Back in the day, it was often smugly asserted that Manchester United do not sack managers. While Chelsea were still paying the wages of their last five gaffers, Man United were extolled for their patient wisdom.
Five years on, we now know that this mantra is much easier to abide by when your manager is Alex Ferguson.
[soundcloud url="https://api.soundcloud.com/tracks/266069886" params="auto_play=false&hide_related=false&show_comments=true&show_user=true&show_reposts=false&visual=true" width="100%" height="450" iframe="true" /]
Ever since Alex Ferguson stopped being their manager, Man United have been much more trigger-happy in the firing managers department.
This, of course, should have been obvious to anyone with the tiniest ounce of common sense at the time. But seemingly, it wasn't.
Alex Ferguson, who interviewers weren't in the habit of interrogating, was fond of instancing his longevity at Man United as one of the key reasons for their success. Obviously, that was the wrong way around. His longevity was due to United's success not the other way around.
Indeed, their reputation for standing by managers seems to rest solely on the fact that Fergie himself wasn't sacked during the 1989-90 season, an era when managers were allowed more latitude across the board.
If any club is deserving of credit for sticking by their manager, it is Arsenal. For they have really 'suffered for their art' in this regard.
Not to mention Stockport County, who allowed Carlton Palmer to relegate their team and then set them on the road to another relegation before politely asking him to please leave.
In his Evening Herald column today, Johnny Giles is plain livid. He poured scorn on the idea that there is some special 'United Way' that is someone morally superior
He poured scorn on the idea that there is some special 'United Way' that makes them morally superior to all the other mega clubs.
His headline is titled 'Manchester United are a disgrace'.
In case one thinks the headline was sexed up by a sub-editor, this is also the first line of his article. Gilesy goes after not just Ed Woodward, but also Jose Mourinho and Alex Ferguson.
It is a scattergun rant at the manner in which Man United have done business since 2013. He lashes Fergie for his failure to call Moyes - 'a man he anointed' - to tell him he was sacked. And he believes that Mourinho is beneath contempt, a man 'with the habits of a hooligan'.
They way they handled Louis Van Gaal's exit, in fact the way they have handled everything since Alex Feeguson retired has been a disgrace.
... 'the United way' is nothing more than a pretence to hide behind, a hypocritical cloak to cover a win-at-all-costs mentality which Ferguson fostered and Mourinho is devoted to.
They are ready to hire Mourinho, a man with the habits of a hooligan who watched Ferguson develop a style of management which was ruthless and unrepentant and then copied him.
There we are.
'The United way' is a load of guff and the appointment of Mourinho makes that plain. But then, maybe it isn't just the 'United way' that is nonsense but also the West Ham way and all the rest of them.
Even the famous Barca way is only a post-Johan Cruyff condition. Before that, they were perceived as a bustling, aggressive outfit. The Arsenal way used to be about winning games 1-0 and occasionally feeling a perverse glory in being boring. Now, they're associated with a kind of fluid, dainty football.
The United way, in as much as it can be defined, was in actual fact the Ferguson Way/the Busby Way. In the sense of a supposed to devotion to attacking football (though their style wasn't anything unique or new) or a tendency to bring in youth players. (The other alleged plank of the 'United way' - a reticence about sacking managers has already been disposed of).
But even their celebrated insistence on giving youth a chance only relates to the Busby and Ferguson eras. When Ron Atkinson departed in 1986, their youth setup was a shambles before it was reorganised under Ferguson.
On the field, the 'United way' will presumably be ditched according to the whims of whichever manager they bring in.
