I remember alot of fans on here also said... Just pay the money to Newcastle and get him in early...
Dan "The Gardener" Ashworth Has Left | Venit, vidit, non vicit
- Thread starter Berbaclass
- Start date
I remember alot of fans on here also said... Just pay the money to Newcastle and get him in early...
That part made sense. Without him doing anything horrific that gave the club no choice but to sack him, its really hard to dress up sacking him (so soon) as anything other than dumb.
All you can really do is theorise that the dumb was in appointing him in the first place, rather than in the sacking him, and therefore the mistake ws rectified. Although from the club's recent track record, the most logical thing to assume is that both were dumb decisions and the mistake is merely being compounded into the next one.
(imo)
Yet it has been reported by all of Ornstein, Whitwell, and Crafton at the Athletic. I've quoted the articles above. Here is another one:
https://www.nytimes.com/athletic/6128266/2025/02/11/manchester-united-jobs-ratcliffe-ineos/
If you don't see it you need to open your eyes.
What a feckin' shit-show this was.
I just can't get my head around the fact that you headhunt a guy and spend millions of quid to get this one bloke who you are convinced is defnitely THE guy to be in charge... only to bin him off after a few months.
Also, what's wrong with a putting in a standard 6-month probation period?!
I just can't get my head around the fact that you headhunt a guy and spend millions of quid to get this one bloke who you are convinced is defnitely THE guy to be in charge... only to bin him off after a few months.
Also, what's wrong with a putting in a standard 6-month probation period?!
Very typical of this club, 100% amateurs on all levels.
Even taking that as gospel, it seems like a very strange reason to sack him. Is five months in the role enough time to assess the entire department, decide where cuts need to be made, put together a continuity plan, and actually make said cuts?
If we're playing the hindsight game about wasted money, it should be about the events of the summer when his contract was needlessly extended and meant he got a bigger pay off. Likewise with some of the signings made during that window. Ten Hag had done nothing to deserve that patience and it would've been staggering if we'd let him run us any further into the ground than he already did.
A poor season is a poor season, and we don't have anything to show for our league campagin, but we didn't even win a game in Europe after 3 attempts with Ten Hag this season. Van Nistelrooy and Amorim proceeded to win the remaining 5 group games. I really don't see that Ten Hag would've done that, same goes for the win away to Arsenal in the FA Cup. Probably a moot point with the injuries which might prevent us going much further in those competitions, but they still provide us with something to play for as things stand.
The point isn't about patience. If you were unsure of Ten Hag you sack him in the summer or let him see out his contract. Both would have saved money. If you say he is the right person and renew him then you let him see out the season. INEOS effectively chose the silliest of all the options available.
It clearly says “dismissed Ashworth in part” rather than saying it was because Ashworth went against Ratcliffe over job cuts when Ashworth would have been told beforehand job cuts were coming, from start to finish Ashworth had 189 days and in that time we had three different head coaches and a clear power struggle behind the scenes so 189 days wouldn’t have been enough time to look over the staff and assess then decide who was leaving the club.
Now to me “in part” would mean that was one of the reasons so that wasn’t the only reason (and let’s have it right that’s a fecking ridiculous reason to fire someone anyway) which then brings us back to all the other reports that you seem to have missed out whilst pushing your narrative which were Ashworth being against bringing Amorim in due to Amorim’s strict insistence on his system and us not having the players or money to bring players in to play Amorim’s system.
I’m not saying Ashworth was the answer as we’ll never know now how things would have worked out but if you publicly chase someone and publicly call them “best in class” to the point their current employer puts them on gardening leave then pay £4 million to bring them in to run the footballing department you let them do the job they’ve been brought in to do rather than letting a cycling coach and a CEO who specialises in commercial deals and sponsorship pull rank and make footballing decisions they’re not qualified to make.
You don’t sack someone you’ve paid £4 million for after a public saga after 189 days because they didn’t fire enough people in the timescale you demand when they needed time to properly assess how to fix the piss poor department, if we hadn’t brought Ashworth in and went with Wilcox and Vivell that would still have been ok as they’re footballing people but instead it’s Brailsford and Berrada which is no different to the Woodward and Arnold days where non footballing directors/CEO’s are making footballing decisions then wonder why we end up in the mess we do.
According to the club's statement issued today, the cost to obtain Ashworth from Newcastle was 5 million in compensation and then 4 and half million to Ashworth when the club sacked him. So in all a total cost of 9 and a half million pounds, that certainly a very expensive best in class moment and all down too Ratcliffe and Co.
It leaves a sour taste that they wasted 9 million on Ashworth to leave after 5 month and then they’re cutting pay and redundancies. And he had reservations about Amorim and his formation mid-season that have proven to be somewhat correct after buying lots of players for Ten Hag not Amorim. The whole thing is a mess.
It’s a shambles when you go get someone who you want to sort out the mess at your club, only to not take his advice.
I don’t think Ashworths choice of Southgate would be any better either btw
I don’t think Ashworths choice of Southgate would be any better either btw
Many on the Cafe wanted Ashworth but then funnily they said that formation does not matter when he was fired. Ashworth clearly thought that 4231 was the way forward. Southgate would have been a bit uninspiring but might have worked out better than Amorim. Too early to say.
Fake news
It’s been spoken about so much on this forum between the three big threads that I don’t get why people are still saying Ashworth wanted Southgate, Ashworth wanted Frank or Howe but was happy with RVN as interim til the end of the season if they couldn’t be brought in whilst Brailsford (who was the driving force for keeping ETH and the contract extension) wanted Southgate.
Confirmed the cost was £4.1m according to BBC to hire/sack him
It was totally worth it for the very fact that we pissed off the cartoons for a while
Only if you apply a very, very short term view. Which we hopefully have abandoned once and for all
Thought we would get Berta/Campos to replace him, heck even Freedman was better than just moving Wilcox alongside Vivell which is what they did.
The opposite actually. Ashworth’s whole point was that we first need to steady the ship before committing to a transformation that would require massive investment.
I read ……..
Ashworth ‘warned the club about mass disruption’ that he believed would arrive with Amorim and his very specific ideas, and instead ‘wanted a data-driven approach to replacing Ten Hag’.
‘United’s squad had already needed to adjust to a new backroom team behind Ten Hag this season, and Ashworth thought it best to minimise upheaval, especially given the club’s precarious financial position.
‘Liverpool’s choice of the understated Arne Slot to replace Jurgen Klopp – a stylistic fit allowing for on-pitch continuity through all the age groups as well as recruitment – was used as an example.
‘The league leaders liked Amorim and his aura, he had made their shortlist, but his commitment to three at the back and his general philosophy had jarred with the squad and the direction the club had taken.
‘Slot was less hyped yet more of a sure thing. Liverpool ignored the noise and made what they believed was the best football decision.’
‘At United, Thomas Frank was appreciated by Ashworth and others due to his tactical flexibility, personality, and communication skills.
‘There was wide support for Ruud van Nistelrooy, who had carried himself with distinction and the players responded very well to, to take interim control until the end of the season – with a permanent choice named.
‘That would have given United the time and space to plan for the future, with the dressing room – a squad heavily shaped for Ten Hag – able to continue processes and improve in theory. Naming the new man in the dugout would have also prevented sentimental calls for Van Nistelrooy to be given the job.
‘Ratcliffe, Berrada and other senior executives wanted United to be chest out and bold. They did not want to wait for progress nor get usurped to their prime target – especially with several clubs having him on their succession planning list.
‘There was a desperation for charisma, and the strong belief was that Amorim could be a tactician to define the next generation.’
But not by appointing Southgate. Steady the ship is not possible in the next 2-4 years anyhow
For the last time, he didn't want Southgate
I’m at a point now where I’m thinking people are just saying Ashworth wanted Southgate to replace ETH simply to get a reaction out of others seeing as it’s been stated countless times and only a few posts above again that Ashworth wanted Thomas Frank and NOT Southgate, the calls for Southgate were from Brailsford who after him being the driving force behind keeping ETH meant Brailsford was ignored luckily.
Tiring, isn't it? You could have a space laser etch the sentence "ASHWORTH DIDN'T WANT SOUTHGATE" in massive letters in the sky over Old Trafford and some still wouldn't get it.
It seems Ashworth possesses something Omar, Jason and Jim all lack which is critical thinking. I reckon Berrada opted for Amorim due to the consideration of him being highly touted at City, but Manchester United and City are in two completely different spaces and managers still need the right conditions to thrive irrespective of their own competence.
I would feel more comfortable with Dan pioneering these decisions over those who have been elected. Liverpool omitted the decision of hiring Amorim due to similar circumstances it doesn't matter how good a coach he perceivably is his philosophy requires resources and the necessary elements for a team to transition to his ideology with as little friction as possible.
Berrada jumped straight into the deep end and the lack of diligence in that decision has impacted the season. The club's current predicament is not on Woodward, it is INEOS that are responsible from a footballing perspective, the finances they have made poor decisions on but the rest largely is on the Glazers.
I would feel more comfortable with Dan pioneering these decisions over those who have been elected. Liverpool omitted the decision of hiring Amorim due to similar circumstances it doesn't matter how good a coach he perceivably is his philosophy requires resources and the necessary elements for a team to transition to his ideology with as little friction as possible.
Berrada jumped straight into the deep end and the lack of diligence in that decision has impacted the season. The club's current predicament is not on Woodward, it is INEOS that are responsible from a footballing perspective, the finances they have made poor decisions on but the rest largely is on the Glazers.
It’s was reported he wanted Southgate, also been reported he didn’t, none of us know what the truth is. He's a big fan of Southgate and if his focus was on steadying the ship then it makes sense.
More sense than Thomas Frank who also wouldn’t have been suited to this squad, or Howe who he reportedly was having some issues with at Newcastle and more sense Potter who was overwhelmed at Chelsea.
We might have been better off with Ruud or Southgate this season. Maybe longer term it’s beneficial to be kicking off the process of offloading players, making wholesale changes and having extra time with the manager to prepare for the summer transfer window or maybe it isn’t.
It’s was reported he wanted Southgate, also been reported he didn’t, none of us know what the truth is. He's a big fan of Southgate and if his focus was on steadying the ship then it makes sense.
More sense than Thomas Frank who also wouldn’t have been suited to this squad, or Howe who he reportedly was having some issues with at Newcastle and more sense Potter who was overwhelmed at Chelsea.
We might have been better off with Ruud or Southgate this season. Maybe longer term it’s beneficial to be kicking off the process of offloading players, making wholesale changes and having extra time with the manager to prepare for the summer transfer window or maybe it isn’t.
The season was done the moment we kept Ten Hag in the summer. That Ineos proceeded to feck up the Amorim appointment by getting him in without the ability to back him to make his system work doesn't change that fact.
Also Woodward saddled us with players on shocking contracts that we still can't offload even now. Compound that with the fact that Judge, Murtough and Arnold were his cronies...
I’m going to try and not let it drive me mad anymore mate
Have you not actually looked into any of the main reasons Ashworth wanted Frank which is his tactical flexibility and his ability to adapt to what he has ? Amorim is the Hollywood appointment that was needed when we were about to push on to title challenges whereas Ashworth wanted us to walk before we could run so Frank or Howe were the best option in his mind.
I’m going to try and not let it drive me mad anymore mate
Have you not actually looked into any of the main reasons Ashworth wanted Frank which is his tactical flexibility and his ability to adapt to what he has ? Amorim is the Hollywood appointment that was needed when we were about to push on to title challenges whereas Ashworth wanted us to walk before we could run so Frank or Howe were the best option in his mind.
Other than the article you are paraphrasing there isn’t a lot to look into. Like I said previously it’s been reported he wanted Frank, did and didn’t want Southgate etc. But no one on here knows what’s true or why he was sacked, it’s all best guesses and after briefings from both sides.
No doubt we’ll keep hearing about how Ashworth had all the answers for at least another 6-12 months, maybe that’s true and maybe it isn’t.
Okay but this doesnt answer any of my questions !? Ashworth was meant to be great, we paid a fortune to get him in, and now we've paid an equal fortune to offload him. What's happened?
I don’t think I’ve seen one person though say that Ashworth had all the answers or was going to be our messiah to bring us back to the top of the game again BUT what is 100% fact is that Ashworth was brought in to run the footballing department and publicly proclaimed as best in class yet decisions that he had power to make were taken away and instead made by a non footballing person in our CEO which is exactly what we’ve been losing our minds over for years after seeing Woodward and Arnold so the exact same thing.
Countless people and Ineos defenders are saying that Ineos have only had a year to undo the decade plus mismanagement yet Ashworth had five months to do the same, it’s like some people forget whilst Ineos have been in for 13 months they also had full access to the club accounts and knew the situation before coming in whereas Ashworth came in to do a job then had the power of that job taken away and now we are where we are this season on the back of Ineos mismanagement from the cup final onwards.
They have only had a year and the people they brought in haven’t even had that long, Ashworth included obviously. The whole best in class phrase is nonsense.
Berrada is the CEO, Ashworth reported into him. I know this narrative has developed that Berrada made some kind of unilateral decision on Amorim but it will have likely involved the Board, Wilcox and Ashworth.
Again it’s just an opinion he had his power taken away, it’s not 100% fact, no one knows for certain what really happened and why he left.
Exactly what I thought. No due diligence done. They just hired him because he's an established name with no thought to how he'd fit what they wanted. Just going for names.
If this is true then the club is in bigger shit than we thought. Hard to disagree with Ashowrth.
If this is true, it's short term pain for long term gain. I'm not a fan of Amorim as of now and the performance pains me in the core, but if there is a decision made in this regard, I'm fine with it. We were never going to catch up with the "real" top clubs playing Ten Hag ball or Ole ball. We might as well get hit for a season or two, and then come back better.
Exactly that.