Yeah he demanded that he should have a say or control of transfers. Things like that will be based on mutual understanding rather than on piece of paper. It's nearly impossible to enforce that.
Erik ten Hag - Manchester United manager
- Thread starter sewey89
- Start date
-
In the latest episode of the United Hour Podcast, Nik (@Rood) is joined by CEO Duncan Drasdo and Financial Director Andy Green from the Manchester United Supporters Trust for a special episode on all things behind the scenes at Old Trafford including a brief history of MUST and their aims today, views on INEOS and Sir Jim Ratcliffe so far, and the Old Trafford regeneration.
So what is it, a veto or final say? It can't be both.
Did you get a proper and true translation from a native speaker on what Ten Hag said re:Total control of transfers or did you just read the English speaking media's interpretation?
Did you read Laurie Whitwells article in the Athletic from around December time where he goes over Ten Hags "control" and just why he had to sign players he knew?
Ten Hag has a veto on transfers, now wether or not that Veto is overriding or an option to use to be able to bring other player options to the table is up for debate. Most managers in these setups have the latter, but, and this is hugely important when discussing Erik's control on transfers. Ten Hag didn't sign a contract to be a part of a setup. The setup wasn't there for him to be a part of.
From the first murmurings of the appointment of Ten Hag, everyone said that he should be nowhere near transfers and works better under a structure. Whitwell stated that when Ten Hag signed on the dotted line Murtough made specifically a promise to Erik that nobody seems to come back to despite it being VERY telling as to Ten Hags first Summer and why we did a half assed job last Summer. Murtough asked Erik (bare in mind that this is an account from Whitwell, and whilst he gets a bit of an inside track from the club because he does stuff for the United Foundation charity, it is still only a media story just like every other basis of evidence on this thread regarding behind the scenes drama etc) for positions within the squad that Erik felt needed to be improved on and the profiles of those positions he needed to get the team to play how he wanted and Erik gave him that list (at this point, we are not talking about total control, this is a very specific request that is important in and out of any kind of setup because a manager is suppose to know what profile of player his style of play requires). Murtough told Erik that those players would be identified AND signed by day 1 of preseason so that we could hit the ground running. That promise was not kept. The story goes that Ten Hag was greeted with a list of players for every profile he requested, and told that there was nobody at the club to give the final sign off on specific players (structure not in place) so Erik would have to identify the players he wanted from the line up, if the promise from Murtough was true, then the evidence is clear in how inactive we were until Ten Hag and the squad came back. That is your total control, because the club was incompetent, they let Erik choose his own transfers, and wether you care to accept it or not, a foreign manager coming to a new league is going to want his most trusted players.
Then you have the rumours that the club were offered Antony AND Martinez for less than £100m and Joel refused to sign off on it, instead paying over inflated fees for individual last minute purchases and having to lay down groundwork on the spot. Meaning that where we needed to improve quality and depth for a champions league campaign, we didn't have the money and had to make do with loans, free transfers etc.
Now all of that is an example of course of interpretation and selectively picking evidence to fit a narrative, but ultimately that's kind of the point I am trying to make.
The thing is, we live in an age where everything is accessible, back in the day you could ring phone lines to get "inside scoops" from "club sources" at £1.50 a minute. Now they generate that revenue from clicks. Most football fans in the country are going to want to click on stories that sound outrageous, chaotic, scandalous, it's human nature. Whilst the TRUTH is that we just don't know and probably won't even get an unbiased account.
I was excited to see ETH at Manchester United, and the noise around the club at the time was pretty good. We all saw what he could do as manager and have all seen his success at winning trophies. People here always bring up the "I can't get this team to play like Ajax" quote as if it deeply hurts them inside, "well that's what WE signed him for" when the truth is we don't know what wowed Murtough and Fletcher during that interview, and WE didn't sign him nor did WE give him a second chance under INEOS, we are a million miles away from the decision makers and those decision makers I would hope are a damn sight more qualified than you or I on why he has been given a new contract and the conditions therein previously and now.
This became a whole lot more than debating wether or not Ten Hags previous contract had Veto, total control or in fact neither officially, I am sorry for this splurge of text, but I do believe there's an important message in there.
Very good summary, I just quote the things I would like to add something to 
I don't know. As I said I'm just guessing about things that could be in his contract that would make sense and would explain why there is a need to renegotiate his contract. I think it's reasonable to assume that something like that existed so far.
Neither. Actually I know Dutch well enough to read it, if spoken slowly I can even understand it
On the Dutch thing, that's absolutely fair. I work for a company in the UK that send me and a team to the Netherlands (plus other places in Europe) to clean server rooms and I was told by local people at the time that it was more a regional dialect/tone thing and that a more accurate translation was in line with having control ie veto as opposed to TOTAL control but that is essentially conjecture on my part and having never been very good at picking up language I can concede that it was very assuming of me and a bit stand off ish.Very good summary, I just quote the things I would like to add something to
I don't know. As I said I'm just guessing about things that could be in his contract that would make sense and would explain why there is a need to renegotiate his contract. I think it's reasonable to assume that something like that existed so far.
Neither. Actually I know Dutch well enough to read it, if spoken slowly I can even understand it
As an aside I also attend several Ajax games a month while over there and enjoyed some very good years of football under ETH, that I honestly hope we can unlock with this new structure, I was heavily critical of him around March time having weeks between games to see an identity and seeing nothing.
Exactly.
Does anyone actually believe that after finishing 8th in the league and spending 400m on players over 2 seasons, INEOS said "hey Eric we would like you to continue working here" and Eric was like "well OK but ONLY IF I HAVE FULL CONTROL OVER TRANSFERS GUYS"?
He has no control. He will be consulted, but will not be pointing at targets and will have limited VERO rights.
Don't worry about sounding "stand off ish", I didn't take it that way. That "veto right" was my understanding of his comments about wanting control as well. The big question which we won't be able to answer for sure is: How (if at all) was this control/veto right put into his contract? And was it done in a way that requires the contract to be changed before Ashworth can get his contract (as some resposibilities might have to be shifted from EtH to him). I presume yes, but I acknowledge that this is also just being hopeful, because that would be a sensible reason to negotiate a new contract with EtH. Which I believe he doesn't deserve at all, I hoped for him to be sacked by now. But if he stays limiting his influence is probably a good choice.
Ashworth has started early, new contract and adding two experienced coaches to his staff. We even look like bringing in one of his dream signings in De Ligt.
I will continue to repeat this, Erik Ten Hag has zero excuses this upcoming season in putting out a team that fully reflects and executes his ideas out there on the pitch. I will not accept the defence that he’s playing like this because he doesn’t have the players he wants or that the players aren’t listening to his instructions. If after year 3 we see the same type football or not much of an improvement it finally proves that he isn’t good enough.
Any manager that coaches a team for three seasons will have a team that reflects their style. Most managers do it in less time but next season is the final straw for him.
I will continue to repeat this, Erik Ten Hag has zero excuses this upcoming season in putting out a team that fully reflects and executes his ideas out there on the pitch. I will not accept the defence that he’s playing like this because he doesn’t have the players he wants or that the players aren’t listening to his instructions. If after year 3 we see the same type football or not much of an improvement it finally proves that he isn’t good enough.
Any manager that coaches a team for three seasons will have a team that reflects their style. Most managers do it in less time but next season is the final straw for him.
There's no chance in hell ETH has any leverage to use to enforce his saying on transfers regardless what is put in the contract. He was already packed the day before FA Cup final and remained in his position only because of alternatives collapsed. He would be insane to play this card being in such a weak position.
As of now, rightly or wrongly, he gets all the blame for players that have been brought during his regime. Shifting responsibility from ETH to the club is in Eric's best interest.
Isn't that what ETH wanted in the first place, instead of 3rd - 4th choice players? I have no doubt UTD will finish top 4 and add another trophy.
If Erik can get the spine of the team playing on a consistent basis then we'll be fine, especially if we get the first choice players we want in those positions.
Onana, De Ligt, Martinez, Mainoo, Ugarte, Fernandes, Hojlund/Zirkzee is a pretty strong spine. I'd prefer a properly clinical striker but the only one about I can think of is Lautaro Martinez at the moment who would be gettable and not in their 30's.
Onana, De Ligt, Martinez, Mainoo, Ugarte, Fernandes, Hojlund/Zirkzee is a pretty strong spine. I'd prefer a properly clinical striker but the only one about I can think of is Lautaro Martinez at the moment who would be gettable and not in their 30's.
It doesn't get much better than Hojlund as far as "being clinical" is concerned.
Is Euros/copa down all transfers ? Not sure why it would stop certain ones going ahead.
Also, do we take it that Casemiro isn’t going anywhere as not much reason why we couldn’t do some deal to sell him. Unless club doesn’t want to sell him without a replacement?!
Also, do we take it that Casemiro isn’t going anywhere as not much reason why we couldn’t do some deal to sell him. Unless club doesn’t want to sell him without a replacement?!
Yeah would love Lautaro but unfortunately we haven't got the funds to spend freely like Chelsea
Tweet
— Twitter API (@user) date
Very interesting.
A veto does not equal sole control, before the usual posters start crying.
If he doesn't get the right players, it is a valid excuse, not a made up one.
Brilliant, like I said before I felt quite uncomfortable with this idea that he'd have no say.
Exactly, I imagine how this will work is he will suggest positions he needs players for and suggest his preferred targets which club will assess and if there are no obstacles/reservations, will pursue. If we fail to get his preferred targets, club will present him with a choice of different players that could also fill the need, which he will be allowed to object. He will have significant control but will not be the only one picking every single player. Feels natural to operate this way, especially when we have already invested so much to build a team around his original ideas.
When was this ever the case?
What you described is pretty much how it's been - which makes the whole "structure" thing funny in retrospect - although it'll likely be more robust/have more capable people supporting now.
It will be largely similar, where I expect us to improve greatly is suggesting alternative targets. E.g. he wanted FDJ, our previous structure failed delivering him and took too long to admit that, and then alternate target was Casemiro who is a completely different type of player, at a different point in his career and providing a very different fit.
Even if we admit Casemiro was supposed to play next to De Jong then it's even worse because then we basically failed to get any alternative for the player ETH wanted most.
The alternative to Frenkie de Jong was already at the club in Kobbie Mainoo.
Very interesting.
A veto makes perfect since , the manager might not get all the first on the list players he wants but he should have a veto on players he does not rate at all, anything else would be a recipe for disaster.
A veto is what he had before
Which wasn't the reason it didn't work well in the transfer market.
He also had more of a final say on targets , I don't think he will get that now and people will be more open to telling him that even if affordable that a move for X at X price does not make sense and we will be taking a pass.
Not saying it did
One of the most overrated and overvalued players in the footballing world. Nowhere near worth over 100 million. Same case as Julian Alvarez. They have some good qualities but you can find players for 40-50m that can do everything they can, to the same level.
According to who? According to articles I have read, that's not true, the club failed to get their own targets, which is why we fell back to Ten Hags like e.g Antony (after the club failed to sign a RW all summer). Similarly with Amrabat after the club failed to sign a DM all summer
Ah fair enough. A lot of posters had a moan about the failings being down to Ten Hag having control, and that was only cited because he held a veto. It was frustrating to read.
We didn't really chase any other DM last Summer, did we? It was more of being unable to offload McTominay to open up funds to sign Amrabat earlier.
We were reported to be looking at Onana, and also Fofana but could not raise the funds and so had to fall back to Amrabat.
Nice try at still trying to keep an excuse opening for him.
Like I said if you are in a job for three seasons and don’t have a team that reflects your ideas on the pitch, you have failed and should be moved on.
Great article, as usual.
One thing I'd love for us to utilize better is the academy. There's a lot of untapped potential there, in my opinion. We should have more youth players break through or at least be given a chance for 1-2 seasons even if they don't make it long-term with us, similarly to how Barcelona operate in this regard, or how LVG was willing to give almost anyone a chance without hesitation during his time at the club. Another thing is that we should also be able to sell our academy products for a higher price than we usually do, like how City and Chelsea operate...although if I'm not mistaken, City's approach is mostly focused on picking up the best 15-16 year olds and then either giving them a chance when they're closer to 20, or sell them for huge profit, rather than have them come through every rank from a much younger age and have them spend all their youth years at the academy, like we've done with Rashford, Greenwood, or Mainoo.
Regarding the scouting department, I can confidently say the same thing, that there's a lot of untapped potential. It's clear that ours is one of the best in the world, but the club never really took advantage of that. I'm really hoping that will change.
Regarding the veto question, they were never gonna take the manager's power away IMO. Everyone should have a say and the power to veto something. People just don't realize that in a well-drilled setup, such a thing almost never happens. The manager, Wilcox, the scouting department and everyone else involved in building the squad will know exactly what we're missing and what needs to be done on the market to solve our problems. Some people just want us to sign someone for every position that the manager actively opposes, and that will somehow be the way forward.
That’s a pragmatic solution. We don’t sign any players he does not want, but equally he only gets to sign players the club has properly vetted and sit within our structure and philosophy so if he is sacked, they’re still club signings not manager signings that make no sense to the next manager.
Its not different to the previous setup, well except we now have some good football people
The levels of incompetence in some of this is just... difficult to digest. The club doesn't sell well because... they don't deem selling players as worthwhile income? I don't even...
I mean that's not what the article says. It says they previously didn't have to consider it because there was always lots of money coming in. It's still incompetent, but then what do you expect from the Glazers and their stooges like Woodward? Future planning just isn't part of their skillset.
It also does a good job of dispelling the myth that our scouts are useless. If anything it sounds like they and the system we have in place is one of the best around, but senior figures are poor decision makers.
Hopefully they'll change now we have experienced people like Ashworth and co in charge. If he still has to defer to the Glazers every time we want to sign a youth player for a few million though, then nothing will change.
A veto would be fine, and sensible, for a manager to have. No problems with that. No point signing a player who the manager won't want in his squad.
The problem is that Ten Hag seems absolutely set in prioritising players he already knows - and it doesn't take a genius to know that his eye for a good signing is lacking