I agree with you. Odd man out has to go.
Dan "The Gardener" Ashworth Has Left | Venit, vidit, non vicit
- Thread starter Berbaclass
- Start date
I agree with you. Odd man out has to go.
You can dismiss this as ITK nonsense, but I have a friend who works closely with football agents and some football pundits so he sometimes gets the inside track on rumours, e.g. when we brought Sancho he mentioned it was well known he was a bit of a dickhead and it probably wouldn't work out. The thing that got me nervous was him mentioning how Southgate is the one United want before it was mentioned in the media. At first I was in in denial about it, then it started appearing in reports and wouldn't go away. All this stuff coming out about Ashworth now kind of confirms that he was the driving force behind United potentially ending up with Southgate.
Bullet dodged.
I'd suggest there is enough to get yourself wound up about that you needn't create imaginary scenarios in your head.
I wonder what Sir Jim said to him when he suggested Howe?
“So you’re saying after all the hassle getting you from Newcastle, that we should now go back to them cap in hand asking for their first team manager?”
Different clubs give that role very different responsibilities. We arguably had two people (Ashworth and Wilcox) doing what some clubs have just one person doing, so if Wilcox steps up and takes on some of what Ashworth was doing while Berrada takes on the rest (different clubs give the CEO different responsibilities as well so having one be a bit more involved in the football side is hardly unheard of) then it'll be fine in theory. Of course it depends on them being good enough, but that'll be the case regardless.
At the end of the day, if we decide not to replace Ashworth it does indicate that we did over-hire and had too many cooks (at least in the opinion of Berrada and the club).
It's been noticeable ever since INEOS took over that all the average and shit tier journalists and leaks have been heavily linking us to Southgate while all the better ones never mention him (indeed if I remember correctly in the summer one of the top ones straight up said that we had no interest in him at all). And that seems to have continued here.
It's always felt that Southgate was just used for easy clicks from easily riled fans. I'm not going to say it's certain, as there is a chance that Ashworth was pushing for him but everyone else at the club didn't want him, but I'd say that's the less likely scenario as types of managerial choice would surely have been a big question that INEOS would have asked before hiring him.
Perhaps it is a ruse to get an inside-man into Arsenal.
I completely agree. The most obvious name to mention if you wanna rile up some United fans.
A few decent journalists have mentioned that he suggested Southgate. I never bought that Southgate was a real possibility because I never believed the likes of Berrada would look at him and think he was capable of managing United. But the smoke was coming from somewhere and it makes sense that it was coming from Ashworth who is very close to Southgate.
For years we've been complaining about our club being too sentimental and too hesitant to take the tough decisions. We gave contract extensions to players who were not good enough and we kept trusting people who were incompetent. Therefore while we have to admit that firing a SD after just 5 months is a bit extreme we can't really complain about INEOS taking the tough decisions either.
However we must admit that Ashworth hiring and firing costed us millions at a time when tickets are going up and people are being fired. We should be asking who was the person who wanted Ashworth at the club and why is that person still at the club? Cause Accountability and ruthlessness shouldn't be reserved only to the the employees INEOS doesn't fancy. From persistent reports, Brailsford was the guy behind Ashworth. The guy was also behind the disastrous 22-23 season mess at Nice as well. INEOS keeps bragging about the need of specialized and experienced people doing the job and we all agree with that. However if that's the case then why is someone whose got no experience in football whatsoever being given a say on who should be our next manager or Sporting director?
Regarding the SD role, it sits at the top of the football pyramid and it makes sure that every department works efficiently as a team. Now I can sympatise with INEOS running out of funds having already given contract extensions/new contracts to people whom they fired few months later. That can be quite expensive. However that role must be filled either internally or externally. We can't have another Woodward situation were the guy is kept at the helm simply because his stupidity on football terms is compensated by the many sponsors he signs.
However we must admit that Ashworth hiring and firing costed us millions at a time when tickets are going up and people are being fired. We should be asking who was the person who wanted Ashworth at the club and why is that person still at the club? Cause Accountability and ruthlessness shouldn't be reserved only to the the employees INEOS doesn't fancy. From persistent reports, Brailsford was the guy behind Ashworth. The guy was also behind the disastrous 22-23 season mess at Nice as well. INEOS keeps bragging about the need of specialized and experienced people doing the job and we all agree with that. However if that's the case then why is someone whose got no experience in football whatsoever being given a say on who should be our next manager or Sporting director?
Regarding the SD role, it sits at the top of the football pyramid and it makes sure that every department works efficiently as a team. Now I can sympatise with INEOS running out of funds having already given contract extensions/new contracts to people whom they fired few months later. That can be quite expensive. However that role must be filled either internally or externally. We can't have another Woodward situation were the guy is kept at the helm simply because his stupidity on football terms is compensated by the many sponsors he signs.
Ornstein shut down the Southgate talk in the summer but the likes of Laurie Whitwell were saying that he did have admirers at United. Definitely was Ashworth and probably Brailsford too who are good friends with Southgate.
WHAT
Ever owned a business? Mistakes do happen in business and that too a messy one. Big deal. It was never gonna be smooth operation. We all admit that the club is rotten from inside and it needs a major surgery but as soon as something goes wrong during this recovery phase, the experts on here are up in arms at every minor error.
Yes, it was a mistake in hindsight but when it’s not working and all the parties are aligned in the same direction which was pretty clear ever since ten hag extension. What do you want then? Not sack and let the club suffer or accept the mistake and cut the cords?
One thing has become very clear to me that Jim ratcliffe is not wasting anytime and is being pretty ruthless with his decisions. I get the feeling that he knows that he doesn’t have that much time left and is in a hurry to get what he wants and won’t stop till he gets it. If that means hiring and firing people sometimes so be it. And believe it or not that kind of ruthlessness gives me hope.
Maybe because you don't move someone on at 8 o'clock in the evening.
Looks and spounds like jimbo had a tantrum and found his scapegoat.
Neither of which are true, but carry on drinking Jimbo's Koolaid.
Which also seems very odd because it was widely reported he didn’t even get on with Howe and was in-fact one of the main reasons for leaving Newcastle
There’s loads of speculation because nobody knows for sure what’s gone on. Falling out with SJR seems to be the top issue but I mean to fire somebody after 5 months, a guy well respected in his role who we waited months to appoint is still madness
I know how this will go.
He'll join, Arse do well, everyone slaps United for letting him go, who is Edu?
Seems to be being reported it's Jimbo and the cyclist.
Most don't split the role into transfer and infrastructure to be fair...
He’s widely regarded within the game and been successful with England, Brighton and Newcastle who didn’t want him to leave yet it’s our circus he’s not good enough for?
Find it hard to believe. The club is a complete farce the ownership has shown incompetence at every club they’ve managed. They’ve failed in Switzerland and France and headhunted this guy for months paying millions in compensation and now he’s gone it makes them and the club look ridiculous
Surely in the interview stage he must have put out his vision for the club it’s literally his entire job, if they wasn’t happy with his vision even if it’s brexit fc why in the hell hire him
Last edited:
Says who? You? Alexthelion?
The Athletic with high Tiered sources and journalists directly tied to United vs the Daily Mail right?
Chris Wheeler knows his stuff.
Who that is reliable?
A newbie ITK, whatever next
There's quite a few substantial reports saying that Southgate at one point was a candidate. It's only that he took a year out that we stopped being linked with him. Even then, the list of managers he suggested is uninspiring to say the least.
Well said, unfortunately those hard of thinking will ignore it.
Reputable journalists.
He's clearly got a source but his source only tends to give him one side of the story. So it does fit the narrative for an MUFC based source to suggest he wanted Southgate as it is an easy win with sections of the fanbase. The journalists with multiple sources have gone nowhere near it.
Arsenal are in a completely different position to Manchester United.
So if Jesus corroborated the myth that Ashworth wanted Southgate all along even 2000 years ago, can we then safely say that it’s not a myth anymore? Is Jesus to be considered an ITK on PL football?
You'll eat your words when I break some transfer target news in late December (twitter link in bio)!A newbie ITK, whatever next
(I felt stupid writing it)
I wonder what sir Jim asked him on the interview then, if not what are his ideas about new coach?
"Got many hoes eh laddy? In your garden that is."
That's the thing, everyone will ignore the work done by Edu and Arteta and just praise Ashworth for walking into a nearly finished project.
And the excuses start already
The idea that the big cheeses at United concocted a rumour that Ashworth wanted to hire Southgate to appease the United fans - because they hate Southgate so much they’ll forgive the sacking - is one of my favourite ever football conspiracies. Poor Darren. Wonder how that makes him feel?!?
A lot of nonsense on these threads because the only news we get is from Journos.
We have spent the past year keeping things from Journalists until the very last and still people believe everything that's printed.
Ashworth was never and will never be a transfer guru. His role as be describes it is basically tying the sporting side together.
I will be honest, I supported the hire but I along with everybody here and the majority of Journalists do not understand the remit.
Everybody I know plus on here was adamant that Ashworth was the transfer guru (he has never been).
Everybody I know plus on here thought that his role would remove manager power on transfers (that's not what Ashworth does and I mentioned this multiple times).
With regards the Director of Football role, Ashworth is the product of the England machine. He was instrumental in setting up the course for the FA, setting up the England infrastructure (he identified 3 at the back as a modern counter to Tiki Taka and GeGen press which were the current evolution of football, so would have had no issue with Ruben's 3-4-3 in theory.
The director of football role as defined by the FA vs the rest of world football is lacking massively. The director of football of a top club needs to have worldwide contacts and an eye for talent that can be top top talent. (This is not Asworth, he used Blooms database at Brighton, he was undermined at Newcastle, never had to sign a player for the FA.)
Ultimately the role we wanted Ashworth to do isn't the role Ashworth is good at, he has failed his probation period and been let go.
Even if he was all of those things and fit the role (most clubs don't split the role like Ashworths appointment does and a lot of the work he would be doing is already spread across the football hierarchy without him) the fact is that Ratcliffe was VERY public in identifying that our data analysis is in the stone age (it's common on the coaching circuit to hear talk of United being miles behind the times and sticking to old and proven rather than moving with the times) and Ashworth should have made that first priority seeing as it's been five months.
The other point that sticks out to me is the denial of support for Ten Hag staying on. People seem to be skirting over it as a hands tied type thing and what were they supposed to do. The point is touched on in a couple of the articles but basically they shouldn't have been doing that interview at that time it was too soon when there was plenty of work to be done. Berrarda seemingly caught flak too, but Ashworth carries a bit more experience and probably should have had a bit more self awareness.
Ratcliffe would have preferred that they said nothing or said everything, anything half assed would look bad. The Directors felt they were keeping United out of court where from what I am interpreting Ratcliffe thought the situation was ridiculous and essentially "we are Manchester United sod them all".
We have spent the past year keeping things from Journalists until the very last and still people believe everything that's printed.
Ashworth was never and will never be a transfer guru. His role as be describes it is basically tying the sporting side together.
I will be honest, I supported the hire but I along with everybody here and the majority of Journalists do not understand the remit.
Everybody I know plus on here was adamant that Ashworth was the transfer guru (he has never been).
Everybody I know plus on here thought that his role would remove manager power on transfers (that's not what Ashworth does and I mentioned this multiple times).
With regards the Director of Football role, Ashworth is the product of the England machine. He was instrumental in setting up the course for the FA, setting up the England infrastructure (he identified 3 at the back as a modern counter to Tiki Taka and GeGen press which were the current evolution of football, so would have had no issue with Ruben's 3-4-3 in theory.
The director of football role as defined by the FA vs the rest of world football is lacking massively. The director of football of a top club needs to have worldwide contacts and an eye for talent that can be top top talent. (This is not Asworth, he used Blooms database at Brighton, he was undermined at Newcastle, never had to sign a player for the FA.)
Ultimately the role we wanted Ashworth to do isn't the role Ashworth is good at, he has failed his probation period and been let go.
Even if he was all of those things and fit the role (most clubs don't split the role like Ashworths appointment does and a lot of the work he would be doing is already spread across the football hierarchy without him) the fact is that Ratcliffe was VERY public in identifying that our data analysis is in the stone age (it's common on the coaching circuit to hear talk of United being miles behind the times and sticking to old and proven rather than moving with the times) and Ashworth should have made that first priority seeing as it's been five months.
The other point that sticks out to me is the denial of support for Ten Hag staying on. People seem to be skirting over it as a hands tied type thing and what were they supposed to do. The point is touched on in a couple of the articles but basically they shouldn't have been doing that interview at that time it was too soon when there was plenty of work to be done. Berrarda seemingly caught flak too, but Ashworth carries a bit more experience and probably should have had a bit more self awareness.
Ratcliffe would have preferred that they said nothing or said everything, anything half assed would look bad. The Directors felt they were keeping United out of court where from what I am interpreting Ratcliffe thought the situation was ridiculous and essentially "we are Manchester United sod them all".
Even planted links in the press to him going far back as last season. Big brain move by INEOS.