Giving managers new contracts a couple of months before sacking them

RedRover said:
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.
Click to expand...


I'm not a Manchester United fan but I thought it was a really poor decision, in fact I was amazed by the whole situation and how he had been granted an extension after a terrible season, even for a club with a lack of standards.

It was a poor decision back then because of the league performances and embarrassing elimination in an easy group in the UCL. If the board was already searching for a replace it was also a poor decision not to sack him then, let alone granting him on more season, more funds and activate an extension. If you're a player and know the club is searching for a replacement you can't take serious an underachieving manager.

The fact that his permance was already heavily in question since the summer was only going to create a ton of pressure for the club the moment the team went through a bad spell, which didn't take too long for happen.

So all in all I thought it was a terrible decision back then as a neutral.
 
Lemoor said:
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.
Click to expand...
So you’re saying according to the betting markets there were only 2 out of 20 managers more likely to be sacked before ETH. He was literally in the 90th percentile.

You need zero hindsight to predict ETH being fired. Your club was trying to part ways with him in the Summer.
 
Daydreamer said:
So you’re saying according to the betting markets there were only 2 out of 20 managers more likely to be sacked before ETH. He was literally in the 90th percentile.
Click to expand...
90th percentile of most likely to be sacked at the beginning of the season, doesn't mean that it's 90% to sack him over the season.
 
Lemoor said:
90th percentile of most likely to be sacked at the beginning of the season, doesn't mean that it's 90% to sack him over the season.
Click to expand...
He wasn’t just in the 90th percentile to be sacked at the beginning of the season. He was in the 90th percentile of Managers to be sacked first. That means the likelihood of him being sacked at some point during the season is incredibly high.

But you don't need to have any sort of aptitude with mathematics to work that out. He finished last season in 8th with negative goal difference. And even that was quite fortunate as United exceeded their xPts by the biggest margin in the league.

I'm genuinely interested, by what metric was it surprise that ETH was sacked?
 
Last edited:
Acheron said:
I'm not a Manchester United fan but I thought it was a really poor decision, in fact I was amazed by the whole situation and how he had been granted an extension after a terrible season, even for a club with a lack of standards.

It was a poor decision back then because of the league performances and embarrassing elimination in an easy group in the UCL. If the board was already searching for a replace it was also a poor decision not to sack him then, let alone granting him on more season, more funds and activate an extension. If you're a player and know the club is searching for a replacement you can't take serious an underachieving manager.

The fact that his permance was already heavily in question since the summer was only going to create a ton of pressure for the club the moment the team went through a bad spell, which didn't take too long for happen.

So all in all I thought it was a terrible decision back then as a neutral.
Click to expand...

I don't disagree it was a poor decision, and now proven to be the wrong one. In context, the club didn't have it's senior football executives in position and, it seems, weren't convinced with the options available. My point was that since they did decide not to sack him, picking up the option was, to some degree understandable.

I think it was the wrong call, but the next best time to act is now, and to be fair, they've identified and moved quickly for a replacement. The decisive way in which they've acted is good to see.
 
Daydreamer said:
He was just in the 90th percentile to be sacked at the beginning of the season. He was in the 90th percentile of Managers to be sacked first. That means the likelihood of him being sacked at some point during the season is incredibly high.

But you don't need to have any sort of aptitude with mathematics to work that out. He finished last season in 8th with negative goal difference. And even that was quite fortunate as United exceeded the xPts by the biggest margin in the league.

I'm genuinely interested, by what metric was it surprise that ETH was sacked?
Click to expand...
It wasn't a surprise, but it definitely wasn't a certainty. Him coming around was always based on few assumptions like: injury list last season being a complete freak accident, having a consistent backline meaning that he will actually feel comfortable going away from dumb short-term solutions and youth players he introduced improving the team yet again. It's not incredibly common, but coaches absolutely turn stuff like this around, even if this obviously was not the case here.

I don't want to get absurdly pedantic, especially since getting good quality historical data for this is absolutely horrible and getting a final answer would be as fun as pulling your teeth out, but I'm nearly certain that it wouldn't be anywhere close 90%. You have 20 teams, under half of them change the managers each year (and some of those are coaches resigning/end of season swaps) and start of season predictions are notoriously horrible in retrospective. Midseason sacking just don't happen that often and plenty of managers improve after a bad spell that is supposed to be their death.
 
Pexbo said:
Anyway this is a great post from June when we gave ten Hag a new contract.
Click to expand...
Pexxie, it would be a bit fairer if you would have posted my posts in that thread than simply a sentence taken out of context.

So, here it is the continuation of that thread:

Rista said:
Keeping him doesn't make sense. So, no.
Click to expand...
Revan said:
It doesn't, I agree. But a 2 year contract after deciding to keep him makes more sense than 4-6 year contract which would have been given under the previous regime.

Still think that he'll be sacked by Christmas.
Click to expand...

So yeah, compared to how we did under the previous management (long stupid contracts), extending his contract by effectively 1 year made sense. In comparison being the key phrase. It did not make absolutely any sense to continue with him though, or giving any new contract, in absolute terms.

And voila, without the benefit of hindsight, predicted that he will be sacked before Christmas. As did lots of other posters.

Finally, I know feck all about football. But you do not need to know anything about it to know that EtH was a hopeless cause. Which make this waste of money even more stupid.
 
Its not about the contract its about giving the manager a transfer window. That's the real fk up. We can only pray they had the hindsight to think that if ETH fks up we will get Amorim and the players bought would suit him. But how likely is that?
 
UpWithRivers said:
Its not about the contract its about giving the manager a transfer window. That's the real fk up. We can only pray they had the hindsight to think that if ETH fks up we will get Amorim and the players bought would suit him. But how likely is that?
Click to expand...
I think we've definitely started moving towards that model. Ugarte and Yoro felt like Ineos/Ashworth/Wilcox signings.
 
I think only Zirzkee and Antony are questionable in terms of whether Amorim would have signed them or not.
The rest are too good to pass up, and yes, that includes Casemiro three years ago. We're in a better position now than previous managerial change. Back then half the squad were unusable.
 
Last edited:
Solius said:
I think we've definitely started moving towards that model. Ugarte and Yoro felt like Ineos/Ashworth/Wilcox signings.
Click to expand...
Definitely. It is clear that EtH did not fancy Ugarte, and Yoro should work with any manager (hottest young CB in the world, has all the right attributes), so they are club signings.

Zirkzee, De Ligt and Mazraoui on the other hand, from an outsider PoV look typical EtH signings, albeit I think that De Ligt and Mazraoui (small fee) will be fine players for us.
 
I think someone said in other thread that if we are to continue employing a manager, we need to make it seem like hes gonna be here long term. Otherwise the players would be lacking respect. And they have a history for it.
 
tenpoless said:
I think someone said in other thread that if we are to continue employing a manager, we need to make it seem like hes gonna be here long term. Otherwise the players would be lacking respect. And they have a history for it.
Click to expand...
Our players have clearly shown great respect to our managers.
 
RedDevil@84 said:
Maybe I dont remember, but I thought Jose was in his normal contract when he was sacked.
Click to expand...
He got his contract extended during his second season in charge, I think he played Ed by engineering some PSG interest, and thus got a pay raise, despite that he was under contract for another 1 and a half seasons.
 
I was mocked and ridiculed her for calling them clowns for triggering the extension... what followed was as certain as night following day. Not saying he should have been sacked after Wembley (looking back now, of course it's easy to say he should), but the extension was a repeat of what they did with Ole - and just as stupid
 
RedRover said:
My point was that since they did decide not to sack him, picking up the option was, to some degree understandable.
Click to expand...

I understand the logic in extending his contract to show they support him but from my perspective he had already been undermined once it became public they were already searching for a replacement. The damage was done by then but oh well, they already did itand they secured a new manager rather quickly.
 
I guess the thought process was that it would show INEOS was behind ETH and the hope would be that the players would get behind him too.

It didnt make a difference from the players perspective, it seemed.

I dont get it because it is not like he is/was a hot commodity that could walk off to a better club. And if he had done that, chances are we would have had a good season anway.

There were far stronger odds of him being sacked that lasting the season, so giving him a new contract was a dumb decision.
 
The White Pele said:
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.
Click to expand...

Listening to the fans is often a mistake.

And why was Amorim not the target in the summer? Yes, he has had a great start to the season, but we are hiring him because of his title wins and the way he turned Sporting around. Nothing much has changed in his CV since the summer.
 
gaffs said:
Listening to the fans is often a mistake.

And why was Amorim not the target in the summer? Yes, he has had a great start to the season, but we are hiring him because of his title wins and the way he turned Sporting around. Nothing much has changed in his CV since the summer.
Click to expand...
Given the acquisition of Ugarte and Yoro in particular I am not convinced that Amorim was not already lined up at least for the end of the season
 
lsd said:
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
Click to expand...
It was an 12 month extension of a pre agreed contract under exactly the same terms. So we basically doubled the compensation payment due to him. Not a great financial decision by INEOS at all unfortunately.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.