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.
We seem to be at cross purposes here.
You're probably right that he's getting too much stick but I think you're giving him too much credit tbh. Ten Hag wasn't unknown or a choice made out of left field nobody had ever heard of. It would have been negligent not to interview him.
I was hoping he would work for us behind the scenes. And I have defended him from idiotic takes like "he has never managed anyone before, he hasnt any experience behind the scenes etc".
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.
He may well have been but it's been pretty well documented that Ten Hag became first choice after impressing in direct discussions with Murtagh and Fletcher.
So the people running the club were able to identify and hire a competent fellow Rangnick on their own, so I dare say they did the same in hiring Ten Hag. Who knows how much Ralf was involved but Ralf himself said he had little to do with the hiring of ETH. I believe him.
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.
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).
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.They can and do make bad recruitment choices but only because they don't know any better. But they aren't going to hire someone to secretly do someone else's job for them while also paying said person a Director of Football's salary. If they actually know that person (Murtagh) isn't fit for the job. Now that is conspiracy theory nonsense mate.
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.
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.
Tweet
— Twitter API (@user) date
So true
Yes that's basically what I'm saying mate, that's what every club does and that's what consultants do they help.
Or their aim is to have the best DOF they can hire but they are just not very good at making appointments. Though to be fair it remains to be seen whether or not Murtagh is a good DOF or not. I don't think at this stage after 18 months or so you could definitively say he's been brilliant or awful.
Spot on.
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?
You were the one who brought up the idea of 'helping' so I ran with it as you seemed comfortable with the concept.
Are we talking about your theory here that Rangnick was hired to do Murtagh's job for him.
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'.
Yeah you must be on a wind up or at least I hope you are.
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 think the silly ship sailed about 10 posts ago mate.
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.
Rangnick was spot on in a trivial way: he didn't say anything even remotely insightful. Just a bunch of obvious and vague things that fit most situations.
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.
This is a perfect example of what I mean by 'trivially true statements.'
It is trivially true that you need to sign lots of players if you lose lots of them due to contracts running out. It is true whether you're doing poorly, like United were, or doing great, like City were.
