That's because the top clubs just buy worldwide stars when they lose a first-team player.

You really think Man City and Chelsea couldn't develop their own stars if they wanted to?
They've certainly spent enough money on their youth systems.

Hence me saying it doesn't happen. The exact point I was making. And no they couldn't.

Whats your problem?

Expand.....

The football alone should be enough to fire his arse through the door!

You hire a manager to be successful , if he's here a while then all well and good. Nothing wrong with short termism. It's the reason why West Ham are playing good football and fighting us for the fifth place trophy. Their last man is trying to get Sunderland out of a relegation scrap.

They don;t have enough confidence to follow through with the initial idea. They just find it easier to spend millions on worldwide stars.
Doesn't mean they're better off in the long-term by doing this.

Irrelevant.

The point is I'm saying it doesn't happen and it doesn't.

The managers won't be better off in the long term because the clubs at the top will fire them whilst they are waiting for the young players to mature. Thats why they dont do it. That is the modern game like it or not.

You are disagreeing with me by agreeing with what I am saying. The reasons dont matter, the fact is its correct.

So why are Sunderland fighting one relegation battle after another? Because they are constantly thinking short-term

Football isn't really that much of a different game to the 1980s. Ultimately it is about human beings. It is just people in the media and elsewhere like making out that it is so much different.

Of course the reasons matter - they are crucial.

Multiquote is a wonderful function. Certain people could do with using it.

Its completely different. Ferguson got time because he rebuilt the club from the bottom up, a club that hadn't won the title in 20 years. The board could see what he was doing behind the scenes.

Moyes was handed the most successful domestic club in the modern era, Van Gaal was handed £250m. Both had nothing to do but keep the club challenging and worry about the first team. No one demanded titles, just keep us up there.

The two scenarios could not be more different.

For every Ferguson there are a hundred examples of clubs who have benefitted from changing failing managers.

There you go, that is your proper answer.

They are not for the purposes of the point I was making.

Managers at the very top level are managing clubs that demand quick success.

Clubs that demand quick success do not wait for managers to take a bunch of raw 18 year olds and turn them into a decent team.

The top clubs have the most money to buy players with.

Therefore the managers who have to deliver quick success CANNOT bring through the young players because they do not have time to do so.

Young players are still developed but at smaller clubs and as soon as they get to a sufficient standard of promise the top clubs buy them. Exhibit A - Raheem Sterling's entire career and Martials move to United.

The rights and wrongs of this are a different debate but its what happens, hence my initial comment.

Clearly it doesn't make much sense for Louis Van Gaal to spend so much money only for most of those players to now find themselves surplus to requirements.
It would have made more sense to not spend so much money on those players obviously.

Having said that, Alex Ferguson spent big (by the standards of the time) in the early years. Many of these players failed: eg: Danny Wallace, Ralph Milne, Neil Webb, MIke Phelan.

Man Utd have the makings of a good team in the future.
Yes, I think they play too defensively and with too much of a safety-first attitude.

But Man City and Chelsea have more money to spend than Man Utd.
Man Utd have a better base going forward than those two clubs, by some distance.

Anyone advocating we keep LVG at this point have clearly lost the plot I'm afraid.

I would have preferred Guardiola, Ancelotti or Klopp as better "fits" for Utd, but I would also happily take Mourinho.

People that don't want him seem like its a cutting the nose to spite the face issue.

I do think we have the makings of a good team but Van Gaal hasn't got the best out of what we have imo.

No, they've spent poorly on the team and hired the wrong managers.

Managers that have got them out of trouble in the short-term though.

If they are just hiring them to keep them up then that's not exactly a vote of confidence in the first place. They don't build on it, similiar to Aston Villa. They are relegation dodgers, eventually it will happen unless the appointment is the right one.

Indeed- they don't build for the future.

Van Gaal wasn't hired to build for the future first and foremost it was for silverware and CL qualification.

Could still win the FA Cup (that's the first trophy Man Utd won under Alex Ferguson too).
No team have a God-given right to success, especially when the previously successful team were past their best. See Germany in the mid noughties for a similar example).

The guy had always planned on retiring after next season. That is hardly an appointment for building for the future.

That is a good point!

Mind you, didn't Van Gaal supposedly lay the foundations for Bayern Munich and Barcelona's success before the clubs brought in other managers to complete the job? Not sure how accurate that view is, as I'm not a big follower of European football.

He got sacked from both too.