Erik ten Hag | 2024/25 | Votes can now be changed

Erik ten Hag

  • Sack

  • Back

Results are only viewable after voting.
RedRover said:
The "money people" in a business look at more than spend. Paying to get rid is a significant outgoing, but continued poor performance obviously impacts future revenue. Every league position costs money, and will have an impact on commercial deals as well.

If the cost of sacking him was a decisive factor, why take up the option on his contract to extend by a further year?

Also, there's no way the Accountants are dictating to the multi-million pound a year footballing executives what they can and can't do. That's why this is all so frustrating. The "best in class" footballing structure are making the calls.
Click to expand...
Uncle Mainoo said:
Excuse my lack of intelligence.. are you saying to sack him would cost more money than to pay him for the remainder of his contract? - Think about what I’ve just asked! If the answer is No, then I don’t know what there is to think about in all honesty.

Hiring new coaching staff? If they are building the club as they keep telling us they are, they are only hiring at max 3 additional coaches who’s wages are never going to be extravagant.

As an example: We hire Tuchel. Do you reckon his number two who 95% of us probably has never heard of is going to be on £1m a year? Would that be what Bayern was paying him.
Click to expand...
I'm simply posing a possible response to the question "why isn't everyone on the same page?" Seeing as they aren't all on the same page and wanting him to be sacked, there must necessarily be a reason. Money is often a pretty popular reason behind decision-making, moreso when it's clear from previous actions arising from our financial troubles.

If you're interested in venturing another guess, either of you, I'd be interested to hear it.
 
Judas said:
Who is determining who or who isn’t a fan? What a wild thing to magic up from what I said :lol:
Click to expand...
"But these aren’t fans, they should be so much more cut throat and unforgiving."

What is this certain type mean?

Perhaps I interpreted the last part incorrectly
 
Pretty grim reading. When the only reasons to keep him are that he offers stability vs making a change, you know somethings up. I want to buy a beer for whoever put their head above the parapet and said it was all predictable in the summer though. I bet that went down like a lead balloon.

The biggest takeaway, and most concerning aspect, of the article is that it seems our new management team aren't on the same page and not really equipped to make quick decisions as a result.
 
Uncle Mainoo said:
Excuse my lack of intelligence.. are you saying to sack him would cost more money than to pay him for the remainder of his contract? - Think about what I’ve just asked! If the answer is No, then I don’t know what there is to think about in all honesty.

Hiring new coaching staff? If they are building the club as they keep telling us they are, they are only hiring at max 3 additional coaches who’s wages are never going to be extravagant.

As an example: We hire Tuchel. Do you reckon his number two who 95% of us probably has never heard of is going to be on £1m a year? Would that be what Bayern was paying him.
Click to expand...

Of course it would cost more money. You sack him and you have to pay off his contract, plus pay the wages of the guy who replaces him.
 

hobbers said:
This is what needs rooted out into the public domain so we know who in that board room to write off.

Ratcliffe at least seems to consistently want ETH sacked going back to before the FA cup final. We can safely say that much.
Click to expand...
No we don’t. We need experienced staff to come to their own decisions without a bunch of morons turning up at their house etc, or leaving idiotic death threats on social media. Who votes for what in that meeting is absolutely none of yours, mine or any other Joe public’s business
 
McGrathsipan said:
How in the hell could you possibly know there is no chance?

Nobody has a clue about how they operate in the background
Click to expand...
Well is the manager still here? Yes. I don’t know if the payment goes down the later they sack him or what.
 
golden_blunder said:
No we don’t. We need experienced staff to come to their own decisions without a bunch of morons turning up at their house etc, or leaving idiotic death threats on social media. Who votes for what in that meeting is absolutely none of yours, mine or any other Joe public’s business
Click to expand...
Also, simple statement like 'x wanted to keep Ten Hag and y didn't', cause you need to know the arguments. It's certain that no-one is saying Ten Hag is doing well.
 
hobbers said:
I dunno about turning up at their houses with pitchforks, but when you have an executive team getting paid hundreds of millions deciding the fate of a football club, I think they deserve at least the same level of scrutiny and accountability as the manager. And if there is the possibility of too many cooks and disagreements among them even moreso.
Click to expand...
We don’t need to know, we don’t know the context of their thoughts. All it does is make it open season for the knuckle draggers to come out from under their rock again
 


Pennies in the grand scheme of things, the damage to the clubs reputation if he gets another season will be worse
 
diarm said:
Of course it would cost more money. You sack him and you have to pay off his contract, plus pay the wages of the guy who replaces him.
Click to expand...

Which is exactly the same concept to every club in world football who sacks a manager.

It’s not and should never be our concern. He gets paid the remainder of his contract or maybe we settle on a pay off. Eitherway it should never be a deterrent to getting rid of an underperforming manager.
 
golden_blunder said:
We don’t need to know, we don’t know the context of their thoughts. All it does is make it open season for the knuckle draggers to come out from under their rock again
Click to expand...

That will probably happen anyway in some form if results keep spiralling.

Look at Woodward. Okay he was a useless CEO, but still seemed a decent guy and genuinely wanted the club to succeed. Didnt deserve masked twats all over his lawn. But because he was the lone decision maker he had nowhere to hide from the scrutiny.

Now we have 6 of them and if things keep going wrong it'll turn into a merry go round of passing the buck.
 
Berbaclass said:
Click to expand...

A big part of a football focused ownership group is that they will prioritize the big decisions regardless of cost and adjust their spend elsewhere. You gotta manage your finances but the manager just needs to be right. If he's not the one going forward, you sack him asap and absorb the cost and find the right person. If it impacts the transfer market, so be it.
 
hobbers said:
Look at Woodward. Okay he was a useless CEO, but still seemed a decent guy and genuinely wanted the club to succeed. Didnt deserve masked twats all over his lawn. But because he was the lone decision maker he had nowhere to hide from the scrutiny.
Click to expand...
I didn't expect someone saying this in hindsight about Woodward. Did expect even less that I would agree. Woodward clearly lacked football knowledge and didn't have the support he would have needed to do a better job (which was his own fault as he could have signed top people for that job just like INEOS now tried), but he clearly had some kind of standards and clear red lines that a manager couldn't cross without consequences.

I don't get the feeling that these standards Woodward (ffs...) had still exist.
 
hobbers said:
That will probably happen anyway in some form if results keep spiralling.

Look at Woodward. Okay he was a useless CEO, but still seemed a decent guy and genuinely wanted the club to succeed. Didnt deserve masked twats all over his lawn. But because he was the lone decision maker he had nowhere to hide from the scrutiny.

Now we have 6 of them and if things keep going wrong it'll turn into a merry go round of passing the buck.
Click to expand...
That’s why our scrutiny should be with the boss who put the structure together - Ratcliffe, rather than individuals. Individuals don’t need to be open to bullying
 
My favourite part of all this is how an headline comes out and no matter its vailidity or shallowness certain people run with it and make obscene scenarios in their heads as though it’s fact! Great entertainment :lol:
 
United can obviously afford to sack him - that isn't a major issue here.

(And the idea that Jim is reluctant to pull the trigger because of PSR is blatantly ridiculous.)
 
Chesterlestreet said:
United can obviously afford to sack him - that isn't a major issue here.

(And the idea that Jim is reluctant to pull the trigger because of PSR is blatantly ridiculous.)
Click to expand...
From Jims comments and rumours(if true), he seems to be most keen to sack him.
 
Rolaholic said:


Pennies in the grand scheme of things, the damage to the clubs reputation if he gets another season will be worse
Click to expand...

You dont't think it would be worse to have the reputation of being a club that sacks the manager the moment the going gets a bit tough? What kind of signal does that send out to the world? Not only to aspiring managers out there but also as a life lesson in general. Money can't buy love and loyalty.
 
laughtersassassin said:
I don't believe anyone could actually argue for ETH staying at this point and not come across as insane/deluded.

If it's been a discussion then surely he'd be sacked.

No football related discussion could possibly lead to him staying imo
Click to expand...
"It would cost us seventeen million pounds" is the only possible argument.
 
Worst part in delaying this is that I'm dreading watching our games these days. I can't stop myself from watching, but I no longer look forward to it. I was hoping with some kind upcoming fixtures this would have been a great time to get a new manager and inject some positivity around the team. Really can't take another month of this.
 
Someone said:
Worst part in delaying this is that I'm dreading watching our games these days. I can't stop myself from watching, but I no longer look forward to it. I was hoping with some kind upcoming fixtures this would have been a great time to get a new manager and inject some positivity around the team. Really can't take another month of this.
Click to expand...

Hear ya mate. All I care about is watching young players develop at this point. Only thing that keeps me interested. I'll always watch and support the Club, just not that fun right now. Hopefully, always darkest before the dawn and all that....
 
It’s funny watching journalists scramble for word counts and clicks in a vacuum of information.
 
Marwood said:
I'd say that's extremely hopeful rather than a grey area.

I think everybody deep down knows they would have moved him on in the summer if we didn't win the cup. They stuck with him because of that and are now in a tricky position.

Doesn't mean INEOS are a disaster but we can accept they've made a decent sized mistake. Rather than hoping there's some data which justifies hanging onto him.

Either way this club badly needs to start acting like an elite sporting environment
Click to expand...

Samid said:
You dont't think it would be worse to have the reputation of being a club that sacks the manager the moment the going gets a bit tough? What kind of signal does that send out to the world? Not only to aspiring managers out there but also as a life lesson in general. Money can't buy love and loyalty.
Click to expand...
If we sacked a manager the moment things get a bit tough then Ten Hag would be gone long, long before the start of this season.
 
Uncle Mainoo said:
Which is exactly the same concept to every club in world football who sacks a manager.

It’s not and should never be our concern. He gets paid the remainder of his contract or maybe we settle on a pay off. Eitherway it should never be a deterrent to getting rid of an underperforming manager.
Click to expand...

I fully agree with you. I was just responding to the question you asked.
 
As many had stated, the silence from the board is telling. It's almost certain that ETH will be gone. None of the football structure people come out to defend ETH in the media even though strong rumors circling around that ETH will be sacked. Finger crossed.
 
bosnian_red said:
A big part of a football focused ownership group is that they will prioritize the big decisions regardless of cost and adjust their spend elsewhere. You gotta manage your finances but the manager just needs to be right. If he's not the one going forward, you sack him asap and absorb the cost and find the right person. If it impacts the transfer market, so be it.
Click to expand...

Yes, and it's not much money in the great scheme of things. Easy for a club like ours to trim things here and there to generate £14m if they really wanted.

Amrabat £8.5m loan fee. I'm assuming we paid his wages on top which would make it close to £14m altogether, at least 11 or 12. It's not having him for a year.

It's not signing Malacia or Telles. It's selling someone like Elanga.
 
Yakuza_devils said:
As many had stated, the silence from the board is telling. It's almost certain that ETH will be gone. None of the football structure people come out to defend ETH in the media even though strong rumors circling around that ETH will be sacked. Finger crossed.
Click to expand...
Problem is they’ve wasted a week of international break that an interim could’ve used to bed in. Monday would’ve been the logical day to do it, can’t see the reason for the delay unless it’s basically keeping him and they don’t feel obliged to announce that he’s staying.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.