Can't that guy sack ETH, then?
Sir Jim reportedly deems ETH's position not a priority unless results are particularly dire - missed opportunity or the right decision?
- Thread starter fastwalker
- Start date
I don't see any reason why it's unreasonable for Ineos to want to assess matters first hand before reaching a decision.
I said in another thread that some fans will lose patience with Ineos because they seem quite methodical and I can imagine them wanting to do it properly with a plan. It'll probably be 18 months until we start seeing proper progress, but it's the right thing to do and is the only way we'll get back to the top long term. We're a bit of a mess at the moment, and that's not a quick fix.
What I didn't realise is that patience would run out before they're even controlling things
If you are going to let failing managers just run down their contracts to save sacking them and paying them off, then that really is a long term approach. Probably an approach that could see no success in Ratcliffe's lifetime, if that's what he plans to do.
Not knee jerk enough for the fans.
The acting CEO is the current general counsel (chief lawyer). He is there to essentially sign stuff, contracts etc.
Obviously, if Glazers and SJR agree to sack EtH, they can tell the acting CEO to do so and he will do so. But SJR is interested to first build a football structure and then see what to do with the manager, players etc.
As long as this does not happen for longer than 2-3 months, that is the correct decision IMO. Essentially, by end of May, they should already know whom do they want in charge next season, what players have a future here, and what players do we want to sign.
If EtH is here by pre-season, then I will join you worrying about the club and the leadership of the new stewards
How is it knee jerk to not want your club to continue losing on a near weekly basis and stumbling further down the table? just because a new ''structure'' is being built it doesn't mean any fan should accept that. The manager needs to show he is capable of guiding us until the end of the season which he is failing miserably to do.
That’s a false equivalency though.
The British media (who are mainly sh!te) are clickbait artists.
So, they’ll use United to say “it might be Potter” to generate clicks and likes... from United fans pro/anti Potter, from other fans who will generally laugh.
But they won’t tweet “Potter won’t be United manager”, partly because it’s boring and people will ignore, and partly because they won’t commit to something this definitive.
(and again (not just for you), this Guardian article is NOTHING.. see post 33. It’s a pretend “source” and them saying “which means xxx”. There‘s no source and it’s purely The Guardian….. generating clicks. Shock horror).
Any new "leader" of an organisation will have short, medium and long term goals they want to achieve.
The INEOS people will ultimately want to have some success in the short term and they'll probably believe that with a better structure behind the scenes, Ten Hag can do that. Even if that "success" is getting to the later stages of the cup and playing a better brand of football.
Longer term is more interesting and that's probably where we'll see a new manager come in.
The INEOS people will ultimately want to have some success in the short term and they'll probably believe that with a better structure behind the scenes, Ten Hag can do that. Even if that "success" is getting to the later stages of the cup and playing a better brand of football.
Longer term is more interesting and that's probably where we'll see a new manager come in.
I am not talking about long term success either. I am talking about this season and breathing some life into it by getting an interim for a manager that has been a dead man walking since the first few games. In the meantime, the long term planning can continue in the background. One is not dependent on or restricted the other.
Isn't the thread about Jimmy Brexit and team unwilling to make the decision unless things get dire? I thought the discussion was based on that conjecture.
Are we not going to get another manager because the 5 or 6 since Sir Alex left failed? We are, right? In the same way, getting burned with Rangnick doesn't mean we should not try to get another temporary appointment to make something out of this season instead of declaring it dead midway.
Also, Ole started his stint like a house on fire and we had some brilliant games and excitement back. Chelsea has had big successes under temporary appointments. Most relegation threatened teams make managerial changes to breathe life into their campaigns for a chance at survival. Imagine clubs just sticking with managers with whom nothing is working out well because they need to "sort shit out first". I, personally, don't get that line of thinking.
That’s just halve of the problem. The new structure will get rid of the deadwood and players who put 0% effort in, and we’ll sign hopefully young hungry players. Also what I’d like to see and I heard about this when ETH took over about a wage cap. Limit how much each player earns and add on performance bonuses. Guarantee you see a lot more effort from players.
Ole’s s great example of how hit and miss it is.
He, as you say, started off like a house on fire, then turned to utter dogshit, ultimately ending that season in the exact position Mourinho had us in when fired. (6th).
Ole was also parachuted in for Cardiff to save them from the drop, which went terribly.
Fairly often it goes pretty shite with caretakers, as it did for Lampard, Hiddink’s second caretaker stint was crap, Ragnick too, so let’s not pretend it’s some recipe for success. I’m sure we all fondly remember Alan Shearer’s stint as manager of Newcastle.
Chelsea’s best mid-season change has to be Tuchel, who wasn’t an interim, but in fact a new top drawer permanent manager.
I’m sure no-one thinks or expects INEOS to bring in a new long term manager now, so barring examples of actual managerial changes, how often have caretakers done an amazing turn around job? Because I’m betting more often than not a temporary manager doesn’t inspire incredible change.
Last edited:
Totally understand that and I agree with what it seems Ineos are trying to achieve. What I can’t fathom is in what way will we achieve success with ETH at the helm.
ETH has his faults but some of them are a doing of existing leadership structure incompetence (late signings for extortionate fees, many known players ETH worked with). He also comes across as quite stubborn but with recent benching of Rashford and revival of Maguire I still get a feeling that he is strict but fair. If you perform there is a way into the team.
What I would do if injured players return and we start to play reasonably well before end of season is that a transfer committee should identify and sign young perspective hungry players on contracts heavily incentivized with performance related bonuses that the club identified for their vision and style of play. Of course not totally negating the manager input but definitely reduce his power in signing players. Sell deadwood. Sign 4-5 new players by the summer and give ETH half more year until January 2025.
Part of the reason for that is also that I don't see some other outstanding candidates for United job that would have pedigree that would guarantee better results with existing squad quality. Elite tier Pep, Klopp, Carlo is out of reach, other than that outside of few flavor of the month managers I don't see any gettable or particularly attractive manager that we could pursue.
What I would do if injured players return and we start to play reasonably well before end of season is that a transfer committee should identify and sign young perspective hungry players on contracts heavily incentivized with performance related bonuses that the club identified for their vision and style of play. Of course not totally negating the manager input but definitely reduce his power in signing players. Sell deadwood. Sign 4-5 new players by the summer and give ETH half more year until January 2025.
Part of the reason for that is also that I don't see some other outstanding candidates for United job that would have pedigree that would guarantee better results with existing squad quality. Elite tier Pep, Klopp, Carlo is out of reach, other than that outside of few flavor of the month managers I don't see any gettable or particularly attractive manager that we could pursue.
So who would you sign then?
Who do you want us to get as interim?
Also Chelsea's changing manager style is why they are in a bigger mess than we are.
Who do you suggest replace him then? He’s not been given a fair chance where he has a proper structure above him. Not one manager we’ve had as. He won a trophy in his first year and came 3rd. That’s a successful first season considering the squad we have. Once we get rid of some more drama queens and players that cause trouble then he’ll create an happy environment and a happy environment is a winning one.
Good decision, anyone thinking of this as a negative should give their head a wobble.
That's not even remotely true though. Their strategy under Abramovich of changing managers at the first time of trouble worked for them more often than not, and resulted in them saving quite a few otherwise crap seasons that would've otherwise just been written off.
The state they're in now is more due to actions they've taken under their new ownership, a completely separate issue altogether.
Can't imagine how bad results and performance need to be to be considered 'dire'.
Exactly interims are rarely a success and unless Ineos know what the new DoF wants and who we can get as a new manager and not an interim why change when all it will create is new uncertainty, especially with coaching Mclaren, Van De Gaag and others will likely go with EtH and then you need not only an interim manager but coaches too which is hard to get 1st class appointments for on short contracts as I said a few pages back it's what set Rangnick back lack of 1st choice coaching appointments
Hmmmm… their caretakers:
They fluked out on Di Matteo obviously as they were utter shite still in the league, finishing 6th. We have no CL so no such fluke possible.
Benitez did decent enough.
Hiddink had one good and one “meh” spell as interim, so 50/50.
Lampard was truly awful as interim.
I’m not so sure their interim record is that good.
Avram Grant was an interim to start with also and he got them to a CL final.
They’ve had more hits than misses with interims, it works when you have a clear plan and something left to play for.
The only domino left to fall is regular hammerings to go with the regular losses.
And team selection. And training. And in-game substitutions.
It's not my job to do that, I'd assume the brilliant new structure and personnel that we're putting in place can make that key decision, as opposed to the club falling further into the abyss this season.
We cannot judge him until we have built him a footballing structure that will relief him of those duties, none of which should have ever been part of his job.
If we say:
Grant - Good
Di Matteo - Good
Hiddink 1 - Good
Benitez - Good
Hiddink 2 - meh
Lampard - shite
I’d argue the 4 first spells there simply had much better players than the latter two.
Then we have…..
Ole - took over 6th, finished 6th
Ragnick - shite
Shearer - shite
Kinnear - shite
Stellini - shite
I’d suggest that Ten Hag is an interim at this point and is currently failing his audition to keep his job post INEOS investigation.
I think that is likely the case.
Add Freddy Ljungberg to the list of shite too by the way.
He's just pointing out how stupid the "we've tried..." logic is. We haven't tried keeping a failing manager because it's too dumb of a decision even for us to make. You know what we haven't tried yet? Hiring a competent manager who's the right fit for the club.You just made an argument for keeping the manager. We have tried everything else except that.
INEOS restructuring is the next thing we try, if that fails
Yeah I agree with this.
Let's face it, whatever INEOS do will never make those who pinned their hopes, dreams and dignity on The Fake Sheikh happy.
Which obviously aint gonna happen until Ineos have all their appointments in place and they have time to discuss and headhunt the best option.
Sure, but the argument I was addressing was one that said that Chelsea changing managers is why they're in this mess. I'm not necessarily saying we need an interim now or making the claim that one will save our season. If INEOS want to wait to get the other appointments in place first, I completely understand.
Probably. But I'm not expecting it to happen on the first try either. We can't wait until everything is perfect and all stars are aligned to do anything.
Avram Grant taking over Jose's 1st stint was laughable really, that team just continued to play exactly like a Jose team he didn't do anything
https://talksport.com/football/1648358/john-obi-mikel-what-avram-grant-did-chelsea/amp/
Hardly surprising as apparently he just let everyone else run the show whilst he told stories of MJ23
But we absolutely can wait till we have a new CEO and director of football in place, which will likely be within the next 2 months.