Ruben Amorim - Manchester United Head Coach

[JPRouve]

Its easier to keep the ball when you have 5 at the back and a non direct style of play.

We were also very good when it came to possession in 433 and 4231 under LVG. We were dreadful in the final third but we were able to move the ball into it with ease.

 

[Yakuza_devils]

No we won't. Have you seriously not caught onto the game yet? Every winter we don't sign any players despite us being in desperate need for some. The club announce deals were hard in the winter, but they prefer to focus on the summer. Through the intermediaries in the media stories start coming out about how much money we will spend next summer, we will inevitably get linked (in very strong terms) with some big money signing, ie we didn't sign Kamara or Amadou Haidara in Jan 22 because we were waiting for the summer. Then all these concrete stories came out about us definitely signing Declan Rice, it was essentially a done deal in Feb 22, only for him to stay at West Ham that summer and then sign for Arsenal the next summer.

Don't fall for these games anymore, we have skint owners with no intention of buying top quality players and competing with the like of Citeh and Liverpool.

The club is selling Rashford (hopefully) 40M. We will be getting Sancho money. For all we know, the club is also trying to sell Garnacho 80m?. Zirkzee? Hojlund and whatnot. Add these money to our annual transfer budget we are looking at hundred of millions?

 

[Posh Red]

No we won't. Have you seriously not caught onto the game yet? Every winter we don't sign any players despite us being in desperate need for some. The club announce deals were hard in the winter, but they prefer to focus on the summer. Through the intermediaries in the media stories start coming out about how much money we will spend next summer, we will inevitably get linked (in very strong terms) with some big money signing, ie we didn't sign Kamara or Amadou Haidara in Jan 22 because we were waiting for the summer. Then all these concrete stories came out about us definitely signing Declan Rice, it was essentially a done deal in Feb 22, only for him to stay at West Ham that summer and then sign for Arsenal the next summer.

Don't fall for these games anymore, we have skint owners with no intention of buying top quality players and competing with the like of Citeh and Liverpool.

But we do spend big every summer

 

[croadyman]

I think he's been bought into an impossible situation, but that given the season is already a write off sacking him without giving him a chance is crazy.

If we sign a Quenda or someone of that profile, a Dorgu, a striker and a midfielder and we're still getting popped off, than the argument to sack him is strong.

Yeah I would agree about your second point

 

[VP89]

We were also very good when it came to possession in 433 and 4231 under LVG. We were dreadful in the final third but we were able to move the ball into it with ease.

I think that's becuase it was a lot of horizontal passes with rigidity on the positions.

Personally I prefer a direct style of play because that's what I grew up watching. I don't like the safer possession based approaches, they're a lot more boring to watch especially if chance creation is low.

Right now I tune in and know we will struggle to create a single clear cut chance but have decent XG by value of collating a decent number of smaller chances.

I am however optimistic that will change with the right profile wingbacks and striker.

 

[Ish]

No we won't. Have you seriously not caught onto the game yet? Every winter we don't sign any players despite us being in desperate need for some. The club announce deals were hard in the winter, but they prefer to focus on the summer. Through the intermediaries in the media stories start coming out about how much money we will spend next summer, we will inevitably get linked (in very strong terms) with some big money signing, ie we didn't sign Kamara or Amadou Haidara in Jan 22 because we were waiting for the summer. Then all these concrete stories came out about us definitely signing Declan Rice, it was essentially a done deal in Feb 22, only for him to stay at West Ham that summer and then sign for Arsenal the next summer.

Don't fall for these games anymore, we have skint owners with no intention of buying top quality players and competing with the like of Citeh and Liverpool.

Surely we've actually been spending money to be able to compete at the very least? We've just been incompetent (borderline sabotage) with how shite we've spent the money.

Why the current owners can't spend is a culmination of years of mismanagement and poor spending/high wages handed out, effectively tying our hands withour major outgoings (that's difficult, given what our underperformers in the squad earn).

 

[JPRouve]

I think that's becuase it was a lot of horizontal passes with rigidity on the positions.

Personally I prefer a direct style of play because that's what I grew up watching. I don't like the safer possession based approaches, they're a lot more boring to watch especially if chance creation is low.

Right now I tune in and know we will struggle to create a single clear cut chance but have decent XG by value of collating a decent number of smaller chances.

I am however optimistic that will change with the right profile wingbacks and striker.

Well possession Football will necessarily have lots of horizontal passes, it doesn't make implementing it easier. The reason we were toothless was largely due to the fact that we had zero quality up front. No good striker, winger or attacking midfielders. And a big part of the reason we are toothless is also because we lack top talent upfront but at least under LVG we were coherent defensively and decisive, on top of it our superior possession game meant that the opposition rarely had chances.

Now don't get me wrong I hated the 15-16 season, it was boring beyond belief.

 

[flameinthesun]

He won't be sacked or anywhere near it come the end of the season, regardless of position and rightly so. As a supporter though, I'll be bitterly disappointed if we're playing much the same football and getting the same results and performances a few more months down the line.

Your second paragraph is the bit I'm not sure about. If other teams can take to a new formation why are we so different?
Are we really saying that West Ham have a much better and more tactically astute squad than we do?

In my opinion we're a bit too quick to call out the players for being very low quality when they have largely been very good players elsewhere, hence us buying them in the first place.

I don't know the answer, I have theories but I'm not sure it's simply a player quality issue alone.

Your point on the players is absolutely correct. Its an easy excuse sometimes.

Additionally close of the transfer window and general consensus was that United had a good window and Ineos had made a good impact on managing transfers, all 4 signings were good additions to make the squad stronger and the finances paid for them was good. Now, to some, they are also poor players, it was Ten Hag doing the signings and the whole squad needs an overhaul as a reason for why the club is 12th and underperforming.

Nobody was expecting at the close of the window a title challenging team but a team that challenges for top 4/5. With Ten Hag being sacked that expectation for a good new manager should be revised to top 8 to account for having to make up the difference of a poor performing previous manager. Anything under that, barring insane injuries like last year, should be seen as a manager under performing. Especially if it coincides with poor displays of football.

 

[JPRouve]

Surely we've actually been spending money to be able to compete at the very least? We've just been incompetent (borderline sabotage) with how shite we've spent the money.

Why the current owners can't spend is a culmination of years of mismanagement and poor spending/high wages handed out, effectively tying our hands withour major outgoings (that's difficult, given what our underperformers in the squad earn).

The owners can't spend because it's not allowed, not that they would otherwise but the current rules barely allow owners to spend directly or indirectly unless it is for infrastructure. I say barely because at some point the maximum was 15m.

 

[Utterly De Ligt'd]

The club is selling Rashford (hopefully) 40M. We will be getting Sancho money. For all we know, the club is also trying to sell Garnacho 80m?. Zirkzee? Hojlund and whatnot. Add these money to our annual transfer budget we are looking at hundred of millions?

OMG, you have literally made my point for me, why are we selling Garnacho? Why would we sell one of the biggest prospects in European football? Has United ever done that before? Have we ever taken a very promising player from our academy and sold them for a large profit before they reached their potential? Never, because Manchester United doesn't do that. Between Rashford and Sancho at most we will get 65 mil, and that's at most because if you think we are getting 40 mil for Rashford you're having a laugh. We'll be lucky to unload him or get anything in return. At this rate we would barely get anything for Hojlund or Zirkzee, small fees or maybe just loans. Either way, you are still suggesting we will only spend big if we sell big. Look at our squad, it's literally half a squad, who are we going to sell to generate real money? And why is one of the best supported clubs in the world in a position where they have to sell to buy?

But we do spend big every summer

Poorly, and not when you look at net spending. We spend some money, but it's usually pretty closely tied to our outgoings. Rarely do we finish a window with a large net spending, it usually balances to where the club has put very little extra in. That includes clearing wages as well as fees. This club makes a ton of money, we should be pumping large amounts of cash in that isn't directly tied to outgoings. Citeh just spend 200 mil in Jan because their season isn't going good and didn't have to sell a single player.

 

[sparx99]

OMG, you have literally made my point for me, why are we selling Garnacho? Why would we sell one of the biggest prospects in European football? Has United ever done that before? Have we ever taken a very promising player from our academy and sold them for a large profit before they reached their potential? Never, because Manchester United doesn't do that. Between Rashford and Sancho at most we will get 65 mil, and that's at most because if you think we are getting 40 mil for Rashford you're having a laugh. We'll be lucky to unload him or get anything in return. At this rate we would barely get anything for Hojlund or Zirkzee, small fees or maybe just loans. Either way, you are still suggesting we will only spend big if we sell big. Look at our squad, it's literally half a squad, who are we going to sell to generate real money? And why is one of the best supported clubs in the world in a position where they have to sell to buy?


Poorly, and not when you look at net spending. We spend some money, but it's usually pretty closely tied to our outgoings. Rarely do we finish a window with a large net spending, it usually balances to where the club has put very little extra in. That includes clearing wages as well as fees. This club makes a ton of money, we should be pumping large amounts of cash in that isn't directly tied to outgoings. Citeh just spend 200 mil in Jan because their season isn't going good and didn't have to sell a single player.

That’s not really true with regards to net spending. Last summer we had our record for sales and still outspent it by some margin. We historically sell extremely poorly. Our net spending is typically £100m or more.

 

[JPRouve]

MG, you have literally made my point for me, why are we selling Garnacho? Why would we sell one of the biggest prospects in European football? Has United ever done that before? Have we ever taken a very promising player from our academy and sold them for a large profit before they reached their potential? Never, because Manchester United doesn't do that. Between Rashford and Sancho at most we will get 65 mil, and that's at most because if you think we are getting 40 mil for Rashford you're having a laugh. We'll be lucky to unload him or get anything in return. At this rate we would barely get anything for Hojlund or Zirkzee, small fees or maybe just loans. Either way, you are still suggesting we will only spend big if we sell big. Look at our squad, it's literally half a squad, who are we going to sell to generate real money? And why is one of the best supported clubs in the world in a position where they have to sell to buy?

Because the club spent a lot of money poorly and if we want to be able to improve the team in the short term we will need to sell valuable players for a profit.

 

[Utterly De Ligt'd]

The owners can't spend because it's not allowed, not that they would otherwise but the current rules barely allow owners to spend directly or indirectly unless it is for infrastructure. I say barely because at some point the maximum was 15m.

There are things they can do, ie clear the debt, which changes the balance sheets of the club, and that would put us in a better position where we could spend the club's own money and not be in violation of the financial fair play rules. This is assuming that the crap we keep hearing about financial fair play is true and it's not just something the club is continuously hiding behind, which personally I believe it is.

 

[Yakuza_devils]

OMG, you have literally made my point for me, why are we selling Garnacho? Why would we sell one of the biggest prospects in European football? Has United ever done that before? Have we ever taken a very promising player from our academy and sold them for a large profit before they reached their potential? Never, because Manchester United doesn't do that. Between Rashford and Sancho at most we will get 65 mil, and that's at most because if you think we are getting 40 mil for Rashford you're having a laugh. We'll be lucky to unload him or get anything in return. At this rate we would barely get anything for Hojlund or Zirkzee, small fees or maybe just loans. Either way, you are still suggesting we will only spend big if we sell big. Look at our squad, it's literally half a squad, who are we going to sell to generate real money? And why is one of the best supported clubs in the world in a position where they have to sell to buy

Selling Garnacho is more he can't really fit into Amorim system and the club is looking into selling and reinvest into the club.

In the summer we will have another annual budget of 100-150m. Added into the sales, it's big spending in the summer.

The question is Amorim is the right manager to splurge on?

 

[Big Ben Foster]

There are things they can do, ie clear the debt, which changes the balance sheets of the club, and that would put us in a better position where we could spend the club's own money and not be in violation of the financial fair play rules. This is assuming that the crap we keep hearing about financial fair play is true and it's not just something the club is continuously hiding behind, which personally I believe it is.

Completely unfeasible with the current ownership situation. The Glazers would have to agree to put in a corresponding amount of their own capital or have their stake diluted. They haven't shown any appetite in doing that.

 

[Posh Red]

For what it's worth I agree with most of what you're saying. Any criticism of Amorim round here goes down like a bag of shite and you'll be accused of wanting him to get the sack for asking any questions at all.

The biggest worry for me is we want to bet everything on this manager who only knows how to work with one rigid system, a system which we've never shown any inclination of moving towards previously.

By the time we get to May his system will be completely tainted and the dressing room's confidence on the absolutely floor making the job of making it work next season ten times more difficult. He's a smart guy and should know this.

I swear we could get relegated and you'd have plenty justifying it saying 'this is perfect, the ultimate reset for Amorim's system' etc.

As you've pointed out, great managers all at least have a degree of pragmatism and flexibility alongside their core principles.

I keep reading these posts about how great managers are flexible and adaptable, and it being used a criticism for the manager. It makes no sense to me at all, as he has been flexible and made changes game after game to try and find a formula that suits the squad better, e.g., allow Garnacho to play more as a traditional wide player, using a false nine or a conventional centre forward, switching to a back four during games, playing both wingers and full backs in the wing back role. Why are so many claiming that he’s being too rigid?

 

[Posh Red]

OMG, you have literally made my point for me, why are we selling Garnacho? Why would we sell one of the biggest prospects in European football? Has United ever done that before? Have we ever taken a very promising player from our academy and sold them for a large profit before they reached their potential? Never, because Manchester United doesn't do that. Between Rashford and Sancho at most we will get 65 mil, and that's at most because if you think we are getting 40 mil for Rashford you're having a laugh. We'll be lucky to unload him or get anything in return. At this rate we would barely get anything for Hojlund or Zirkzee, small fees or maybe just loans. Either way, you are still suggesting we will only spend big if we sell big. Look at our squad, it's literally half a squad, who are we going to sell to generate real money? And why is one of the best supported clubs in the world in a position where they have to sell to buy?


Poorly, and not when you look at net spending. We spend some money, but it's usually pretty closely tied to our outgoings. Rarely do we finish a window with a large net spending, it usually balances to where the club has put very little extra in. That includes clearing wages as well as fees. This club makes a ton of money, we should be pumping large amounts of cash in that isn't directly tied to outgoings. Citeh just spend 200 mil in Jan because their season isn't going good and didn't have to sell a single player.

But you ridiculed a poster for claiming we would spend a lot in the summer. We’re generally one of the highest spenders out there summer after summer, even on a net basis.

 

[JPRouve]

But you ridiculed a poster for claiming we would spend a lot in the summer. We’re generally one of the highest spenders out there summer after summer, even on a net basis.

We haven't made a profit in the transfer market since 09/10, our net spend is close to the billion if not over.

 

[Posh Red]

We haven't made a profit in the transfer market since 09/10, our net spend is close to the billion if not over.

So you’re agreeing with me?

 

[JPRouve]

So you’re agreeing with me?

Yes, I'm illustrating your point.

 

[Posh Red]

Yes, I'm illustrating your point.

Oh, thanks!

 

[saik]

OMG, you have literally made my point for me, why are we selling Garnacho? Why would we sell one of the biggest prospects in European football? Has United ever done that before? Have we ever taken a very promising player from our academy and sold them for a large profit before they reached their potential? Never, because Manchester United doesn't do that. Between Rashford and Sancho at most we will get 65 mil, and that's at most because if you think we are getting 40 mil for Rashford you're having a laugh. We'll be lucky to unload him or get anything in return. At this rate we would barely get anything for Hojlund or Zirkzee, small fees or maybe just loans. Either way, you are still suggesting we will only spend big if we sell big. Look at our squad, it's literally half a squad, who are we going to sell to generate real money? And why is one of the best supported clubs in the world in a position where they have to sell to buy?


Poorly, and not when you look at net spending. We spend some money, but it's usually pretty closely tied to our outgoings. Rarely do we finish a window with a large net spending, it usually balances to where the club has put very little extra in. That includes clearing wages as well as fees. This club makes a ton of money, we should be pumping large amounts of cash in that isn't directly tied to outgoings. Citeh just spend 200 mil in Jan because their season isn't going good and didn't have to sell a single player.

Do you go into every thread and say the same thing? Do you think PSR applies only to us and not other clubs? The reason we are being careful with our spending and sell to buy is because we have PSR limits, same as every other club in this league. City could spend 200m in Jan because they sold a lot of players beforehand and spent feck all in the summer. 25m for Savinho and Gundogan was all their business in the summer. We spent 200m in the summer and spent another 25m in Jan.

And we are the 2nd highest net spenders in the league for the last few years, only behind Chelsea. Rarely has our spending ever tied to our outgoings. It was only last summer where we acted a bit sensibly and didn't throw big money around. Frankly the whole 2nd part of your post is nonsense. We are in this state because we spent our money poorly, not because of not spending at all.

 

[giggs-beckham]

Not knocking him but I wonder if a formation change would bring about more positive performances?

433 for me has been for years alas we don't seem to ever play it

 

[dubplate warrior]

433 for me has been for years alas we don't seem to ever play it

That's essentially the same thing as a 4-2-3-1.

It still would be poor because the squad is very unbalanced.

 

[JoseM4]

The club is selling Rashford (hopefully) 40M. We will be getting Sancho money. For all we know, the club is also trying to sell Garnacho 80m?. Zirkzee? Hojlund and whatnot. Add these money to our annual transfer budget we are looking at hundred of millions?

Rashford is on loan; Villa have the OPTION to buy him for 40M if he plays extremely well ….. chances are he will be back in the summer. Same goes with Anthony.

No one will buy Garnacho for 80M.

If Hojlund and Zirkzee are sold, it will be at a loss.

I believe Evans, Eriksen, and Lindeloff will be leaving on a free and need to be replaced.

Lisandro will be out 9 months and will need to be replaced (considering his injury record). Same with Shaw and Mount.

 

[Wolfbot]

I keep reading these posts about how great managers are flexible and adaptable, and it being used a criticism for the manager. It makes no sense to me at all, as he has been flexible and made changes game after game to try and find a formula that suits the squad better, e.g., allow Garnacho to play more as a traditional wide player, using a false nine or a conventional centre forward, switching to a back four during games, playing both wingers and full backs in the wing back role. Why are so many claiming that he’s being too rigid?

Because he won't put an extra body in midfield to remedy the area of the field where we usually end up losing out to the opposition, he won't try playing two strikers at the same time at any point, won't really switch to a back four that might help Maz and Dalot perform a bit better, there's other more detailed instructions I'd like to see him give the players as well to try and help our attacking play (but I'm not proof he's not doing so, I just can't see it happening on the pitch).

***These are generalisations based on the games I've seen and I'm not saying he's absolutely never done any of them in any game. Though if he has it must have been a rare exception***

Sticking attackers then defenders at wing back then playing a midfielder up front because the two strikers have been horrible are valid experiments, but it's not really what people mean when they talk about tactical flexibility/adaptability.

 

[Nestor Mahkno]

I was too little when SAF revived us and turned us into a force but over the last decade I have seen two mini rivals of fallen big clubs: one at Liverpool and one at Arsenal. When you look at their first seasons, Klopp and Arteta took different approaches. Klopp tried to implement his style of play from the get go and didn't wait to get "his players" in before he could do anything. Liverpool got mixed results in the league that season but did well to reach the Europa final. The one thing that was pretty obvious in Klopp's first season was the style of play he was going to play at Liverpool. He molded the team in his vision and in the following years added the necessary pieces to the puzzle to reach the end goal.

Arteta took a different approach, may be because it was his first job and he didn't have the pedigree of Klopp, and started by taking the easiest route, which was counter-attacking football suited to the players at his disposal. He worked with Edu, his sporting director, to clear the team in the next couple of years by removing high wage earners and getting younger, hungrier players into the team from the academy or the market. As his team evolved, Arsenal's style of play evolved.

I really like listening to Ruben and he comes across really well in his interviews/pressers. He seems like a man of conviction who will adhere to his principles and has vivid ideas on how he wants to play football. However, so far I haven't any evidence of those ideas in our playing style. The talk of formations etc is secondary to me. I believe a style of football depends on what you do with our without the football regardless of how you line up on paper or on the field of play. I feel even with the personnel at his disposal we should have seen some evidence of what he is trying to do on the football pitch in the 15+ games he has been in charge of us. He has been here around 3 months now and lack of training excuse doesn't cut it anymore. We looked as pathetic and clueless against Palace as we did in the 5 or 10 games before it. The defensive solidity that should come with playing 5 defensive players isn't evident; however, the lack of attacking impetus due to those five defensive players is clearly evident. We look as open in the midfield as we did under ETH and teams still waltz by our midfield as they did back then. Our attacking play is dependent on Amad coming up with a worldie performances where he wins the ball and scores from it. The rest of the attacking unit looks as inept as ever.

I still believe in him and wants him given time. Although, I don't subscribe to the theory that he needs 500m and 10 players before we see some improvement. There simply has to evidence before the end of the season that this man can be trusted with a massive rebuild. Him and we have to do better than we have been. We can't keep scoring blanks at home against every two bit oppoition that comes there.

The results are terrible, but there are glimpses of what the future could be, we were much better against Palace than Brighton for example. Personnel is now the obvious problem, Maguire's lack of pace and mobility always a risk when we play a high line more often. Bruno should be higher up, I'd like to see if Collyer and Ugarte could play in the middle together. Now that Rash is gone player power is mostly broken, and Rubin can get on with developing a true collective of players who buy in to his vision. Hopefully the new signings will help bring some balance, and with more time to train this month some improvement overall. A lack of a proven striker is killing us, and that's down to 10 years + of dysfunction, over a billion pounds spent and a 21 year old is leading the line? Ruben is making progress, but bad results blind us to it.

 

[Redstain]

Amorim is a manager where you have to spend big to excel. With INEOS slow walking approach, Southgate or Tuchel would have been the better options. With a team that's totally one dimensional outside of the 4-2-3-1 and an upcoming disastrous summer (slowly being briefed) Amorim was done before he even got started.

The benefit for him is when his United tenure is done (within 18 months by my estimate) it will be a situation where the sequence of events that were contrary to his management actually reflect on circumstances being more of a factor then his managerial pedigree. I'm not saying Ruben is without fault, but he's been thrown under the bus from a resources perspective by INEOS.

 

[Ish]

The owners can't spend because it's not allowed, not that they would otherwise but the current rules barely allow owners to spend directly or indirectly unless it is for infrastructure. I say barely because at some point the maximum was 15m.

Yeah JP, that's basically what I said.

 

[Cassidy]

Completely unfeasible with the current ownership situation. The Glazers would have to agree to put in a corresponding amount of their own capital or have their stake diluted. They haven't shown any appetite in doing that.

1. They didn't have to accept the current ownership situation
2. They can still inject funds into the club to offset losses that affect PSR
3. They promised fans they would show ambition and set a goal of bringing United back to winning the PL and UCL to win the PL by 2028, so they better get a move on

 

[Big Ben Foster]

1. They didn't have to accept the current ownership situation
2. They can still inject funds into the club to offset losses that affect PSR
3. They promised fans they would show ambition and set a goal of bringing United back to winning the PL and UCL to win the PL by 2028, so they better get a move on

I'm not defending INEOS. I'm simply pointing out the constraints that exist due to the ownership structure and that will probably continue to hold us back until a full sale occurs.

Your point 2 on injecting funds goes back to my original point - there will be no capital injected unless the Glazers agree to also put their own capital in or have their stakes diluted.

 

[JPRouve]

Yeah JP, that's basically what I said.

I was just adding to your point because it is sometimes missed. Some seem to think that owners can use their own cash when it's precisely what PSR and FFP are primarily preventing.

 

[Wolfbot]

I keep reading these posts about how great managers are flexible and adaptable, and it being used a criticism for the manager. It makes no sense to me at all, as he has been flexible and made changes game after game to try and find a formula that suits the squad better, e.g., allow Garnacho to play more as a traditional wide player, using a false nine or a conventional centre forward, switching to a back four during games, playing both wingers and full backs in the wing back role. Why are so many claiming that he’s being too rigid?

Just to add to what I said earlier. For me it's a lot to do with the in game decisions as well. Even the best managers can send a team out with a plan that doesn't come off.

I'm seeing similarities to Ten Hag though at the moment where there's very little change to adjust to what the opposition are doing, or trying something different our end. Subs are almost always just a like for like swap.

Lack of a plan B, we either win based on the pre-match plan or we lose. Unfortunately it's more often lose at the moment.

I really like him as a person and he talks a good game, has a good CV, I need to see more on the pitch for us though before I'm convinced.

 

[Ish]

I was just adding to your point because it is sometimes missed. Some seem to think that owners can use their own cash when it's precisely what PSR and FFP are primarily preventing.

Aargh, gotcha bud. Yeah, exactly. Owners can't simply bail you out of this with a capital/cash injection into the business.

 

[Cassidy]

I'm not defending INEOS. I'm simply pointing out the constraints that exist due to the ownership structure and that will probably continue to hold us back until a full sale occurs.

Your point 2 on injecting funds goes back to my original point - there will be no capital injected unless the Glazers agree to also put their own capital in or have their stakes diluted.

You are making excuses, INEOS took control of the sporting side of the club under the guisse of being able to control how their funds were spent, now you are saying they won't inject any funds due to dilution.
Either they took sporting control under false pretenses (because they intimated they sporting control to have full control over how their money is spent), or you are wrong with your assertion, and you should stop defending them.

By the way, I am not even against the cust cutting that is going on, including laying off staff etc, however if they are doing all of this, after the statements they made before taking control and refuse to put any money into the club, then they in my opinion have lied and miss led the fans.
Hopefully they are just getting their house in order so they can ensure funds injected in are spent efficiently otherwise they are no different than the Glazers

 

[NicolaSacco]

Not a chance. Louis was a disaster in every aspect of his time at OT. His players didn’t even underperform…they were instructed to play tumescent football and they followed his instructions.

Please tell me what tumescent means in this context!?

It’s having a boner, and I can’t see the link.

 

[Big Ben Foster]

You are making excuses, INEOS took control of the sporting side of the club under the guisse of being able to control how their funds were spent, now you are saying they won't inject any funds due to dilution.
Either they took sporting control under false pretenses (because they intimated they sporting control to have full control over how their money is spent), or you are wrong with your assertion, and you should stop defending them.

I'm not defending them, I'm explaining why minority ownership can be a bad model (hence why many were skeptical of it in the first place).

If you own 25% of a company, are you going to inject funds without the expectation that the other owners will either inject corresponding amounts or dilute their stakes accordingly?

 

[V.O.]

Please tell me what tumescent means in this context!?

It’s having a boner, and I can’t see the link.

Caf automatic wordfilter for 'turgıd'.

 

[Cassidy]

I'm not defending them, I'm explaining why minority ownership can be a bad model (hence why many were skeptical of it in the first place).

If you own 25% of a company, are you going to inject funds without the expectation that the other owners will either inject corresponding amounts or dilute their stakes accordingly?

If I said I would before making the deal, and I said I needed Sporting control as part of the deal so I can do so, then yes I would be a person of honour who does what they say.
So like I said either they lied and you are right, or you are wrong and there is no need for you to make the excuse

 

[Kayla40TS]

Just to add to what I said earlier. For me it's a lot to do with the in game decisions as well. Even the best managers can send a team out with a plan that doesn't come off.

I'm seeing similarities to Ten Hag though at the moment where there's very little change to adjust to what the opposition are doing, or trying something different our end. Subs are almost always just a like for like swap.

Lack of a plan B, we either win based on the pre-match plan or we lose. Unfortunately it's more often lose at the moment.

I really like him as a person and he talks a good game, has a good CV, I need to see more on the pitch for us though before I'm convinced.

Subs are not almost always like for like. Just two days ago he subbed a Hojlund and Zirkzee for Mainoo and Maz and reshuffled the team to move Amad to wing back. There are lots of other examples. Against FCSB his half time subs were Garnacho and Amad in for Malacia and Collyer.