Who are we sacking next then? It's like the apprentice.
Dan "The Gardener" Ashworth Has Left | Venit, vidit, non vicit
- Thread starter Berbaclass
- Start date
Explain to me exactly how else it reads?
Some of you really need to wake up and look at the reality of what is happening rather than constantly stretching to put a spin on every blatantly daft or just plain wrong thing Ratcliffe does.
Just in the past week there's been 3 things where if his name was Glazer you'd all want to have his head.
Indeed, cutthroat arseholes are often wildly successful.
Director of Football decides the style of play and brings in an appropriate coach. That ensures continuity. If we hired a new coach without his blessing then he's totally pointless.
If you're company is in crisis you'd want someone to come in amd sack half of you and publicly state the rest of you are rubbish? Hire his own peoole and then almost immediately start sacking them?
Honestly what the feck are some of you on about? It's just bizarre at this point
Maz, Yoro and Ugarte are good signings that most coaches can work with, don't think anyone would dispute that. De Ligt and Zirkzee not so much, they are not fitting into Amorim's system well at all so far.
Reading the Athletic article, Ratcliffe just across as a prick and not a competent one either.
Being annoyed at Ashworth and Berrada for saying they had no involvement in the Ten Hag extension seems incredibly petty. They were both still on gardening leave when the decision was made. Obviously, we all know they were involved, but they're not gonna just admit to breach of contract in a published interview.
Clearly didn't do his due diligence on Ashworth either. Why was he so eager to bring him in? Seems like he went for him solely because he was a big name (where have we seen that before?)
Mistakes happen and I'm hopeful this is just a blip, but he just comes across as an overbearing dinosaur. Needs to take a step back and leave the football decisions to the football people.
Being annoyed at Ashworth and Berrada for saying they had no involvement in the Ten Hag extension seems incredibly petty. They were both still on gardening leave when the decision was made. Obviously, we all know they were involved, but they're not gonna just admit to breach of contract in a published interview.
Clearly didn't do his due diligence on Ashworth either. Why was he so eager to bring him in? Seems like he went for him solely because he was a big name (where have we seen that before?)
Mistakes happen and I'm hopeful this is just a blip, but he just comes across as an overbearing dinosaur. Needs to take a step back and leave the football decisions to the football people.
Last edited:
It's coping plain and simple. A lot of posters would just prefer to put a positive spin on the grim situation the club finds itself in. Ineos have had a disastrous start.
Sometimes, you don't need 5 months to know if a person suitable for the job or not; even after a long scout.
Like i said, just do whatever it takes. There will be mistakes, but I'd want someone that can be decisive.
Cruising along for 10 years for a big Club like United is unacceptable. There needs to be a shake up.
Last edited:
It reads in a lot of ways because it's a very long article. It covers a number of things that point to Ashworth showing himself to not be the right man.
To say that the only thing that it paints is "Ratcliffe being a spoilt billionaire" is just drenched in preconceived notions and an eagerness to push that narrative.
The Glazers left the wrong man running the club for years of failure because he was their guy.
delete
I don’t know where folks on here work or have worked before, but these kinds of exits are pretty common. I know football is a little different but generally businesses don’t want to fall into sunk cost fallacy and if there is early signs of misalignment with someone at a high level, no matter how much it seemed like a good idea to hire them, it is the best course of action to quickly go in separate ways. For the average worker, training and directives and performance management can all happen and realign to what the business needs, but for higher levels, you’re paying them a lot of money so they can make the big calls and take the right decisions, often with incomplete information where they’re making bets based on their experience and unique thought process. You don’t train that into someone easily. If it becomes clear that they can drift the organization over time from where it needs to be, quick and swift exit is the normal course of action.
Also, we’d be a terribly run business if we do share exactly all the reasons, G Nev is being weird again.
Also, we’d be a terribly run business if we do share exactly all the reasons, G Nev is being weird again.
Yeah that article doesn't paint Ashworth in a good light to me. Him wanting PL experience as the main factor for a manager to succeed ETH tells you everything.
It's harsh, but getting rid of him now was a good decision.
Yes. Very.
I could see where a DOF may prioritize a particular style of play which would influence which coach is hired, but not the actual formation a coach uses. But I suppose that's besides the point since it was actually Barrada who did all the heavy lifting to negotiate the Amorim switch with Sporting execs.
I get where Neville is coming from here, but it's also incredibly naive on his part. They're hardly gonna come out and say "yeah we thought he was a load of old toss so decided to get rid" are they?
Football clubs never explain these decisions. It's always left to journalists to discern the reasons why.
Last edited:
Sacked for a lack of wokeness.
Don't buy the story about Ashworth not liking the 3-4-3. Great players should be able to adapt to multiple systems. No player should only be capable of playing in one system. If we were targeting system specific players then Ashworth wasn't good at his job.
INEOS acting swiftly and ruthlessly when they don't think something is working is actually a great sign for the club. They weren't too proud to admit they made a mistake and they course corrected.
If it's true that Ashworth is the one who advised Ratcliffe to keep Ten Hag then that is a fireable offense. It was a HUGE mistake and set the club back 12-18 months.
INEOS have been ruthless at Nice..6 permanent managers in 6 years.
The players should be worried. I look forward to it.
INEOS acting swiftly and ruthlessly when they don't think something is working is actually a great sign for the club. They weren't too proud to admit they made a mistake and they course corrected.
If it's true that Ashworth is the one who advised Ratcliffe to keep Ten Hag then that is a fireable offense. It was a HUGE mistake and set the club back 12-18 months.
INEOS have been ruthless at Nice..6 permanent managers in 6 years.
The players should be worried. I look forward to it.
Just for that number: it doesn't mean much. Two of them left for a bigger club, and might possibly successfully have stayed longer if they hadn't. For example, if Galtier had stayed and been successful (and not be a racist) he might still have been coach now, and it would have been 2 permanent coaches in 6 years (and 1 caretaker, I think).
Really wasn't expecting to read this, particularly after how long we waited and spent to get him. Seems that is now more money down the drain sadly. Hopefully we can bring in his replacement quicker this time round, as it would be nice to actually have a transfer window with them actually appointed.
I may have missed something, but he didn't say Ineos were wrong to fire Ashworth. He merely mentioned that the club needs to be forthcoming with why the sacking happened because the 2 liner that club put out on firing a guy they chased for almost a year makes no sense and just fuels mad speculation, which is already happening among fans and media alike. Everyone is running their own ITK stories.
Or it could indicate a very owner-centered structure with little power or authority for the rest?
I have idea why Dan was sacked, but the only theory that makes any sense to me is that he was not on board with bringing in Amorim.
Which of the players bought in the summer that will perform better in 4-3-3 but not in 3-4-2-1? The shit ones are still shit, the good ones are still good in both formations.
What if we've specifically sacked Ashworth because Txiki Begiristain has become available?
There's no actual evidence of that anywhereHe wanted Southgate
Trying to be positive if we've recognized that Ashworth wasn't a good signing is good we've moved on soon.
Reading all the notes about him being responsible for keeping ten Hag, signing Zirkzee and trying to replace ten Hag with Southgate and Howie. Maybe they're putting all the charges on the dead man but feck it's like every bad called we've made was decided by him.
We're the laughing stock of Europe, even Chelsea got it together before us. Ineos is not looking any more competent than the Glazers if anything we've fallen deeper.
My only hope is Amorim seems like a true world-class potential manager, if given the proper players I think he can make us compete. Just hope we don't turn on him before he has the chance to build his squad which won't take less than 4-6 windows seeing how many shit players we have and how few seem to adapt to his system.
Reading all the notes about him being responsible for keeping ten Hag, signing Zirkzee and trying to replace ten Hag with Southgate and Howie. Maybe they're putting all the charges on the dead man but feck it's like every bad called we've made was decided by him.
We're the laughing stock of Europe, even Chelsea got it together before us. Ineos is not looking any more competent than the Glazers if anything we've fallen deeper.
My only hope is Amorim seems like a true world-class potential manager, if given the proper players I think he can make us compete. Just hope we don't turn on him before he has the chance to build his squad which won't take less than 4-6 windows seeing how many shit players we have and how few seem to adapt to his system.
I won't call all signings that aren't living up to expectations as made for Ten Hag. I was merely referring to the decision - was it just because the manager can work with them or was it because the club actually needed them? For example: to me Malacia wasn't a signing tailored for only Ten Hag because the club desperately needed a left back and any manager could have used him. Shaw was always injured and Malacia a good young talent to have as a backup (until he himself got injured, unfortunately but that is outside of club's control). Did Ten Hag want Malacia? most likely yes, he knew the player inside out, but he's a player the club could use regardless of manager. Maz has found himself in a similar position, even if he wasn't this good, I'd still call him a good signing because the club needed him.
De Ligt and Zirkzee seemed to me like the players Ten Hag knew about and could use, so we went ahead and sign them. Did the club actually need them? I don't know - we had so many CBs already and we surely needed a more experienced striker than Hojlund, not another potential. And to make it more confusing, it turns out Zirkzee is more like a 10 but we have Bruno, Mount, Eriksen, Amad, and to a certain extent Mainoo in that position. And what's even more confusing is someone agreed to spend decent money on them knowing the manager had a big question mark as whether he'd continue after the season or gets sacked in the middle of it. As for the reports, the mirror doesn't strike me as a very reliable source. I'm not trying to blame Ten Hag but it's hard to imagine him not having a say on dutch talents as he has an extensive knowledge about them and the connection. And to be fair, Ten Hag had a history of filling in a position with a player, that looked like only him can make it work, namely Weghorst as a defensive striker.
That's why I like Amorim. His system allows the club to replace players easier. Because their role is clear in relation to the system. None of these "striker but defensive and hard working, no goal", "winger but can't beat his man but has good work rate". Seems very hard to replicate by other people.
Last edited:
Thanks. Useful to know.
I thought we were onto something because he seemed to be a great DOF. What next?
Yeah I'd argue the only player really that fits better in a 4231/433 is probably Bruno. The rest are either crap in both or good in both
I've had this thought too. Probably also because they think there's a very realistic chance of getting Pep next season? But it's a very long shot and very very harsh and unfair on Amorim and why I think it's not going to happen.
Will be interesting to see who we go for next. This firing just 5 months into his tenure after such a publicized chasing of him for 6 months is not a good look for the club at all. And to think I put so much trust into this so called new leadership team. What an utter shambles.
The Daily Star has excelled itself again with it’s headlining “Ashworth frogmarched out of Old Trafford “. 
It turns out that the MEN’s venerable hack Samuel “Sam” Luckhurst was lurking around the car park in anticipation of a juicy snippet from Dan. Unfortunately, Dan was apparently escorted from the premises by chief operating officer Colette (no flies on Colette) Roche, not by the directors entrance but in anticipation of the lurking “man on the spot” Sam and his ilk, via another exit. Clearly irked by this, when big Sam was urged to dish the goss by a fellow hack from the Star, replied “he was perhaps frogmarched out “ and that was good enough for the Star.
Credit to Colette for the one-woman frogmarch goes without saying.
It turns out that the MEN’s venerable hack Samuel “Sam” Luckhurst was lurking around the car park in anticipation of a juicy snippet from Dan. Unfortunately, Dan was apparently escorted from the premises by chief operating officer Colette (no flies on Colette) Roche, not by the directors entrance but in anticipation of the lurking “man on the spot” Sam and his ilk, via another exit. Clearly irked by this, when big Sam was urged to dish the goss by a fellow hack from the Star, replied “he was perhaps frogmarched out “ and that was good enough for the Star.
Credit to Colette for the one-woman frogmarch goes without saying.
Last edited:
That point of Ratcliffe getting angry when Ashworth suggested bringing in a data company to evaluate ETH replacements makes Ratcliffe seem more like an old man bumbling how great things were in the old days.
How is Ashworth expected to do data analysis on key metrics without the necessary data?
If it’s true, I am more concerned that Ratcliffe is unnecessarily more hands-on than what was required.
I've had this thought too. Probably also because they think there's a very realistic chance of getting Pep next season? But it's a very long shot and very very harsh and unfair on Amorim and why I think it's not going to happen.
Will be interesting to see who we go for next. This firing just 5 months into his tenure after such a publicized chasing of him for 6 months is not a good look for the club at all. And to think I put so much trust into this so called new leadership team. What an utter shambles.
I mean, sometimes you appoint people and it doesn’t work out? Better going separate ways early than keeping it going just for the sake of it. I’d rather they’re decisive about remedying errors than prodding along just because they’re afraid to admit a mistake.
Also, reports that the dude advocated for Ten Hag and wanted Southgate - he must have been on uncut colombiana
I meant he should have led Rudd take us until winter break. We were doing quite well under him.
The milk I just put in my tea has gone off. Now I really wish I'd drunk that pint of bleach instead.