Jim Ratcliffe: Ten Hag's future is not my call.

sixdwarf

Full Member
Joined
Jun 18, 2022
Messages
1,152
If like me you're worried that the club is rudderless, Jim Ratcliffe, the part owner of the club says the future of Ten Hag is not his call. Which doesn't calm those fears and is certainly not a vote of confidence in the Dutchman.

There have been concerns that his shareholding keeps the Glazers with their hands ultimately on the purse strings as they remain in control with a majority shareholding and you can only wonder if there is concern about any payoff to the Dutchman reputed to be around the £17m mark. That's half the McTominay money...who has scored again for Napoli tonight.

But Mr Ratcliffe's comments will raise concerns about just who is running the football club at a time when tough decisions are required.

He said: "I like Erik. I think he's a very good coach but at the end of the day it's not my call," Ratcliffe said when asked about whether he has faith in Ten Hag.

"It's the management team that's running Manchester United that have to decide how we best run the team in many different respects.

"But that team that's running Manchester United has only been together since June or July. They weren't there in January, February, March or April – [CEO] Omar [Berrada], [sporting director] Dan Ashworth - they only arrived in July.

"They've only been there… you can count it in weeks almost - they've not been there a long time, so they need to take stock and make some sensible decisions.

"Our objective is very clear - we want to take Manchester United back to where it should be, and it's not there yet, obviously - that's very clear."

Thoughts?
 
Last edited:
It's right that it isn't his call. Ratcliffe has employed qualified football people to make the big decisions. They make their decision and he rubber stamps it. That's exactly how it should be.
 
I think that's a sensible answer. He's the owner and he's employed people to make these kind of decisions for him.

For me this answer screams "he probably deserves the sack" which is interesting but yeah, what's the point in paying for Ashworth/Barrrera etc. and then making big footballing decisions yourself.
 
It shouldn't be his call. Berrada and Ashworth should be making these decisions.
 
Imagine if we had a manager that was doing well or taking us in the right direction, his response would have been very different I think. And that's why I'm hoping the curtains are about to close on ETH.

I'm just concerned it will change quickly if we get anything on Sunday. I'd like to think his fate is sealed already but, like I just said in the other thread, we've been here too many times before. Under Ole and ETH, the stars suddenly align and we get a result in one game, and it convinces the club that all is fine again. Even though you know there's more pastings on the horizon.
 
I think it was widely understood that one of the biggest reasons ETH kept his job this summer was precisely because the management team was not in place and Ratcliffe was reluctant to make such a significant decision himself and essentially stick Ashworth and co. with a new man that they had not personally hired. Keeping Erik allows them to get the structure in place without any upheaval on the coaching side and then they can comfortably move on from him later in the season or next summer with no problems as he was not their guy anyway.
 
pocco said:
Imagine if we had a manager that was doing well or taking us in the right direction, his response would have been very different I think.
Click to expand...
Obviously under those circumstances no one would be asking him if we should sack the manager.
 
leontas said:
It shouldn't be his call. Berrada and Ashworth should be making these decisions.
Click to expand...

Whilst that's right, don't you think he's aware of their thinking? If they were keeping him, I think we'd have had a more positive answer to back them up. He's almost excusing them for the fact he's still here.

It's got to mean something, hasn't it? Please tell me I'm not just imagining this! I probably am aren't I? :lol:
 
Adz_99 said:
I think that's a sensible answer. He's the owner and he's employed people to make these kind of decisions for him.

For me this answer screams "he probably deserves the sack" which is interesting but yeah, what's the point in paying for Ashworth/Barrrera etc. and then making big footballing decisions yourself.
Click to expand...
He isnt the owner. Many get this wrong. The Glazers still own the club. The point is that he says the decision isn't his. Ultimately the Glazers can veto as owners. And if his management team say Ten Hag must go he has as the top man on the football side must have the right of veto.

And you can bet that the payoff is a problem for the club as we would struggle to afford that sum as a oner.
 
Last edited:
sixdwarf said:
If like me you're worried that the club is rudderless, Jim Ratcliffe, the part owner of the club says the future of Ten Hag is not his call. Which doesn't calm those fears and is certainly not a vote of confidence in the Dutchman.

There have been concerns that his shareholding keeps the Glazers with their hands ultimately the purse strings as they remain in control with a majority shareholding and you can only wonder if there is concern about any payoff to the Dutchman reputed to be around the £17m mark. That's half the McTominay money...who has scored again for Napoli tonight.

But Mr Ratcliffe's comments will raise concerns about just who is running the football club at a time when tough decisions are required.

He said: "I like Erik. I think he's a very good coach but at the end of the day it's not my call," Ratcliffe said when asked about whether he has faith in Ten Hag.

"It's the management team that's running Manchester United that have to decide how we best run the team in many different respects.

"But that team that's running Manchester United has only been together since June or July. They weren't there in January, February, March or April – [CEO] Omar [Berrada], [sporting director] Dan Ashworth - they only arrived in July.

"They've only been there… you can count it in weeks almost - they've not been there a long time, so they need to take stock and make some sensible decisions.

"Our objective is very clear - we want to take Manchester United back to where it should be, and it's not there yet, obviously - that's very clear."

Thoughts?
Click to expand...

Thoughts?

I think your take is the wrong one. You either want a meddling owner who knows nothing about football or you want them to employ the best people who do and empower them to make sporting decisions.

You can’t have it both ways.
 
peridigm said:
Exactly what I want to hear.
Click to expand...
Absolutely, the title of the article is troubling, but the substance of what was actually said should be of comfort to all our fans.

Absolutely nothing wrong with anything he said. People are just desperate to be miserable.
 
People moaned for years that the club was run by business people and that we desperately needed "football men" to make the big decisions.

Hire a bunch of well regarded, experienced football professionals then complain that the energy magnate who employs them is leaving the decisions to them.

I hate when this place gets this frantic with people just desperate to be upset at anything.
 
TheReligion said:
Thoughts?

I think your take is the wrong one. You either want a meddling owner who knows nothing about football or you want them to employ the best people who do and empower them to make sporting decisions.

You can’t have it both ways.
Click to expand...
I cannot see how the £17m cost of sacking the manager is not something the part owner Sir Jim and more importantly the actual owners, the Glazers would not ultimately have to sign off on, considering our tight finances.
 
ETH is a gonner. When Ratcliffe was asked if he had faith in the manager he could of easily just say yes but he didn’t.
 
sixdwarf said:
He isnt the owner. Many get this wrong. The Glazers still own the club. The point is that he says the decision isn't his. Ultimately the Glazers can veto as owners. And if his management team say Ten Hag must go he has as the top man on the football side the right of veto.

And you can bet that the payoff is a problem for the club as we would struggle to afford that sum as a oner.
Click to expand...
Then why are you upset that he’s said it isn’t his decision? Pick an argument here.
 
sixdwarf said:
I cannot see how the £17m cost of sacking the manager is not something the part owner Sir Jim and more importantly the actual owners, the Glazers would not ultimately have to sign off on, considering our tight finances.
Click to expand...
Well of course it is but I don’t understand the point?

If Berrada goes to the board and tell them the team have decided to get rid then that’s what will happen. You’re speculating it won’t I assume. That said I’m not sure why the comments and thread are relevant. That’s a different question.
 
He’s gone after Sunday and that’s all there is to it. We won’t beat Villa. They’ll score another 3 past us.
 
sixdwarf said:
He isnt the owner. Many get this wrong. The Glazers still own the club. The point is that he says the decision isn't his. Ultimately the Glazers can veto as owners. And if his management team say Ten Hag must go he has as the top man on the football side must have the right of veto.

And you can bet that the payoff is a problem for the club as we would struggle to afford that sum as a oner.
Click to expand...

You're being pedantic. He's the largest individual shareholder.

He also brought into the club under the condition that Ineos has complete control of football operations.

If Berrada decides to sack Ten Hag then you can bet your mortgage that Ten Hag shall be sacked.
 
Can we please stop going after him. He’s the big dog. Head honcho. He can’t be focused on singular employees. He focuses on letting go hundreds of loyal employees all at once to save £10m.

You simply cannot expect him to focus on firing one person that will cost £15m.

He’s a big picture dude. He was voting leave before it was cool. He wants public money for his private stadium enterprise. He needs less environmental protections to service his petrochemical company needs. He needs to focus on fracking. He’s responsible for creating 60% of all plastics in the UK, he simply can’t take his eye off the ball right now.

Yet you all want him to worry about one person?

Leave the man alone.

Clearly, he’s a Cnut. But he’s a coward too. He’ll be there for the good times, and get someone else to front up for the bad. Disaster Capitalist that washes his hands of a disaster.
 
UnrelatedPsuedo said:
Can we please stop going after him. He’s the big dog. Head honcho. He can’t be focused on singular employees. He focuses on letting go hundreds of loyal employees all at once to save £10m.

You simply cannot expect him to focus on firing one person that will cost £15m.

He’s a big picture dude. He was voting leave before it was cool. He wants public money for his private stadium enterprise. He needs less environmental protections to service his petrochemical company needs. He needs to focus on fracking. He’s responsible for creating 60% of all plastics in the UK, he simply can’t take his eye off the ball right now.

Yet you all want him to worry about one person?

Leave the man alone.

Clearly, he’s a Cnut. But he’s a coward too. He’ll be there for the good times, and get someone else to front up for the bad. Disaster Capitalist that washes his hands of a disaster.
Click to expand...
Your agenda posting is kinda boring if I’m honest.
 
UnrelatedPsuedo said:
Can we please stop going after him. He’s the big dog. Head honcho. He can’t be focused on singular employees. He focuses on letting go hundreds of loyal employees all at once to save £10m.

You simply cannot expect him to focus on firing one person that will cost £15m.

He’s a big picture dude. He was voting leave before it was cool. He wants public money for his private stadium enterprise. He needs less environmental protections to service his petrochemical company needs. He needs to focus on fracking. He’s responsible for creating 60% of all plastics in the UK, he simply can’t take his eye off the ball right now.

Yet you all want him to worry about one person?

Leave the man alone.

Clearly, he’s a Cnut. But he’s a coward too. He’ll be there for the good times, and get someone else to front up for the bad. Disaster Capitalist that washes his hands of a disaster.
Click to expand...

Are you having an argument against a voice in your head?
 
Ratcliffe doesnt want to make football decisions because he hopefully knows he's clueless about what to do. In May and June he passed the buck on decision making to Ineos Sport, Brailsford and Blanc with input from Wilcox, to determine ETH's future.

Those guys are cowards and bottled it, knowing Ashworth and Berrada were joining up a couple of months later. So the buck got passed a second time.
 
Of course that will be the case. He's hired people to handle the hiring and firing of managers, and he trusts them to do their job. That's how it should be
 
This is just Jim shutting down people who might add him being at Villa Park this weekend and what could happen given a bad result. 2+2=5

I believe him when he says it’s not his call. He’s not the sort to spend loads to hire big dogs and then bark himself.

Whitwell is also saying on the latest TOTD podcast that there is no appetite to sack ten Hag with in the club, that Ashworth and Wilcox are pleased with what they see in training and are willing to give Erik time to get it right on the pitch. This is building for long term success people. If you want to get back to the top and stay there then we have to take a bit of pain now.
 
Plant0x84 said:
This is just Jim shutting down people who might add him being at Villa Park this weekend and what could happen given a bad result. 2+2=5

I believe him when he says it’s not his call. He’s not the sort to spend loads to hire big dogs and then bark himself.

Whitwell is also saying on the latest TOTD podcast that there is no appetite to sack ten Hag with in the club, that Ashworth and Wilcox are pleased with what they see in training and are willing to give Erik time to get it right on the pitch. This is building for long term success people. If you want to get back to the top and stay there then we have to take a bit of pain now.
Click to expand...
Load of shite. No successful teams continue to regress and slide down the table until they magically find the winning formula, whilst sticking with the same manager.
 
OverratedOpinion said:
Are you having an argument against a voice in your head?
Click to expand...

Nah, just can’t stand the piece of shit.

Same playbook we see across all industry. There for the good times, someone else’s fault for the bad.

(I don’t actually see his comments as problematic, they’re sensible. But he’s piled pressure on EtH and his management structure with them. ‘No comment’ is a sentence. As is ‘No football questions, I’m here for the boats’)

Lads a whopper though.
 
hobbers said:
Ratcliffe doesnt want to make football decisions because he hopefully knows he's clueless about what to do. In May and June he passed the buck on decision making to Ineos Sport, Brailsford and Blanc with input from Wilcox, to determine ETH's future.

Those guys are cowards and bottled it, knowing Ashworth and Berrada were joining up a couple of months later. So the buck got passed a second time.
Click to expand...
Well you’re correct about the first sentence at least. Although for some reason you seem to suggest it’s a negative.

Ineos waited until we actually had people in place who were qualified to make those decisions. Theres no way that Dave fecking Brailsford and even Jason Wilcox should be in charge of hiring the manager. Also, they clearly did look around the market and decided we didn’t want to give a big contract to any of the managers that actually wanted to come.

Which manager do you think they should have gone for?
 
You must log in or register to reply here.