Are you confident of success in the INEOS era?

Man Utd are a massive operation. It’s not just on the pitch, it’s top to bottom.

The only parts that are working are the commercial operation as that’s where the Glazers have focused.

Anyone who knows anything about the theory of change in the world of business knows it takes time and as change is implemented it upsets stakeholders and you get a dip.

The club have rightly said it’ll take years and if you look at Chelsea you can see putting together a young squad takes time.

I have every faith we’ll be back sooner rather than later. Omar had done it at City who were in a worse place than us. ETH is not the man I fear though. So the sooner that happens the better. We all know it’s inevitable.
 
amolbhatia50k said:
I meant to be fair, the management there isn’t the management here so if we hire the right people for Manchester United they can succeed regardless of what happened at Nice.

At the same time I don’t feel like this decade will be very different from the last - some cups and some top 4 finishes.
Click to expand...
I guess it can happen. Even a broken clock gives the right time twice a day. However, given their history with other clubs it is far from a cert that they'd succeed here. INEOS' ownership of various businesses is littered with making lofty promises and then never coming through on them.
 
Well, they’ve a really big decision to make - do they stick or twist?

Guess we will see how ballsy this new management team are?
 
Insanity said:
I guess it can happen. Even a broken clock gives the right time twice a day. However, given their history with other clubs it is far from a cert that they'd succeed here. INEOS' ownership of various businesses is littered with making lofty promises and then never coming through on them.
Click to expand...
Don’t forget, Arsenal and Liverpool’s ownerships were also once “broken clocks” that are now right for seemingly most of the day. It’s not as though the people handling our affairs have never well in their respective roles (SJR as a businessman and the others in football). If we’re extending the argument to “various” businesses then on a whole aren’t Ineos wildly successful?
 
So far is all talk and lofty promises. It's all well and good thumping chest showing power and ambition but the results on the field need to match that ambition.

So far they have shown nothing on the field to suggest they are the right best in class football people. In fact, all they have shown is amateurish handling of the most important appointment of the club, manager.
 
It would have been silly to expect a huge turnaround this fast. Most of our important new personnel have been in the job for like two months?

I'm still pretty confident that we have good people at the helm now, but obviously it will take time for them to have an impact
 
They’ve not been great so far have they ? Really bad handling of ETH in summer where they whored out his job and had to keep him because nobody was interested. They’ve sanctioned what look like some more poor signings of ex Ajax Ten Hagettes

You look at Ratcliffe, he’s a businessman focused on making money, Brailsfords achievements are in a totally different field, Wilcox CV is hardly earth shattering,, and Omar was one piece of a well oiled operation

As someone has rightly pointed out, and rather ironically so, the only thing that’s worked consistently at United is the bit the Glazers have control of. And without such a strong commercial side we’d be deep in the brown stuff now.

There is no guarantee whatsoever that INEOS will succeed here and their first few months has been rather worrying
 
Ibi Dreams said:
It would have been silly to expect a huge turnaround this fast. Most of our important new personnel have been in the job for like two months?

I'm still pretty confident that we have good people at the helm now, but obviously it will take time for them to have an impact
Click to expand...
Agree. People are impatient and emotional but that is understandable to some extent.

Look at how Chelsea went about it when Clearlake came in. They stuck with Tuchel initially, who wasn’t their choice, but things didn’t work immediately so they brought in Potter.. then Lampard… then Pochettino… now Maresca.

This in itself has cost them millions along with several different back room set ups and management roles. That’s not even including the billion plus spent on various players.

Now United don’t have that money to waste, especially when we are looking at developing the stadium, but even if we did that isn’t how I’d like the club to operate.

We are essentially at the Tuchel point of that cycle and people need to remember that Berrada, Ashworth, Wilcox, Vivel have only been working together for 2-3 months. INEOS only actually got in to the club 7 months ago themselves.

We all want change quickly but some need a reality check.
 
Ibi Dreams said:
It would have been silly to expect a huge turnaround this fast. Most of our important new personnel have been in the job for like two months?

I'm still pretty confident that we have good people at the helm now, but obviously it will take time for them to have an impact
Click to expand...

i think that's hope than anything else.

The reality is that none of us have been in the football business to judge a person in the various roles within United.

We can, at best, project and speculate based on our own professional careers and the management positions we might have been in. But football is a very different business where your customers buy, judge, or evaluate your product twice a week. And what goes on inside the club is fairly opaque.
 
I've always been 50/50 as to whether Ineos will be successful. The topic of owning and running one of the biggest clubs in the world, is a multi-layered one.
On a basic level there's the off-field operations and the on-field operations, but somewhere in between there's that murky, grey world where they cross and its this area where I'm not 100% sure yet.
It's easy for them to run a business, they've been doing it for years, all around the world, have many contacts and I'm not in the slightest bit worried that United will fall behind from an off-field perspective.
From a footballing perspective, we all know how that can fluctuate. Different players, managers and tactics that change with each game.

The grey area though, where the business intertwines with the football, is the area that worries me the most. Are Ineos capable of taking off their business hats and realising that what happens on the field, ultimately affects what happens off-field and visa-versa. This grey area of buying the right players, hiring the right manager, not taking their eye off the ball when it comes to performances, is the one they'll really have to put effort into. I don't think it's as simple as saying 'well, we do this bit and you do that bit...'

They are right in building foundations, getting a management/director structure in, that was needed. But it's also important that they get the right people in for the football side of things and operate quickly when things aren't working out. Things like blind faith and loyalty to managers and players who arent performing, simply because they sell shirts or don't upset the shareholders, is not the best recipe for success.
It will be easier to judge them in a few years.
 
Jock Steins Boots said:
I've always been 50/50 as to whether Ineos will be successful. The topic of owning and running one of the biggest clubs in the world, is a multi-layered one.
On a basic level there's the off-field operations and the on-field operations, but somewhere in between there's that murky, grey world where they cross and its this area where I'm not 100% sure yet.
It's easy for them to run a business, they've been doing it for years, all around the world, have many contacts and I'm not in the slightest bit worried that United will fall behind from an off-field perspective.
From a footballing perspective, we all know how that can fluctuate. Different players, managers and tactics that change with each game.

The grey area though, where the business intertwines with the football, is the area that worries me the most. Are Ineos capable of taking off their business hats and realising that what happens on the field, ultimately affects what happens off-field and visa-versa. This grey area of buying the right players, hiring the right manager, not taking their eye off the ball when it comes to performances, is the one they'll really have to put effort into. I don't think it's as simple as saying 'well, we do this bit and you do that bit...'

They are right in building foundations, getting a management/director structure in, that was needed. But it's also important that they get the right people in for the football side of things and operate quickly when things aren't working out. Things like blind faith and loyalty to managers and players who arent performing, simply because they sell shirts or don't upset the shareholders, is not the best recipe for success.
It will be easier to judge them in a few years.
Click to expand...
I mean surely this is the reason they brought in Berrada, Ashworth, Wilcox, Vivel?

They are footballing people who have excellent resumes. I’m not sure they could have assembled a better team on paper and obviously they need time to settle and work together.

INEOS have been quite open in saying they want to leave the football decisions to the football people. Everything we’ve seen and heard suggest this is how they want it to work.

If we start to get evidence that they aren’t listening to the team they have assembled then that’s when I’ll worry but right now it’s far too early to say.
 
TheReligion said:
I mean surely this is the reason they brought in Berrada, Ashworth, Wilcox, Vivel?

They are footballing people who have excellent resumes. I’m not sure they could have assembled a better team on paper and obviously they need time to settle and work together.

INEOS have been quite open in saying they want to leave the football decisions to the football people. Everything we’ve seen and heard suggest this is how they want it to work.

If we start to get evidence that they aren’t listening to the team they have assembled then that’s when I’ll worry but right now it’s far too early to say.
Click to expand...
That's why I'm 50/50. Personally I think they need a few years, as the foundations in directorship have only just been formed, so its too early to say whether they'll be successful.

As I said, I'm only worried about them making the changes that are needed. Right now they're all claiming they're behind ETH, which obviously they are going to say, but realistically, to have the success they want and expect, it won't come from him in charge.
So let's see how quick they can put their collective experience together and change things, when it's blindingly obvious to everyone that things aren't working on the pitch.
 
Jock Steins Boots said:
That's why I'm 50/50. Personally I think they need a few years, as the foundations in directorship have only just been formed, so its too early to say whether they'll be successful.

As I said, I'm only worried about them making the changes that are needed. Right now they're all claiming they're behind ETH, which obviously they are going to say, but realistically, to have the success they want and expect, it won't come from him in charge.
So let's see how quick they can put their collective experience together and change things, when it's blindingly obvious to everyone that things aren't working on the pitch.
Click to expand...
I don’t disagree but I think I’m more confident in success than failure based on who they have assembled and the strategy they have set. It won’t start happening in three months though.

Those deciding at this point it’s a failure because they haven’t sacked Ten Hag yet are talking nonsense.
 
They've been better at PR. Better at signing players for improved fees.

Could argue that it brought us the FA cup.

Until we get rid of Shaw and Rashford, and replace them with better, fitter, healthier, and better professionals. We'll never improve as much as we want to.

I believe that INEOS are committed to replacing Rashford and Shaw. However they weren't able to do it all in one summer window and prioritised signing defenders instead. Mazraoui, De Ligt and Yoro have made our defence better, and it will be clear in a few months when Yoro also settles in.

That's why they're not panicking just yet. As they know that there are key moves to be made before we're a top team again. The Ugarte situation is a key one. The club of course won't like that he hasn't been bedded into the lineup. They will want to see Ugarte, Mainoo and Bruno start a run of games together. As they believed that they had completed the starting lineup of the midfield 3 for now.

Casemiro, Eriksen and Mount are supposed to now be the supporting cast. However Ten Hag is opting to use them as starters more which is an issue for alot of stakeholders, INEOS, the fans and probably Ten Hag himself.

Replacing Rashford with a high ceiling replacement would bring Garnacho onto the left wing, with Hojlund and probably a right winger replacement as a starting calibre player.

I don't think Ten Hag is completely sold on Diallo as a starter long term, and so I can't see them replacing Rashford with a starting calibre left winger. I think we'll promote Garnacho over the season to be the starting left winger, with Rashford being sold in the summer for a player that will start on the right wing, with Antony being sold.

Garnacho, Hojlund, New Winger
New winger, Zirkzee, Diallo

That's the front 6 squad for 3 positions, that I believe we start next season with, and I believe Ten Hag, INEOS and the fans would be aligned on this. It just can't happen overnight, so I think INEOS will give Ten Hag every chance to get the current squad to winning ways and challenge for the top 4 position. As it's early in the season yet I don't think they'll be quick to pull the trigger when they see the bigger picture. If he's struggling in November I think that will change. They would then look to hire the manager that can not only get the best out of the current squad but also be the chosen one to help signing the next 4 or 5 signings next summer.
 
His tactics are suspect and clearly he is struggling to get his ideas across to the players. Having Dalot tucking in as an inverted full back for instance is crucifying us both in attack and defence.

From some of the reports earlier in the year he sounds like a very stubborn personality in the dressing room. That may have worked at Ajax with a young team on the way up but never at United.

We all know INEOS need to act over this international break and the hierarchy I'm sure know that too. With experienced management from Southampton, City and Toon at the club, and them seeing the warts and all view from inside the club they 100% this is not going to resolve itself.

Making a change now maintains an outside possibility of top4 (top7) and qualifying out of the EL group.

Give it another month and I'm sure both of those ships will have sailed.
 
Ineos need full control of the club until then I fear the same crap will be thrown out from the club while the Glazers are still raping the club ..
 
TheReligion said:
Agree. People are impatient and emotional but that is understandable to some extent.

Look at how Chelsea went about it when Clearlake came in. They stuck with Tuchel initially, who wasn’t their choice, but things didn’t work immediately so they brought in Potter.. then Lampard… then Pochettino… now Maresca.

This in itself has cost them millions along with several different back room set ups and management roles. That’s not even including the billion plus spent on various players.

Now United don’t have that money to waste, especially when we are looking at developing the stadium, but even if we did that isn’t how I’d like the club to operate.

We are essentially at the Tuchel point of that cycle and people need to remember that Berrada, Ashworth, Wilcox, Vivel have only been working together for 2-3 months. INEOS only actually got in to the club 7 months ago themselves.

We all want change quickly but some need a reality check.
Click to expand...
This is what I don’t understand when you look at how much many fans are writing off players and even the entire season.

We can argue all day about how good/bad previous transfer windows were but I think everyone broadly agrees the Glazer model was awful, so we're right at the start of the Ineos era. We are at the beginning of their period in charge and it will be multiple seasons until hey can really be judged with accuracy.

This team finished 8th last year, albeit only 8 points off 4th which is not crazy thinking about the injuries. What, then, was the genuine expectations of our fanbase when we essentially have the same team + Zirkzee (23), Ugarte (23), Maz (26), De Light (25) and injured Yoro (18)? Because it certainly should not have been some sudden uptick in goals.

We are net down forwards and AMs; Martial, Sancho, VdB, Hannibal, Greenwood, Pellestri, McT, Forson all left in the summer, regardless of what you think of them or how often they played, that is a huge amount of players leaving in those advanced positions to be replaced by a single signing in Zirkzee. Ineos must have known there would be an issue with goalscoring, was their plan then to shore up the defence, hence the signing of the 2 Bayern guys on cheaper deals? Or do they simply not care about this season and plan to assess the squad, assess ETH and make changes accordingly?

It is crystal clear they want to build for the future and that is what many on here were saying they wanted to do i.e. write off a season or two to build something which is basically what Chelsea did/are still doing - stockpiling a young team and then having a rollercoaster of two seasons (finishing 12th and 6th) trying to get it to work. I suspect the rollercoaster will continue this season for them but they have tripled our net spend since Boehly came in - there is much more impatience there and appetite to take losses on players that Ineos clearly do not have/cannot spend.
 
tomaldinho1 said:
This is what I don’t understand when you look at how much many fans are writing off players and even the entire season.

We can argue all day about how good/bad previous transfer windows were but I think everyone broadly agrees the Glazer model was awful, so we're right at the start of the Ineos era. We are at the beginning of their period in charge and it will be multiple seasons until hey can really be judged with accuracy.

This team finished 8th last year, albeit only 8 points off 4th which is not crazy thinking about the injuries. What, then, was the genuine expectations of our fanbase when we essentially have the same team + Zirkzee (23), Ugarte (23), Maz (26), De Light (25) and injured Yoro (18)? Because it certainly should not have been some sudden uptick in goals.

We are net down forwards and AMs; Martial, Sancho, VdB, Hannibal, Greenwood, Pellestri, McT, Forson all left in the summer, regardless of what you think of them or how often they played, that is a huge amount of players leaving in those advanced positions to be replaced by a single signing in Zirkzee. Ineos must have known there would be an issue with goalscoring, was their plan then to shore up the defence, hence the signing of the 2 Bayern guys on cheaper deals? Or do they simply not care about this season and plan to assess the squad, assess ETH and make changes accordingly?

It is crystal clear they want to build for the future and that is what many on here were saying they wanted to do i.e. write off a season or two to build something which is basically what Chelsea did/are still doing - stockpiling a young team and then having a rollercoaster of two seasons (finishing 12th and 6th) trying to get it to work. I suspect the rollercoaster will continue this season for them but they have tripled our net spend since Boehly came in - there is much more impatience there and appetite to take losses on players that Ineos clearly do not have/cannot spend.
Click to expand...
Good post and yeah I agree with this. It’s not making excuses it’s just common sense.

I don’t expect Ten Hag will remain at the club and I suspect it’s all about timing now and getting the right person in.

Very rarely does a new ownership and leadership team come in and retain the previous manager and set up. The thing here is the timing was awkward given the time it took for INEOS to complete with the Glazers and then the delays in appointing Berrada and Ashworth, who they really wanted to be leading this work.

I’m sure we all acknowledge we need the right people at the club, even if it means a wait. I’d rather that than try and rush things through, waste even more money and get no further along.

Most rational people will realise that.
 
tomaldinho1 said:
This is what I don’t understand when you look at how much many fans are writing off players and even the entire season.

We can argue all day about how good/bad previous transfer windows were but I think everyone broadly agrees the Glazer model was awful, so we're right at the start of the Ineos era. We are at the beginning of their period in charge and it will be multiple seasons until hey can really be judged with accuracy.

This team finished 8th last year, albeit only 8 points off 4th which is not crazy thinking about the injuries. What, then, was the genuine expectations of our fanbase when we essentially have the same team + Zirkzee (23), Ugarte (23), Maz (26), De Light (25) and injured Yoro (18)? Because it certainly should not have been some sudden uptick in goals.

We are net down forwards and AMs; Martial, Sancho, VdB, Hannibal, Greenwood, Pellestri, McT, Forson all left in the summer, regardless of what you think of them or how often they played, that is a huge amount of players leaving in those advanced positions to be replaced by a single signing in Zirkzee. Ineos must have known there would be an issue with goalscoring, was their plan then to shore up the defence, hence the signing of the 2 Bayern guys on cheaper deals? Or do they simply not care about this season and plan to assess the squad, assess ETH and make changes accordingly?

It is crystal clear they want to build for the future and that is what many on here were saying they wanted to do i.e. write off a season or two to build something which is basically what Chelsea did/are still doing - stockpiling a young team and then having a rollercoaster of two seasons (finishing 12th and 6th) trying to get it to work. I suspect the rollercoaster will continue this season for them but they have tripled our net spend since Boehly came in - there is much more impatience there and appetite to take losses on players that Ineos clearly do not have/cannot spend.
Click to expand...
AMs; Martial, Sancho, VdB, Hannibal, Greenwood, Pellestri, McT, Forson...

With the exception of McTominay, the others are a non factor. They barely played over the past few years. Getting them off the books was a good thing. You could argue that Sancho's fee is actually a bit too low.

United have two players for each position in attack.

ST: Höjlund and Zirkzee
AM: Bruno and Mount + Eriksen can play there
LW: Rashford and Garnacho
RW: Amad and Antony + Garnacho can play there
 
Fallon d'Floor said:
AMs; Martial, Sancho, VdB, Hannibal, Greenwood, Pellestri, McT, Forson...

With the exception of McTominay, the others are a non factor. They barely played over the past few years. Getting them off the books was a good thing. You could argue that Sancho's fee is actually a bit too low.

United have two players for each position in attack.

ST: Höjlund and Zirkzee
AM: Bruno and Mount + Eriksen can play there
LW: Rashford and Garnacho
RW: Amad and Antony + Garnacho can play there
Click to expand...
What an uninspiring set of forwards. Bottom half of the league level - which adds up.
 
Fallon d'Floor said:
AMs; Martial, Sancho, VdB, Hannibal, Greenwood, Pellestri, McT, Forson...

With the exception of McTominay, the others are a non factor. They barely played over the past few years. Getting them off the books was a good thing. You could argue that Sancho's fee is actually a bit too low.

United have two players for each position in attack.

ST: Höjlund and Zirkzee
AM: Bruno and Mount + Eriksen can play there
LW: Rashford and Garnacho
RW: Amad and Antony + Garnacho can play there
Click to expand...
So let's look at this:

ST: Höjlund (21 year old who has had injury issues with us, inherited player.) and Zirkzee (23 year old who joined in the summer, Ineos signing.)
AM: Bruno (senior inherited player) and Mount (always injured inherited player) + Eriksen can play there (yes for Denmark, not sure about in the PL, he's not played 10 since pre his heart attack. Inherited player.)
LW: Rashford (senior inherited player) and Garnacho (20 year old, inherited player)
RW: Amad (22 year old, inherited player) and Antony (inherited player)

So we do have multiple players per position in attack but that's a pretty meaningless fact - if we signed 10 CFs from non league, we'd have 12 CFs, it wouldn't mean we would score more goals. The bulk of these players are either very young, out of form or have injury issues. Ineos have made one signing in the forward line.
 
TheReligion said:
Good post and yeah I agree with this. It’s not making excuses it’s just common sense.

I don’t expect Ten Hag will remain at the club and I suspect it’s all about timing now and getting the right person in.

Very rarely does a new ownership and leadership team come in and retain the previous manager and set up. The thing here is the timing was awkward given the time it took for INEOS to complete with the Glazers and then the delays in appointing Berrada and Ashworth, who they really wanted to be leading this work.

I’m sure we all acknowledge we need the right people at the club, even if it means a wait. I’d rather that than try and rush things through, waste even more money and get no further along.

Most rational people will realise that.
Click to expand...
This is the problem.

Zirkzee = crap
Hojlund = League 1
Ugarte = rubbish

etc.
 
tomaldinho1 said:
So let's look at this:

ST: Höjlund (21 year old who has had injury issues with us, inherited player.) and Zirkzee (23 year old who joined in the summer, Ineos signing.)
AM: Bruno (senior inherited player) and Mount (always injured inherited player) + Eriksen can play there (yes for Denmark, not sure about in the PL, he's not played 10 since pre his heart attack. Inherited player.)
LW: Rashford (senior inherited player) and Garnacho (20 year old, inherited player)
RW: Amad (22 year old, inherited player) and Antony (inherited player)

So we do have multiple players per position in attack but that's a pretty meaningless fact - if we signed 10 CFs from non league, we'd have 12 CFs, it wouldn't mean we would score more goals. The bulk of these players are either very young, out of form or have injury issues. Ineos have made one signing in the forward line.
Click to expand...
What exactly are you trying to say? We can't judge ten Hag or INEOS until they've signed the majority of players?

I don't really give a shit about INEOS and their long term vision right now. What I care about is their ability to sack an underperforming manager. They invested in other areas of the pitch. That was ultimately their call if they handled the transfers.

INEOS might or might not be a success. Their track record in football isn't great. We'll have to wait and see.
 
Fallon d'Floor said:
What exactly are you trying to say? We can't judge ten Hag or INEOS until they've signed the majority of players?

I don't really give a shit about INEOS and their long term vision right now. What I care about is their ability to sack an underperforming manager. They invested in other areas of the pitch. That was ultimately their call if they handled the transfers.

INEOS might or might not be a success. Their track record in football isn't great. We'll have to wait and see.
Click to expand...
This is an Ineos specific thread...

You made a point about having two players per position, I replied to your post to show that having x, y or z players per position is meaningless. If we're judging Ineos we cannot do it now. You replied to my post which was pretty clear cut in what I was saying, if you need to refer back to it, feel free.
 
I don't know. I'm getting used to seeing United in shambles. When I was growing up I saw nothing else but succes at United, however we haven't won the PL in 11 years so the bad times are getting as long as the good times.

I just hope we become competitive again and a top team. We haven't been a true top team anymore since Fergie left.
 
  • Like
Reactions: Cheimoon
Absolutely not. There is no reason to be confident. At most we can be hopeful
 
tomaldinho1 said:
So let's look at this:

ST: Höjlund (21 year old who has had injury issues with us, inherited player.) and Zirkzee (23 year old who joined in the summer, Ineos signing.)
AM: Bruno (senior inherited player) and Mount (always injured inherited player) + Eriksen can play there (yes for Denmark, not sure about in the PL, he's not played 10 since pre his heart attack. Inherited player.)
LW: Rashford (senior inherited player) and Garnacho (20 year old, inherited player)
RW: Amad (22 year old, inherited player) and Antony (inherited player)

So we do have multiple players per position in attack but that's a pretty meaningless fact - if we signed 10 CFs from non league, we'd have 12 CFs, it wouldn't mean we would score more goals. The bulk of these players are either very young, out of form or have injury issues. Ineos have made one signing in the forward line.
Click to expand...

It’s going to take time to sort out the finances, for everything to be sorted in terms of recruitment etc etc.

But in the meantime you don’t have to have a manager doing a terrible job and getting nothing right. ETH will not be the manager in 3-5 years time when hopefully the club is in better shape, whoever his successor is probably won’t be either.

But they have to make sure they have the best person possible managing the team because this isn’t fix and they need a balance between short tend longer term improvement.
 
tomaldinho1 said:
This is an Ineos specific thread...

You made a point about having two players per position, I replied to your post to show that having x, y or z players per position is meaningless. If we're judging Ineos we cannot do it now. You replied to my post which was pretty clear cut in what I was saying, if you need to refer back to it, feel free.
Click to expand...
Your points about selling squad players and deadwood as reasons why we aren't scoring goals is meaningless, which is why I replied.

But you take comfort in whatever helps you get by.
 
Roboc7 said:
It’s going to take time to sort out the finances, for everything to be sorted in terms of recruitment etc etc.

But in the meantime you don’t have to have a manager doing a terrible job and getting nothing right. ETH will not be the manager in 3-5 years time when hopefully the club is in better shape, whoever his successor is probably won’t be either.

But they have to make sure they have the best person possible managing the team because this isn’t fix and they need a balance between short tend longer term improvement.
Click to expand...
I think they're looking at Chelsea - Tuchel, Potter, Posh, Maresca and wondering if that is the route they want to take; churning through managers until something sticks. The financial ramifications are clearly not ideal paying off multiple managers, though there is a lot of talk about ETH's new deal coming with clauses.

I suspect, and like to be honest, the idea that they have come in and seem to be saying to everyone - we draw a line under everything previously, it's a fresh start but now you have to perform and so are likely looking at ETH now as someone under extreme pressure and will be speaking to other coaches they rate highly to understand if they are attainable. I would say how they are acting now, also makes us more attractive to prospective managers because they will clearly not just sack someone as soon as the wind changes, they have given ETH a fair crack. They are meeting tomorrow apparently and I do suspect he will be moved on assuming there is some sack clause in the new deal, there are enough available coaches to risk it in my opinion.
 
In long term, we don't have enough evidence to judge yet whether they will be successful. Hope they will be very successful.

In short term, there are lots of red flags and amauterish handling on the football side. Hope they learn quickly.

1) Took forever to decide to keep ETH
2) Went around Europe to interview managers and leaked to the medias
3) Panicked and went begging back ETH to stay by extending his contract. Unprecedented in proper big football club
4) Accept mediocre standards of keeping manager finishing 8th and no style of play at all with negative GD.
5) The signings of players looks suspect again either not suitable for PL or whatever style ETH is playing now. Didn't address the most pressing position, striker who can score goals.
6) Keeping a manager who is clearly out of his depth and currently have us at 14th place with ridiculous style of play who can't coach defence, midfield or attack.
7) Very reactive and slow to act as oppose to the PR machine churning out Ineos Team is efficient, ruthless and competent.
8) To date, didn't make clear what is the style of play these best in class people would like to implement in long term.
 
ShinjiNinja26 said:
Their decision on ETH will have a massive influence for me on whether I think they’re up to the job or not.
Click to expand...
This is where I'm at. If ETH is still in charge on 19th October, then serious questions need to be asked of the all-star executive cast they've assembled and their ambitions.
 
Fallon d'Floor said:
Your points about selling squad players and deadwood as reasons why we aren't scoring goals is meaningless, which is why I replied.

But you take comfort in whatever helps you get by.
Click to expand...
Thank you for the kind words, this doesn't check out though.

McT scored 10 goals last season and made 3 assists, even without him the guys who barely played had 6 goal involvements between them. That's not even including senior players who were at other clubs (Sancho, Greenwood who obviously raise that goal involvements number a huge amount). You can try and cherry pick the list to make your point, though I'm not sure you even have one you just seem angry, but it is a lot of players leaving in a concentrated area of the pitch that we have struggled in with on Zirkzee coming in.

In summary, you think that 8 attacking players leaving who between them scored/assisted 19 goals last season (not including those on loan) has zero bearing on our goal scoring this season. Right.
 
Fallon d'Floor said:
AMs; Martial, Sancho, VdB, Hannibal, Greenwood, Pellestri, McT, Forson...

With the exception of McTominay, the others are a non factor. They barely played over the past few years. Getting them off the books was a good thing. You could argue that Sancho's fee is actually a bit too low.

United have two players for each position in attack.

ST: Höjlund and Zirkzee
AM: Bruno and Mount + Eriksen can play there
LW: Rashford and Garnacho
RW: Amad and Antony + Garnacho can play there
Click to expand...

None of them would get in Arsenal, Liverpools or City’s teams . . .
 
tomaldinho1 said:
I think they're looking at Chelsea - Tuchel, Potter, Posh, Maresca and wondering if that is the route they want to take; churning through managers until something sticks. The financial ramifications are clearly not ideal paying off multiple managers, though there is a lot of talk about ETH's new deal coming with clauses.

I suspect, and like to be honest, the idea that they have come in and seem to be saying to everyone - we draw a line under everything previously, it's a fresh start but now you have to perform and so are likely looking at ETH now as someone under extreme pressure and will be speaking to other coaches they rate highly to understand if they are attainable. I would say how they are acting now, also makes us more attractive to prospective managers because they will clearly not just sack someone as soon as the wind changes, they have given ETH a fair crack. They are meeting tomorrow apparently and I do suspect he will be moved on assuming there is some sack clause in the new deal, there are enough available coaches to risk it in my opinion.
Click to expand...

They might be thinking that way but the financial ramifications are bad if you persist with this are huge as well. Chelsea are often referenced but what about Villa, they sacked their manager and look at them. Arsenal had to sack their manager to get Arteta, Liverpool to get Klopp and how much have all their finances improved because of it. I don’t know what Gettard, Emery, And Rodgers got as a payoff but it was a bargain.

Whatever is happening behind the scenes is going to take time but it’s also separate from the manager. You don’t know who will occupy the role as things come to fruition. In the meantime they need to make the best of what there is and ETH doesn’t look even remotely like being able to do that.
 
tomaldinho1 said:
Thank you for the kind words, this doesn't check out though.

McT scored 10 goals last season and made 3 assists, even without him the guys who barely played had 6 goal involvements between them. That's not even including senior players who were at other clubs (Sancho, Greenwood who obviously raise that goal involvements number a huge amount). You can try and cherry pick the list to make your point, though I'm not sure you even have one you just seem angry, but it is a lot of players leaving in a concentrated area of the pitch that we have struggled in with on Zirkzee coming in.

In summary, you think that 8 attacking players leaving who between them scored/assisted 19 goals last season (not including those on loan) has zero bearing on our goal scoring this season. Right.
Click to expand...
Like I said, McTominay aside. The rest are all non factors. They weren't going to get minutes.

A natural midfielder (Ugarte) was brought in to replace McTominay and Zirkzee was brought in to add goals/assists.

The rest haven't offered anything significant to United. Le rapist had been a non factor for a long time. He never played under ten Hag.

You could maybe argue that Sancho should have been given a 2nd chance, but that didn't happen. The club were happy to get his salary off the wage bill.

I don't think your point makes any sense.
 
I see the real boss is at Old Trafford today to meet with Ratcliffe and his Ineos media team
 
amolbhatia50k said:
Too early to tell.

But I don’t see us winning the league or CL till the 2030s and probably mid / second half that decade the way we are going. Ineos will stumble and fall before they get it right - if the do, that is.
Click to expand...
That’s exactly how I feel. It’ll be another 26 year wait for the league.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.