Giving managers new contracts a couple of months before sacking them

Revan

Assumptionman
Joined
Dec 19, 2011
Messages
50,754
Location
London
As the great orator George W Bush once said, 'Fool me once, shame on you. Fool me twice, you cannot fool somebody twice, unless it is Man United in which case you can fool them thrice'.

Did that with Mourinho, did that with Ole (and doubled down by extending the contracts of his staff 2 weeks before firing Ole), and now with EtH (I know that technically we just activated his +1 option, but that was completely avoidable and that 'gesture' cost us 7m or so.

Are we too quick to do so? Are our boards completely unable to read the situation? Do we have more money than sense, and are trying to balance this not by finding sense but by losing money?
 
Of course we are too quick and everyone knew it in the summer as well.

You can't sign a new contract with a manager you had just wanted to sack.

I'm too tired with this gratitude for previous achievements (we keep too many useless players thanks to that) and awards for winning a trophy (like FA Cup gave ten Hag new contract). Ypu should be fired when you're not good enough at some clubs that want to be at the very top.
 
As usual, the media are whipping people into a frenzy, baiting you with half-truths to make every scenario sound worse than it is in reality.

United triggered a pre-agreed one year extension in the Summer after the FA Cup Final win.

Yes, technically you are within your rights to say that "United extended EtHs contract"...but they did not give EtH a "new" contract, and these stories are designed to mislead people into believing that INEOS handed a manager a brand spanking new deal only to sack him weeks later.

He got a 1YR extension on pre-agreed terms. When you read something, question it before feeling an emotional reaction either way.
 
Lentwood said:
As usual, the media are whipping people into a frenzy, baiting you with half-truths to make every scenario sound worse than it is in reality.

United triggered a pre-agreed one year extension in the Summer after the FA Cup Final win.

Yes, technically you are within your rights to say that "United extended EtHs contract"...but they did not give EtH a "new" contract, and these stories are designed to mislead people into believing that INEOS handed a manager a brand spanking new deal only to sack him weeks later.

He got a 1YR extension on pre-agreed terms. When you read something, question it before feeling an emotional reaction either way.
Click to expand...
I literally had it in my OP that we activated the +1 year clause, so neither got baited nor baited anyone on a half-truth. Which frankly speaking was kinda stupid cause things ending this way was by far the most likely option and now it costs us another 7m.

Managers going into their last year of contract is very common. Heynckness won a treble doing so, Guardiola also goes into his last year of contract without signing a new one, there was no reason to extend EtH's when instead this season should have served as a trial for him to earn one.
 
Revan said:
I literally had it in my OP that we activated the +1 year clause, so neither got baited nor baited anyone on a half-truth. Which frankly speaking was kinda stupid cause things ending this way was by far the most likely option and now it costs us another 7m.

Managers going into their last year of contract is very common. Heynckness won a treble doing so, Guardiola also goes into his last year of contract without signing a new one, there was no reason to extend EtH's when instead this season should have served as a trial for him to earn one.
Click to expand...
My guess would be that they wanted to avoid the media asking him about it at every press conference and making the entire season focus on that instead of football.
 
They didn't give him a new contract, they triggered an extension - presumably on the basis that they didn't want him to only have a year left, and be pressed into having to offer him a longer term deal if he started well, and the press banging on about it all year. Not the best decision, looking back now but not necessarily a poor decision then, if they'd decided to give him a chance.

The actual impact of that in terms of compensation is unknown. You don't get your full contract paid up when you get sacked - you're either negotiating an upfront pay off now for a lower sum, or the club will be required to honour the contract and continue to pay you, usually until you get a new job.
 
With ten Hag specifically I think the new guys made a mistake being so public about wanting to move Erik on. When they decided not to sack him they had to make a show publically so as to not fatally undermine him. As it turns out nobody was buying that and they kinda did just that.
It’s INEOS’s first mistake, and as long as they don’t make the same mistake again (a mantra of SJR) then it’s forgivable.
 
It would makes sense if in the new contract you have inserted a clause limiting the pay out of the team are in a certain position.

I would be surprised if INEOS haven't done that and the pay out to ten hag is a lot less than has been reported
 
Sending managers with a huge payout is the Manchester United way as much as 442 or attacking football.

It is quite baffling that in all three situations (the extensions and this triggering of the one year) it was pretty obvious to anyone who watched the games regularly that it was not working out and the end was very near. Still somehow we opened our hearts and decided that we are going to send this millionaires of with a few more millions. The mind boggles, but I doubt we'll ever get an explanation for these baffling decisions.
 
I think it was done with the best of intentions and I can't fault them. They wanted to give him a fair shot so they triggered his extension to show faith. No one could have predicted we'd be in for such a shite start to the season. But I don't think any mistakes were really done here. It just didn't work out sadly.

I know a lot of naysayers will say it was clear to anyone but honestly it wasn't that clear. Sure it proved right, but it wasn't really guaranteed to fail.
 
Whilst they share similarities, I think it's worth pointing out the differences too between Jose, Ole and ETH.

Things went south pretty fast with Jose after probably the most underwhelming transfer window we've had since summer 2013. Whilst Jose certainly isn't blameless, from having got us to 2nd place and an FA Cup final he was tasked with closing the gap to City with Fred and Dalot. Writing was on the wall from then on.

Ole just imploded. It was genuinely impressive if it wasn't so depressing. He had by far the most talented squad we've amassed in years and it went totally to shite.

ETH's demise coincided with a messy time for the club behind the scenes. It was the wrong decision likely made on the back of a cup win, but I can see the logic in wanting to give him another chance under a different structure/trying to keep a bit of stability amidst the changes.
 
1988 said:
I think it was done with the best of intentions and I can't fault them. They wanted to give him a fair shot so they triggered his extension to show faith. No one could have predicted we'd be in for such a shite start to the season. But I don't think any mistakes were really done here. It just didn't work out sadly.

I know a lot of naysayers will say it was clear to anyone but honestly it wasn't that clear. Sure it proved right, but it wasn't really guaranteed to fail.
Click to expand...
But plenty of people predicted exactly that. We were screaming that this will end only one way, and it will end very soon.

Honestly, it was one of the easiest predictions you can make in football.
 
Revan said:
But plenty of people predicted exactly that. We were screaming that this will end only one way, and it will end very soon.

Honestly, it was one of the easiest predictions you can make in football.
Click to expand...

I honestly don't think it was.
 
1988 said:
I honestly don't think it was.
Click to expand...
Why did so many people predict it then? You’ve had your worst start to the season in PL history beating a record set *checks notes* last season by ETH.

This is the most foreseeable sacking in recent times.
 
1988 said:
I honestly don't think it was.
Click to expand...
Fair enough if you think so, opinions are subjective and people, including our board, might have thought that EtH can still be here successful.

However, the idea that it is only by the benefit of hindsight that we know he was going to fail IMO is quite incorrect. We were screaming in football forums that there is no chance EtH can turn it around, and that was a waste of money and time.

It is a bit like if we give Antony a new contract, and he continues being quite bad, then saying at that time it made sense, no one would have predicted him to be as bad, despite that lots of people would have been saying that he will be exactly that bad.

I really think this episode was extremely predictable and myself predicted this back then (as did lots of other posters). And honestly, I do not know much about football.
 
Dr. Dwayne said:
They don't call us Moanchester United for nothing.
Click to expand...

It's actually exhausting hearing our fans and media blame the club for everything.

Most of the media drivel coming out this week should be dismissed. All the press have proven since the summer is that unless ETH is the leak, they have no way of channeling information from the club at the moment.

From their misinformation on knowing the club would sack Ten Hag to their inability to find out about Amorim.

It's quite clear the club followed a plan that's been in the works for weeks, yet the press didn't know, and are finding ways to cover up for not being in the know. I just wish United fans won't take every bait coming from the press.
 
Everyone seems to have bought into the explanation that we couldn’t go in with just a year remaining on his contract. There’s absolutely no reason why. Pep is doing it currently. The previous regime burnt money with Moyes, Jose, Ole and so are these guys.
 
Plant0x84 said:
With ten Hag specifically I think the new guys made a mistake being so public about wanting to move Erik on. When they decided not to sack him they had to make a show publically so as to not fatally undermine him. As it turns out nobody was buying that and they kinda did just that.
It’s INEOS’s first mistake, and as long as they don’t make the same mistake again (a mantra of SJR) then it’s forgivable.
Click to expand...
What was the mistake? I would personally have sacked him in the summer, but given that they didn't, they didn't owe him anything else.

If you are a manager and are performing poorly, you should expect that the club aren't best pleased with you and would make plans to potentially move you on.

The fact that he got a second chance should have been enough to motivate him to succeed, knowing fully well he couldn't make any more slip ups.

If knowing that he wasn't wanted, wasn't enough motivation for Ten Hag to give his best effort, then he was never good enough to have the job.

Too much is being made of him being a sitting duck manager. He was backed in the market over the summer and was given ample time to turn it around. In addition, the players did not down tools. The team just simply weren't good enough. For any other team in world football, the idea of him being a sitting duck manager would never be a story. However, at "lets always excuse the manager" United, pundits like Neville make it a point to always find an alternative spin to protect a manager's image, and due to our size, whether positive or negative, the press will run away with the story.
 
Daydreamer said:
Why did so many people predict it then? You’ve had your worst start to the season in PL history beating a record set *checks notes* last season by ETH.

This is the most foreseeable sacking in recent times.
Click to expand...
When you have either "he will be sacked" or "he won't be sacked" and a ton of people deluding themselves into knowing they think the future, it's quite hard for a lot of them to not get it right.
 
I think Ten Hag's extension was a misguided attempt at removing the Sword of Damocles, as it were.
 
Because we rarely have a succession plan in mind? Which is because we rely heavily on the manager to "do a Fergie" and fix everything on his own? Because bringing a new guy in probably means another half a billion spent on players in the course of the next few years?
 
TheRedDevil'sAdvocate said:
Because we rarely have a succession plan in mind? Which is because we rely heavily on the manager to "do a Fergie" and fix everything on his own? Because bringing a new guy in probably means another half a billion spent on players in the course of the next few years?
Click to expand...

The bolded part is bad reasoning, in the sense that United will spend on the first team like every other club. I wouldn't surprised if your assumption is correct but it would indicate that the thought process is wrong especially since ultimately executives are entirely responsible for any money spent or not, no manager can impose it on them and most clubs don't operate in ways that give that much influence to the head coach.
 
I guess extending it was a gesture to show they had made the decision to back him for the season.

Obviously in hindsight it was stupid, but then in hindsight the majority of manager and player contracts we've extended/renewed have been stupid decisions
 
ETH was on a 1 year contract therefore we could either sack him or we could extend his contract. What we definitely couldn't do is to wait only for him to start discussing terms with another club. That would have been too distracting. Thus after the FA cup win, INEOS had no choice but to extend his contract for a year
 
devilish said:
ETH was on a 1 year contract therefore we could either sack him or we could extend his contract. What we definitely couldn't do is to wait only for him to start discussing terms with another club. That would have been too distracting. Thus after the FA cup win, INEOS had no choice but to extend his contract for a year
Click to expand...
Pep is on his last year of contract, as has been before. Heynckess was on his last year of contract when he won the treble. Dyche is on his last year of contract.

There is no issue with the manager being on their last year of contract, it has happened with far better managers than EtH.

Also didn't he get the +1 extension cause he rejected the new contract we offered to him (which would have removed him from transfer duties)?

I do not see where is the problem if the manager is on their last year of contract. Letting EtH earn his contract would have made much more sense, rather than gifting him another year of salary. Of course, sacking him would have made even more sense, but somehow we always find the worst solution.
 
Lemoor said:
When you have either "he will be sacked" or "he won't be sacked" and a ton of people deluding themselves into knowing they think the future, it's quite hard for a lot of them to not get it right.
Click to expand...
That’s a not the situation I was describing, though.

ETH was literally the first out twenty PL managers to be sacked this season. That’s something that was very easy to see coming because he managed United through their worst ever league campaign since the PL began.
 
Last edited:
Revan said:
As the great orator George W Bush once said, 'Fool me once, shame on you. Fool me twice, you cannot fool somebody twice, unless it is Man United in which case you can fool them thrice'.

Did that with Mourinho, did that with Ole (and doubled down by extending the contracts of his staff 2 weeks before firing Ole), and now with EtH (I know that technically we just activated his +1 option, but that was completely avoidable and that 'gesture' cost us 7m or so.

Are we too quick to do so? Are our boards completely unable to read the situation? Do we have more money than sense, and are trying to balance this not by finding sense but by losing money?
Click to expand...
You lost me when you called Bush a great orator.
 
JPRouve said:
The bolded part is bad reasoning, in the sense that United will spend on the first team like every other club. I wouldn't surprised if your assumption is correct but it would indicate that the thought process is wrong especially since ultimately executives are entirely responsible for any money spent or not, no manager can impose it on them and most clubs don't operate in ways that give that much influence to the head coach.
Click to expand...

Well, i agree with you. But they do - or, at least, did - rely on the manager to get the transfers right. My assumption stems from the fact that transfer dealings at United have usually been a one-way street. We pay a lot - sometimes more than we should - and we rarely sell. Until that particular arrangement is fixed, it wouldn't surprise me, if what a new managerial appointment entails was often considered burdensome for them. I believe Solskajer admitted that the manager has a limit of three first-team signings per season.
 
Revan said:
Pep is on his last year of contract, as has been before. Heynckess was on his last year of contract when he won the treble. Dyche is on his last year of contract.

There is no issue with the manager being on their last year of contract, it has happened with far better managers than EtH.

Also didn't he get the +1 extension cause he rejected the new contract we offered to him (which would have removed him from transfer duties)?

I do not see where is the problem if the manager is on their last year of contract. Letting EtH earn his contract would have made much more sense, rather than gifting him another year of salary. Of course, sacking him would have made even more sense, but somehow we always find the worst solution.
Click to expand...

Pep and Heynckes are club legends mate. You can trust them to stick around and you don't sack them if they dont. Dyche is a dinosaur whose managing a club that is struggling to make ends meet. Having managers on their last year of contract is problematic. Even SAF had issues keeping United motivated during his first near retirement (the one in which Eriksen was close to succeed him)

We gave ETH a 1+ extension because we weren't comfortable to give him more. It's evident that INEOS weren't happy with ETH. We sold McT (ETH wanted him), we didn't sign Amrabat (ETH wanted him) we signed Ugarte instead (who had no links with the Eredivisie) and after sacking ETH, Ugarte's former manager seem to find himself at OT at more speed then Barry Allen
 
In this case not making the change in the summer, while behind the scenes the manager and the players had to have known every match was essentially an audition, was essentially a self imposed points deduction and it explains the defeatist mentality, nervousness and lack of confidence that our players have exhibited this season. If we only missed half of the big chances we created this season are we having this conversation? Probably not, but this is why you can't d*** around with the intangible aspects of the game. You can assemble all the talent you want, but if the players aren't right mentally it doesn't matter and they fail to do even the simplest things when it's time to step on the pitch.

There is absolutely no way, in my opinion at least, that the manager and the players didn't know how thin the ice they were on was from the very beginning of the season. The replacement shortlist that was pulled up when INEOS decided to part ways with ETH had to have been the one they made over the summer, and it was a shortlist made for a vacant manager spot, which to me means they decided to part ways but changed their mind for whatever reason but in hindsight that was a mistake.
 
TheRedDevil'sAdvocate said:
Well, i agree with you. But they do - or, at least, did - rely on the manager to get the transfers right. My assumption stems from the fact that transfer dealings at United have usually been a one-way street. We pay a lot - sometimes more than we should - and we rarely sell. Until that particular arrangement is fixed, it wouldn't surprise me, if what a new managerial appointment entails was often considered burdensome for them. I believe Solskajer admitted that the manager has a limit of three first-team signings per season.
Click to expand...

Everyone relies on the transfers being right. My point was more about the idea of keeping a manager because you will otherwise spend on new players totally flawed since you will spend on new players regardless of the identity of the manager. And three first team player is about right, it matches with SAF's theory which is that you want to turnover about half of the team on a 5 years period.
 
Nickelodeon said:
Everyone seems to have bought into the explanation that we couldn’t go in with just a year remaining on his contract. There’s absolutely no reason why. Pep is doing it currently. The previous regime burnt money with Moyes, Jose, Ole and so are these guys.
Click to expand...
It's a bit different imo. Fergie used to do it too, but like Pep he was invincible, and it was just a matter of how long he wants to manage. So there was no need for anyone to have doubts.

With ETH our mistake was speaking to a lot of managers before deciding to extend. It made him look extremely vulnerable, because basically it was just a case of not finding a good replacement. Once they made the decision to keep him, they had to extend.
 
1988 said:
I think it was done with the best of intentions and I can't fault them. They wanted to give him a fair shot so they triggered his extension to show faith. No one could have predicted we'd be in for such a shite start to the season. But I don't think any mistakes were really done here. It just didn't work out sadly.

I know a lot of naysayers will say it was clear to anyone but honestly it wasn't that clear. Sure it proved right, but it wasn't really guaranteed to fail.
Click to expand...

To be fair quite a few people predicted it which is why they wanted him sacked in June. Sadly the club didn't seem to have a clue and I assume just expected everything to get better once Martinez was fit.
 
Daydreamer said:
That’s a not the situation I was describing, though.

ETH was literally the first out twenty PL managers to be sacked this season. That’s something that was very easy to see coming because he managed United through their worst ever league campaign since the PL began.
Click to expand...
Before the season started he was the third favorite in betting odds to getting sacked first. Yes, the probability that he was going to get sacked before the season ends was always massive compared to what any club wants to enter the season with, but pretending that it was close to 90% or more is just not true without some sort of hindsight.
 
I can see what you're getting at, but I don't think it works like that in real life running a major organization. Sure, I personally agree that they should have sacked him at the end of the season. For a number of possible reasons they chose differently - financials, fan sentiment after the cup final, structural upheaval behind the scenes, difficulties finding a replacement etc.

Making that choice in the context of big uncertainty (media, players, club staff, stock market even) requires some level of credible commitment I think. The +1 one was the cheapest way for them to send a signal to the relevant stakeholders that they were actually continuing with him for real.

I hindsight it looks stupid, a waste of money, but at the time they were making the decision the future wasn't known with certainty and their choice could potentially shape that future at least partially. That the scenario they were hoping for didn't materialize, well that's what happens when you roll the dice. But if you don't commit anything to the pot while making that bet, you're unlikely to convince anyone at the table so to speak.
 
The ETH one I’m fine with. Once we agreed to keep him on, given the endless talk about his position, we wanted to make some effort to back him publicly and make the best of it. Didn’t work out, well, that’s life. Sometimes you take a risk to make the best of a situation and it doesn’t work out. Only the nostradamuses talking online predict the future right all the time.

The rest, I’d have to go back and remind myself of the timeline.
 
I don’t judge Ineos too harshly to be honest.

Fan sentiment was for Ten Hag to stay after the cup final and there would have been a pile-on if he had been sacked.

They didn’t seem to have a clear candidate lined up. Maybe Tuchel was the most likely but it sounds like there wasn’t a clear agreement. I don’t think waiting a few months should hurt us in the long-term as long as there was a future-proof logic behind the summer signings.

I’m actually pleased with them that they didn’t fall into the trap of giving him a longer extension than one year. I feel like the old regime may have done once it was decided he was staying.

Not extending at all and letting his contract running was never really an option as it would have further undermined Ten Hag’s authority and, again, those criticising the extension would instead be saying he was doomed to fail due to the public lack of faith. They were damned either way unless Ten Hag could turn it around.

The big error that was made was the leak and admission that we were speaking to other candidates. That did undermine the manager significantly. But I think they were certain after the Palace game that he was gone and could not foresee the win against City and the drastic change in fan opinion.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.