Are you confident of success in the INEOS era?

[tomaldinho1]

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.

I'm definitely not advocating for simply sticking because it's a risk to change manager, more that I wonder if they want to get more signings in (and more out) and have much lower expectations for this season in particular given it is their first in charge.

I wonder if you offered them the same poor league finish but Antony, Case, Bruno, maybe Rashford, Shaw/Malacia/Mount if the injury problems persist all moving on in the summer for good fees and the younger players doing ok (let's say Rasmus, Zirkzee, Garnacho, Amad can all get double figures for combined goals/assists, Yoro/Ugarte bed in well etc.) if they are confident enough in their ability to then recruit another group of 5+ players to then really create something new. I'm wary of this just becoming an ETH thread but that is the only reason, right now, I think they could keep him (though I expect he will be fired tomorrow as said above).

Also, for examples sake, let's say Tuchel is their top choice. Does he really want to come in now? You come in and the fans/media say all these nice things about how he can have the season to settle but a bad loss and suddenly you're toast. Better to sign a contract now for 25/26, and just let ETH take all this crap + wait for the influential names listed above to get sold and come in fresh after that.

 

[tomaldinho1]

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.

You get you're cherry picking the list though, right?

'McT aside', well, he exists...as said the others who were here all chipped in with goals and assists throughout last season as well. I you think 8 attacking players leaving and 1 coming in is a complete non factor then that's what you think.

 

[Fallon d'Floor]

You get you're cherry picking the list though, right?

'McT aside', well, he exists...as said the others who were here all chipped in with goals and assists throughout last season as well. I you think 8 attacking players leaving and 1 coming in is a complete non factor then that's what you think.

Says the guy who says we're missing 19 goal contributions from 8 players, when the reality is that McTominay accounts for 13 of them. McTominay was replaced by Ugarte. And his goal contributions should be replaced by a natural attacker in Zirkzee. If he can't replicate 13 goals/assists over the season, that's a poor debut season.

You thought you did something. You didn't.

If anything, your logic makes INEOS look bad. But that's actually something good. Getting rid of deadwood. McTominay is the only significant loss from that list of players. Most fans were happy to see us move on from him anyway. He's useful if you play a certain brand of football. ten Hag will certainly miss him saving his bacon.

 

[Florida Man]

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.

Mostly in agreement with your posts on the matter but not this. To use Madrid as an example, their relentless sacking has never stopped big names from managing there, even when they weren’t winning everything in sight (hell, some of them managers even returned a second time after getting sacked). This has applied to many pro teams in NFL, NBA, MLB, maybe NHL too.

 

[stefan92]

To use Madrid as an example, their relentless sacking has never stopped big names from managing there, even when they weren’t winning everything in sight (hell, some of them managers even returned a second time after getting sacked).

There is a second part of this argument: Madrid sack quickly. Which means, being sacked by Madrid doesn't really tarnish your reputation. As long as you act professional about it and not cause unnecessary drama around it (so, not like Mourinho) the Madrid job is a free hit, even if you are not successful there it still would have been a great experience and you still would get the same offers afterwards than before. Same applies to other trigger-happy top clubs like Chelsea or Bayern (or better, applied to those two under Abramovich and Hoeneß' leadership, the chaos in recent years at both clubs doesn't help my argument to be honest ).

In comparison the United job much more feels like a graveyard for managers. As managers are kept on until everything feels really terrible they will have dents in their reputation when they are finally sacked. So keeping managers longer actually makes it harder to get top managers to sign for you, not easier as many would hope.

 

[Florida Man]

There is a second part of this argument: Madrid sack quickly. Which means, being sacked by Madrid doesn't really tarnish your reputation. As long as you act professional about it and not cause unnecessary drama around it (so, not like Mourinho) the Madrid job is a free hit, even if you are not successful there it still would have been a great experience and you still would get the same offers afterwards than before. Same applies to other trigger-happy top clubs like Chelsea or Bayern (or better, applied to those two under Abramovich and Hoeneß' leadership, the chaos in recent years at both clubs doesn't help my argument to be honest ).

In comparison the United job much more feels like a graveyard for managers. As managers are kept on until everything feels really terrible they will have dents in their reputation when they are finally sacked. So keeping managers longer actually makes it harder to get top managers to sign for you, not easier as many would hope.

Good point actually. The extended stay as opposed to the typical quick exit probably drives them insane in the end too. Might explain some of ETH’s odd decision making.

 

[Roboc7]

I'm definitely not advocating for simply sticking because it's a risk to change manager, more that I wonder if they want to get more signings in (and more out) and have much lower expectations for this season in particular given it is their first in charge.

I wonder if you offered them the same poor league finish but Antony, Case, Bruno, maybe Rashford, Shaw/Malacia/Mount if the injury problems persist all moving on in the summer for good fees and the younger players doing ok (let's say Rasmus, Zirkzee, Garnacho, Amad can all get double figures for combined goals/assists, Yoro/Ugarte bed in well etc.) if they are confident enough in their ability to then recruit another group of 5+ players to then really create something new. I'm wary of this just becoming an ETH thread but that is the only reason, right now, I think they could keep him (though I expect he will be fired tomorrow as said above).

Also, for examples sake, let's say Tuchel is their top choice. Does he really want to come in now? You come in and the fans/media say all these nice things about how he can have the season to settle but a bad loss and suddenly you're toast. Better to sign a contract now for 25/26, and just let ETH take all this crap + wait for the influential names listed above to get sold and come in fresh after that.

But what good is it bringing players into this mess, the team is in crisis so you can’t really assess any new signings and it’s a terrible environment for the youngsters.

The most unstable manager we can have at this time is ETH, if you want stability and to buy yourself time he is the worst candidate because he has no credit in the bank and is constantly on the verge of the sack. You remove him and you can at least sell you are progressing towards something and buy some time. It’s laughable to think that can be achieved with ETh as manager.

I have no idea if Tuchel would want it now, there are pros and cons of taking it now or at the end of the season, but our managers always get time so I don’t agree with the comments about the manager being toast. Spurs would have less patience and show less support for their manager than Utd. ETH would have been sacked by Spurs already for instance.

 

[Jock Steins Boots]

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.

Completely agree. This is the point I'm making, in that it's not as simple as just saying 'will Ineos bring success', there's too many layers to it.
People have to see the layers. What they have brought is what was needed at director/board level, a new structure and specific directors brought in. So from that perspective, they have been successful and laid a good foundation.

What will take time is the football side of things and as you point out, it's not going to happen in 3 months. It bugs me that people are getting on the new signings backs already. Give them time ffs, they've played 7 games, if that. They aren't all going to come into a squad and play like prime Messi from day one.

As for ETH, it's wrong to believe they are a failure right this minute, but if it stays like this for another 3 or 4 months and they still haven't done anything about him, then I think you can, at the very least, query their thinking.
Again, that's why I'm 50/50, it's all to early to say and I'm happy to wait and see what happens.

I understand the fans reactions and frustrations though, for most of them that frustration has been bubbling away for a decade and not just a few months, so they naturally want results right now. It's hard to be patient when the results aren't coming, so I get it.

 

[tomaldinho1]

Says the guy who says we're missing 19 goal contributions from 8 players, when the reality is that McTominay accounts for 13 of them. McTominay was replaced by Ugarte. And his goal contributions should be replaced by a natural attacker in Zirkzee. If he can't replicate 13 goals/assists over the season, that's a poor debut season.

You thought you did something. You didn't.

If anything, your logic makes INEOS look bad. But that's actually something good. Getting rid of deadwood. McTominay is the only significant loss from that list of players. Most fans were happy to see us move on from him anyway. He's useful if you play a certain brand of football. ten Hag will certainly miss him saving his bacon.

I don't know what your second paragraph means.

I'm not sure it makes them look bad, there was a clear emphasis on defence this window, which I think is correct.

I have no idea why you are struggling so much with this, your answer proves you don't get it. Take out McT if you want to cherry pick and we're still losing a large amount of attacking players who contributed in small amounts. Even take away all their goals, they covered for injuries and allowed rotation, something that is a huge part of today's game. I don't know if you just got defensive because your list of 'two attackers per position' ignored the actual quality of those players but feel free to disagree with me.

 

[tomaldinho1]

Mostly in agreement with your posts on the matter but not this. To use Madrid as an example, their relentless sacking has never stopped big names from managing there, even when they weren’t winning everything in sight (hell, some of them managers even returned a second time after getting sacked). This has applied to many pro teams in NFL, NBA, MLB, maybe NHL too.

I would agree with you if we were Real but, putting aside our love of United, we are hardly seen as a huge club in terms of what we can win anymore. The often overused term 'poison chalice' is brought up all the time with us and I think it was fair under the Glazers, I don't know how it will be with Ineos.

Think of Klopp, he had no interest in us after meeting Woodward - whilst the C suite is all new now, it's not like managers just drop everything for us nd we were more attractive back then.

 

[Fallon d'Floor]

I don't know what your second paragraph means.

I'm not sure it makes them look bad, there was a clear emphasis on defence this window, which I think is correct.

I have no idea why you are struggling so much with this, your answer proves you don't get it. Take out McT if you want to cherry pick and we're still losing a large amount of attacking players who contributed in small amounts. Even take away all their goals, they covered for injuries and allowed rotation, something that is a huge part of today's game. I don't know if you just got defensive because your list of 'two attackers per position' ignored the actual quality of those players but feel free to disagree with me.

I don't think you get it, and that's fine.

 

[tomaldinho1]

But what good is it bringing players into this mess, the team is in crisis so you can’t really assess any new signings and it’s a terrible environment for the youngsters.

The most unstable manager we can have at this time is ETH, if you want stability and to buy yourself time he is the worst candidate because he has no credit in the bank and is constantly on the verge of the sack. You remove him and you can at least sell you are progressing towards something and buy some time. It’s laughable to think that can be achieved with ETh as manager.

I have no idea if Tuchel would want it now, there are pros and cons of taking it now or at the end of the season, but our managers always get time so I don’t agree with the comments about the manager being toast. Spurs would have less patience and show less support for their manager than Utd. ETH would have been sacked by Spurs already for instance.

Not to make out ETH has done well but Spurs most certainly would not have sacked a manager for a 3rd place finish with the Carabao + then 8th place with the FA cup...

I didn't say they should no nothing though, it seems obvious to me the relationship between ETH and certain players has been soured + this season has started poorly. But I like to think, had we hired a new manager in the summer and they had started in the same manner, they would not just get canned immediately and there'd be some patience to at least get to this international break.

 

[quadrant]

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.

Indeed. I would love a new manager right now, but I totally recognise that being rushed into something could just cause more problems down the line.

The club are in the process of establishing a modern senior management structure, a good 5 to 10 years after most clubs finalised theirs. As weird as it sounds, bringing in the wrong manager could set that back. And I don't mean wrong as in unsuccessful on the pitch, I mean wrong as in someone who doesn't fit with the other roles being created and people being brought in. You don't want to spend 6 months getting the best of the best in scouting, medical or data analytics, only to have a manager come in that wants to do things in a different way and prompt those people to leave because their job roles just changed. We need to set the club up first and then find the best possible manager for it.

This is why, as much as I rate Tuchel on the pitch and while I would love him as a new manager, I can understand why they might not have come to an agreement last summer. It isnt because they think ETH is a better manager. Its because it could result in too much disruption over the fledgeling senior team they're putting together.

The continual failure of the club to pull in the same direction is why we've such a frankenstein of a squad. We need to set that direction first, then appoint the manager second. The seniors at the club may have priced in a bad season as the cost of getting things right.

Of course what's also true is that sometime events overtake you. I suspect United hoped that ETH could just have a quiet season, stay in the top race long enough to keep the noise quiet, maybe challenge for a cup. That would have allowed them to take their time to pick a new manager. But a point per game is clearly unsustainable, so they may be forced into a change. That may even mean compromising on the structure they're setting up, to some degree anyway. Such is life. But I can understand why they might have resisted the change for as long as they have.

 

[Redstain]

Starting to believe that Qatar would have been more decisive when it comes to engineering pivotal decisions.

INEOS failed the moment they let Erik continue beyond the summer, Ashworth hasn't facilitated an influence at a top club to date and Berrada despite being promising isn't Txiki Begiristain.

Management have to set the standard, giving a manager time to see what they can do isn't realistic when factoring the size of the club and the expectation commercially along with the resources at disposal.

 

[DJ_21]

I’ll be confident in them if they pull the plug tomorrow the latest.

 

[TheReligion]

Starting to believe that Qatar would have been more decisive when it comes to engineering pivotal decisions.

INEOS failed the moment they let Erik continue beyond the summer, Ashworth hasn't facilitated an influence at a top club to date and Berrada despite being promising isn't Txiki Begiristain.

Management have to set the standard, giving a manager time to see what they can do isn't realistic when factoring the size of the club and the expectation commercially along with the resources at disposal.

You would have been better a Chelsea fan and would have lapped up the utter chaos of Clearlake.

 

[Redstain]

You would have been better a Chelsea fan and would have lapped up the utter chaos of Clearlake.

Clearlake are a consortium, why would Qatar have any correlation when it comes making decisive decisions?

How can INEOS spending ample time at the end of last season commandeering for a managerial replacement only to change direction at the last not be considered chaotic.

As other reasonable spectators have picked up on in the media, you don't as a business begin deliberation to consult other managerial candidates then revert that decision when it's public knowledge to put a false sense of belonging with the present manager due to failed negotiations.

INEOS have subsequently put a structure around the manager, to alienate having a diversity of responsibilities limiting his influence to solely reflect that of a first team coach.

Therefore finding a replacement should be a more simplistic task compared to what's transpired conventionally beforehand as the new coach needs to align with the philosophy and ethos Wilcox highlighted as the club's intention moving further forward.

When you assess what is currently transpiring it is already a point of chaos, INEOS indecisions has created the present volatility around the current manager and first team.

Time isn't required when understanding the consensus of good and bad decisions. What INEOS have done concerning the manager is make bad decisions.

 

[TheReligion]

Clearlake are a consortium, why would Qatar have any correlation when it comes making decisive decisions?

How can INEOS spending ample time at the end of last season commandeering for a managerial replacement only to change direction at the last not be considered chaotic.

As other reasonable spectators have picked up on in the media, you don't as a business begin deliberation to consult other managerial candidates then revert that decision when it's public knowledge to put a false sense of belonging with the present manager due to failed negotiations.

INEOS have subsequently put a structure around the manager, to alienate having a diversity of responsibilities limiting his influence to solely reflect that of a first team coach.

Therefore finding a replacement should be a more simplistic task compared to what's transpired conventionally beforehand as the new coach needs to align with the philosophy and ethos Wilcox highlighted as the club's intention moving further forward.

When you assess what is currently transpiring it is already a point of chaos, INEOS indecisions has created the present volatility around the current manager and first team.

Time isn't required when understanding the consensus of good and bad decisions. What INEOS have done concerning the manager is make bad decisions.

The answer to the above has been repeatedly explained. I’m not doing it again.

 

[Marcus]

Tuesday is D-Day? Let's go.

 

[Redstain]

The answer to the above has been repeatedly explained. I’m not doing it again.

The answer has no relation to your response, you asserted that Qatar being decisive somehow corresponds to what Chelsea have experienced with Clearlake? I'm still failing to comprehend the relation unless you have a pre-conceived bias that anything Qatar would have done would have reflected the efforts Chelsea experienced with Clearlake.

INEOS in the summer were indecisive that is a fact, their respective actions confirm as such.

 

[United Hobbit]

Anyone else got a really bad feeling they're going to stick with him, and we will lose first game after international break, rinse and repeat

They won't want to have egg on their face after keeping him on in the summer when we all know he should have been thanked for the FA cup and sent on his way - since when did it become acceptable for a Manchester United manager to finish 8th, after multiple humiliations and woeful football?

 

[Fallon d'Floor]

Anyone else got a really bad feeling they're going to stick with him, and we will lose first game after international break, rinse and repeat

They won't want to have egg on their face after keeping him on in the summer when we all know he should have been thanked for the FA cup and sent on his way - since when did it become acceptable for a Manchester United manager to finish 8th, after multiple humiliations and woeful football?

Since Woodward left the club.

 

[TheReligion]

The answer has no relation to your response, you asserted that Qatar being decisive somehow corresponds to what Chelsea have experienced with Clearlake? I'm still failing to comprehend the relation unless you have a pre-conceived bias that anything Qatar would have done would have reflected the efforts Chelsea experienced with Clearlake.

INEOS in the summer were indecisive that is a fact, their respective actions confirm as such.

They were indecisive in your opinion. The reasoning for not getting rid of EtH have been repeated multiple times.

 

[Blood Mage]

There is just no feeling whatsoever that we're a club that's serious about winning things or even being competitive again. Ten Hag will be sacked in the coming months but seeing them dither over the decision for so long and being so calm about the state of the club's league position and statistics is damning.

 

[Redstain]

They were indecisive in your opinion. The reasoning for not getting rid of EtH have been repeated multiple times.

INEOS were indecisive based on their actions it's something that has transpired, which we can reflect on objectively not subjectively, many respectable outlets have echoed the same sentiment.

If the board continue to make choices culminating from similar endeavors to what they did in the summer it's your decision to deem it acceptable, however as of your original post, having a more critical assessment doesn't alleviate the disparity of Chelsea / Clearlake into proceedings. That's your pre-conceived notion that has little to no correspondence as the current circumstances doesn't point to INEOS being efficacious from the process in the summer.

 

[Tyrion]

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.

Agreed. It took decades for Glazers to screw up United and several years for FSG and Abu Dhabi to turn their clubs into contenders. The idea that a new club ownership should get 3 months to improve things is crazy.

I’ll be confident in them if they pull the plug tomorrow the latest.

Wow. Big 24 hours for them. If it happens on Wednesday, what will your take be?

 

[Fallon d'Floor]

Agreed. It took decades for Glazers to screw up United and several years for FSG and Abu Dhabi to turn their clubs into contenders. The idea that a new club ownership should get 3 months to improve things is crazy.

Wow. Big 24 hours for them. If it happens on Wednesday, what will your take be?

FSG aren't great owners, to be honest. They're not bad. But they're not that ambitious in terms of trophies. Klopp worked wonders for them. Michael Edwards too.

Abu Dhabi turned City into a serious team quickly. FA Cup winners after 3 seasons, then PL winners the following season, and so on.

 

[TheReligion]

INEOS were indecisive based on their actions it's something that has transpired, which we can reflect on objectively not subjectively, many respectable outlets have echoed the same sentiment.

If the board continue to make choices culminating from similar endeavors to what they did in the summer it's your decision to deem it acceptable, however as of your original post, having a more critical assessment doesn't alleviate the disparity of Chelsea / Clearlake into proceedings. That's your pre-conceived notion that has little to no correspondence as the current circumstances doesn't point to INEOS being efficacious from the process in the summer.

You post a lot of waffle skirting around things.

The reason why they didn’t get rid of Ten Hag in the summer we can reflect on objectively also. It’s out in the open. If you think that was indecision then fair enough.

You seem to have the notion that Qatari owners would have dealt with things much differently and suggest this would be a positive. That’s subjective and you have no evidence to support that.

What is objective is the fact Clearlake, much like Jassim, had no experience in football and as such proceeded in throwing money around at multiple managers and players until something stuck. This appears to be what you would have preferred, hence the point made.

 

[Cathy Ferguson]

Berrada and Ashworth are two great recruitments, but they should have replaced ETH in the summer.

 

[Redfrog]

Berrada and Ashworth are two great recruitments, but they should have replaced ETH in the summer.

If they don’t sack the manager, I will doubt that.

 

[DJ_21]

Wow. Big 24 hours for them. If it happens on Wednesday, what will your take be?

If it’s gonna happen it will be tomorrow after this meeting. Unless the meeting lasts up until midnight Wednesday morning.

 

[Roboc7]

Not to make out ETH has done well but Spurs most certainly would not have sacked a manager for a 3rd place finish with the Carabao + then 8th place with the FA cup...

I didn't say they should no nothing though, it seems obvious to me the relationship between ETH and certain players has been soured + this season has started poorly. But I like to think, had we hired a new manager in the summer and they had started in the same manner, they would not just get canned immediately and there'd be some patience to at least get to this international break.

He wouldn’t have made it through last season at Spurs, would have been long gone before the Cup Final.

No manager has to worry about patience at Utd, if Tuchel or anyone else doesn’t want the job it won’t be down to a lack of time given to managers.

 

[Redstain]

You seem to have the notion that Qatari owners would have dealt with things much differently and suggest this would be a positive. That’s subjective and you have no evidence to support that.

You seem to have trouble with comprehension as your superimposing your own conjecture into my reasoning.

Everything I said had nothing to do with outcomes, again that's your subjective detraction from the conversation. I stated that my belief that "Qatar would have been more decisive when it comes making pivotal decisions" in business being decisive is a necessity to being successful.

To make it more simple for you, if INEOS went with an unknown quantity like Mckenna and it failed there's more grounds to believe in their operation because they would have hired a manager on perceivable value while the said coach in question has to deliver the intrinsic means. That is a deliverable with every successful club, it points to a clear strategy where an individual is hired in respect to the ethos / philosophy the club (Wilcox specifically) acknowledges.

Instead what we have is Jim Ratcliffe the superior to the CEO, technical director and sporting director at no point since his infancy at Manchester United giving any declaration to if he has confidence in the current manager neither if he's the leading individual to reinvigorate the project he has personally invested into. That stipulation played out into the summers occurrence and the managerial situation became a debacle with Erik himself after the domestic final admitting to the BBC he had no understanding of his future involvement at the club.

The issue with INEOS is the attribute of their conduct, an attribute is inherent to characteristics so we aren't measuring outcomes we are defining processes. This is an area valid of criticism when looking at things from a critical standpoint, not a naive takeaway where actions and decisions can't be evaluated.

What is objective is the fact Clearlake, much like Jassim, had no experience in football and as such proceeded in throwing money around at multiple managers and players until something stuck. This appears to be what you would have preferred, hence the point made.

Once again when digressing that Qatar would be more decisive what relation does the definition of being decisive have with what Clearlake are doing? You unintelligibly have made an intersection between Qatar and Chelsea on the premise of a basis I don't understand.

Additionally, to your point at throwing money around at multiple managers until something sticks, is this not the natural concourse when a club is attempting to find a successful manager? You' have aggrandized Chelsea into this position like it's unique to football, the only difference between them and others is a shorter time frame between coaches. Even though this is your own conjecture not my own but I'll entertain the thought, how many managers did Liverpool go through until they attained Klopp, same for Madrid with Zidane or what Barcelona are presently doing?

Unless your in the camp that thinks a good hierarchy will normalize the constraints of an incompetent coach, if Erik is sacked INEOS are already 250 million into the very same process your astutely degrading Chelsea for.

 

[TheReligion]

You seem to have trouble with comprehension as your superimposing your own conjecture into my reasoning.

Everything I said had nothing to do with outcomes, again that's your subjective detraction from the conversation. I stated that my belief that "Qatar would have been more decisive when it comes making pivotal decisions" in business being decisive is a necessity to being successful.

To make it more simple for you, if INEOS went with an unknown quantity like Mckenna and it failed there's more grounds to believe in their operation because they would have hired a manager on perceivable value while the said coach in question has to deliver the intrinsic means. That is a deliverable with every successful club, it points to a clear strategy where an individual is hired in respect to the ethos / philosophy the club (Wilcox specifically) acknowledges.

Instead what we have is Jim Ratcliffe the superior to the CEO, technical director and sporting director at no point since his infancy at Manchester United giving any declaration to if he has confidence in the current manager neither if he's the leading individual to reinvigorate the project he has personally invested into. That stipulation played out into the summers occurrence and the managerial situation became a debacle with Erik himself after the domestic final admitting to the BBC he had no understanding of his future involvement at the club.

The issue with INEOS is the attribute of their conduct, an attribute is inherent to characteristics so we aren't measuring outcomes we are defining processes. This is an area valid of criticism when looking at things from a critical standpoint, not a naive takeaway where actions and decisions can't be evaluated.



Once again when digressing that Qatar would be more decisive what relation does the definition of being decisive have with what Clearlake are doing? You unintelligibly have made an intersection between Qatar and Chelsea on the premise of a basis I don't understand.

Additionally, to your point at throwing money around at multiple managers until something sticks, is this not the natural concourse when a club is attempting to find a successful manager? You' have aggrandized Chelsea into this position like it's unique to football, the only difference between them and others is a shorter time frame between coaches. Even though this is your own conjecture not my own but I'll entertain the thought, how many managers did Liverpool go through until they attained Klopp, same for Madrid with Zidane or what Barcelona are presently doing?

Unless your in the camp that thinks a good hierarchy will normalize the constraints of an incompetent coach, if Erik is sacked INEOS are already 250 million into the very same process your astutely degrading Chelsea for.

I don’t intend to read all of that given your condescending, know it all, tone.

Shoehorning long words in to your posts in attempts to sound smart isn’t a good look either.

 

[Winrar]

I've seen arguments that sacking ETH is risky for INEOS because we don't know if the next manager is going to be successful, but I would submit that their inaction is just as risky, if not more in allowing the negativity surrounding ETH to fester by keeping him well past the point where he would've been sacked at pretty much any other club not fighting relegation.

 

[gaffs]

I've seen arguments that sacking ETH is risky for INEOS because we don't know if the next manager is going to be successful, but I would submit that their inaction is just as risky, if not more in allowing the negativity surrounding ETH to fester by keeping him well past the point where he would've been sacked at pretty much any other club not fighting relegation.

It is no more or less risky for INEOS than any other board.

Agree though. Letting ETH stay and it be up and down for the rest of the season is no help to anyone.

 

[pocco]

I've seen arguments that sacking ETH is risky for INEOS because we don't know if the next manager is going to be successful, but I would submit that their inaction is just as risky, if not more in allowing the negativity surrounding ETH to fester by keeping him well past the point where he would've been sacked at pretty much any other club not fighting relegation.

Keep ETH - Highly likely to be a poor season. That has been proven. The riskiest option.

Hire an interim manager - Could settle things, could continue to be bad or could be great. With the right due diligence, this outcome could be influenced.

Hire a new permanent manager - Probably wouldn't be their ideal option in terms of available candidates, but given there was no ideal option last summer when there were a lot of coaches available, and Klopp and Pep are a no-go, then I don't see when this ideal option will be there for the foreseeable. Hiring a better permanent manager is the best option in the long run, and would bring the most calm as it would seem like it's part of some longer term process. Much like the interim option it could go one of a few ways initially, but again, some due diligence and thorough talks with the candidates could help to make the best choice.

This is my view of the whole thing. Basically keeping ETH is by far the worst option logically. The only reason it makes sense is if we simply can't afford to sack him. But that is a bigger issue in that case.

 

[gaffs]

I'm definitely not advocating for simply sticking because it's a risk to change manager, more that I wonder if they want to get more signings in (and more out) and have much lower expectations for this season in particular given it is their first in charge.

I wonder if you offered them the same poor league finish but Antony, Case, Bruno, maybe Rashford, Shaw/Malacia/Mount if the injury problems persist all moving on in the summer for good fees and the younger players doing ok (let's say Rasmus, Zirkzee, Garnacho, Amad can all get double figures for combined goals/assists, Yoro/Ugarte bed in well etc.) if they are confident enough in their ability to then recruit another group of 5+ players to then really create something new. I'm wary of this just becoming an ETH thread but that is the only reason, right now, I think they could keep him (though I expect he will be fired tomorrow as said above).

Also, for examples sake, let's say Tuchel is their top choice. Does he really want to come in now? You come in and the fans/media say all these nice things about how he can have the season to settle but a bad loss and suddenly you're toast. Better to sign a contract now for 25/26, and just let ETH take all this crap + wait for the influential names listed above to get sold and come in fresh after that.

How does Tuchel, or any other manager, know he will get that luxuary.

Plus, any new manager is going to get time. If a new man comes in and takes a couple of beatings, then it is understandable. No one is expecting miracles from the off. Just signs of life, which we are not seeing from ETH.

 

[Tyrion]

FSG aren't great owners, to be honest. They're not bad. But they're not that ambitious in terms of trophies. Klopp worked wonders for them. Michael Edwards too.

Abu Dhabi turned City into a serious team quickly. FA Cup winners after 3 seasons, then PL winners the following season, and so on.

FSG deserve credit for recruiting them though. I do think Liverpool fans give them too little credit. INEOS won the FA Cup within a couple of months so they've got that at least.

If it’s gonna happen it will be tomorrow after this meeting. Unless the meeting lasts up until midnight Wednesday morning.

Ah I see. I thought you made it the deadline just out of the usual football fan short termism.

 

[Insanity]

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?

I meant their other sports businesses/operations. I have no idea about their other businesses. The first time I heard of Jimmy and INEOS was when he/they bid for Chelsea after everything was practically done.

As for the logic of Arsenal and Liverpool's ownerships were broken clocks too, that can be applied to anyone. We can also say that maybe eventually the Glazers would have got it right too.

I am merely saying that their track record so far hasn't been stellar with regards to sporting ventures. The two football clubs have not gone anywhere under their ownership. There is no precedent of them getting it right. All they have going for them right now is that they are not the Glazers. Although, on the big managerial decision they have dithered worse than them.