While the on-field performances leave plenty to be desired, off the field, Manchester United remain a force to be reckoned with.
Contrary to their nouveau riche neighbours, and other European clubs similarly upheld by generous benefactors, United's enormous wealth is primarily built upon a ruthless ability to profit on their global appeal.
The first British football club to announce profits surpassing £500 million in a calendar year, it would appear that Jose Mourinho's dictatorial approach to life as the Manchester United manager has finally perturbed the interests of his overseers.
With rumours swirling that Luke Shaw's dissatisfaction at his treatment by the Portuguese has led to him wanting out of the club, The Telegraph have today reported that the United hierarchy are unhappy with how such a public airing of in-house problems will negatively impact upon the player's resale value:
Senior figures at Manchester United are becoming increasingly perturbed by Jose Mourinho’s treatment of Luke Shaw and fear the manager’s persistent public humiliating of the England defender is also damaging his transfer value.
Few would have much sympathy for these concerned senior figures. In attaining the services of Mourinho, it would have been naive to think that such a stand-off between an unfavourable player and the manager could not occur.
Generally a reliable provider of information on the private happenings within Manchester United, it was similarly reported that certain staff members hold reservations regarding Mourinho's treatment of the English full-back:
Players’ concerns are believed to be shared by some staff at United, who feel the manager has overstepped the mark and that his treatment of Shaw is now at risk of appearing “vindictive”. “It’s like the default setting is to criticise Shaw,” one source said.
Although Jose Mourinho has publicly stated last week that he has the full support of United's boardroom in pursuing whatever vision he has for the club, when his decisions start to theoretically cost the club money, it is not certain that such trust will be unconditional.
