Yeah. I assumed it would be a 1 year extension and a re-jig of his responsibilities
He’s going to come under pressure again before New Year and now the payoff is going to become more problematic
Erik ten Hag - Manchester United manager
- Thread starter sewey89
- Start date
He’s going to come under pressure again before New Year and now the payoff is going to become more problematic
That lad has more grey matter than the Ted Lasso extras at least.
Most likely a champions league clause in his new contract and performance related bonuses so if it does go wrong we can exit the contract cheaply.
Good listen
Preferably none for a few months just so we can see what happens for at least first few months of the season, but acknowledge we probably need to do something so a years extension for now.
You can't go into the season without extending his contract. It's plain wrong.
I think adding an extra year sends a bad message. A two year extension is playing the safest option. Any more than that and you're basically adamant that he's the one who will lead us back to the top.
You absolutely can and there is little wrong about it.
The only reasons to give him an extension is either to write out his transfer veto, reduce his wages and put in bigger penalties/clauses for not achieving goals, or both.
Otherwise just trigger the extension at some point early season and say he'll be judged on results.
No worries! Crazy times we are in.Yeah no I’m not specifically directing my rant at youDidn’t mean for it to come off that way
Just a realization I’ve recently had I think
Or don't trigger anything until, he proves that he deserves. Unless the club believes that he deserves it in which case extending makes sense. But he shouldn't be extended just because it's the last year of his contract.
Presumably if he wanted to get arsey he can veto every transfer and force them to sack him with full compensation.
Except it undermines their whole "review" process. If the review process showed he is ill fitted, they should fire him. If it showed that they should aim to build with him, they need to give him a contract. What is the point of managerial review to decide the future of a manager with a year left on his contract, if not to see if he should be given a new contract? Might as well have waited with the review another year then.
Universally, changing something wholesale to try and fix it is not a thing. It's sometimes a thing, but often times there better options. I find it somewhat hilarious that many in the fandom and on here have been screaming for different ownership (not knowing what that might actually look like, but me included) so that we have different decision making at the top. We now get that, they have assessed the situation (seemingly) carefully...and have concluded (likely given the alternatives as well) that keeping ETH is the best way forward. This is one of their first major decisions. People on here are already just rejecting it because it's not the decision they want. So I guess it's not a different ownership group with different decision-makers that the moaners want...just a desire for a group to do exactly as that fan desires.
What's clear is often new ownership decision-makers want to hire a new manager. They went through a lengthy review that likely involved interviewing players and staff, as well as watching the relationship closely the last few months. They concluded:
I'll leave with this...we have been constantly churning through managers with different styles, temperaments, and histories since SAF. I have seen this churn produce instability and absolutely no improvement as club for an extended period of time. ETH has created, IMHO, a more sustainable looking program at least, but we had a down season no doubt and thats an issue. I think it's totally fair game to sack him if we have another season like last. But we have to give the manager some rope to implement their program, and I think three years is a solid period of time. I, for one, am (slightly) happy we kept him.
What's clear is often new ownership decision-makers want to hire a new manager. They went through a lengthy review that likely involved interviewing players and staff, as well as watching the relationship closely the last few months. They concluded:
- ETH was not the reason for the poor season, but other changes to the club would bring more success
- OR, the alternatives to ETH would either be worse or marginal...negating positives vs. the upheaval of making a wholesale change
I'll leave with this...we have been constantly churning through managers with different styles, temperaments, and histories since SAF. I have seen this churn produce instability and absolutely no improvement as club for an extended period of time. ETH has created, IMHO, a more sustainable looking program at least, but we had a down season no doubt and thats an issue. I think it's totally fair game to sack him if we have another season like last. But we have to give the manager some rope to implement their program, and I think three years is a solid period of time. I, for one, am (slightly) happy we kept him.
Not exactly. No one other than the CEO and the board can actually do anything in that department, a "veto" has no actual power but it can open the door to a litigation in order to get some compensation. The club can always sign whoever they want.
Before the FA Cup final I don't believe there was a single compelling argument for keeping him, last season was just that spectacularly atrocious.
However, now that he is staying I hope we get the players that fit whatever his vision is and we are not screaming injuries again next season while he takes 50 games to realize his inept set up is inept.
However, now that he is staying I hope we get the players that fit whatever his vision is and we are not screaming injuries again next season while he takes 50 games to realize his inept set up is inept.
Yeah , you absolutely can . I don't think it's ideal though .
The message to potential players is , come and play for this guy until we get a new guy who may or may not pick you .
What if its an extension with low release terms? I suppose the value in extending is showing faith in the manager to build beyond just a punt into next season.
Do we know what the review process concluded?
Color me surprised. I thought that no matter how good ETH’s season was—or especially if it was this bad—INEOS would have hired their own manager. It’s safe to assume that the FA Cup win and the resulting change in optics saved his job. Fan opinion is fickle, and if he starts racking up losses and poor performances, the pressure will be immense. According to The Athletic, salary talks were held with both Tuchel and RDZ, so it's certainly not as clear-cut as some people think.
He's not my first choice. I believe he's tactically inept (given the 8th place finish and numerous poor performances) and a poor communicator (due to his bad English). His naivety and stubbornness are also major problems. The only reason I see for him still being here is that he essentially rolled over and became their yes-man.
Now it’s up to ETH. He has to prove me and everyone else who’s unconvinced wrong. The losses and poor performances from last season need to be a thing of the past.
He's not my first choice. I believe he's tactically inept (given the 8th place finish and numerous poor performances) and a poor communicator (due to his bad English). His naivety and stubbornness are also major problems. The only reason I see for him still being here is that he essentially rolled over and became their yes-man.
Now it’s up to ETH. He has to prove me and everyone else who’s unconvinced wrong. The losses and poor performances from last season need to be a thing of the past.
This
Well, it's safe to say Ineos' fiddling around hasn't filled me with confidence for the future but at least there is some clarity now. Let's see what the summer window brings us now and after that the season.
Honestly if you believe this, you’re in too deep.
Yeah this is what we should be doing. But after making it so damn obvious they wanted to replace him with Tuchel, they probably feel they have to do something to make the decision look less like a terrified u-turn and more like a proactive decision.
It's obviously made up. I remember myself putting that suggestion forward where I said Bruno as a false 9 could be a option for ten Hag in his first season. But ten Hag used Bruno as a false 9 a number of times in his first season, and the idea had already been tested several times.
Impossible to believe that they've somehow concluded their review, leaked the outcome that they're sticking with Ezza ten H, without first ensuring that he's willing to hold the post in the conditions they want to implement going forward.
Haven’t you heard!?
Goldbrdge told ETH about Mainoo and I told him Garnacho was tekkers. He owes his win to me…
There's nothing right about it. You back him - or sack him. We have chosen to back him. Therefore, we reflect that by offering him a new deal. You can stick in as many clauses as you like and obviously make it clear to him that he's purely a Head Coach from now on.
yup if players know they can outlast you by downing tools you are doomed from the off. Rashers and many others need to know he can sell them.
The only compelling argument for keeping him were the 69 injuries we had during the season.
He could barely ever field his best eleven.
Let's hope he will be backed with the right transfers and not have the same nuimber of injured players.
I'm really interested to see how the transfers shape up and if we're finally abandoning this idea of being 'the best transition team in the world' or at least altering it somewhat.
I always thought that early 4-0 defeat to Brentford was EtH's 'Rangnick' moment where he basically just knew he didn't have the players to follow the instructions. The following two games against Liverpool and Arsenal were pure 'Ole ball' wins and we've never quite moved away from that, despite trying to.
I always thought that early 4-0 defeat to Brentford was EtH's 'Rangnick' moment where he basically just knew he didn't have the players to follow the instructions. The following two games against Liverpool and Arsenal were pure 'Ole ball' wins and we've never quite moved away from that, despite trying to.
We have obviously decided that he's the right man to lead us forward so we reflect that by offering him a new contract.
Yep we’ve tried a few different systems against City and played false 9 a load with Sancho as well this pre season in addition to what you say. Plus we knew ETH liked Hojlund off the bench and he’s our only CF. But, moreso, why would any coach be being told what setup to use?
And then told some guy in his bedroom in the US all about it.
United had set up a transfer board which allowed members to have a veto on certain players. Jose had it, Ole had it feck even Mike Phelan had a veto power so I’d imagine ETH had something similar. It’s not unheard of. But given the new system and Ashworth coming in he’ll want a Yes man and total control over recruitment.
Although I’m sure in any successful system where there is a director that he and the manager would discuss targets and what is required. Then Director relays to scouts to find him a CB with certain attributes and so on.
Or you respect the contract that he already has? We chose to keep him, not to back him(which is a meaningless notion in the first place). He has 12 months and the possibility to trigger an extension clause there is no actual need to give him more time than 12 to 24 months. And unless you know that you want him under contract for more than 24 months there is no reason to give him more than that.
A new contract is absolute madness
Imagine having the worst fecking finish in centuries and you’re rewarded with a 2 year contract extension.
fecking midtable club this. Unbelievable
Only keeping him on cause he won a cup, I’m glad we got rid of the Glazers have such incredible strategists now.
Thought the club would be run professionally now like most football clubs are and not on sentimentality like aye he won us a cup lad deserves a raise.
If I see an Eredivise player or someone TH has worked with before joining I’m storming OT January 6 style.
Imagine having the worst fecking finish in centuries and you’re rewarded with a 2 year contract extension.
fecking midtable club this. Unbelievable
Only keeping him on cause he won a cup, I’m glad we got rid of the Glazers have such incredible strategists now.
Thought the club would be run professionally now like most football clubs are and not on sentimentality like aye he won us a cup lad deserves a raise.
If I see an Eredivise player or someone TH has worked with before joining I’m storming OT January 6 style.
The fact that anyone is briefing this, true or not, shows that club politics have already become deeply toxic. Ratcliffe is beginning to look like one of those narcissistic divide and rule CEOs that surrounds himself with insecure buffer middle managers that one comes across from time to time in life.