Should ETH have a say on INEOS transfers or accept whatever he is given?

If we want to be a well-run modern football club, the manager doesn’t get to make transfer decisions. The players that are recruited need to be a good fit for the club.

For that to work, there needs to be a clear style of play that is the identity of the club.

Ten Hag is trying to implement that; it’s not going great. This screws everything up.

It is possible that the next manager will similarly fail with this club structure and this squad.

To be more successful at transfers is only one thing; we have a lot of other work to do to improve our performance.
 
Ten Hag's transfer record at United is abysmal.

He should be fired before the start of next season. If not, then he should have no say on transfers.

We simply cannot afford to have Ten Hag recommending that we sign more players he is familiar with. There is no value in it.
 
Isn't it worked into his contract that he has veto over transfers?
 
Ideally there should be a cooperation between CEO, Board, Scouts and Head Coach. No one party can decide everything since at the end of the day the Head Coach is the chef. On the other hand the Head Coach should also be realistic in his demand and provide alternatives, you can't ask for Messi / Ronaldo and sulk because you don't get them. The truth lies anywhere in between

Sadly ETH has proven beyond all doubt that he's a carwreck in identifying abilities. Not even ex players he coached before, players he should fully know inside out yet he's still making blunders all over.

Head coach should also consider the budget, how much is being asked for certain players, is it too much, is it a good deal. To the very least he should be caring for the club's resources even if it's not his money. If he gets 200M say, he could have stretch the budget adequately and walk away from overpriced players. When I mean overpriced is ridiculously overpriced (cough... Antony)

We have been making too many excuses of "He's not at fault for how much the club spend on a player" when he should be. As the main man, the head chef, the manager he should have inputs and big inputs on who, what, how much. He should be the best person and the one person to make that valuation.

I see no point in keeping ETH, you can't be successful as a manager if you failed at the very basic (Knowing your player's strength and weaknesses).
 
Last edited:
He should have a say but only to the point of listing the qualities in a player that he wants. He should get no say on picking/recommending who the player is - the most he can get is to rank between three options given to him by the scouts/DOF.
 
Plant0x84 said:
Is it not the manager who dictates the style of play? If not what are we paying him for?
Click to expand...
Only if the current manager is the ideal candidate for the new incoming board of football.

If he isn’t Ineos’ ideal manager, then they will find a manager whose style and ideology aligns with theirs.

If EtH stays, he will have to align himself with board’s desired style and ideology (if his own differs), or they will work together to develop a style and ideology of mutual desire.

Based on his transfers so far, I would prefer if he has a minor say whereby he informs the DoF of the positions/styles/personalities/etc he requires and the DoF sends the scouts to prepare lists of players (based on current + potential ability) that would satisfy the manager’s requests.

Ideally it would be a symbiotic relationship with regards to the footballing operations.
 
Wouldn’t trust him to order me a fish supper, so no, I wouldn’t let him loose with hundreds of millions of pounds.
 
He shouldn't even have a job about 5* over, so no.

Lost too much faith in him to trust him; has shown no competence in the market to veto anything.
 
I think every manager would want to have some say in the recruitment process. At least in identifying the positions he needs reinforcements and the type of talent he wants for that. The problem is not having that influence, the problem has been signing players that the manager knows or from the same agency as him in some kind of nepo scheme. With Jose it was Raiola, I think there was someone associated with Ole when he was here and now we have TH and his his agency. It defeats the purpose of a DOF/Recruitment team.
 
Paul778 said:
He can have a say but not a veto. Ultimately 50:50 right now he's gone by May. Mount and Anthony are the hills he dies on.

... well that and his inability to improve any player in the squad, inability to get across his playing style, pick a workable starting 11 that fits the EPL, inability to make good in game decisions...

ok. can i tag out yet and let someone else take over?
Click to expand...
He has to have a veto. There is no point signing players he doesn’t want as he just simply won’t play than and will quickly fall out with them. It’s money down the drain.
 
Of course the manager will express transfer proposals on the profile of player that he wants. After all, he is the head coach. But, he shouldn't have the decision on the recruitment of a player, nor the buying power. However, he shouldn't be completely isolated and not involve him on transfers.

He's no Fergie to pull that off, it's to much pressure.
 
Any transfers obviously need the manager's assent, if not consent. If you cannot gain the manager's assent then you only have two options as his boss - sack him or don't sign them. There's no point signing players the manager doesn't want - see that RB at Spurs they signed under Conte from Forest.
 
I wonder how much of a say coaches at other clubs get? I suspect they discuss the type of player needed, but really a manager would only have a limited knowledge of players as they're too busy doing other things. I doubt De Zerbi has had much of a day at Brighton, they've signed players from all over and he surely hasn't personally scouted these players.

It's probably why ETH came up with so many names he'd worked with before.
 
Clearly, it should be a partnership. I have some sympathy with the argument that Ten Hag's signings have been equally the fault of the club, but he's hardly endeared himself to me with the fruits of his coaching either. Unless there is a dramatic improvement before the end of the season, the club should be planning without him.
 
I think it's very interesting to see how this is going to work out. I guess it's more about one of the parties being against signing some players - I'd say INEOS should've vetoed Antony, and maybe question Ten Hag why the hell he wants to buy Mount. The rest of the transfers we made I think hold up.
I'd expect the same can happen the opposite way - manager should be able to veto the transfers coming from the "top", it's a healthy way.

Apart from Antony I don't think ETH made terrible transfers, the problem is I don't see where this team is heading, what is the actual plan.

EDIT: I forgot about Hojlund who I don't rate and I think he was the wrong type of striker in the first place.
 
Considering transfers under Ten Hag have been a near half billion pound disaster, of course he shouldnt have a say on transfers. Same goes for Murtough who should be fired as a matter urgency!
 
EtH should have a say so that the INEOS people can explain to him why he’s wrong. His transfers have not been big hits. He should be to say he wants Player X, and then the board says Player X is a Championship level player, but here’s someone with the same attributes but at a lot higher level. I think any player is going to want to know that the manager personally requested them, too.
 
Borys said:
I think it's very interesting to see how this is going to work out. I guess it's more about one of the parties being against signing some players - I'd say INEOS should've vetoed Antony, and maybe question Ten Hag why the hell he wants to buy Mount. The rest of the transfers we made I think hold up.
I'd expect the same can happen the opposite way - manager should be able to veto the transfers coming from the "top", it's a healthy way.

Apart from Antony I don't think ETH made terrible transfers, the problem is I don't see where this team is heading, what is the actual plan.

EDIT: I forgot about Hojlund who I don't rate and I think he was the wrong type of striker in the first place.
Click to expand...
Malacia and Onana have been poor as well.
 
Sparky Rhiwabon said:
Out of interest, is there any reliable insight into how this worked under Fergie?
Click to expand...

Fergie was more of a DOF/coach hybrid. Which is why he delegated more minute details of training to the assistant coaches.

I don't think that can work today. Coaching is too specialized. How can you be an excellent coach and recruitment specialist at the same time? Not enough hours in the day.

And assuming EtH stays, we don't need him worrying about transfers. He either needs to be on the training porch or watching film.
 
Sparky Rhiwabon said:
Out of interest, is there any reliable insight into how this worked under Fergie?
Click to expand...
Fergie said sign X (in some cases cause he saw the players, for example in EPL, in some cause scouts recommended), and if the club’s and as important Fergie’s evaluation of how much is he worth matched the other club’s evaluation, we signed the players.

It has been similar after Fergie, but now the evaluation does not matter.
 
If ETH is to veto signings, or even decide signings, and it should be done so according to his style of play, can anyone please explain to me what his style of play is? According to some, this was clearly visible last year - I must have missed it.
 
Borys said:
I think it's very interesting to see how this is going to work out. I guess it's more about one of the parties being against signing some players - I'd say INEOS should've vetoed Antony, and maybe question Ten Hag why the hell he wants to buy Mount. The rest of the transfers we made I think hold up.
I'd expect the same can happen the opposite way - manager should be able to veto the transfers coming from the "top", it's a healthy way.

Apart from Antony I don't think ETH made terrible transfers, the problem is I don't see where this team is heading, what is the actual plan.

EDIT: I forgot about Hojlund who I don't rate and I think he was the wrong type of striker in the first place.
Click to expand...
Some of the posts on here, you dont think he has made terrible transfers? The muppet has set the club back 5 years. Antony, a championship player we paid £80m for and huge wages. Mount, available on a free and could have negotiated from Monday (or would have been), and we paid £60m for an utterly ineffectual player who had one good season. Onana, technically flawed and available on a free last summer. Malacia, poor and physically weak, signed as he had one good match against Antony (who hasnt?). Weghorst, who is probably the worst player ever to pull on a United shirt, ETH played him over Elanga and then sold Elanga to buy Antony. Amrabat, we chased all summer, slow and weak and not suited to Premier league. I tend to agree with Hojlund, fans are desperate for him to work but worth a punt at £20-30m as back up, £70m as starter a joke. Casimero, RM happy to sell him as they knew his legs were going, we are stuck with an aging player on huge wages and need to replace him. Martinez the only signing I would rate a success. THe money wasted on Antony and Mount is criminal, and I would put Casimero in that category as well.
 
Given his track record I wouldn't even let him have a say on what flavour soup to buy on the weekly grocery shop. He'd probably pick lentil.
 
Rossa said:
If ETH is to veto signings, or even decide signings, and it should be done so according to his style of play, can anyone please explain to me what his style of play is? According to some, this was clearly visible last year - I must have missed it.
Click to expand...
In his own words he wants to turn United into the best transition team around. He does this by focusing on turnovers high over the pitch (and actually United is quite good at pressing/forcing these) and last season it worked actually to an acceptable level. However what he is trying to do now (and which reminds me actually of what Flick's Bayern did) is to increase the quality of the play by pushing the team further upfront.

Which doesn't work currently due to two simple reasons: While winning a quite good amount of balls, nobody seems to now how to proceed it properly into the goal (except Rashford's purple patch last season) and pushing forward so much is quite risky and can only work if perfectly drilled and if everybody puts a shift in. It can be a sextuple winning style as we have seen at Bayern, which is the level of success United should aspire to reach, so it's understandable why EtH wants to go in that direction, I just don't see it ever work with that squad.
 
pocco said:
I wonder how much of a say coaches at other clubs get? I suspect they discuss the type of player needed, but really a manager would only have a limited knowledge of players as they're too busy doing other things. I doubt De Zerbi has had much of a day at Brighton, they've signed players from all over and he surely hasn't personally scouted these players.

It's probably why ETH came up with so many names he'd worked with before.
Click to expand...

At Brighton they run the traffic light system. Your head scout/head of transfer, director of football and manager all have to give the green light for a transfer. If one disagrees, they discuss it. Ashworth spoke about this previously.

According to Whitwell, at least in Ten Hags first window, Murtough asked for player profiles from Ten Hag, Murtough put the scouts to work and they came back with shortlists to Murtough. Murtough doesn't have anyone below him to make recommendations and so went to Ten Hag, Ten Hag chose players he was familiar with because the initial plan was for these players to be at Carrington day 1 and because that wasn't fulfilled he had to pick players he was familiar with.

Now wether we believe this is true or just a damage control article, it's fair to point out that it should never have been allowed to happen in the way it has, everyone and there friend was very assertive to the fact that Ten Hag would be a good manager for United IF he stays away from recruitment. On that merit I would like to see him work under Ashworth and Mitchell IF with weeks between games, he can coach an attractive positive style that gets results, and if I am INEOS I am saying, I don't care about this transition bollocks that Murtough wanted you to do, we saw what you could do at Ajax, if we had hired you that's why we would hire you, if your up to that task we will give you a shot.

Would sooner see that scenario than see us hire Potter for example.
 
Gordon Godot said:
Some of the posts on here, you dont think he has made terrible transfers? The muppet has set the club back 5 years. Antony, a championship player we paid £80m for and huge wages. Mount, available on a free and could have negotiated from Monday (or would have been), and we paid £60m for an utterly ineffectual player who had one good season. Onana, technically flawed and available on a free last summer. Malacia, poor and physically weak, signed as he had one good match against Antony (who hasnt?). Weghorst, who is probably the worst player ever to pull on a United shirt, ETH played him over Elanga and then sold Elanga to buy Antony. Amrabat, we chased all summer, slow and weak and not suited to Premier league. I tend to agree with Hojlund, fans are desperate for him to work but worth a punt at £20-30m as back up, £70m as starter a joke. Casimero, RM happy to sell him as they knew his legs were going, we are stuck with an aging player on huge wages and need to replace him. Martinez the only signing I would rate a success. THe money wasted on Antony and Mount is criminal, and I would put Casimero in that category as well.
Click to expand...
Antony is a terrible transfer, sacking offense if you ask me.
Mount - time will tell, I think it's ridiculous to call him a flop let alone a terrible transfer. He's young, has a good re-sale value as long as he stays fit, and I actually think he's a really good footballer. Obviously he's not what we needed but in a year time, I am not sure if we won't be moving Bruno out and Mount will be key player in a "modern" team.
Onana - I don't know really, he seems shaky but I do give him benefit of the doubt in how shit this team is playing. We're also not using his passing ability at all what will also change in the future.
Malacia was a cheap backup and he's been fine (I don't know why we needed to bring him in but I have no problem with such low-risk transfers, we can still move him on for a few million). Weghorst, Sabitzer were just loans.

I am happy with Casemiro transfer, he was massive for us last year and we could still make this work this season if we acknowledge he needs protection. I also think he can be sold for a decent amount of money to SA. I think it's ridiculuous to criticize ETH for bringing Casemiro in, he was fantastic for us last year. Eric was right to recognize Eriksen as a weakness in away games, but he was completely wrong in trying to solve this problem with another #10 (or attacking #8). Frankie De Jong would look like a donkey in this ridiculous setup.

Amrabat is a mystery to me, a lot of people on this forum said he will struggle with EPL physicality and pace and this exactly is hapenning. Apparently he was the no1 target for that deep midfield position, and yet ETH doesn't seem too keen on playing him so yeah, it's a weird one. Not that I think we should be making this deal permanent.

Anyway, looking from "new structure" perspective, Antony is the one that stands out and most likely would've been blocked, and Hojlund because he is not good and not a player that fits this team needs. But the other transfers I think stand.
 
Last edited:
duffer said:
You'd imagine he had full control and trusted a few people when it came to the more obscure signings.

I doubt there was a single singing he didn't give the OK to.
Click to expand...
I think Bebe is the only player he signed that he didn’t watch playing before signing. But that was probably done in order to give some money to Mendez for his services.
 
It never made sense to give ETH more control of transfers than he had at Ajax. Taking it away from him is in his own best interests.
 
Stinkypete said:
At Brighton they run the traffic light system. Your head scout/head of transfer, director of football and manager all have to give the green light for a transfer. If one disagrees, they discuss it. Ashworth spoke about this previously.

According to Whitwell, at least in Ten Hags first window, Murtough asked for player profiles from Ten Hag, Murtough put the scouts to work and they came back with shortlists to Murtough. Murtough doesn't have anyone below him to make recommendations and so went to Ten Hag, Ten Hag chose players he was familiar with because the initial plan was for these players to be at Carrington day 1 and because that wasn't fulfilled he had to pick players he was familiar with.

Now wether we believe this is true or just a damage control article, it's fair to point out that it should never have been allowed to happen in the way it has, everyone and there friend was very assertive to the fact that Ten Hag would be a good manager for United IF he stays away from recruitment. On that merit I would like to see him work under Ashworth and Mitchell IF with weeks between games, he can coach an attractive positive style that gets results, and if I am INEOS I am saying, I don't care about this transition bollocks that Murtough wanted you to do, we saw what you could do at Ajax, if we had hired you that's why we would hire you, if your up to that task we will give you a shot.

Would sooner see that scenario than see us hire Potter for example.
Click to expand...

Ok well that's interesting re Ashworth. Regarding the story about our recruitment, I'm taking it with a huge pinch of salt because it contradicts what well respected journos were saying at the time of these transfers and how ETH was insisting on certain players.

And I don't think Murtough has told ETH to play transition football. He played that way at Ajax. In the league they dominated possession, but they did before he got there too. They are/were just the best team around that time. But I watched them in their decent CL run and they were a lot about quick transitions. But the bigger issue is that doing something at Ajax isn't worth a carrot in the PL, as many managers have found out. Ok he was worth a try to see if he could transition, but he's failed massively. Especially in terms of the style of play and the football we play.
 
He handpicked onana and antony. Not out of the blue, he knew them.

That should disqualify him from any say on transfers for the rest of his career.
 
SmashedHombre said:
Given his track record I wouldn't even let him have a say on what flavour soup to buy on the weekly grocery shop. He'd probably pick lentil.
Click to expand...
It'd quite interesting because I am wondering which players were his suggestions.
Eriksen, Casemiro, Amrabat, Licha, Antony, Malacia.

I only dislike Amrabat and Antony and the former was a dumpster dive in the loan market. The DoF choices scare me more, and we generally have more prolonged form getting it wrong from Glazer employees. Athletic reported Mount was a panic move to stop him going to Liverpool and Arsenal? Not the smartest way to act.
 
stefan92 said:
In his own words he wants to turn United into the best transition team around. He does this by focusing on turnovers high over the pitch (and actually United is quite good at pressing/forcing these) and last season it worked actually to an acceptable level. However what he is trying to do now (and which reminds me actually of what Flick's Bayern did) is to increase the quality of the play by pushing the team further upfront.

Which doesn't work currently due to two simple reasons: While winning a quite good amount of balls, nobody seems to now how to proceed it properly into the goal (except Rashford's purple patch last season) and pushing forward so much is quite risky and can only work if perfectly drilled and if everybody puts a shift in. It can be a sextuple winning style as we have seen at Bayern, which is the level of success United should aspire to reach, so it's understandable why EtH wants to go in that direction, I just don't see it ever work with that squad.
Click to expand...

Cheers mate!

Funny thing is, we might just be the worst team in the league in defending transitions. Our midfield is carved open time and time again. There is so much space between our midfield and defense that no DM in the world would be able to fill. This was better last season with Varane and Martinez, as they are much better suited to a high line than Maguire + 1. City can afford a high line due to them having Walker to sweep pretty much any counter.

It's all well and fine winning the ball up high, but if that means that the opposition team is also in position with plenty of men behind the ball, I see no real advantage to that than winning the ball further back towards our own goal. The second issue is that we don't have enough players that thrive in that form of transitional play. In the good ol' days of Giggs, Ronaldo, Rooney, Tevez etc, we had transitional play of 40-60 yard with running and passing. Transitional play winning the ball high up the pitch is a completely different game that requires a whole different skillset. The first requires fast players with great passing from the back and/or midfield. The other requires much more technically sound players. One would think Antony would suit this as he is good at keeping the ball, but he constantly makes the wrong decisions and/or underhit passes.
 
VP89 said:
It'd quite interesting because I am wondering which players were his suggestions.
Eriksen, Casemiro, Amrabat, Licha, Antony, Malacia.

I only dislike Amrabat and Antony and the former was a dumpster dive in the loan market. The DoF choices scare me more, and we generally have more prolonged form getting it wrong from Glazer employees. Athletic reported Mount was a panic move to stop him going to Liverpool and Arsenal? Not the smartest way to act.
Click to expand...

Most reports indicated that Mount was very much an ETH signing. Much as I have little faith in the club’s decision making, there’s no way we purchased Mason Mount because we thought he’d be some sort of world beater elsewhere. The reports that he was seen as the ideal player for ETH’s two 10s system make a lot more sense.
 
stefan92 said:
In his own words he wants to turn United into the best transition team around. He does this by focusing on turnovers high over the pitch (and actually United is quite good at pressing/forcing these) and last season it worked actually to an acceptable level. However what he is trying to do now (and which reminds me actually of what Flick's Bayern did) is to increase the quality of the play by pushing the team further upfront.

Which doesn't work currently due to two simple reasons: While winning a quite good amount of balls, nobody seems to now how to proceed it properly into the goal (except Rashford's purple patch last season) and pushing forward so much is quite risky and can only work if perfectly drilled and if everybody puts a shift in. It can be a sextuple winning style as we have seen at Bayern, which is the level of success United should aspire to reach, so it's understandable why EtH wants to go in that direction, I just don't see it ever work with that squad.
Click to expand...
You miss the other 'simple' reason is that it leaves us wide open on the counter when we inevitably lose the ball. Hence teams encouraging us on to them and then look to cut through us. Its not simply getting a more mobile Casimero. We lack a combination of more physical and technical players. It was Rangnick who identified we needed more players able
Doracle said:
Most reports indicated that Mount was very much an ETH signing. Much as I have little faith in the club’s decision making, there’s no way we purchased Mason Mount because we thought he’d be some sort of world beater elsewhere. The reports that he was seen as the ideal player for ETH’s two 10s system make a lot more sense.
Click to expand...
 
Doracle said:
Most reports indicated that Mount was very much an ETH signing. Much as I have little faith in the club’s decision making, there’s no way we purchased Mason Mount because we thought he’d be some sort of world beater elsewhere. The reports that he was seen as the ideal player for ETH’s two 10s system make a lot more sense.
Click to expand...
The Athletic suggested it was joint, and confirmed strong Liverpool and Arsenal interest. That points to me that clubs who spend well also wanted him, which is why I don't exactly want to call Ten hag a transfer mug for that signing.

I think we could have gotten him for cheaper, but that's a Murtough thing.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.