Eric "Ezza" ten Hag signs new contract (until June 2026)

Big Ben Foster said:
Very interesting how all the public-facing communications make it sound like a new contract, when it's really just the one-year option being exercised.
Click to expand...

Exactly what I thought, I had to do a double take when I saw it was only until 2026, it's not a new contract at all.

It's pretty clear they are just padding for time, and have realised that sticking with Ten Hag given the alternative managers right now is the least worst option.

I just hope all these Dutch links right now are either Ineos buys, or short term deals, as unless Ten Hag really steps up then I'd expect him to be replaced after this season.

.
 
Ayush_reddevil said:
Complete and utter joke of a decision to keep him and then to extend his contract. From what I have seen so far I can’t see how next season will be much different to the shitshow of last season.
Click to expand...

Triggering the +1 is fine I think. Adds some legitimacy in the eyes of the press and the players. Otherwise every win or loss we'll be getting questions about the future of the manager. Ten Hag won <insert big knockout tie in the EL / FA Cup> -- what are you waiting for INEOS !? Or Ten Hag got smacked 4-0 by Slot, is he going to leave at the end of the season?

I was definitely concerned by reports that he was getting a new 3y deal.
 
devilish said:
I think we handled it beautifully TBH. It gave us time for the decision makers to start working with us, investigate what's truly happening under the hood, implement the necessary changes and plan for the future. If ETH is the right man then we had spared 14m. If not then he gets the sack and we would have all the time in the world to choose his replacement
Click to expand...
All fair points.

I just want to be able to call our manager ‘Ezza’ for a season or two more.

Ed. En mijn duits te praktisieren.
 
In fairness to Ezza, he has won us two cups in two years. Tactically he has been naive at times but with some good news players and less injuries, there's hope.
In Ezza we trust.
 
Hobbers will be raging that this was announced while he is temp banned....... :lol:
 
alexthelion said:
Thought your choice of replacements was goofy, personally.
Click to expand...
Well the club didn't think so, if you believe the reports about talking to other managers just after the FA Cup.

Like mentioned earlier, it's not crystal clear if Eric is worse then that bunch but it's not obvious he's better either. Ineos decided (for now) to continue with Ten Hag, what for me is uninspiring as I don't rate him at all, but fair enough, let's give him another half a season to see if he can operate better under the new structure.

It's just silly to say that there were no alternatives. There were many. Managers market might look totally different a year from now.
 
DomesticTadpole said:
Think they realise Tuchel can become a problem, Poch has just been sacked at Chelsea and might not like what the setup could become, Di Zerbi has gone to the powerhouse that is Marseille.
Click to expand...
Eth can become a problem as well if you've seen him being uber stubborn last season.

Poch was sacked with better points tally than Eric, and (contrary to us) upwards trajectory. He also took Chelsea from 12 to 6th, while we made a juno from 3rd to 8th.

De Zerbi I mentioned because he has proven to be a good coach and worked well in a structure that we might want to mimic somehow.

Ask yourself this, Ten Hag had this season with another EPL season, would he be considered higher tier than those mentioned above? I seriously doubt it, unless they do "sort by: trophies" kind of ranking, but that would be silly as Ten Hag had literally 3 good games last season, they all hapenned to be in the FA Cup plus we got seriously lucky there.

Each of them COULD be a better manager at United than Ten Hag. But Ten Hag CAN be much better next season as a part of new structure. I don't think so, but I can see the reasoning. Fair enough, Ineos has taken a decision and this extension is just a consequence of it.
 
Last edited:
tenpoless said:
Finally some sensible decision. There are simply no other better options. Better eat a shit looking sandwich (that can still turn out to be good) than risking a food poisoning
Click to expand...
I eat pieces of shit like you for breakfast
 
I wonder what made them choose 2026? That implies he will be here for another 2 seasons, no? 2025 would have been a safer choice I reckon. The managerial landscape can change a lot in one year.
 
tenpoless said:
I wonder what made them choose 2026? That implies he will be here for another 2 seasons, no? 2025 would have been a safer choice I reckon. The managerial landscape can change a lot in one year.
Click to expand...

We signed him on a 3+1 (One year option with the club) contract. His deal had 1+1 left at the end of last season. They have basically triggered that one year extension. You cannot have a manager go into a season with just one year left on their contract as it can lead to complacency from the players knowing that he'll leave at the end of the season anyway.

My guess is with this extension, instead of a new contract, INEOS want to keep their options open. If he is successful, then I see him getting a brand new contract sometime by the end of next season. If he is faltering, then it is anyone's guess when he would be let go.
 
Grande said:
All fair points.

I just want to be able to call our manager ‘Ezza’ for a season or two more.

Ed. En mijn duits te praktisieren.
Click to expand...
Please don‘t. That‘s atrocious I can‘t deal with it :lol: .
 
Orange Tree said:
I don't get it. If they didn't renegotiate and just trigger the 1-year-extension, why even bother doing that now when you can do it whenever. See how he fares this season and a clean break if it doesn't work out.

I thought the point of the extension is to change his title, responsibility, and probably a more beneficial exit clause for the club.
Click to expand...
The point of "triggering the extension" is to raise a big banner to the public "HEY WE'RE FULLY BEHIND TEN HAG AND HERE'S A PROOF - A NEW CONTRACT!".
The reality is they are not commiting to ETH long term, they are far from convinced he's the man to take us forward, and the negotiations of of an actual new contract failed, or have been put on hold, what means the same thing.

It's uncommon to keep the manager until the very last day and then decide what to do with him. The manager might very well know he's getting the sack, it's irrelevant, what is important is for the public to get off our back because that's never good.

Sarni said:
It’s not really a new deal, we just triggered his additional year already.

Quite disappointed, I had hoped we were going to give him a proper vote of confidence and truly extend his deal for another 3-4 years, this is not a great signal at all.
Click to expand...
Big Ben Foster said:
Very interesting how all the public-facing communications make it sound like a new contract, when it's really just the one-year option being exercised.
Click to expand...
C'est Moi Cantona said:
Exactly what I thought, I had to do a double take when I saw it was only until 2026, it's not a new contract at all.

It's pretty clear they are just padding for time, and have realised that sticking with Ten Hag given the alternative managers right now is the least worst option.

I just hope all these Dutch links right now are either Ineos buys, or short term deals, as unless Ten Hag really steps up then I'd expect him to be replaced after this season.

.
Click to expand...
Exactly this. RedCafe is not a fool and we're not bying it.

I think ETH situation and Ineos opinion on him is very clear now.

Edit: the "veto" part in communication is just to cut the speculation and make it look like all the incoming transfers are manager's choices, while the reality is he can MAYBE veto on scrambled eggs and ask to have this replaced with an omelette in the club cantine. Of course he will have some saying if there's a choice between A and B players who cost the same and are on similar level, but otherwise all responsibility for transfers will be shifted to other people in the club - what also works in ETH favour (based on the players we've brought under his regime).
Personally I think it's very rare for a manager to veto a player. Bringing in players who are good enough to strengthen the first XI is a far bigger task then worrying about "manager doesn't want him". On squad-level players, the manager should not have much to say as they will be tracked by the recruitment stuff.
 
Last edited:
The terms were my preferred option if they decided to keep him. Both sides gets enough security, ETH has more time and money while the club has more time but can get rid of him for an acceptable amount in the next 24 months.
 
In hindsight and with Ashworth taking so long to turn up this probably makes sense. Might think differently when the season starts and I have to watch that shambles again mind.

At least it gives Ashworth and the team time to start getting things sorted and also looking at potential options for replacing ten Hag if he doesn't turn it around.
 
Teja said:
Triggering the +1 is fine I think. Adds some legitimacy in the eyes of the press and the players. Otherwise every win or loss we'll be getting questions about the future of the manager. Ten Hag won <insert big knockout tie in the EL / FA Cup> -- what are you waiting for INEOS !? Or Ten Hag got smacked 4-0 by Slot, is he going to leave at the end of the season?

I was definitely concerned by reports that he was getting a new 3y deal.
Click to expand...

Whilst I’m not too bothered about exercising the 1 year extension, I do find this idea that it will somehow magically prevent scrutiny, if ETH continues to underperform, slightly bizarre.

Let’s imagine we lose the first match at home to Fulham. There will immediately be press articles questioning why the club extended his contract, whether he will shortly be sacked etc. Then put in a Crystal Palace level performance away at Brighton? That criticism will build beyond belief.

His performances last season have given ETH zero latitude and the club/Ineos will be under huge pressure if they continue at the start of the new season. Extending his contract does nothing to change that, other than meaning that we have to pay him more if he is sacked.

Anyway, fingers crossed this all works out. Really want to just see us playing some good football this season, even if we aren’t actually challenging for anything.
 
Doracle said:
Whilst I’m not too bothered about exercising the 1 year extension, I do find this idea that it will somehow magically prevent scrutiny, if ETH continues to underperform, slightly bizarre.

Let’s imagine we lose the first match at home to Fulham. There will immediately be press articles questioning why the club extended his contract, whether he will shortly be sacked etc. Then put in a Crystal Palace level performance away at Brighton? That criticism will build beyond belief.

His performances last season have given ETH zero latitude and the club/Ineos will be under huge pressure if they continue at the start of the new season. Extending his contract does nothing to change that, other than meaning that we have to pay him more if he is sacked.

Anyway, fingers crossed this all works out. Really want to just see us playing some good football this season, even if we aren’t actually challenging for anything.
Click to expand...
To be fair, the pressure is on for any team going for European football/top four. Losing the first two games will put any of those managers in trouble.

It won‘t matter to Ten Hag, he is used to being abused by the press now.

INEOS has to back him and support him so he and his staff can get on with building a good team. If they lose their cookies after two losses, that would be bad. It does depend how we lose; if we look hopefully lost out there, it is a different matter.
 
Doracle said:
Whilst I’m not too bothered about exercising the 1 year extension, I do find this idea that it will somehow magically prevent scrutiny, if ETH continues to underperform, slightly bizarre.

Let’s imagine we lose the first match at home to Fulham. There will immediately be press articles questioning why the club extended his contract, whether he will shortly be sacked etc. Then put in a Crystal Palace level performance away at Brighton? That criticism will build beyond belief.

His performances last season have given ETH zero latitude and the club/Ineos will be under huge pressure if they continue at the start of the new season. Extending his contract does nothing to change that, other than meaning that we have to pay him more if he is sacked.

Anyway, fingers crossed this all works out. Really want to just see us playing some good football this season, even if we aren’t actually challenging for anything.
Click to expand...
The option "he's in last year of his contract" was never on the table. Since all the other options didn't work out and Ineos decided to continue with Ten Hag, it was obvious he'l get a new deal. And although you are right with "we have to pay him more if he is sacked", it's still less money then if he was given an actual NEW contract (not extension).

It's a sensible move from the owners and confirms what we already suspected for a while - Ten Hag is closer to a "temporary" manager than a part of "long term" plan, unless the team under him shows some actual significant progress.
 
Eth seems bad at signing players as he always seem to sign the wrong players.

Then, he seems clueless about the team given that the very first game, he fielded the same squad as Ole did in his last season.

He always likes to throw players out eg Ronaldo, De Gea, Sancho but you always need to kick out the bad ones.

He does seem clueless with tactics at times but overall he seems to be improving and beating Man City in the Fa cup was a great testament to his legacy.
 
This has nothing to do on whether one is ETH in or out but Goldbridge think that if we sell Bruno then we must write off next season and give ETH a pass. That's the extent the United SEG would go to defend the guy
 
Insanity said:
We signed him on a 3+1 (One year option with the club) contract. His deal had 1+1 left at the end of last season. They have basically triggered that one year extension. You cannot have a manager go into a season with just one year left on their contract as it can lead to complacency from the players knowing that he'll leave at the end of the season anyway.

My guess is with this extension, instead of a new contract, INEOS want to keep their options open. If he is successful, then I see him getting a brand new contract sometime by the end of next season. If he is faltering, then it is anyone's guess when he would be let go.
Click to expand...

Nah, this has been disputed already, many top managers have gone into seasons with a year left and performed very well. This literally happened with Ancelotti at Real last year. Managers at top clubs are typically hardly ever perfectly safe anyway, bar extra-ordinary talent level exceptions like Pep, Klopp.
 
devilish said:
This has nothing to do on whether one is ETH in or out but Goldbridge think that if we sell Bruno then we must write off next season and give ETH a pass. That's the extent the United SEG would go to defend the guy
Click to expand...
It isn't unreasonable though, if we lose our best player without properly replacing him then not much will be expected of him.

I mean, we've set a precedent by keeping him anyway, and extending him on top of just simply not sacking him as it indicates we were not just 'ok' with previous season's efforts - we were actually pleased with it. The bar for next season has to be proportionately low.
 
Sarni said:
It isn't unreasonable though, if we lose our best player without properly replacing him then not much will be expected of him.

I mean, we've set a precedent by keeping him anyway, and extending him on top of just simply not sacking him as it indicates we were not just 'ok' with previous season's efforts - we were actually pleased with it. The bar for next season has to be proportionately low.
Click to expand...

A- I very much doubt that we won't be replacing him. Goldbridge himself admits to that but he 'fears' that the new signing won't be as good which, most certainly is the case (read C)
B- We're aiming for top 4 not the treble
C- Clubs are expected to lose key players every now and then but still perform to the highest level. SAF faced that on a regular basis (Cantona, RVN, Beckham, Ronaldo etc). At one point we lost 3 at the same go (Hughes, Ince and Kanchelskis). Lippi lost Zidane etc. They get on with their job, often relying on players who at least, at that particular time, inferior to the player they lost and yet they still do well. That's why managers are paid millions per year.

His claim that we should just write off the season if Bruno leaves further expose what the United SEG truly are.
 
Last edited:
devilish said:
This has nothing to do on whether one is ETH in or out but Goldbridge think that if we sell Bruno then we must write off next season and give ETH a pass. That's the extent the United SEG would go to defend the guy
Click to expand...

Absolutely nonsensical view, if that's the case then why did many outright disregard De Zerbi when Brighton continue to sell their best assets across a multitude of positions with low quality replacements for instance.

Bruno going is a loss to the team from an individual standpoint, but the manager needs to creatively implement a functional system at United irrespective that the team plays as a collective with less impetus on individuals having a significantly higher influence above their peers but a cohesive contribution. This is why City / Arsenal have distanced themselves from the competition.

The problem is United under the current coaching establishment are still struggling to formulate a consistent ideology that's proven successful, therefore the loss of a key player is inconceivable.
 
Redstain said:
Absolutely nonsensical view, if that's the case then why did many outright disregard De Zerbi when Brighton continue to sell their best assets across a multitude of positions with low quality replacements for instance.

Bruno going is a loss to the team from an individual standpoint, but the manager needs to creatively implement a functional system at United irrespective that the team plays as a collective with less impetus on individuals having a significantly higher influence above their peers but a cohesive contribution. This is why City / Arsenal have distanced themselves from the competition.

The problem is United under the current coaching establishment are still struggling to formulate a consistent ideology that's proven successful, therefore the loss of a key player is inconceivable.
Click to expand...

I don't know exactly what happened at Brighton but they do have a policy of constantly selling players off which makes it impossible for a manager to succeed past a certain level. But this is different. United aren't a selling club but they do lose key players and when it happens they rarely replace them with players whom, at least at the time, aren't equally good. That doesn't mean that we just write the season off.

Let's have a look when these things happened

Ince, Kanchelskis and Hughes. Hughes wasn't such a hit because we had Cole but for the rest it was a tragedy. Scholes was, at the time a forward and Beckham was nowhere near to Kanchelskis yet. Against Wimbledon, SAF got so frustrated with Becks that he considered substituting him for good. Then that goal happened and its all history

Cantona. We replaced him with Teddy, a clear downgrade

Beckham: We replaced him with an 18 year old Ronaldo. The media in Italy laughed their arse off at the deal. They said that United spent 12m on a lanky 18 year old who'll dribble his way to the corner flag. Ronaldo was nowhere near as good as Beckham at first but SAF coached him to become an upgrade.

Stam: we replaced him with an ancient Blanc. A clear downgrade.

Ronaldo: we replaced him with Valencia. A clear downgrade

SAF is not alone. Lippi lost Baggio and Zidane for example. Klopp lost Coutinho. Shit happens, players leave but top managers find solutions and bridge gaps with something called coaching. Surely his Eredivisie entourage can bridge the void left by Ole's signing right? Ok that was tongue to cheek but seriously, writing of a season because of Bruno is extreme.
 
devilish said:
I don't know exactly what happened at Brighton but they do have a policy of constantly selling players off which makes it impossible for a manager to succeed past a certain level. But this is different. United aren't a selling club but they do lose key players and when it happens they rarely replace them with players whom, at least at the time, aren't equally good. That doesn't mean that we just write the season off.

Let's have a look when these things happened

Ince, Kanchelskis and Hughes. Hughes wasn't such a hit because we had Cole but for the rest it was a tragedy. Scholes was, at the time a forward and Beckham was nowhere near to Kanchelskis yet. Against Wimbledon, SAF got so frustrated with Becks that he considered substituting him for good. Then that goal happened and its all history

Cantona. We replaced him with Teddy, a clear downgrade

Beckham: We replaced him with an 18 year old Ronaldo. The media in Italy laughed their arse off at the deal. They said that United spent 12m on a lanky 18 year old who'll dribble his way to the corner flag. Ronaldo was nowhere near as good as Beckham at first but SAF coached him to become an upgrade.

Stam: we replaced him with an ancient Blanc. A clear downgrade.

Ronaldo: we replaced him with Valencia. A clear downgrade

SAF is not alone. Lippi lost Baggio and Zidane for example. Klopp lost Coutinho. Shit happens, players leave but top managers find solutions and bridge gaps with something called coaching. Surely his Eredivisie entourage can bridge the void left by Ole's signing right? Ok that was tongue to cheek but seriously, writing of a season because of Bruno is extreme.
Click to expand...

Agreed
 
It seems management is a little smarter now because 6 year ago I'm sure we would have given him a 3 or 4 year extension and then owe a lot if we have to fire him. I hope he gets better and I hope he doesn't have a large say in transfers. His only really solid transfer so far is Martinez and he needs to avoid injuries to remain solid.
 
gerdm07 said:
It seems management is a little smarter now because 6 year ago I'm sure we would have given him a 3 or 4 year extension and then owe a lot if we have to fire him. I hope he gets better and I hope he doesn't have a large say in transfers. His only really solid transfer so far is Martinez and he needs to avoid injuries to remain solid.
Click to expand...
To be fair, 6 years ago he would have been sacked before even finishing the season.
 
Sarni said:
Nah, this has been disputed already, many top managers have gone into seasons with a year left and performed very well. This literally happened with Ancelotti at Real last year. Managers at top clubs are typically hardly ever perfectly safe anyway, bar extra-ordinary talent level exceptions like Pep, Klopp.
Click to expand...

Normally I'd say you are right simply because player want to succeed whether the manager is here to stay or not. And anarchy is not going to lead to success.

Having said that, maybe there's a difference between a successful manager that is into the last year of his contract and one who hasn't been doing as well and people have doubts over.
 
hobbers said:
It wasn't. And I never get tired of being proven right.

Publicly promising a new contract to rescue ETH's standing, but failing to agree one with him, just confirms what the doubters said about Ineos, and that the relationship between ETH and Ineos ain't lasting.
Click to expand...
Yeh, I was just messing about mate, but whatever.
 
Sarni said:
Nah, this has been disputed already, many top managers have gone into seasons with a year left and performed very well. This literally happened with Ancelotti at Real last year. Managers at top clubs are typically hardly ever perfectly safe anyway, bar extra-ordinary talent level exceptions like Pep, Klopp.
Click to expand...

The situation when a SAF, Carlo, Klopp etc. is involved is a bit different. Those were proven managers who had been there a while, and were/are few of the most successful managers of all time. Here we had a failing manager who finished 8th with a negative GD and only survived because he won the FA cup after a City player made a huge defensive blunder. Players would have known he is on borrowed time. Take Rangnick as an example, the players gave up on him after 45 minutes into his first game and decided to half arse it for the rest of the season. ETH would have been a similar lame duck.
 
Last edited:
You must log in or register to reply here.