This thread is kept alive by his defenders like you. You and a few others pretty much led the charge for the Ralf army and your post count in here is indicative of that.
Even your own article paints the consultancy as a deal-sweetener rather than the main reason for his appointment. Which I think has the same basis as the reports that the consultancy was included at Rangnick's request.
I take it this means there isn't anywhere that said it was at Rangnick's request. Okay well glad we got that cleared up.
You mean like there isn't a wingle source for "he was going to be the DoF" other than your brain?
Probably it got assumed because he allegedly declined the interim job at Chelsea (whi then went for Tuchel) because he didn't want to do such a short term job. But as the rest of the season at United was much longer than it was at Chelsea we don't know if he actually needed that consultancy role to be convinced.
Well that, and also the article @Dion himself linked suggests he was originally approached to be interim, and that the consultancy was only included after meetings were had. A further article linked in said article has more to say about it.
You're the one claiming he was actually going to be taking up a position that there's zero evidence for. It was pretty well documented that his role was envisaged to be aiding with recruitment and then it came out he would only be consulting a few days a month. So however you spin it mate that doesn't amount him being hired to be the DOF, the De Facto DOF, Assistant DOF, Co-DOF or anything remotely resembling that sort of position.In terms of the hiring of Erik I might be, as none of us really know the true inside story, all we can base our opinions on are what media were reporting at the time and many sources did indeed claim Rangnick was pushing for ETH while the board was leaning more towards Poch.
You're just saying a lot of words which amount to Woodward wanted to hire someone to help our DoF do his job.Now your basically agreeing with my assessment of the Rangnick situation but framing as if that's what you've been saying all along and that I'm a conspiracy theorist (I never mentioned any bungs btw).
Yeah there is evidence he was hired to be a consultant which was exactly my point.
Unless their aim isn't to have the best DoF, it's to have someone who is willing to play by the rules. Which is something we've seen repeatedly in their appointments.
That and them hiring someone to do the DoF's job for him
It's wild that you've managed to convince yourself of this.
Hey don't forget the lad who's adamant Ralf was meant the be the unofficial DoF despite no evidence pointing towards that.
A couple other tweets saying as much. He ideally wanted to be the full time manager or he wanted this 'consultancy role that had significant power.
The Goal article clearly states that Woodward gave Rangnick the consultancy role to help the board, and the article specifically mentioned Richard Arnold. John Murtough isn't part of the board but is actually part of the football side of the club. So I agree with what you're saying.
A part of any senior role is to delegate work to subordinates and synthesise their outputs, that's a massive part of the job description. That's not "helping" someone to do their job. It's not remotely the same as hiring someone to do something you should be doing.
No less wild than the idea that it was all a financial arrangement so he could leave his job in Russia and was never actually going to happen.
Dr Jekyll and Mr Hyde
You mean the same ten Hag who didn't want to meet with him and had no interest in his opinions on the squad nor his suggested signings?
This is spurious nonsense because when you hire a senior executive it's never intended for him to the work that's being delegated to junior positions. The executives job is the delegation. That's not the same as hiring in a consultant to do jobs that the executive would be expected to do himself.Be honest mate are you on a wind up? You're talking yourself round in circles here.
You were the one who brought up the idea of 'helping' so I ran with it as you seemed comfortable with the concept.
And I see we're using work speak now, I'll play along. A person in a senior position delegates tasks to trusted subordinates, as in most industries this allows one person to manage the completion of many tasks that they wouldn't have the time to do alone. So if a person in a junior position has been delegated with a task and completes said task then they are in effect 'helping'.
Are we talking about your theory here that Rangnick was hired to do Murtagh's job for him.
Be honest mate are you on a wind up? You're talking yourself round in circles here.
You were the one who brought up the idea of 'helping' so I ran with it as you seemed comfortable with the concept.
And I see we're using work speak now, I'll play along. A person in a senior position delegates tasks to trusted subordinates, as in most industries this allows one person to manage the completion of many tasks that they wouldn't have the time to do alone. So if a person in a junior position has been delegated with a task and completes said task then they are in effect 'helping'.
Oh come on, even if you step away from the Rangnick thing you must see the fundamental difference between a DoF delegating work he's expected to delegate because it's not part of his role to actually do them, and bringing in someone to do work the DoF is expected to do. You can use "help" to describe both if you like but it's abundantly clear based on context which one you'd be referring to. This is getting silly.
I'm sorry but if you're going to dodge simple, straightforward yes or no questions then there's no point you replying at all anymore. I made the exact same point multiple posts ago and you drew it out into a semantic argument.
Sorry but this is just silly deflection.
You're the guy who's been insisting for the last few pages that Rangnick was brought in to be the DOF or De facto DOF as you put it.
RR did say a lot of correct things and did recommend very good players who would have no doubt improved us.
How was he wrong? ETH basically got almost a brand new team and almost all of the players have been integral to this side. Sure, you can argue Rangnick's approach was wrong, should have been done behind the scenes, but his argument definitely wasn't
I don't think this is especially accurate. There wasn't anything vague about his criticisms. You can argue they weren't insightful, sure, but they were specific and accurate.
