Erik ten Hag | 2022/23 & 2023/24

Status
Not open for further replies.
EtH said himself that he was discussing a new contract with the club (even said it wouldn't be easy).
If this is true that we basically activated a 1-year extension clause, it could mean that they could not agree to new terms and we basically were forced to activate the extension to not look like idiots since everything was public regarding him staying (and getting a new contract)
 
UnofficialDevil said:
Explains why we're going for De ligt and Zirkzee
Click to expand...

It doesn't a veto does not stop the club suggesting good players to sign and they also have a veto. So far seems like their option has been Brainthwaite who is way overpriced
 
Keeps the option to bail on him sharpish. A good move. He needs to earn the trust.
 
Now this is finally sorted. Time to back him and hope for a successful season.
 
Cassidy said:
It doesn't a veto does not stop the club suggesting good players to sign and they also have a veto. So far seems like their option has been Brainthwaite who is way overpriced
Click to expand...
He knows he will now need to prove himself even more, so even though he has this veto, he now actually has people who will be suggesting players to him, rather than the club just letting him get on with it, he would be a fool to veto somebody who could make his job easier. I am now hopeful we are going for younger players who have a point to prove.
 
DomesticTadpole said:
He knows he will now need to prove himself even more, so even though he has this veto, he now actually has people who will be suggesting players to him, rather than the club just letting him get on with it, he would be a fool to veto somebody who could make his job easier. I am now hopeful we are going for younger players who have a point to prove.
Click to expand...

We always had this, this narrative that we just let him get on with it needs to die. We signed Hojlund and Mount over players ETH wanted, we signed Casemiro over a player ETH wanted. We also signed some players ETH recommended as we seem to be doing again with De Ligt
There is no difference to the setup (aside from getting better football people in to make decisions), the main issue we have always has is the competence of the people getting deals done, and most importantly getting players out and if this part doesn't change this summer (getting players out) we will still have big issues
 
Cassidy said:
We always had this, this narrative that we just let him get on with it needs to die. We signed Hojlund and Mount over players ETH wanted, we signed Casemiro over a player ETH wanted. We also signed some players ETH recommended as we seem to be doing again with De Ligt
There is no difference to the setup, the main issue we have always has is the competence of the people getting deals done, and most importantly getting players out and if this part doesn't change this summer (getting players out) we will still have big issues
Click to expand...
Thought he wanted Mount because his team had played against when he was on loan in Holland. ETH apparently wanted Kane didn't he. There was no chance in hell of that happening. Casemiro I do think was a d**k waving exercise from the club. The first season he was obsessed with FDJ. That should have been nipped in the bud early on, once the player said he did not want to leave Barcelona.
 
DomesticTadpole said:
Thought he wanted Mount because his team had played against when he was on loan in Holland. ETH apparently wanted Kane didn't he. There was no chance in hell of that happening. Casemiro I do think was a d**k waving exercise from the club. The first season he was obsessed with FDJ. That should have been nipped in the bud early on, once the player said he did not want to leave Barcelona.
Click to expand...
I believe you're right. Mount was a ETH signing that was agreed by the club. Hojlund was more of a club signing where ETH preferred him over Muani (one of the other club targets iirc).

Casemiro definitely was on the club. Even if ETG wasn't convinced, it would have been difficult for him to veto that signing given his desperation for a midfielder.
 
saivet said:
I believe you're right. Mount was a ETH signing that was agreed by the club. Hojlund was more of a club signing where ETH preferred him over Muani (one of the other club targets iirc).

Casemiro definitely was on the club. Even if ETG wasn't convinced, it would have been difficult for him to veto that signing given his desperation for a midfielder.
Click to expand...
I am definitely hoping that we will not see any Casemiro type signings for a long time. Muani hasn't exactly set the world alight at PSG, but he may get more of a chance next season I suppose. Hjolund scored more goals than him despite being injured or benched for most of the time.
 
DomesticTadpole said:
Thought he wanted Mount because his team had played against when he was on loan in Holland. ETH apparently wanted Kane didn't he. There was no chance in hell of that happening. Casemiro I do think was a d**k waving exercise from the club. The first season he was obsessed with FDJ. That should have been nipped in the bud early on, once the player said he did not want to leave Barcelona.
Click to expand...

ETH wanted Kane and Rice, we signed Hojlund and Mount. Mount was a club suggestion (after learning Liverpool and Arsenal were after him) not ETHs he agreed to both, that's how it works.
 
Cassidy said:
ETH wanted Kane and Rice, we signed Hojlund and Mount. Mount was a club suggestion (after learning Liverpool and Arsenal were after him) not ETHs he agreed to both, that's how it works.
Click to expand...
Most teams would fancy Kane but no way Levy was going to let him leave for another PL club. Rice would have been nice, but he didn't want to leave West Ham and they were glad of the money.
 
DomesticTadpole said:
Most teams would fancy Kane but no way Levy was going to let him leave for another PL club. Rice would have been nice, but he didn't want to leave West Ham and they were glad of the money.
Click to expand...

What are you even talking about, he left West Ham and went to Arsenal.
No one is disputing it would have been difficult to sign Kane, simply pointing out that ETH was not left to his own devices (as you suggested) the club had a veto on all signings and we signed players that were at the suggestion of the club (Casemiro, Mount, Hojlund) which ETH agreed to.
Saying that the club will now start suggesting players to ETH as if it has not been happening previously is silly
 
Cassidy said:
What are you even talking about, he left West Ham and went to Arsenal.
No one is disputing it would have been difficult to sign Kane, simply pointing out that ETH was not left to his own devices (as you suggested) the club had a veto on all signings and we signed players that were at the suggestion of the club (Casemiro, Mount, Hojlund) which ETH agreed to.
Saying that the club will now start suggesting players to ETH as if it has not been happening previously is silly
Click to expand...
Sorry I meant to say he didn't want to leave London.
 
DomesticTadpole said:
No saying they didn't contact Rice's reps and they said that he wanted to stay in London, so then we had to move on. Only the club and Rice know that one.
Click to expand...

I have no idea how this is relevant. You said the following "he now actually has people who will be suggesting players to him, rather than the club just letting him get on with it,"

Yet this was already happening as the club suggested the following signings as alternatives to ETHs first choices: (Kane -> Hojlund, Rice -> Mount, FDJ -> Casemiro) as examples
 
Cassidy said:
I have no idea how this is relevant. You said the following "he now actually has people who will be suggesting players to him, rather than the club just letting him get on with it,"

Yet this was already happening as the club suggested the following signings as alternatives to ETHs first choices: (Kane -> Hojlund, Rice -> Mount, FDJ -> Casemiro) as examples
Click to expand...
You're in an argumentative mood today aren't you.
 
I think United and Sir Ratcliffe wait Answorth the discuss and decided the contract extension. New sporting director. He has to have a word on it. I would do it too.

If not Answorth, then i would discuss with the next. Wilcox or Omar. But in Ratcliffe interview. He talked openly about Answorth. You not starting a party without him. So for me. No problem to wait about Ten Hag decision after the arriving of Answorth.
 
kkengvib said:
EtH said himself that he was discussing a new contract with the club (even said it wouldn't be easy).
If this is true that we basically activated a 1-year extension clause, it could mean that they could not agree to new terms and we basically were forced to activate the extension to not look like idiots since everything was public regarding him staying (and getting a new contract)
Click to expand...

Bingo. So now Ineos have had unsuccessful negotiations with Tuchel, RdZ and ETH.

But I'm sure there's a manager out there who will agree to the role under their terms. And we know who that will be.
 
Cassidy said:
It doesn't a veto does not stop the club suggesting good players to sign and they also have a veto. So far seems like their option has been Brainthwaite who is way overpriced
Click to expand...

If ETH veto every deal he doesn't like then do you think ineos will accept their first summer to be without transfers?
 
devilish said:
If ETH veto every deal then do you think ineos will accept their first summer to be without transfers?
Click to expand...

While Ten Hag would be filled with joy with no additions due to his obstinance .

Lets get back to real world shall we . Talk about Cutting off one's nose to spite one's face.
 
saivet said:
I believe you're right. Mount was a ETH signing that was agreed by the club. Hojlund was more of a club signing where ETH preferred him over Muani (one of the other club targets iirc).

Casemiro definitely was on the club. Even if ETG wasn't convinced, it would have been difficult for him to veto that signing given his desperation for a midfielder.
Click to expand...

Mount wasn't an EtH signing at all.

According to the Athletic, EtH originally wanted FDJ with Rice as the alternative (and that summer Rice was interested), but the club went for Casemiro. The following year EtH wanted Rice again but we were too late to the table and Rice went elsewhere, so the club signed Mount.

It also claims EtH wanted Gakpo (to solve our striker shortage) and Antony (to solve our RW shortage after Sancho said he wanted to play LW), but the club said he could only have one - this is of course after the club failed to sign both Martinez and Antony for £100M. We ended up over spending on Antony at the end of the window and loaning Weghorst in Jan. EtH then wanted Kane but got Hojlund.

https://www.nytimes.com/athletic/5549017/2024/06/14/erik-ten-hag-player-tensions-principles-play/

It's interesting until recently most laid the blame of our signings at EtH door, but the reality appears to be quiet different.
 
Last edited:
pcaming said:
He only has 1 veto, those signings are good signings in their own right. De Ligt is presently the most talented of the CBs we've been linked with despite coincidentally being from that Ajax team.
Click to expand...
He was good for 6 months at Ajax and when he was a young boy, he had poor seasons at Juve and Bayern.
 
Can vetoes (in general, not specifically the manager's) get overriden if there is unanimity from everybody else? If every person on the committee has a veto and there's no mechanism for overriding a veto, it could lead to analysis paralysis and gridlock down the line.
 
All this veto talk is bollocks. It's not like they rock up for pre season training and the manager has loads of transfers he wants, and then they have a meeting on it having not discussed it previously.

They will have a list of positions Erik wants to strengthen, then they will have a list of targets, first choice, second choice, etc. These will then be agreed on by everyone involved, and the club works towards getting that target. It's not like Erik comes from left field and suggests some random Dutch kid at the last minute and everyone goes "no thanks". This has already been done last season and they'll have been working on deals for months now.
 
Seems strange that there was so much talk from Ratcliffe and Ineos about changing the role of the manager within the new structure and the club having Ten Hag sign a new contract. (Presumably to facilitate the change in his position and perhaps reduce his influence.)

Only to end up triggering the optional year on his existing contract and basically going into the transfer window with things as they were.

You have to wonder if Ten Hag and the Club couldn't come to an agreement on his new role/powers.
 
gajender said:
While Ten Hag would be filled with joy with no additions due to his obstinance .

Lets get back to real world shall we . Talk about Cutting off one's nose to spite one's face.
Click to expand...

He won't be happy of course. However soon enough info will be spilled from his camp that he wasn't adequately backed in the same way all other previous managers were not backed. Then eventually he will get sacked, he will pocket 20m and he will start elsewhere

Its the owners whose got more to lose here with loss of revenue, an increase of fan frustration and a hit on their reputation.

Ultimately a tree can be identified by its fruit. Since ETH joined We had developed a fetishness for Eredivisie players/coaches and it seems that it haven't changed this season. Now we learn that the veto is still there

Don't take me wrong. I fully agree with ineos strategy of activating ETH 1 yr contract extension. The alternative managers available were crap and the decision makers had yet to enter the building. We basically kicked the can to next summer when we will be prepared for that discussion. All I am saying is that let's not pretending that ETH doesn't have us by the balls for the time being. If ETH stays afterwards then I am pretty sure that they would do their outmost to remove that silly veto off his contract
 
stevoc said:
Seems strange that there was so much talk from Ratcliffe and Ineos about changing the role of the manager within the new structure and the club having Ten Hag sign a new contract. (Presumably to facilitate the change in his position and perhaps reduce his influence.)

Only to end up triggering the optional year on his existing contract and basically going into the transfer window with things as they were.

You have to wonder if Ten Hag and the Club couldn't come to an agreement on his new role/powers.
Click to expand...

I think that it's unlikely he wanted to give that up, why would you give something up you already have? I guess the difference is they've put a lot of people around him now and are even changing the make up of the first team staff. So, the contract might not have changed directly but he certainly seems to have needed to make some concessions to keep the power be did have.
 
astracrazy said:
Mount wasn't an EtH signing at all.

According to the Athletic, EtH originally wanted FDJ with Rice as the alternative (and that summer Rice was interested), but the club went for Casemiro. The following year EtH wanted Rice again but we were too late to the table and Rice went elsewhere, so the club signed Mount.

It also claims EtH wanted Gakpo (to solve our striker shortage) and Antony (to solve our RW shortage after Sancho said he wanted to play LW), but the club said he could only have one - this is of course after the club failed to sign both Martinez and Antony for £100M. We ended up over spending on Antony at the end of the window and loaning Weghorst in Jan. EtH then wanted Kane but got Hojlund.

https://www.nytimes.com/athletic/5549017/2024/06/14/erik-ten-hag-player-tensions-principles-play/

It's interesting until recently most laid the blame of our signings at EtH door, but the reality appears to be quiet different.
Click to expand...

According to Stretford paddock, Fletcher told them that ETH is obsessed with mason mount and he was pushing to sign him up
 
devilish said:
He won't be happy of course. However soon enough info will be spilled from his camp that he wasn't adequately backed in the same way all other previous managers were not backed. Then eventually he will get sacked, he will pocket 20m and he will start elsewhere

Its the owners whose got more to lose here with loss of revenue, an increase of fan frustration and a hit on their reputation.

Ultimately a tree can be identified by its fruit. Since ETH joined We had developed a fetishness for Eredivisie players/coaches and it seems that it haven't changed this season. Now we learn that the veto is still there

Don't take me wrong. I fully agree with ineos strategy of activating ETH 1 yr contract extension. The alternative managers available were crap and the decision makers had yet to enter the building. We basically kicked the can for next summer when we will be prepared for that discussion. All I am saying is that let's not pretending that ETH doesn't have us by the balls for the time being
Click to expand...

EtH strikes me as the kind of guy who values success over being wealthy and in the right.

There's a lot of doomsday scenarios in here where he's basically scuppering our season like some kind of Scouse sleeper agent! He wants to win, and if the club offer him the chance to sign good players then he won't say no to that.

Also, the club hierarchy can veto his suggestions. It sounds like a recipe for chaos, but I'm reality it just means you have to work together to come to a decision you both agree on.
 
Crimson King said:
EtH strikes me as the kind of guy who values success over being wealthy and in the right.

There's a lot of doomsday scenarios in here where he's basically scuppering our season like some kind of Scouse sleeper agent! He wants to win, and if the club offer him the chance to sign good players then he won't say no to that.

Also, the club hierarchy can veto his suggestions. It sounds like a recipe for chaos, but I'm reality it just means you have to work together to come to a decision you both agree on.
Click to expand...

He strikes me as a person who sticks to his core values more then anything else. That's not necessarily a bad thing. There are many system managers like him. However you cannot play the Mutual destruction game with guys like that by providing them with a veto cause they can be quite stubborn about it
.
Its been reported that ETH signed for us on the condition he has a veto, that ineos were set to offer him a 3 yr contract but they want that veto gone. We opted to trigger the 1 yr extension instead. This argument is far from over
 
Big Ben Foster said:
Can vetoes (in general, not specifically the manager's) get overriden if there is unanimity from everybody else? If every person on the committee has a veto and there's no mechanism for overriding a veto, it could lead to analysis paralysis and gridlock down the line.
Click to expand...

What you are suggesting is a vote not a veto. That's why the veto thing is silly. Imagine if the club is working on a limited budget and they found the next Zidane. Unfortunately that would take 1/3 of the budget and he might need 1-2 years to mature. The manager whose assessment is pretty much performance based might veto the deal because he wants an immediate fix
 
Status
Not open for further replies.