It’s not what we do, you don’t turn on one of your own, however sh@te they are!!
Erik ten Hag | 2022/23 & 2023/24
- Thread starter sewey89
- Start date
- Status
It’s not what we do, you don’t turn on one of your own, however sh@te they are!!
Which is why I said that they are just slow and eventually agree with the Caf. Now there is no actually good reason for the slowness, so these silly arguments that try to portray a set of fans are worse than the others shouldn't be. We all want what is best for the club, we just work at different speeds.
But you did eventually turn on them?
Did you read the actual article? Because the title/tweet is misleading. He says that he had nothing to do with the actual valuation of the transfers. He didn't said that he didn't want those players, only that he did not actually negotiated the transfer fee and the wages.
I do find this hard to believe unless Arnold and Murtogh were afraid of being accused of not getting their manager's targets, so did whatever it took to get some of these players. I'm sure that at some point they told Ten Hag that Antony would cost almost world record fee, and that they would like to make sure than he is his man 100% before committing to such a fee and taking his wages from 20k a week, to 200k a week.
I’m on the other side - I think the longer it goes, the bigger chance he stays
It was commendable but I don't expect it to be always the case, sometimes the manager isn't responsible but in this case he can't play two tunes at the same time. He can't escape the following statement:
Of course …but the feckers will be back!Which has nothing to do with negotiating transfer fees and you can’t jump to the conclusion he was asked to sign off or agree to keep targets if the fee is high. Knowing how dysfunctional the club has been (repeated by many the communication between functions was not good) I wouldn’t be suprised if some got deals done because they didn’t want to miss out on getting the manager a player but didn’t go back with the fee.
Especially Antony and Casemiro who were signed late in the window after a couple of losses and especially after we we didnt manage to sign De Jong who they likely promised the manager they would get done
Personally when ETH was hired I was against him having transfer control for this reason because ultimately it creates pressure for the recruitment team when they manager wants a specific player and they may feel they have to do whatever to get them. This was also coming of the back drop of accusations of the club not backing managers.
Hopefully we can have a better structure going forward with clear lines of responsibility.
Last edited:
I already said that he was correct about the fees.
Yeah was one of my biggest complaints about him even before the disaster of this season. Seemed pretty obvious he was steering the ship for transfers
You also said this
“ But he is intellectually dishonest, he stated that he had a say and that it was a condition for his signing, so he isn't responsible for the price but he is responsible for the fact that they remained targets in spite of their high fees ”
Which my post commented on
I think you are looking at this upside down.
An attack into space is a high percentage approach: breaking down a block is a low percentage approach.
Again I don’t hear anyone mention injuries when discussing the ‘terrible setup’.
These comments are just ridiculous. We are all Utd fans and want the club to do well.
There seems to be an assertion floating around in football these days that very good managers can’t have poor seasons. Even when a large percentage of their previous seasons were very good the revisonism starts as soon as they have a bad one.
You didn't say anything that goes against it, if you are responsible for something, you are responsible for the communication and getting all the necessary informations. There is no way around it, yes isn't responsible for the fee or the negotiation of the fee but he is responsible for the targetting, he is also partially responsible for any lack of communication or informations that he didn't get when he simply had to ask, unless we are suggesting that the people negotiating would refuse to give him that information in which case they are 100% at fault.
I said this so yes I did, its ok if you disagree with what I said but no reason to say I didnt say it
“ you can’t jump to the conclusion he was asked to sign off or agree to keep targets if the fee is high.”
If anything’s happening it will probably be Monday now. If nothing happens then he’s staying put, it’s still been dealt with very poorly. We need a statement whether he’s leaving or staying. I still think keeping him hanging is awful considering he’s won us 2 trophy’s and ended our 6 year trophy wait.
So you are suggesting that signings were forced on him or that it was impossible for him to be informed about players' costs?
Open the poll, some of the arguments in here have changed my mind
My loyalty is to the club, not to one of its employees
Forced no I am saying you can’t assume he was asked about the fee / sign off the fee. That is not the same as forcing a signing
E.g “please sign me a RW and a DM here are a few names, we need these to positions filled before the window shuts”
Recruitment team go away and make 2 signings from the names on the list. The fees and wages don’t necessarily need to be discussed if they are within the previously discussed summer budget.
I am not saying that is what happened I am specifically saying you are making assumptions and jumping to conclusions and you shouldn’t because we don’t know. What we do know is that the function of the recruitment was a problem for plenty of managers at this club and we have had people go on record talking about the poor communication
I’m now thinking the longer it takes the more chance he goes.
Would imagine if they’re genuinely reviewing the season they’ll sack him.
Which assumes that he has done an half arsed job. If I expect and demand to be in control of transfers than I have the duty to be aware of every steps, otherwise I'm not in control and I'm not acting like someone that should be in control. And to be clear I don't interpret that as solely ETH's fault, Murtough and whoever else involved are also at fault if for some reason they didn't on their own fed ETH with every consequential piece of information but it's a two way street.
If they let him take charge of the pre-season games starting in mid-July then I can't see them sacking him this summer.
If he hasn't been sacked in the next couple of weeks I'd assume he's staying tbh.
Surely the assessment of the season could and should have been ongoing for a while now, nothing really changed. This dithering is showing a real lack of conviction and decisiveness.
You are again making assumptions on the agreement between him and the club. What did he mean by control of transfer etc and was what agreed in the responsibilities between him and the club which no one has disclosed.
Also I am not even saying he didnt make mistakes. He is clearly part of the recruitment and so takes some blame.
However Im pointing out that you taking what he said and extrapolating what it means in the its wider context and down to finer details is leading you to jump to multiple conclusions
Hopefully INEOS have got down to the facts of the matter and make the correct decisions to resolve the issues.
Ten Hag said the review was done. There are reports the club has talked to other managers and that the club is still being reviewed.
Maybe they are different reviews assessing different aspects.
Anyway, things aren’t looking good. Bruno’s agent is busy talking to other clubs.
Maybe they are different reviews assessing different aspects.
Anyway, things aren’t looking good. Bruno’s agent is busy talking to other clubs.
No I am questioning the idea of control. If you do not have important informations and can't take decisions based on these important information then how are you in control? What exactly are you controlling?
If Bruno wants another deal and improved terms (which is what is reported) I think the right choice is to sell him personally
I gave you an example where the control is speaking about the targets and priorities. What he meant by control is what I am saying you are assuming when you start talking about fees.
In any case hopefully the club has learned its lesson and hopefully he has too if he goes elsewhere
I have control of somethings at work when it comes to vendors. I don’t negotiate the contracts though thats up to procurement and my business sponsor. I don’t get involved in the numbers thats their job I see the numbers and have views on them but mostly thats after the deal is sealed
No doubt, he's too old for any sort of significant payrise.
Thank you. So pretty much as I suspected, more made-up nonsense being presented as “matter of factly”.
How do you know that it is what he meant by control when speaking about targets and priorities has nothing to do with having controls in transfers?
Maybe you are right but surely you see that your interpretation requires to take some liberties with the definition of control?
Should run a competition, INEOS announcement… date/time/stay/sack
Monday 3rd - 11am - sack
Monday 3rd - 11am - sack
I didnt say that is what he meant. I gave you an example which contradicted your view and said you should not assume.
And no I don’t think it requires taking liberties with the definition esepcially when I know we had John Murtough he also had control in transfers and Arnold was also involved.
Also we know that part of his control was a veto on agreed targets because they told us this. We have no idea if this included the fee or not what we do know if targets are agreed at the start of the widow
Yeah maybe he meant something totally different than control. I see your point.
But we hardly ever played counter attack. That's Oleball.
Ole didn't want to play a high line and progress the ball through the back. Ten hag did. I agree that the system didn't work though, because we failed to beat high presses/were nervous and poorly executing our progression up the pitch. However that does not mean the system itself was Ole ball.
We also press a lot higher than we did under Ole, by design. Calling Ole ball is a bit of a lazy interpretation.
- Status