Lash
Full Member
Of course I get if the only option was Fletcher as caretaker, but that's clearly not the only option. The issue is they probably only have one idea of what should happen and cant make a decision based off a new scenario, that doesn't fit their plan.Because they felt Ole had a better chance of regaining the momentum that got us 2nd place last season compared to Fletcher creating it from nowhere with no prior managerial experience.
In an ideal world, United would have underperformed and sleepwalked to 4th place under Ole, before appointing a fully vetted long term target like ETH in the summer.
Appointing Fletcher and then replacing him with another caretaker for 6 month is a much bigger set of unknowns and therefore a significant risk in its own right. So it's understandable that the board would want to avoid this option if possible.
It was blatantly obvious things could get much worse after the Liverpool game and have done. Now they're sacking a manager after handing over 6 points with 2 days until our next fixture (which is pivotal for the season) - just after an international break, which was a perfect opportunity to do it. I'd love to say "hindsight is 20/20 here", but I think for even the most ardent of Ole supporters, the Liverpool game showed how far away we were from being a side that can challenge and Oles not the man to get us there.