Zajec se u Dinamo vratio kao tehnički direktor.

Skoblar ga je htio kao igrača, ali je Zajec dobro procijenio da bi ga vjerojatno u penziju odpratili fućkajući pa se prihvatio ove funkcije.

Imao je samo 33-34 godine tada. — Mali dioničar

Kao igrača ga je htio Ćiro, ali on više nije mogao. Noga je bila out. Primio se posla tehničkog, maknuo Skoblara i dofurao Kužea na kraju sezone za iduću.

I super je obavljao posao, doveo je Šukera, Gašpara, Cvitanovića, Petrovića, Židana. Napravio uvjerljivo drugu momčad Jugolige, a navodno je bio blizu i Bokšića i Prosinečkog. Doduše teško mi je vjerovati za Prosinečkog koji je eto otišao u Real. — Mali dioničar

Bokšić je bio spreman kasnije: Alen Bokšić: Jarni i ja trebali smo doći u Dinamo, sve smo bili dogovorili sa Zajecom

Žutog je čim je došao pokušao vratiti, ali je propalo na kraju.

Ima i trač da je Zvezda dogovorila Šukera, ali rat je počeo i nije se realiziralo. — Mali dioničar

Šukera je kupio svojom lovom da ne ode u Beograd.

Unitedu se dogodilo ono što je bilo neizbježno. Desetljećima su imali komfor da ne trebaju razmišljati o trenerima i jednostavno se nisu pripremili za život nakon SAF-a. Kao da su potiskivali nešto što se približavalo misleći da se neće dogoditi ako ne razmišljaju o tome.

Odmah u startu je napravljena greška izborom Moyesa koji je dobar trener, ali jednostavno nije za razinu na kojoj je United navikao biti u to vrijeme. Zatim je došao Van Gaal koji je krenuo u totalni rebuilding koji nije završio najbolje. Mourinho je trebao donijeti trofeje, ali i to je veoma brzo krenulo krivo. Na kraju se najduže zadržao Solskjaer koji je realno zaslužio najmanje kredita od svih njih.

Probali su "novog Fergusona", zatim trenera koji je trebao sagraditi momčad, pa ultimativnog win now trenera i nakon toga "dijete Uniteda" koji je dobio neograničeni kredit.

I sad kad nema što nisu probali, i dalje se nisu pomaknuli s mjesta. Zapravo jesu. Danas je cilj Uniteda "uloviti mjesto u LP". City i Liverpool su neki drugi svijet, a i Chelsea je generalno bolja momčad.

ANATOLIJ Timoščuk, bivši ukrajinski nogometaš, a danas pomoćni trener u ruskom nogometnom klubu Zenit, izbrisan je iz registra igrača ukrajinske reprezentacije. Odluka je to ukrajinskog nogometnog saveza, a uslijedila je nakon odluke Timoščuka da ostane u Zenitu.

Nogometni savez Ukrajine na svojim je službenim stranicama objavio da će Timoščuka sankcionirati zbog suradnje s okupatorima. Osim što mu savez neće priznati nijedan nastup ni trofej, poništio mu je i trenersku licencu. Službeno je do danas Timoščuk bio nogometaš s najviše nastupa za ukrajinsku reprezentaciju.

Mnogi su ga Ukrajinci žestoko kritizirali zbog ostanka u Rusiji. Prozvao ga je nekadašnji suigrač iz reprezentacije Jevgenij Levčenko, koji mu je poručio: "Timo, zašto si to napravio? Ti si iz Ukrajine. Kako možeš šutjeti i nastavljati raditi ondje? Igrali smo zajedno za istu reprezentaciju, nosili taj dres s ponosom, pjevali himnu, slavili i tugovali. Kako ćeš živjeti s tim?"

Tim kritikama ubrzo se pridružio ponajbolji ukrajinski nogometaš današnjice, Atlantin igrač Ruslan Malinovskij: "Ne znam što je s Timoščukom, trebate pitati njega. Teško je to komentirati, ali je čudno. Mislim da nije ispravno. On 100 posto više nije niti će ikad biti legenda ukrajinskog nogometa. Njegova postignuća sada su zaboravljena."

Nizu takvih i sličnih istupa u javnosti pridružio se i predsjednik ukrajinskog prvoligaša Ruha Grigorij Kozlovskij, koji je govoreći o Timoščuku rekao: "Kao što je to bio izjavio Ševčenko, prijateljska gnjida je gora od neprijateljske uši. On je ukrajinska gnjida. Kaže se da vam s takvim gnjidama neprijatelji nisu potrebni."

Svoje mišljenje o Timoščuku podijelio je i Oleksandr Alijev, koji je nekadašnjeg ukrajinskog nogometnog heroja nazvao "izdajicom" kojem je "jezik zabijen u guzicu". "Ti si naš ukrajinski domoljub. Ili si zastave na obrazima crtao samo da se pokažeš?" poručio mu je nekadašnji suigrač.

Sevilla je na domacim tribinama na online prodaji stavila cijenu ulaznica na 999 eur kako bi sprijecili engleze da kupuju na domacim sektorima. Normalne cijene su otvorene za clanove i pretplatnike kluba. Eto jos jedan nacin nasoj upravi kako da kontrolira tovariju kad dolaze u zg, pa nek plate ako zele gledat sa zapada utakmicu.

Abramovich pod sankcijama, posljedice po Chelsea ogromne:
- prodaja kluba zamrznuta
- nema prodaje karata i i nikakve robe (kupljene karte vrijede)
- nema kupovine/prodaje igraca - smiju isplacivati ugovorne obaveze samo
- ugl nis ne smiju....

Jel isti problem ima i Bournemouth? Mozda i Monaco?

Razlog ovih glupih sankcija?

Chelsea je tvrtka u vlasnistvu Rusa.

Razlog ovih glupih sankcija? — Nousername

Glupih? Zašto ne bi ispaštala engleska igračka ruskog oligarha?
Britanska vlada je optužila Abramovičevu firmu da je opskrbljivač ruske vojske.

jesi prespavao zadnjih 15 dana?

nam pojma za bournemouth,a monaco nije pod uk.
Takodjer neam pojma jel njohov rus putinov ili ne

The Athletic je napravio dosta dugačak i zanimljiv članak o problemu Man. Uniteda koji se često ističe kao izgovor - problem privremenog trenera/managera.
Nešto što se govori i za Dinamo.
Pošto je članak dostupan samo pretplatnicima, budem ga cijelog stavio ovdje.

Interim managers can work. The problem is the culture at Manchester United


When Frank O’Farrell died this week at the age of 94, there were tributes from the many clubs he played for and managed during a distinguished career.

West Ham United remembered a talented wing-half and a “principled, softly-spoken, genial man” who was liked and respected by all who knew him. Similar sentiments followed from Preston North End, Leicester City and others, particularly Torquay United, where he was lauded as a legendary manager for his achievements there in the 1960s.

But O’Farrell is arguably best known as one of the managers who came and went from Manchester United in the years when Sir Matt Busby’s retirement saw the crumbling of an empire. He arrived in June 1971, hand-picked by Busby, and made a promising start, but was sacked 18 months later, destined to be remembered, like Wilf McGuinness, Tommy Docherty, Dave Sexton and Ron Atkinson, as a manager who struggled to escape the great man’s shadow.

The tributes from Old Trafford were suitably warm and respectful. The club’s official website said that, while his tenure was “an undulating affair, there is no shred of doubt that he was a talented manager and a man of unimpeachable integrity”. It was, the obituary continued, “a colossal assignment beset by problems” — not least George Best’s personal difficulties — but once more O’Farrell’s dignity and integrity were mentioned, as was his “willingness to take the tiller at such a tricky point in the club’s history”.

There are some intriguing parallels to be drawn between United’s struggles since Sir Alex Ferguson stood down in the summer of 2013 and those that followed Busby’s retirement more than four decades earlier. Once more there has been a roll call of very different coaches and very different personalities — David Moyes, Louis van Gaal, Jose Mourinho, Ole Gunnar Solskjaer — who have come and gone without any of them making a lasting impression.

Barring an unlikely-looking run to the Champions League final in May, Ralf Rangnick’s tenure promises to be even more forgettable. If McGuinness used to joke on the after-dinner circuit that he managed his beloved Manchester United “for four seasons … summer, autumn, winter and spring”, the reality is that Rangnick was only ever going to get two — winter and spring — when he was appointed on an interim basis in November after the dismissal of Solskjaer.

The great Denis Law once said of O’Farrell’s time in Manchester that he “arrived as a stranger and left as a stranger”. Perhaps, in time, similar will be said of Rangnick, the man summoned from a consultancy role at Lokomotiv Moscow at the age of 63 having spent only two seasons as a coach (both at RB Leipzig in 2015-16 and 2018-19) out of the previous 10.

Or perhaps appraisals of Rangnick will be closer to the way the late, great Best described O’Farrell and the struggles he faced when confronted with a group of United players who were either unwilling or unable to take his ideas on board. “Frank tried to improve the side by individual coaching,” Best said. “But the good ones among us didn’t need to be taught and we resented it — and some of the others were just not good enough to be taught anything.”

That line from Best has come to mind a few times when watching United in recent months.

Performances and results have stabilised and it has been possible to detect a shift towards a more proactive, energetic style, but there have also been an alarming number of leaks suggesting a certain resistance to the Rangnick approach, whether from players accustomed to being indulged, rather than indoctrinated, or from ones who feel unable or unwilling to adjust to such a change in playing style.

And now here comes a new one: reports of players feeling the continued underperformance comes down not to a lack of effort or application but to a growing sense of uncertainty in the dressing room: players unsure whether they are coming or going, players unsure who is going to be in charge next season — “a belief they are not being helped by the extended period without a permanent manager and a lack of clarity over who will eventually succeed Solskjaer”, as BBC Sport’s Simon Stone reflected the latest murmurings of discontent from the dressing room.

That limbo period reflects the complacency of the club hierarchy in imagining the performance level under Solskjaer represented “phenomenal success”, as managing director (and now chief executive) Richard Arnold put it this time last year, and being blind to the possibility that they might need a rethink sooner rather than later. When results nosedived in the autumn, there was no succession plan and no contingency plan — yet another illustration of the glaring lack of football vision and expertise under the Glazer family’s ownership.


But… when we read that players are “increasingly concerned” by the uncertainty surrounding the manager’s position, it doesn’t really wash.

They are hardly the first group of players in football history to be asked to play under an interim manager.

Indeed, arguably United’s most uplifting period in almost nine years since Ferguson retired came in early 2019, when Solskjaer was interim manager. It was only after his position was made permanent that some players settled back into their comfort zone and performances regressed to a wholly unacceptable mean.

A self-respecting group of players would not hide behind the “uncertainty” excuse.

Look at the way Chelsea’s players have adapted to interim management in the past: a team that had been drifting under Luiz Felipe Scolari in early 2009 ended up winning 16, drawing five and losing one match out of 22 in all competitions under Guus Hiddink, winning the FA Cup final and coming within seconds of beating Barcelona in the Champions League semi-final; in early 2012, after the March dismissal of Andre Villas-Boas, they went on to lift the FA Cup and, remarkably, also the Champions League under Roberto Di Matteo; when the Di Matteo magic faded early the following season, Rafa Benitez took over and led them to victory in the Europa League final as well as Champions League qualification via the Premier League.

Whatever the accusations of player power, those Chelsea teams were underpinned by strong characters and a powerful collective spirit that kept them moving forward under Hiddink, Di Matteo, Benitez and even the unloved Avram Grant, despite certain reservations about his coaching pedigree. Player power of a more positive type, you might say.

Similar could be said of the Bayern Munich sides that swept the board in 2012-13 under Jupp Heynckes, who was only ever a short-term appointment, and in 2019-20 under Hansi Flick, who was initially appointed in the November on a temporary basis.

This Manchester United team? Not so much.

There might be a few strong characters and big egos, players who have won the biggest prizes in the game, but so far there has been very little sign of the determination to rally together in pursuit of a common goal — either for Rangnick or previously for Solskjaer. Rangnick’s counter-pressing approach demands a collective buy-in, with egos left at the door. With this team, there are times when it looks like the opposite.

As Sky Sports pundit and former United captain Roy Keane said after the 4-1 derby defeat by Manchester City last weekend, “I think his (Rangnick’s) hands are tied. Some of the players might be looking at him going, ‘You’re only here until the summer’. Rangnick is trying to work with big egos and he wants to play a certain way, but the players don’t like it.”

Some of them do, such as Jadon Sancho and Anthony Elanga. But even before that second-half capitulation at the Etihad Stadium on Sunday, several recent performances had reinforced the feeling that the biggest battle Rangnick faces at Old Trafford is more about man-management than coaching or tactics.

We can talk about micro issues, such as the way Aaron Wan-Bissaka was left isolated against the City trio of Joao Cancelo, Bernardo Silva and Jack Grealish, but we cannot ignore macro issues such as the sense of dysfunction and disharmony that has been clear from certain performances — and even clearer from conversations with sources around the camp, dating back to the moment the tide started turning against Solskjaer with three defeats in four matches in September.

It makes you wonder whether a different type of manager might have been better equipped to take over from Solskjaer.

According to football convention, the ideal interim boss is someone who offers a back-to-basics approach. That might mean a familiar face or a respected figure coming in to lighten the mood (think Solskjaer at United in 2018-19, even Craig Shakespeare at Leicester two seasons earlier after they sacked Claudio Ranieri) or it might mean someone bringing much-needed structure, organisation and discipline (think Di Matteo at Chelsea in 2012, or indeed Benitez at the same club later that year).

United didn’t want a back-to-basics type, though. The Solskjaer regime had been based on a kind of light-touch management that had stopped working. This group of players needed coaching.

The candidates United spoke to all represented a different type of interim: Lucien Favre, Rudi Garcia, Paulo Fonseca, Ernesto Valverde and Rangnick all, to varying degrees, reflected a more technical approach and, it seemed, a logical step towards hiring a more progressive, technical coach such as Mauricio Pochettino or Erik ten Hag at the end of the season.

Micah Richards, the former Manchester City defender, took issue with the Rangnick appointment on Sunday, suggesting that United should simply have replaced Solskjaer with the then-clubless Antonio Conte. “Conte was available before he went to Spurs, he was the best available manager at the time,” Richards said on Sky Sports. “And just because he doesn’t fit ‘the Man United way’, he didn’t get it?”

That debate is certain to rage this weekend, given that Rangnick’s team are at home to Conte’s Tottenham Hotspur, who, after a sticky period of their own, have beaten Leeds United 4-0 and Everton 5-0 in their last two Premier League outings. Should Spurs win at Old Trafford on Saturday, then United’s aversion to Conte last autumn will be cast in a distinctly unflattering light.

As fellow pundit and former United stalwart Gary Neville tried to point out to Richards, there was, for once, a degree of method behind this purported madness. “United didn’t want Conte,” Neville said. “Conte’s not a manager for Manchester United. He comes in (to a job) for one or two years and leaves. United have been there with Jose Mourinho. They want to appoint Pochettino or Ten Hag on a long-term project, but they needed someone to get them until the end of the season.”

For once with the modern Manchester United, it was possible to believe there might actually have been a vision at play here; if you are hoping to appoint Pochettino or Ten Hag and you can’t do so in mid-season because they are busy managing Paris Saint-Germain and Ajax respectively, then better to find an interim candidate who might be compatible with that long-term objective. It shouldn’t just be about hiring whichever A-list manager happens to be ready for another ride on the Champions League carousel.

The problem is that there has been no recognisable long-term philosophy in the post-Ferguson years.

In the series of lurches that took them from Moyes to Van Gaal to Mourinho to Solskjaer, there was no real sense of what a Manchester United team, or player, should look like.

If there was briefly some semblance of a vision taking shape under Solskjaer, it was gleefully abandoned last summer in the pursuit of Cristiano Ronaldo. And within three months of doing so, they were appointing a coach whose coaching philosophy appeared incompatible with the needs of a legendary centre-forward who was hardly the counter-pressing type when he was 27, never mind now he’s 37.

So if there was a vision behind the Rangnick appointment, it was not exactly set in stone.

Rather than work with an existing template, he was effectively being asked to create the template.

A change in culture and playing style is hard enough to achieve mid-season in any situation, let alone as an interim in an environment where — in stark, depressing contrast to the Ferguson years — managers have come to be seen as transient figures rather than an all-powerful being.

The idea is that the next United manager will bring that kind of authority, whether it is Pochettino, Ten Hag or anyone else. For months, it seemed that the only potential obstacle to appointing would be PSG’s feelings on the matter. From the moment they capitulated in the second half against Real Madrid on Wednesday to go out of the Champions League at the last-16 stage, that deal looked so much easier to pull off… but also, potentially, less attractive to a club looking for a coach who can be as reliable as a silver bullet.

There are people inside the United hierarchy who will argue that they could offer a more secure, manager-centric environment than exists at PSG. And perhaps that is right. For all the chopping and changing of recent years, it is possible to argue that the board have shown too much faith in their chosen managers, rather than too little.

But if Pochettino’s frustrations in Paris come down to too many egos in the dressing room and a culture that indulges celebrity over substance, are Manchester United — the modern Manchester United — really a safe haven?

If the Rangnick experience has underlined one thing, it is the size of the task ahead when it comes to a) overhauling the squad, b) fostering a sense of hunger and unity within that squad and c) implementing a change of style.

Get all of that right and they might start competing for the biggest prizes consistently again.

Under the Glazers’ ownership, an inexperienced chief executive, an inexperienced football director and an interim manager, with so many players appearing disillusioned or approaching the end of their contracts, there is no doubt the club are in a state of limbo.

But that limbo existence offers opportunities. And right now, those opportunities are not being grasped by many.

A sense of drift is easy to comprehend, but it is less easy to excuse when it has become such a regular feature of the club’s recent existence. So what if the players don’t know who will be in charge next season? They should be competing to make sure they are part of that future, because many of them will find that after you leave United — even this zombified version — the only way is down.


At Chelsea, it always looked like the job facing any new manager — interim or otherwise — was to try a switch; energising and galvanising a team who, in the right mood, would compete for trophies. At United in the post-Ferguson years, the sense of decay in the dressing room has looked deeper. A culture of underperformance, of so many burgeoning talents and expensive new signings struggling to do themselves justice, is alarmingly well established.

That is why the demand is for someone who will rebuild from the foundations rather than a “hitman who comes in and does a job for two years”, as Gary Neville described Conte. It is why hiring Rangnick on an interim basis can be seen as a logical response, albeit to a problem entirely of the club’s own making. Logical, yes, but with no guarantee of success, particularly when so many players have appeared ready to embrace the narrative of a lost season rather than grasp the opportunity to change it.

As for how history will remember Rangnick’s time at Old Trafford in years to come, the answer right now is that it might take something spectacular over the coming weeks for him to be remembered at all.

Maybe, given his lack of front-line coaching in recent years and his lack of experience dealing with a club and players of this profile, the Rangnick appointment required too big a leap of faith from all concerned.

Maybe, having steadied the ship slightly, the most important job he can do is help the club recruit the ideal coach for the longer term, whether that means Pochettino, Ten Hag or… might there even be an opportunity to appoint his former pupil Thomas Tuchel, given the deepening turmoil at Chelsea?

Maybe it was always Rangnick’s fate to arrive as a stranger and to leave as a stranger.

And maybe, as with O’Farrell, history will reflect that says more about the culture he was up against than it says about him.

Evo da se malo nasmijete, šaljivi video o Harry Maguireu. I komentari su super.

Dvanaesta pobjeda Zrinjskog zaredom, Bilbija zabio 13. utakmicu zaredom (18 golova u tih 13 utakmica), od čega 5 puta jedine golove na utakmici.
Zrinjski prvi sa 57 bodova, gol-razlikom 49-9 i 16 bodova više od drugoplasiranog.

Što se tiče Uniteda zvuči jednostavno, s obzirom na to koliko su trenera već promijenili, al mišljenja sam da će se puno problema riješiti kad dovedu pravog trenera. Kaj @xavier kaže probali su par pristupa, Moyes, što reći, Van Gaal koji je imao ok ideje, al dovodio loša pojačanja i bio je previše u svojim idejama o tome da igrač stoji na mjestu x i ne miče se (o kvaliteti nogometa da ne govorim), Mourinho koji je već tad bio past it i Solskjaer koji je znao igrati samo na kontre i bio preblag prema igračima.
Ako dovedu Ten Haaga to bi bio pravi potez. Iako rizik ipak je rizik vrijedan pokušaja.
A ako dovedu Pochettina to će biti još jedno lijeno rješenje, tipično za United, koje će opet biti neuspjeh, jer lik em ima užasan omjer s velikima u PL, em mu PSG igra očajno, em ne zna sve te egoe dovesti u red. Jednom rječju za United čista katastrofa od opcije za trenera.

Naravno ima tu još dosta problema, tipa koliko će igrača otići na ljeto i tko će se dovesti umjesto, to kaj su prosječnim igračima davali basnoslovne ugovore pa se sad ne mogu riješiti Mate, Jonesa, Lingarda itd.
Kaos teški jednom rječju.