EPL: Woodward refuses to sack Van Gaal to save himself?

Every week there’s a few stories in the papers, and hundreds on the internet, describing just why Louis van Gaal should be sacked.

 Each time, you’d expect the authors to think that they really have to write it this time,

because he’s obviously going to be sacked after the latest debacle.

It might be repetitive, but when one of the three biggest clubs in the world looks set to sack their manager, it’s not really sensible to write about anything else. And yet each time it’s been written so far, he clings on.

It’s not like he hasn’t been trying to solve the problem himself. He reportedly offered to resign, more or less, over the new year as he realised that the players had no time for him, and he had no confidence in himself to turn around the situation. 

He then offered to do the same after he oversaw a dispiriting and predictable defeat to Southampton at the weekend. Manchester United might deny this, but then they would. 

Earlier last week, it was said that his family were concerned that the stress of managing United had got to him, and with just a little over a year left before he retires for good, there was an easy and relatively dignified way out of United. Nobody would begrudge a man protecting his health ahead of a retirement.

Obviously, he is not going to resign, with no job to go to, without some kind of payoff. But that he has made the offer means that he is probably willing to accept less than he might be entitled to claim, were the decision made by United alone. 

The club have form for being as tight as possible with their money, and in some ways, that makes sense. There is no point sacking someone in a gratuitously expensive manner, but it seems that Woodward fails at fairly rudimentary mathematics. 

After all, David Moyes was only sacked when Champions League qualification became impossible. That, superficially, saved the club several million pounds, but only once the situation had come about that cost the club many more millions by failing to qualify for a vastly more rewarding tournament.

History is repeating itself. Originally, Woodward had suggested that a top three requirement was the minimum expected of Van Gaal in his first season, but once it became clear that fourth place was assured, the pressure relented significantly. United dropped off after a late flurry of form, and played as badly as they ever had for Van Gaal. 

The performance against Hull, for example, was truly pathetic. But as recently as the end of 2015, Woodward was proclaiming Van Gaal’s genius despite that ability meaning he’s won seven games in the last 22, having spent a quarter of a billion pounds.

The man should be sacked, and he doesn’t appear desperate to stay. It seems that he wants to negotiate an easy exit for himself and the club, and Woodward won’t embrace the obvious solution. There must something more going on that mere incompetence, and indeed there is. There is self-interest of a few people causing a damaging stalemate.

Woodward is a man who was appointed to the position based on his commercial performance for the club, having no experience of running a football club. It is clear by his methods that he isn’t up to the task. But it is also clear that he is scared to do what is best for the club. 

As reported elsewhere, Alex Ferguson and Ryan Giggs are very keen that Giggs - if not in tandem with Ferguson - is next in line for the job. It was, let’s not forget, Ferguson who engineered a situation where Pep Guardiola and Jose Mourinho were onto their next jobs before he announced his resignation. 

A cynic might think that he didn’t want either of them to arrive and demand the club was financed properly, so that they might start winning European trophies. 

Ferguson, as Roy Keane famously said, did what was best for himself, not what was best for the club. For a long time that was the same thing, but things diverged when he brought the 99 Questions to the fore with his actions over agents, which ultimately led to the arrival of the Glazer family.

From there, United were run on a relative shoestring, meaning Moyes received a hospital pass, and in turn, Van Gaal had to totally rebuild a squad. He might have underperformed in that task, but it would have been far easier had Ferguson bequeathed a squad worthy of the club’s financial turnover. 

We can only imagine what motivated Ferguson to cut corners for a decade.

When Woodward appointed Van Gaal two seasons ago, Ferguson was sidelined from the decision making. His credibility was rightly suspect at the time, except amongst the brainless fans and the sycophantic Sunday Supplement brigade.

Ferguson is making a play for relevance again, using his links and relationships with the Class of 92. Better his own man is in charge than someone Woodward has a relationship with.

Woodward is now in a bind. If he removes Van Gaal, he gives Giggs and Ferguson a way back to significantly affect the running of the club. As well as that, he will prompt the Glazer family to ask just what he’s achieved apart from sponsorship deals in the last two years. 

Thirdly, if he brings in Mourinho he will extend Jorge Mendes’s sphere of influence, the one which has seen Angel Di Maria parked at Old Trafford for a year, and Radamel Falcao be linked to the future of David de Gea. It is better for the club that United risk all or any of these so that they can have a proper chief executive in charge. But it is better for Woodward that he continue to back Van Gaal, and have to deal with what could end his career