldo and the American owners all get a kicking in the Mailbox as the problems continue at Manchester United. Send your views to email@example.com
Something rotten at Manchester United
There is something rotten at the core of Manchester United, and unless it is sorted then we are heading for an even bigger fall.
When you look at the clubs supported by the sovereign wealth of a nation, the priority is not to make money, it is football. IN companies owned by the Americans the goals are to make money. That’s what Americans do.
United have recently appointed an accountant as their Chief Executive. Not a leader, a money man. Woodward was a money man. The club is all about money. The United way is now money.
Unless they get it, and put football back at the top of the culture of the club, they will never get back to where they were.
We can all see it. It wasn’t Ole, it’s the rot at the centre.
Oh, Harry Maguire…
For Burnley goal was that a case of one cargo ship turning quicker than the other cargo ship when the lad turned Maguire to set up Rodriguez?
Honestly I don’t rate Phil Jones but he’d surely be better than Maguire. Should have been sent off, no threat for corner kicks or free kicks and then of course the aforementioned turn like a cargo ship for the goal. The big guy up front for Burnley is poor but Maguire made him look like a world beater last night.
On the point of corners, should Utd just give the other team a goal-kick when they win a corner?
Their set piece coach, presuming they have one, although it is hard to believe they actually have one, must be Luke Shaw’s dad as I have never seen him take a decent free kick or corner yet he still is involved in the majority of them.
Ken, Cork, Ireland
Manchester United bought the ‘best player in the world’ and regressed. There. I said it. Ronaldo inexplicably makes us less than the sum of our parts. Everybody (except DDG) have gotten worse since he came.
Why the Rangnick propaganda?
I enjoy reading Mediawatch. That and the mailbox are the main reason I read this site. Mediawatch over the last few weeks seems to be little more than the Manchester Evening News when it comes to United. It seems to have taken the TalkSport radio phone in stance of just saying the opposite but with this blind support of everything Ralf Rangnick and his inevitable march onward to fourth place.
Today we have what seems to be a well-reasoned use of statistics to try and draw some conclusions compared to the previous manager by the Telegraph. With the main problems worth criticising being that 1) Two stats are quite close together and 2) that Ole lost to Watford 4-1 and Ralf hasn’t. Signing off with a ‘but aren’t United wonderful’ selective stat that Manchester City are the only team to earn more Premier League points than Manchester United since Rangnick’s first match on December 5. A very selective stat as Liverpool and Man City won their games of that match week THE DAY BEFORE and their games of this gameweek are tonight and tomorrow.
The fixtures have meant that Rangnick has had four games against teams in the bottom three at the time. Liverpool have played Leicester, Chelsea and Tottenham in that time. That Rangnick’s selective MEN blushing rose-tinted stats against teams in the bottom of the table (and Wham and Villa) only just compare to Liverpool’s with two fewer games in the sample and do not get close to City’s is still a poor showing of the biggest bestest club in England who have spent the most money of any football team over the last ten years.
A Mediawatch earlier in the week sought to find credit in Rangnick beating the Europa league champions in the CL. The Europa League winner who does not qualify through the league is the worst team in the competition. He did not beat Young Boys.
As for today’s article on why Man United need a goalscorer! Well, why do they have a goalscorer-shaped hole in their squad at moment? Mediawatch would have a field day if that was written in the S*n.
United are in fifth today. Spurs and Arsenal have a game in hand against each other, and then one more game in hand each and then Spurs have another game in hand again. Neither team are looking worse than United at the moment. The results could end up with both teams going above United. Reminder that United were trying to win the league this year! Rangnick, of actually quite little previous experience of managing European level football clubs, is struggling and it is not Mediawatch’s place to suggest otherwise. Man United are currently 19 points off the top of the table. They have three players with ongoing legal action over them. They have been knocked out of the FA Cup. Rangnick has only beaten one team in the top half of the table. Mediawatch should be calling out journos who are suggesting that he is doing the Lord’s work. As Mediawatch likes to say, if the opposite is more of a story!
Or maybe I just hate reading positive stories about United!
Alex, South London
Should contracts future-proof clubs?
With the raft of recent stories regarding the alleged misdemeanours of footballers and the situation the clubs find themselves in wouldn’t it be a great idea for clubs to protect themselves against any moral dilemmas they may have by future proofing contracts? This is not a new phenomenon but with social media (and the stupidity of footballers in general) stories of ‘ gross misconduct ‘ (in whatever form) is becoming a weekly occurrence…if club A signs a player, why wouldn’t they put in a clause (that could easily be drawn up) citing a number of ‘offences’ that could lead to the sacking of said footballer. That in itself is simple, however the club have a financial vested interest in said player so they sit with the Sword of Damocles perched above them ….. to sack a player worth millions (and lose his impact as a potential revenue generator) could financially cripple a club Versus keep said player and lose the respect and good will of everyone else (plus sponsors) …… we have seen it multiple times – the latest being Raith who were shamed into a position rather than making the RIGHT choice.
If the financial decision is greater than the moral one why can’t clubs (on signing a player) just insert a clause that states if you commit any offence that brings us into disrepute you will forfeit all monies owing and all monies paid previously plus any future earnings that could reasonably be expected …. As a deterrent it may make one or two individuals decide to make the right decisions in life or if they wish to be a scumbag realise what the consequences are ( maybe their agent would then spend some of their billions placing a babysitter with their asset) …… the clubs then would not have to sit on the fence and do what is expected by the sane minded among us …….. as people keep rattling out – why can’t footballers be held to the same codes we all have in a working life – the answer is always because we do not have a price tag … lose the price tag !! ………..if you commit an offence referenced you will a forfeit previous earnings to club in part payment of your value AND any future earnings will be offset against the loss of a ( independently valued ) transfer fee …….who would sign them if that value was to be shared with club ….. do we think David Goodwillie will play professional football again ? If he was Ronaldo maybe – but anyone signing him take on that moral issue plus a hefty bill.
Unfortunately the behaviour of certain young individuals would be considered par for the course in the environments they grew up in (on council estates, broken homes, gang cultures etc) however, you have moved on and you need to understand that the chances given to you come with a certain level of ownership ……having a £250k watch and a £300k car parked in front of a £5m house can come crashing down in an instant ……. And you can go back to being a scumbag (albeit some of the more liberal of this esteemed website will cite that they are only a product of society) with no watch, no car, no house and no money because you were given a talent but threw it away because you couldn’t make a decision based on simple life choices ……. Like – what if someone did this to your mum/sister …
Make an example. Don’t leave David Moyes to defend the indefensible. What can he tell the press ? ( maybe if he was Duncan Ferguson that he gave him a slap and kicked him across the dressing room?)
Gary (AFC – Arteta out please, he’s getting the club there but his demeanour on the touchline gives me zero confidence of him ever being a great manager !)
Where is football’s moral compass?
Actually, it’s not just football, but professional level sports in general.
First up, I am shocked West Ham, Moyes and the Board (who could have made a call themselves over Moyes but didn’t) allowed Zouma to start. Shocker. “Don’t worry kids, if you’re a professional footballer, the rules, nay common decency, basically don’t apply to you” it screamed. It’s no wonder footballers feel they can behave with invulnerability. This isn’t about tribal differences as a Spurs fan, and I don’t think he should have his contract terminated, but christ, read the room guys. The message it sends out, stinks.
This led us down a discussion though, just aside from the Zouma incident. For example, Graham Rix came out of Prison for sexual assault
of a minor and went straight into Chelsea’s coaching team, and moved to coach at various other clubs. We’ve seen Goodwillie join Raith recently, Lee Hughes come out of prison for death by drink driving and go on to play at a decent level and earn well. Is Greenwood’s football career over? I bet a pretty penny it isn’t.
So the question is, what is the moral compass of football and sports? Prison is meant to be about ‘serving time’, if your time is up, should you not be able to get on with your life? But conversly, would you want a convicted sex offender in your team? Or someone who beats up defenceless animals?
In countless other professions, teaching, police, financial services, criminal records count against you. You cannot find employment if a
serious judgement has occured or historic. So… why do we allow sports stars a different moral compass to ‘the regular joe’?
I have no answers but thought think football’s morality has never been good. Is it improving? Well, based on David Moyes response last night, no.
…The Kurt Zouma incident shows that the FA and the Premier League need to act to sort out their punishment system because right now it is completely backward and not fit for purpose, many an incident off the field has occurred and it just feels like it is left down to the clubs to handle the fallout, dish out a punishment etc, unless it is failing a drugs test then the league and FA never seem to step in with force.
Compare this to the NFL and it is completely different world, in the NFL there is the “Exempt List” which is part of the NFL’s personal conduct policy which gives league commissioner Roger Goodell the ability to place a player on an “exempt list” that essentially puts him on paid administrative leave and this can be for being arrested, charged or involved with a potential crime, violating the personal conduct policy and when “a crime of violence is alleged but further investigation is required.” if such a thing was implemented within the Premier League you would see the likes of Mason Greenwood, Kurt Zouma, Joey Barton and countless others who were involved in off the field incidents be suspended until further notice, the fact such a thing has not been implemented is still quite a shock, especially when the FA are all so quick to issue fines or ban players for surrounding a referee, pushing one another or in a post game interview complaining about a decision that they feel was wrong.
One final note, upon some research Kurt Zouma’s wife Sandra Zouma is a project manager for a charity that helps abused big cats and Kurt Zouma is an ambassador for the charity, that certainly should change after the last 24 hours.
The Admin @ At The Bridge Pod
I think it’s disgraceful that West Ham have allowed him to play. His abusive behaviour towards his cat is deplorable, completely unacceptable and very upsetting, and it shows him to be no role model to impressionable children, young people and adults. The matter needs to be dealt with appropriately, which I feel is prosecution, a ban on keeping animals and for West Ham to have a moral spine and stand up against abuse and sack him.
Cara, West Yorkshire
Won’t somebody think of the cats?
I have read with interest the contributions on this subject in The Mailbox. Firstly, in his pathetic “apology” he doesn’t actually apologise to the cats he abused, but only to those who were offended. Secondly, with all the talk of appropriate punishments, nobody seems to be discussing the fact that those cats need to be removed from his “care” immediately. He should be banned from ever having an animal again.
Failing that, perhaps introduce him to a tiger and see how he gets on?
Everton are f***ed
We’re getting relegated – too many players not up for a scrap. And if we go down, we’re going under. This is an unbelievably nervy time to be an Evertonian.
Aidan, EFC, London