Football’s lack of patience extraordinary… even legendary Sir Alex Ferguson probably wouldn’t have survived at Man Utd

FOOTBALL has developed an extraordinary lack of patience. We want a new manager but we want results immediately. Sir Alex Ferguson may have not lasted at Manchester United in the modern game Credit: News Group Newspapers Ltd Karren Brady insists there needs to be more patience in football Credit: Getty Images – Getty We want that young player but only if he looks like a £100million footballer by Christmas. We want a new signing to justify his price tag before he properly unpacks his suitcase. Sign up for the Man United newsletter Thank you! We want a club to build for the future but also want to know why they haven’t won today. I have spent more than 30 years in football and sat in boardrooms when results have been poor. The atmosphere changes. Questions get louder. Everyone wants to know what is going to be done. Sometimes the hardest decision is not to do something. It is to resist doing something simply because everyone else wants you to. At West Ham, there were spells when fans demanded David Moyes be sacked. Results weren’t good enough and pressure mounted. But we didn’t sack him. We stayed with him. And in 2023, West Ham won the Conference League — a first European trophy in 58 years. Most read in Football BEST ONLINE CASINOS – TOP SITES IN THE UK That doesn’t mean keeping a manager is always right. But that decision should be made with your head, not because the football world is shouting at you. And that brings me to Sir Alex Ferguson. Would he have survived at Manchester United in the modern game? United finished 11th in his first season after he took over in November 1986. They were second the next campaign but dropped back to 11th in 1988-89. His first trophy came in 1990. Imagine that happening now. There would be TV panels asking if he had lost the dressing room. Social media would be demanding his dismissal. United might have sacked one of the greatest managers in history before he had a chance to become one. And that is the danger of impatience. It affects players too. A young star has three bad games and suddenly is a flop. A £60m signing doesn’t score in four matches and suddenly the transfer is a disaster. Football is different from almost every other business. All our assets are people — the players, manager and staff are the business. When your assets are people, your job isn’t simply to measure them, replace them and move on. It is to lead them, support them, develop them and give them the confidence to perform at their best. People rarely shine at work when they are constantly waiting to be judged, blamed or replaced. Sacking is expensive Sometimes the most valuable thing a board can give a manager is time, trust and confidence. Constant change is expensive too. Sack a manager and you pay off him and his staff. Bring in another and he may want different players. Those signings cost money. Then another manager arrives and doesn’t fancy half of them. That isn’t ambition. Sometimes it is simply expensive indecision. We talk endlessly about long-term projects — building a culture, developing young players, creating a clear identity… Then give the manager five games. I am not saying managers should have unlimited time. I’ve been involved in decisions where it was clear a boss had run his course. But sacking someone is the easy part. Finding a better replacement is the hard part. Owners need the courage to stick to a plan when they genuinely believe it is right. And those commenting on football should be careful about turning every bad result into a crisis. Football is not a television series where every episode needs a cliffhanger.Sometimes the boring decision is the sensible one. Comment now