Dan "The Gardener" Ashworth Has Left | Venit, vidit, non vicit

[gulli_G]

There is zero evidence keeping ETH was "his decision" - I find it very hard to believe considering he wasn't even in his role at the time.

Back when it was announced that ETH was staying, reports were that Wilcox wanted him sacked but Brailsford was the loud voice in the room advocating for him to be kept on.

Of course, months later when both ETH and Ashworth were sacked, the club briefed the press that Ashworth was the one behind it, conveniently laundering all responsibility for the fiasco.

Brailsford is the reason Ashworth was hired, I find it difficult to believe they didn't discuss ETH during the infamous review and Ashworth wasn't consulted.

 

[Big Ben Foster]

Brailsford is the reason Ashworth was hired, I find it difficult to believe they didn't discuss ETH during the infamous review and Ashworth wasn't consulted.

He probably was consulted, and maybe even shared some opinions, seeing as he was kept in the loop during his gardening leave. But given that he wasn't fully in his role yet, I very much doubt he was making critical decisions at that time.

It's very convenient for the club to blame him now.

 

[Chief123]

Put us back at least 2 summer transfer windows. Our January activity was greatly affected by the big spend in summer.

I think the focus on the summer window just gone by is a bit over exaggerated. If anything, this summer was probably one of our better windows. Other than Zirkzee, the rest of the signings have been decent. It’s the previous windows that have been the serious damage.

 

[Dannn411]

Brailsford is the reason Ashworth was hired, I find it difficult to believe they didn't discuss ETH during the infamous review and Ashworth wasn't consulted.

Very correct. He absolutely would have been given an opinion on Ten Hag and that opinion would have been given prime consideration by the bosses. Did he make the decision? no but I have no doubt in my mind he was in the "Ten Hag in" camp and his opinion carried major weight in the final decision.

 

[Big Ben Foster]

Very correct. He absolutely would have been given an opinion on Ten Hag and that opinion would have been given prime consideration by the bosses. Did he make the decision? no but I have no doubt in my mind he was in the "Ten Hag in" camp and his opinion carried major weight in the final decision.

Again, based on what? If he wasn't yet in his role and therefore didn't have complete information on the matter (yes, he had communication with the club during his gardening leave, but that's not the same as being fully in the role), why would his opinion on such a critical decision carry major weight?

 

[Dannn411]

Again, based on what? If he wasn't yet in his role and therefore didn't have complete information on the matter (yes, he had communication with the club during his gardening leave, but that's not the same as being fully in the role), why would his opinion on such a critical decision carry major weight?

Because he was going to be in charge in a few months. If you are appointed as the leader of an organisation and months to your start date, a major decision affecting said organisation is about to be taken, would they run it by you or not? And would they take your opinion into account or not? To me its pretty obvious he would be involved in that Ten Hag decision one way or the other.

 

[Redstain]

Whether you think he's good or don't rate him either way it reflects poorly on Ineos. He is well known in the football circles so they should have known exactly what they were getting, if they didn't then it shows incompetence on their part. Such a pointless waste of money whichever way you look at it and from an executive perspective when considering the financial constraints, just very poor decision making by the management.

Exactly, it demonstrates some of the worst planning I can recall for an enterprise as big as INEOS is.

Irrespective of Ashworth's supposed recommendations, no one will convince me that Southgate wouldn't have been a better hire when you assess the feasibility of this teams adaptation to incorporate different systems and philosophical approaches. When you compound this with the very poor summer that's already being briefed due to PSR there's a very realistic notion where Amorim won't ever have the opportunity to get off the ground.

Sir Jim, Barrada and Wilcox it's looking like a failure thus far. No confidence in the lot of them, they have demonstrated no ability to use foresight given the direction the club is heading in.

 

[Big Ben Foster]

Exactly, it demonstrates some of the worst planning I can recall for an enterprise as big as INEOS is.

Irrespective of Ashworth's supposed recommendations, no one will convince me that Southgate wouldn't have been a better hire when you assess the feasibility of this teams adaptation to incorporate different systems and philosophical approaches. When you compound this with the very poor summer that's already being briefed due to PSR there's a very realistic notion where Amorim won't ever have the opportunity to get off the ground.

Sir Jim, Barrada and Wilcox it's looking like a failure thus far. No confidence in the lot of them, they have demonstrated no ability to use foresight given the direction the club is heading in.

For now I have confidence in Wilcox - he seemed to be on the right side of some of the major decisions that were made, and by all accounts was the driving force behind ETH switching to a more pragmatic approach at the end of last season when results improved and we won the FA Cup.

 

[gulli_G]

I think the focus on the summer window just gone by is a bit over exaggerated. If anything, this summer was probably one of our better windows. Other than Zirkzee, the rest of the signings have been decent. It’s the previous windows that have been the serious damage.

While I agree, I still think if Ruben was Insitu, we would have bought different players, apart from maybe Mazraoui and Yoro. Ruben has said in the past he prefers Alonso types over Casimero types in midfield, so even Ugarte would not have been his first choice.

 

[davidmichael]

People can speculate on rumours from before Ashworth started but what was reported by respected journalists is that Brailsford was the one that pushed hard to keep ETH, Brailsford is a fecking cycling coach who got close to Ratcliffe through the Ineos cycling team and has zero knowledge in football.

Ashworth’s job was to decide on a long term philosophy and way of playing from the first team down to the academies and as Sporting Director it was his job to find a new head coach after ETH was fired, it was reported that Ashworth wanted Howe or Frank or if they weren’t available immediately then Potter as an interim because they all fit how Ashworth had planned for our identity.

What is fact is that Berrada pushed hard for Amorim to come in even though as CEO he shouldn’t have any input into it as he’s an executive director and non footballing person whilst Ashworth was in Ratcliffe’s own words the “head of the footballing department” yet within hours of ETH being fired Berrada was on a plane to Portugal and even though Amorim didn’t want to come until the summer and in his own words was told now or never.

Within no time at all after Amorim came in Ashworth had left by mutual consent and no one knows for sure why but the reports that were obvious club briefings for their spin was Ashworth went because he wanted to keep ETH and paid the price for this as firing ETH was such an obvious choice and Brailsford as a director rather than an expendable part of the staff escaped any blame.

Since then we’ve seen all the reports of Ashworth being against Amorim coming in as he saw how Amorim was married to his system which went against how Ashworth had planned for us to play but also we neither had the players to play Amorim’s system or the money to bring the players to fit the system in either but the club went with what Berrada wanted and brought Amorim in against Ashworth’s advice.

Reading between the lines Ashworth was brought in to head up the footballing department and publicly called “best in class” for his job role yet had Brailsford go over his head with keeping ETH when Ashworth wanted Howe or Frank then Berrada did the same in bringing in Amorim so why stay at the club when his job is taken away from him by non footballing people and those above him ignore his advice ?

Would we better with Ashworth being the one that is listened too regarding footballing matters ? We’ll never know but he was brought in to head up the footballing department after a very public saga and publicly called “best in class” to implement a structure and an on pitch identity then when it came down to doing his job and making decisions he had non footballing directors taking those decisions away for their own choices.

Ashworth may not have worked out in the short or long term BUT he IS a footballing person with experience in the role he was brought in to do and we’ve spent years going crazy over non footballing directors who have no right to make footballing choices running things yet here we are again repeating the same mistakes then wondering why it’s all going so badly, much like Woodward and Arnold neither of Brailsford or Berrada have any right in making footballing decisions.

 

[Happy Head]

People can speculate on rumours from before Ashworth started but what was reported by respected journalists is that Brailsford was the one that pushed hard to keep ETH, Brailsford is a fecking cycling coach who got close to Ratcliffe through the Ineos cycling team and has zero knowledge in football.

Ashworth’s job was to decide on a long term philosophy and way of playing from the first team down to the academies and as Sporting Director it was his job to find a new head coach after ETH was fired, it was reported that Ashworth wanted Howe or Frank or if they weren’t available immediately then Potter as an interim because they all fit how Ashworth had planned for our identity.

What is fact is that Berrada pushed hard for Amorim to come in even though as CEO he shouldn’t have any input into it as he’s an executive director and non footballing person whilst Ashworth was in Ratcliffe’s own words the “head of the footballing department” yet within hours of ETH being fired Berrada was on a plane to Portugal and even though Amorim didn’t want to come until the summer and in his own words was told now or never.

Within no time at all after Amorim came in Ashworth had left by mutual consent and no one knows for sure why but the reports that were obvious club briefings for their spin was Ashworth went because he wanted to keep ETH and paid the price for this as firing ETH was such an obvious choice and Brailsford as a director rather than an expendable part of the staff escaped any blame.

Since then we’ve seen all the reports of Ashworth being against Amorim coming in as he saw how Amorim was married to his system which went against how Ashworth had planned for us to play but also we neither had the players to play Amorim’s system or the money to bring the players to fit the system in either but the club went with what Berrada wanted and brought Amorim in against Ashworth’s advice.

Reading between the lines Ashworth was brought in to head up the footballing department and publicly called “best in class” for his job role yet had Brailsford go over his head with keeping ETH when Ashworth wanted Howe or Frank then Berrada did the same in bringing in Amorim so why stay at the club when his job is taken away from him by non footballing people and those above him ignore his advice ?

Would we better with Ashworth being the one that is listened too regarding footballing matters ? We’ll never know but he was brought in to head up the footballing department after a very public saga and publicly called “best in class” to implement a structure and an on pitch identity then when it came down to doing his job and making decisions he had non footballing directors taking those decisions away for their own choices.

Ashworth may not have worked out in the short or long term BUT he IS a footballing person with experience in the role he was brought in to do and we’ve spent years going crazy over non footballing directors who have no right to make footballing choices running things yet here we are again repeating the same mistakes then wondering why it’s all going so badly, much like Woodward and Arnold neither of Brailsford or Berrada have any right in making footballing decisions.

Where does Wilcox fit in in the above?

 

[davidmichael]

Where does Wilcox fit in in the above?

Wilcox worked underneath Ashworth and reported to him so I don’t see Wilcox as problematic in everything that happened between the review for ETH post FA Cup final and Ashworth leaving, Wilcox obviously knows Berrada well from their time at City and whilst Wilcox has benefited from Ashworth leaving he knew Ashworth was effectively his boss

 

[alexthelion]

Perhaps, but at the time there were rumours that Ratcliffe and especially Wilcox preferred to sack ETH. If true (I'm fairly confident that Wilcox did, not so sure about Ratcliffe) then somebody must have been pushing for ETH to be given more time, and Ashworth probably was the most likely. He was the one in the main position to make that call, and is well known for liking to take things slow and steady so I could definitely see him wanting to work side-by-side with ETH for a while before making a decision. Which in theory I wouldn't mind, except that ETH was doing such an incredibly bad job that he needed to be replaced ASAP before he did too much damage.

Pretty sure it was said to be Brailsford who persuaded Jimbo to keep ETH.

 

[MadDogg]

It was Brailsford who pushed to keep ETH. Ashworth wasn't even in his position at the time.

I mean, even normally we all know that people in those positions will be in contact with their new club unofficially. But it's especially obvious in this case since Ashworth literally got caught doing it (and by doing so showed Berrada was doing the same).

I'm not saying he definitely was pushing to keep ETH. We'll never know for sure. But I'd say there's a fairly strong chance he was.

 

[Big Ben Foster]

I mean, even normally we all know that people in those positions will be in contact with their new club unofficially. But it's especially obvious in this case since Ashworth literally got caught doing it (and by doing so showed Berrada was doing the same).

I'm not saying he definitely was pushing to keep ETH. We'll never know for sure. But I'd say there's a fairly strong chance he was.

I'm aware and I already touched on that here:

Again, based on what? If he wasn't yet in his role and therefore didn't have complete information on the matter (yes, he had communication with the club during his gardening leave, but that's not the same as being fully in the role), why would his opinion on such a critical decision carry major weight?

 

[gulli_G]

People can speculate on rumours from before Ashworth started but what was reported by respected journalists is that Brailsford was the one that pushed hard to keep ETH, Brailsford is a fecking cycling coach who got close to Ratcliffe through the Ineos cycling team and has zero knowledge in football.

Ashworth’s job was to decide on a long term philosophy and way of playing from the first team down to the academies and as Sporting Director it was his job to find a new head coach after ETH was fired, it was reported that Ashworth wanted Howe or Frank or if they weren’t available immediately then Potter as an interim because they all fit how Ashworth had planned for our identity.

What is fact is that Berrada pushed hard for Amorim to come in even though as CEO he shouldn’t have any input into it as he’s an executive director and non footballing person whilst Ashworth was in Ratcliffe’s own words the “head of the footballing department” yet within hours of ETH being fired Berrada was on a plane to Portugal and even though Amorim didn’t want to come until the summer and in his own words was told now or never.

Within no time at all after Amorim came in Ashworth had left by mutual consent and no one knows for sure why but the reports that were obvious club briefings for their spin was Ashworth went because he wanted to keep ETH and paid the price for this as firing ETH was such an obvious choice and Brailsford as a director rather than an expendable part of the staff escaped any blame.

Since then we’ve seen all the reports of Ashworth being against Amorim coming in as he saw how Amorim was married to his system which went against how Ashworth had planned for us to play but also we neither had the players to play Amorim’s system or the money to bring the players to fit the system in either but the club went with what Berrada wanted and brought Amorim in against Ashworth’s advice.

Reading between the lines Ashworth was brought in to head up the footballing department and publicly called “best in class” for his job role yet had Brailsford go over his head with keeping ETH when Ashworth wanted Howe or Frank then Berrada did the same in bringing in Amorim so why stay at the club when his job is taken away from him by non footballing people and those above him ignore his advice ?

Would we better with Ashworth being the one that is listened too regarding footballing matters ? We’ll never know but he was brought in to head up the footballing department after a very public saga and publicly called “best in class” to implement a structure and an on pitch identity then when it came down to doing his job and making decisions he had non footballing directors taking those decisions away for their own choices.

Ashworth may not have worked out in the short or long term BUT he IS a footballing person with experience in the role he was brought in to do and we’ve spent years going crazy over non footballing directors who have no right to make footballing choices running things yet here we are again repeating the same mistakes then wondering why it’s all going so badly, much like Woodward and Arnold neither of Brailsford or Berrada have any right in making footballing decisions.

The only reason Ashworth was bought in, was Brailsford and his previous association with him. When Ratcliffe got in Berrada, i think I read here he did not think such an appointment could be made and when he got the chance he took it.

Basically Berrada was lined up for Tixi's role before we nabbed him, he was COO (Chief Operating Officer) , he had lined up Ruben as Pep's replacement if he left.once he came here, we went for him.

Jim should have waited till Berrada was in before trying to going Ashworth, clearly there was a clash or overlap of roles with Wilcox and him.

If it was my choice I would have chosen Berrada over Ashworth. He has bigger pedigree and a track record of sustained success. I would take Ruben over any of Ashworth's recommendations, especially those Southgate rumours.

 

[davidmichael]

The only reason Ashworth was bought in, was Brailsford and his previous association with him. When Ratcliffe got in Berrada, i think I read here he did not think such an appointment could be made and when he got the chance he took it.

Basically Berrada was lined up for Tixi's role before we nabbed him, he was COO (Chief Operating Officer) , he had lined up Ruben as Pep's replacement if he left.once he came here, we went for him.

Jim should have waited till Berrada was in before trying to going Ashworth, clearly there was a clash or overlap of roles with Wilcox and him.

If it was my choice I would have chosen Berrada over Ashworth. He has bigger pedigree and a track record of sustained success. I would take Ruben over any of Ashworth's recommendations, especially those Southgate rumours.

Txiki is a footballing person, an ex player and has been Director Of Football (so overseen and headed up the footballing department) at Barca and City whereas Berrada was as you say the COO which saw him brokering off pitch deals and structural deals rather than anything on the pitch, do you not think Berrada was aware of Txiki leaving City at the end of the season ? There’s a reason why City went for Viana as Txiki’s replacement and that is because much like Txiki is Viana is a football person whereas Berrada isn’t.

Yes Berrada has been involved in more success than Ashworth but he’s never made footballing decisions because he had Soriano and Txiki in sync with Pep to run the footballing department, it doesn’t matter what way you try to swing it Berrada is a non footballing director who has no experience in making footballing decisions and that’s exactly the same mistake as we’ve been making for well over a decade.

There’s no guarantee that Ashworth would have been successful either BUT he DOES have experience in implementing footballing structures and DOES have experience making footballing decisions which is why he was brought in and I’d say the same for Wilcox who has worked as a coach, a Head Of Youth Development, a Technical Director and as a Sporting Director therefore is better qualified to make footballing decisions than Berrada is.

It’s like we’re blinded by new shiny toy syndrome as Berrada making footballing decisions when his job roles have been Head Of Sponsorship, COO and CEO is no different to Woodward or Arnold and whilst I have no doubt Berrada is more competent than those two he still IS NOT qualified to make footballing decisions especially the ones we desperately need to be made seeing how fecked we are financially and the squad we have.

As for the Southgate rumours that was lazy journalism based on the link between Ashworth and Southgate from England and the fact Southgate was out of work when ETH was fired, respected journalists said Ashworth wanted Howe or Frank as they fit how Ashworth had decided we were going to play and if we couldn’t get them at that time then having an interim for rest of the season which would have been a straight choice between sticking with RVN or Potter.

 

[gulli_G]

Txiki is a footballing person, an ex player and has been Director Of Football (so overseen and headed up the footballing department) at Barca and City whereas Berrada was as you say the COO which saw him brokering off pitch deals and structural deals rather than anything on the pitch, do you not think Berrada was aware of Txiki leaving City at the end of the season ? There’s a reason why City went for Viana as Txiki’s replacement and that is because much like Txiki is Viana is a football person whereas Berrada isn’t.

Yes Berrada has been involved in more success than Ashworth but he’s never made footballing decisions because he had Soriano and Txiki in sync with Pep to run the footballing department, it doesn’t matter what way you try to swing it Berrada is a non footballing director who has no experience in making footballing decisions and that’s exactly the same mistake as we’ve been making for well over a decade.

There’s no guarantee that Ashworth would have been successful either BUT he DOES have experience in implementing footballing structures and DOES have experience making footballing decisions which is why he was brought in and I’d say the same for Wilcox who has worked as a coach, a Head Of Youth Development, a Technical Director and as a Sporting Director therefore is better qualified to make footballing decisions than Berrada is.

It’s like we’re blinded by new shiny toy syndrome as Berrada making footballing decisions when his job roles have been Head Of Sponsorship, COO and CEO is no different to Woodward or Arnold and whilst I have no doubt Berrada is more competent than those two he still IS NOT qualified to make footballing decisions especially the ones we desperately need to be made seeing how fecked we are financially and the squad we have.

As for the Southgate rumours that was lazy journalism based on the link between Ashworth and Southgate from England and the fact Southgate was out of work when ETH was fired, respected journalists said Ashworth wanted Howe or Frank as they fit how Ashworth had decided we were going to play and if we couldn’t get them at that time then having an interim for rest of the season which would have been a straight choice between sticking with RVN or Potter.

I agree with regards to Berrada, but he brought in Wilcox and there seems to have been a case for too many cooks and one left.

 

[tomaldinho1]

Very correct. He absolutely would have been given an opinion on Ten Hag and that opinion would have been given prime consideration by the bosses. Did he make the decision? no but I have no doubt in my mind he was in the "Ten Hag in" camp and his opinion carried major weight in the final decision.

Why? He didn't have any first hand knowledge of ETH, had never seen or observed him coaching or anything. So they may well have asked him and he'd have had an opinion but, really, what opinion could he have that would carry weight other than if they just asked any old random sporting director across football?

 

[tomaldinho1]

Txiki is a footballing person, an ex player and has been Director Of Football (so overseen and headed up the footballing department) at Barca and City whereas Berrada was as you say the COO which saw him brokering off pitch deals and structural deals rather than anything on the pitch, do you not think Berrada was aware of Txiki leaving City at the end of the season ? There’s a reason why City went for Viana as Txiki’s replacement and that is because much like Txiki is Viana is a football person whereas Berrada isn’t.

Yes Berrada has been involved in more success than Ashworth but he’s never made footballing decisions because he had Soriano and Txiki in sync with Pep to run the footballing department, it doesn’t matter what way you try to swing it Berrada is a non footballing director who has no experience in making footballing decisions and that’s exactly the same mistake as we’ve been making for well over a decade.

There’s no guarantee that Ashworth would have been successful either BUT he DOES have experience in implementing footballing structures and DOES have experience making footballing decisions which is why he was brought in and I’d say the same for Wilcox who has worked as a coach, a Head Of Youth Development, a Technical Director and as a Sporting Director therefore is better qualified to make footballing decisions than Berrada is.

It’s like we’re blinded by new shiny toy syndrome as Berrada making footballing decisions when his job roles have been Head Of Sponsorship, COO and CEO is no different to Woodward or Arnold and whilst I have no doubt Berrada is more competent than those two he still IS NOT qualified to make footballing decisions especially the ones we desperately need to be made seeing how fecked we are financially and the squad we have.

As for the Southgate rumours that was lazy journalism based on the link between Ashworth and Southgate from England and the fact Southgate was out of work when ETH was fired, respected journalists said Ashworth wanted Howe or Frank as they fit how Ashworth had decided we were going to play and if we couldn’t get them at that time then having an interim for rest of the season which would have been a straight choice between sticking with RVN or Potter.

Ashworth had no say on 'how' we wanted to play - I feel like you need to read up on his career/role, he's not someone involved in tactics, hands on recruitment, talent identification, playing style etc. he sits above it all.