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

Tom Van Persie said:
Yeah the surrounding areas not for the actual stadium.
Click to expand...

It’s the same thing, let’s be honest. They’re looking for money, not seeking to ‘help’ Manchester by making it walkable and connected on their own dollar.

If you choose to build a stadium that sees 100,000 people move to/from it, it’s your job to pay for the means.

Like I said, smart and understandable and normal to engage with local/national government. But those proposals will boast of additional jobs and prosperity for the area.

Doing that in the same months that you’re laying off staff to save costs, is gross. I don’t see a lens you can look through that doesn’t see it look vampiric.
 
Jock Steins Boots said:
Exactly this.

The reality is, it is his call. He owns the club, along with the Glazers. What he's doing here, is just called politeness.

At no stage during any hiring or firing process, especially of someone as high up as the manager, is Jim NOT going to know about it or be informed about it. It's just ridiculous to assume he would never be the final person to green light it.
He may not be the person to initially decide he needs to go but make no mistake, he will decide in the end, because everyone else works under him.
I ran my own business for 40 years and yes, I didn't make all the decisions, that's why I hired managers. But if there was a big call to make, then that gets fed up the chain of command and ultimately, it was always my decision in the end, after consulting people.

Do people really believe that those managing nuclear weapons on a submarine, are the ones deciding if they get fired or not, without the Prime Minister/Presidents decision? Of course not.

Trust me, if anyone makes the call, it's Jim.
Click to expand...
I don’t think anyone is claiming that Jim ‘can’t’ make the final decision, they’re saying that he won’t interfere with what the likes of Berrada are deciding. He could absolutely do an Abramovic and decide he knows more than people who are actually work in football, but he’s making it pretty clear that he’s hired people to do this.

sixdwarf said:
That's the PR speaking. The truth is the Glazers own the club and have the ultimate veto. Yes Ratcliffe and co run the football side but thats just management. Make no mistake the Glazers outvote everyone in the boardroom still with their majority shareholding. The rest is a smoke screen. But in any case as a Man Utd fan going back to the days when we were in the second tier of English football things are just going from bad to worse. Both with recruitment and on our on field play.
Click to expand...
They’re not going to hire a huge amount of people to put a proper footballing structure in place and then overrule all of them. It would be a complete waste of time and money.
 
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...
Well whatever 'positive' things are happening in training sure aren't translating onto the pitch are they? Why is that, when coaches like Maresca and Slot have instantly got their teams playing well with a clear style of play?
 
UnrelatedPsuedo said:
https://www.alloaadvertiser.com/spo...m-ratcliffe-old-trafford-redevelopment-talks/

I was ranting for sh1ts n giggles. Of course he’s going to engage with local authorities and national government when doing a large project that affects infrastructure.

But in the same months you’re laying off staff to save costs? It’s a bit shit.
Click to expand...
A business, any business is always looking at costs, if you are employing 2000 people to do the work of 1000, then you need to look at it.
 
Withnail said:
You're adding 1 and 1 and coming up with 5.

It's not even open to interpretation. You've quoted him where he explicitly says it's the management team of Berrada etc who decide those things.
Click to expand...
You're being smokescreened by PR bull. Very naive.
 
Dan_F said:
I don’t think anyone is claiming that Jim ‘can’t’ make the final decision, they’re saying that he won’t interfere with what the likes of Berrada are deciding. He could absolutely do an Abramovic and decide he knows more than people who are actually work in football, but he’s making it pretty clear that he’s hired people to do this.


They’re not going to hire a huge amount of people to put a proper footballing structure in place and then overrule all of them. It would be a complete waste of time and money.
Click to expand...
Very naive. We had a structure and recruited people into that structure albeit not deemed to be a great one. We now have a new one with different managers. What a manager says or wants can and does get overridden by more senior people like owners. There is no way that a decision over sacking the manager won't be run past the ownership/board. That is how businesses run. Don't be blinded by the Ratcliffe smokescreen. The Glazers own the club and are in control of the board room.
 
Nothing to see here. Sir Jim can't be candid talking about someone's future when they're still an employee of the club. This is simply professionalism.

Whatever happens will go on behind closed doors and won't be released to the press, which is exactly how it should be in any place of work.

Pretty sure that barring a win tomorrow he will be on his way over the international break. Ultimately, the club has to protect its asset and the way things are going under Erik, we could be fighting a relegation battle before long. If they feel he can somehow drag the club through to the end of the season, when his contract expires, they will keep him on, but I suspect Villa will be his last chance salloon to prove that he can still get results.
 
Last edited:
I work with Ineos and they are ruthless, make no mistakes about that. They aren't afraid to make changes if they think the standards aren't right, so anyone that's worried about them "settling" is going to be surprised, to be honest. Maybe they felt like they didn't have the knowledge to change the manager in May after the FA cup final but once they get comfortable and really appraise the whole thing then who knows what they'll do.
 
duffer said:
It was ultimately the Glazier's decision though, wasn't it?

Doesn't Sir James have the final say on these huge appointments/sackings?
Click to expand...
Glazers ultimately only cared about how much money was rolling it. Paid little or no attention to what was going on as if they did Woodward and Co wouldn't have lasted as long in their roles. Radcliffe should be different in that regard and should be keeping tabs on the ones appointed to do the hiring and firing.
 
sixdwarf said:
Very naive. We had a structure and recruited people into that structure albeit not deemed to be a great one. We now have a new one with different managers. What a manager says or wants can and does get overridden by more senior people like owners. There is no way that a decision over sacking the manager won't be run past the ownership/board. That is how businesses run. Don't be blinded by the Ratcliffe smokescreen. The Glazers own the club and are in control of the board room.
Click to expand...
No one disagrees that the Glazers own the club and that a decision like a sacking will ultimately have to go by them. However, what we know about the Ineos ownership are that they are in charge of footballing matters. That is a part of the agreement between Sir Jim and the Glazers. It seems to be Ratcliffes intention to let Berrada, Ashworth and Wilcox make the decisions. Whatever they decide will then need to get approved by the board, like in any organization, but it would surprise me greatly if the board would go against their decision/recommendation based on what has been reported about the new structure.

It is also unclear if the Glazers can go against Ineos on footballing decisions, but to get to the bottom of that you would need to know what is in the contracts that was signed when Ineos bought the 25%.
 
always_hoping said:
Glazers ultimately only cared about how much money was rolling it. Paid little or no attention to what was going on as if they did Woodward and Co wouldn't have lasted as long in their roles. Radcliffe should be different in that regard and should be keeping tabs on the ones appointed to do the hiring and firing.
Click to expand...

Yes of course but did they not have ultimate say in hiring and firing the manager?
 
DarkLord1984 said:
Some sources on X saying that Inzaghi was offered to take over immediately after the international break, but he declined.
Click to expand...
Shame, he would have done very well looks RVN interim and Tuchel in the new year
 
GazTheLegend said:
I work with Ineos and they are ruthless, make no mistakes about that. They aren't afraid to make changes if they think the standards aren't right, so anyone that's worried about them "settling" is going to be surprised, to be honest. Maybe they felt like they didn't have the knowledge to change the manager in May after the FA cup final but once they get comfortable and really appraise the whole thing then who knows what they'll do.
Click to expand...
Getting back to the nitty gritty, isn't that what they pay Berrada, Wilcox and Ashworth to do, or are they buying dogs and still doing the barking.
Rumours are there is a meeting with INEOS and the management team on Tuesday, if true that would give them time to make a considered decision on Ten Hag, rather than a knee jerk one on Sunday if we should lose.
 
sixdwarf said:
Very naive. We had a structure and recruited people into that structure albeit not deemed to be a great one. We now have a new one with different managers. What a manager says or wants can and does get overridden by more senior people like owners. There is no way that a decision over sacking the manager won't be run past the ownership/board. That is how businesses run. Don't be blinded by the Ratcliffe smokescreen. The Glazers own the club and are in control of the board room.
Click to expand...
You must not be understanding what I’m saying. No one is saying that the board don’t have the final say in hiring and firing managers. The Glazers of course signed off on Moyes, Van Gaal etc. do you think they were involved in finding and choosing them away from the financial side of it?

Ineos have clearly hired based on a certain belief in playing style - Wilcox etc. The board will probably be presented a couple of options for the next manager and may choose one manager over another according to things like the salary, but for the most part listen to the recommendations of the football structure when it comes to football decisions. If you don’t want to believe that then that’s fine, but it’s the whole point of having this structure.
 
I think they didn't change in the summer for obvious reasons:

- the board wasn't officially in place
- he won the FA Cup so would have been a bit harder
- sacking him after that and bringing in someone who flops would make them look worse
 
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 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?
Click to expand...
Not sure what you are concerned about. I'm more than happy knowing he is leaving football people to make the decisions......about time
 
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 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?
Click to expand...
Do you genuinely think one of the owners runs the football club ?
 
Plant0x84 said:
I am starting to agree with this. Plenty of references about recently that imply we have players who are poor trainers or aren’t putting in the requisite effort. It’s not good enough and shows on the pitch.
Click to expand...

It may be some of that, but I think most people can see the issues with the structure of our team. Practically every manager in the league knows what we're going to do and how to exploit it, that's not an issue with effort. Besides, I think it players do try hard for the most part. It is probably demoralising to be exploited over and over though. They've said it themselves after the FA Cup final, teams shouldn't be carving us open like they do. I'm sure you our I would be the same if we were giving our all to carry out the coaches orders, but you just get made a fool of and then get the blame.

One example, I was watching Dalot closely at the ground against Twente. He was clearly asked to press their fullback but was having to do so from a deep position. This meant he had to run 20 yards to close down, then retreat back to full back position, then press again. He was sprinting 20 yards over and over again and I just thought it was ridiculous. Good teams are exploiting foolishness like this, and we've got fans that come out with crap like "we've not got a proper LB". I'll tell you now Luke Shaw wouldn't do any better there, in fact he'd probably be gassed by half time.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.