Erik ten Hag | 2022/23 & 2023/24

Status
Not open for further replies.
RedRocket9908 said:
We could have signed Hannibal for free but paid €10m euros instead
Click to expand...
A good reminder of why you shouldn’t believe everything you read as this isn’t even remotely true.

He claims we could have signed him a year earlier, ignoring the fact that if we did that Hannibal would have only been 15, making it illegal and earning us a transfer ban.

We didn’t follow up on it? More nonsense, it was widely reported we had a bid rejected in January right after he turned 16, as soon as we could possibly move for him legally.

Available for free? Again not true. Hannibal tried to take Monaco to court to have his contract nullified but they lost the case and he wasn’t allowed to leave for free.
 
Am I right in saying that his contract ran until next year but that there was the usual +1 option we seem to like.

So this is essentially the additional year being triggered as the terms are being reported as being the same.
 
1 year extension? Thats maybe a good compromise but it potentially leaves the door open to speculation again. Two years might have been more advisable. Still, at least it's done and we can push on now hopefully on the playing staff side.
 
Is this really a new contract or just the plus one being activated? Either something was changed which required a new contract or the plus one could only be activated if both parties agreed i.e the club couldn't automatically activate it?
 
GlasgowRedz said:
Am I right in saying that his contract ran until next year but that there was the usual +1 option we seem to like.

So this is essentially the additional year being triggered as the terms are being reported as being the same.
Click to expand...

It clearly says ... signs new Contract.
 
We’ve essentially just triggered the 12 month extension, I thought he would sign a longer term deal but it is what it is
 
DomesticTadpole said:
So basically what he would have had if we just let him continue with final year of current contract and then triggered the extra year at the end of it. It will be the terms of the contract that will be different.
Click to expand...

The terms of the contract are the same as per the Athletic article.

They've essentially triggered his extension and said it's a new deal. A bit bizarre.
 
GlasgowRedz said:
The terms of the contract are the same as per the Athletic article.

They've essentially triggered his extension and said it's a new deal. A bit bizarre.
Click to expand...

No where in Utd's statement does it say its a new deal....

This is just his same contract with the one year option being triggered, which I should imagine required both parties to agree on to happen, hence the discussions.
 
astracrazy said:
No where in Utd's statement does it say its a new deal....

This is just his same contract with the one year option being triggered, which I should imagine required both parties to agree on to happen, hence the discussions.
Click to expand...
Check the headline
 
I hope with a hierarchy above him that is benefitting of a team that wins major honours and is very much modern, that he can just focus on being first team head coach.

The transfer window will be integral for him and we seem to already be making some interesting moves.
 
RedRocket9908 said:
Click to expand...


Could have sworn the initial articles from the Athletic said that he had signed a new contract on existing terms, the article now states he's extended his deal by the club triggering the 1 year option.

Anyway, it doesn't really matter. It's the right call firming up the second year.
 
McFred said:
Why do you say that?
Click to expand...

We were told he was 100% sacked before the FA cup win. Before and/or after INEOS touted other managers, and if reports are true, one or two declined. They then decided to keep EtH, who has just had his contract extended on the same terms he was promised when he left Ajax. I can't help but feel Ineos dug themselves into a hole with this one which gave EtH the leverage to get the extension he wanted (which I do think was his terms for staying from how it was reported when it was announced, but I guess perhaps Ineos had to because of the speculation). We all imagined it would be a new contract with terms more favourable to Ineos which it obviously isn't.
 
Last edited:
Adnan said:
i think there should be more optimism now with Ratcliffe in charge because that hopefully means the Glazers won't be involved on the football side of the club. I think any DoF under the Glazers would've been setup to fail. I think with the constraints Murtough was under, he's left behind a strong scouting and data department along with a strong academy which he developed when he arrived.

As far as the veto is concerned, that's normal because if you have heads of recruitment in place, then ten Hag won't be involved like he was in 2022 after the sacking of Bout and Lawlor. That again is a Glazer problem.


Click to expand...

That all sounds completely straight forward. Hire me instead, I‘m a lot cheaper.
 
LawCharltonBest said:
It's not information so it's not based off any facts. It's my concern. My concern is due to the signings under him and the signings we're being reliably linked with this summer.

De Ligt - ex-ETH player.
Branthwaite - ex-Eredivisie
Zirkzee - Dutch

There are links to the PSG midfielder but not from anybody reliable yet.
Click to expand...
This whole Eredivisie trope of yours: surely you realize it is making you look silly?

I guess we should not have signed Van Nistelrooij, Jaap Stam, Van Persie. Big mistakes those.
 
This transfer window is especially critical for him now, as he essentially has just one year to convince the new football management before getting into his final year.

I hope he gets the ins and out he needs, and then is able to put out consistent performances. So many times we put together a very good half or half an hour and then things came crashing for one reason or another. Also I don't want to see Bruno or anyone being undroppable after consistent trash performances.
 
OldTrevil said:
This transfer window is especially critical for him now, as he essentially has just one year to convince the new football management before getting into his final year.

I hope he gets the ins and out he needs, and then is able to put out consistent performances. So many times we put together a very good half or half an hour and then things came crashing for one reason or another. Also I don't want to see Bruno or anyone being undroppable after consistent trash performances.
Click to expand...
What Bruno trash performances? He has been consistent. He can use a backup for rotation, but he is no 1 on the teamsheet.
 
NLunited said:
This whole Eredivisie trope of yours: surely you realize it is making you look silly?

I guess we should not have signed Van Nistelrooij, Jaap Stam, Van Persie. Big mistakes those.
Click to expand...

They also keeps saying there's no reliable links to Ugarte, even though it's been reported by the Athletic, who are apparently reliable enough to believe the links to the other 3 players they've mentioned.
 
NLunited said:
This whole Eredivisie trope of yours: surely you realize it is making you look silly?

I guess we should not have signed Van Nistelrooij, Jaap Stam, Van Persie. Big mistakes those.
Click to expand...
That has nothing to do with what I’m saying whatsoever but okay
 
OldTrevil said:
He was absolutely diabolical for months last season, I would say from November all the way to the beginning of March, EtH would have been well within his rights to drop him on merit.
Click to expand...
Absolutely not, he was not the problem. You don‘t take out the player who always fights and makes stuff happen. Especially not when the team is in trouble.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.