Bit offtopic, but obviously time for a little linguistic and technical history: Indeed Wolfsburg is sometimes called that. The city was actually founded as the site of the first Volkswagen factory. At the time it's official name was "Stadt des KdF-Wagens bei Fallersleben" ="City of the KdF-Car near Fallersleben" (KdF = Kraft durch Freude = Power through Joy was the Nazi organisation responsible for anything beneficial for workers. It organised things like vacation trips, owned a few cruise ships and also looked into other things to make the life better for workers, like producing a car for everyone which the KdF-Car - effectively what would later become the Volkswagen Beetle). Later it renamed to Wolfsburg. But the meaning of the original name is still covered in "Autostadt" (literally "Car City").
Erik ten Hag - Manchester United manager / awaiting clarity from the club over his position
- Thread starter sewey89
- Start date
-
In the latest episode of the United Hour Podcast, Nik (@Rood) was joined by comedian Ali Woods to look back at the best and worst moments of a rollercoaster season with the annual United Hour Awards.
Has Ten Hag been sacked yet? We're not sure and we hope not, but it's looking more likely as the days pass.
Who should replace him and why is it taking so long to make a decision?
Yeah 'the structure' made Ten Hag think Antony is an £80m player.Still blaming ten hag for the shit club structure are we
g
Never thought I’d learn anything in this thread. Thanks for that.
Of course he isn't 100% responsible for it. The only thing he's responsible for is recommending Antony, and in a properly run club, the director of football and scouts look at their reports on Antony and go "not happening, these are our shortlisted targets for that position" (as Liverpool famously did when Klopp pushed for Brandt over Salah).
Even if you accept the repeated nonsense about Ten Hag requesting "full control of transfers" as a condition of accepting the job (which comes from a single, out of context quote), it's still on the club for accepting such a request. He simply should have been thanked for his time, and the next candidate for the managerial position brought in for talks.
After that, it's on the club for not having any alternatives lined up when it was clear that Ajax wanted silly money for Antony (apparently we balked at a quote of £50 million earlier in the window).
And after that it's on the club for authorising £80 million for him after the season started, because we'd failed to find anyone else for the position.
His eye for talent, given Antony's obvious lack of suitability for the Premier League can certainly be questioned, as can his apparent belief that he can still come good, but it's still got to come within the context of the above.
That's what's been reported. Everything I've read has said that Ten Hag arrived and (unlike basically every other professional club around these days) we didn't have what they call a "shadow squad" of targets for every position, should we find ourselves needing players at short notice. The club knew he wanted a midfielder in the mould of Frenkie de Jong (which they seemed to take as "Frenkie de Jong" and is how we ended up rushing through Casemiro when the penny finally dropped that de Jong wasn't coming) and a left-sided centre back (Martinez was on the shortlist), but were blindsided by his request for a right-winger as they (presumably) thought Sancho would fill that role.
Aside from the fact that it left us unprepared to find an alternative to Antony (we apparently decided £50 million was too much near the beginning of the window), it also meant we'd have been left in the shit with any other sudden departures. Be that a player picking up a long-term or career ending injury, your high-profile striker deciding to sit down with Piers Morgan and slag off the manager and the club mid-season, or (in an incident pre-dating Ten Hag) a young talent being recorded (allegedly) threatening to rape his girlfriend.
When you think about the farcical "500 scouted right-backs" thing that somehow pumped out £50 million for Wan-Bissaka as the best option, it's obvious that the recruitment team was a complete mess, despite apparently containing 160 scouts.
A director of football's job isn't just to do what the manager says. If that's what happened, then it's still not on Ten Hag.
He didn't approve spending any money on Antony (or any player). The team negotiating the transfers (likely led by Arnold, and previously Woodward) approve transfer spending.
I don't even want the man to stay in the job (at least not past the remainder of the season), but there's enough stuff to criticise him for without pinning the results of our shite structure on him.
He's responsible for telling the club which players he'd be interested in signing - but he has no say over whether the fee represents market value. He is a coach, not a director of football.
I can imagine Murtough sitting there asking his little enigma machine how much to pay for Antony
Would like to know your thoughts on how our scouts make their scouting reports! Maybe like the papal conclaves where no one leaves the room until you get white smoke and bells ringing? - 'It's Bebe, he's the one!'
Fergie himself said they walked away the moment 6m was demanded as agent fees, we had ample time to close the deal before Chelsea won the CL that qualified them for the following season's edition and we were frontrunners on the deal. If we had paid the agent fees we would have got Hazard, simple as.
In any organisation the procurer, in this case the Director of Negotiations, sends feedback to the originator of the request - "you said you want a left footed RW, well the one I got is rated 80m should we proceed", the moment ETH gives his greenlight he owns the decision.
Without ETH in the summer of 2022 United wouldn't have gone anywhere near Antony let alone pay 80m for him. Amything else is rewriting history and a sorry attempt of whitewashing EtH's role in the blunder. It was 100% ETH and that's why INEOS are stripping the mamager of that power and eventually sacking ETH.
The structure is there to keep managers doing their job, not ask them to be a full time DoF. Ten Hag made a mistake on a valuation, good thing it's not his job.Yeah 'the structure' made Ten Hag think Antony is an £80m player.
Exactly. Weird how people are so desperate to absolve Murtough of responsibility.
You are forgetting the De Jong saga and how our transfer business was at a halt for a long time that window presumably because he was the centrepiece and we needed to know how much it would cost us before making any other move. Do you know who insisted we wait on De Jong even when our window was going tits up?
Antony, also wasn't for sale the moment Ajax sold Martinez to us because they had lost that RB to Bayern, Martinez to us and Gravenbech to Bayern too. If I remember correctly Ajax expressly stated that they would sell anyone else unless we offered an outrageous amount. It wasn't poor negotiating but we were boxed in because the manager we were backing only wanted Antony, a bit more flexibility we could have got a cheaper and most likely better player too.
Does ETH have final say over transfers? That’s a genuine question, because that was the impression I had and it’s been stated a few times in this thread.
If he doesn’t, then that’s a different matter.
But if he does, then failed transfers (particularly ones that cost £80m+) must be something he’s responsible for. The idea that a negotiation team agreed a price with Ajax that clearly had a huge impact on the resources available to the Manager without that Manager’s knowledge and approval is kinda absurd.
If you’re crying out for a (at this stage almost mythical) footballing structure, one that cuts the Manager out of the largest financial and squad-building decision the club makes that year is sub-optimal, to say the least.
at least he saw that Amrabat at LB was a disaster, and changed that during the game. Didnt really agree with the antony sub though, since of the attackers he was actually one of the better ones at that point. Shouldve been rashford or garnacho coming off. Only way it made sense to keep them both on was if we brought on a CF and had them both on the wings.
The issue for me is, neither you nor I know exactly how our transfer business is done behind closed doors.That last sentence of your first paragraph is your own speculation fuelled by the media's reporting of United transfer business. @Alex99 made a good point about how ETH wanted a player like Frenkie (Not just Frenkie), of course Frenkie would've been first choice but it is then up-to our transfers team incl. scouts to have a very solid list of alternatives - Every deal is a risk, so why not prepare for those risks the moment you know the kind of profile your manager is looking for? We knew what Frenkie would cost us from early on in the summer, so it is very possible to go about our other deals simultaneously while also building up alternatives. FdJ halting our window is not ETH's fault for me, our transfers team should also have the experience to see how a deal is going and judge whether it'll happen or not, while our scouts should be working overtime on alternatives off their databases.
Again, about ETH only wanting Antony - Also speculation on our part, maybe an alternative explanation is that ETH wasn't given any good alternatives that he wanted to go with, because of how incompetent our scouting department / transfer team was? This is the same scouting team that apparently scouted 500 or so RBs and ended up with Wan Bissaka. Even if hypothetically (while this is how it's reported in media, we don't really know) ETH says he wants Frenkie and Antony, and only those two, our football departments should be able to present sound alternatives as soon as they begin to realise a good deal won't be done for those two.
Both of the issues around FdJ and Antony could've been avoided with a structure that actually audits the quality of our scouting, provides good options to a manager, and is confident enough to veto a bad deal - like how FSG pulled the plug on Brandt for Salah as @Alex99 mentioned. ETH should take blame for the bad transfer decisions sure because he had to be a big part of recruitment given that is just how our club is run - but a club like United should not make a manager such a big part of transfers in the first place, until we fix that we pretty much set up every manager here for failure, which is something Ratcliffe alluded to in his interview as well.
Last edited:
The contradiction in this post
Even if I believe you are right Ten Hag should bear some of the 'blame' of signing Antony - however good he was in the Forest game I think generally he has been a failure - that is not how INEOS presented it. Ratcliffe clearly stated the ''environment'' around clearly established managers failed.
You and some others present 2022 transfer connections as something of a 90s football managers game: you play manager x of club y, scroll down a list of names and make a bid and voila, done deal. One of the reasons I hate current football management games is the realism in todays dealings is just so damn complicated, with many cogs before player B is available. Financials usually are left to specific staff. Then there is a top level management that has to allow signing players for high levels of money.
It is well documented that Ten Hag did not do the financial aspect of Antony and apparently even was not convinced he should come in at all. There are various ex managers like LvG or more recently, Rene Meulensteen stating Manchester United managers simply dont get the players they want but are left with 2nd or 3rd choice. INEOS and Ratcliffe also concluded wisely the 'environment'' needs to be changed, brought to world class standards. Ratcliffe couldn't believe Ten Hag had to report to the CEO about these matters.
What I absolutly do agree with you is that Ten Hag should not get to decide solely who comes in or not. Ten Hag should only get a veto whether he does or doesn't want someone but the screening, scouting and final decision lets try to get him should be done with the DoF, and only if the financials make sense. 80+ million on Antony clearly does not. Someone should have said: no.
And if Ten Hag keeps supporting Antony doesn't mean he sanctions the sum paid for him. Ten Hag clearly judges on his form, his training, the options needed for the upcoming game and very easely can and does leave him out too. Ten Hag openly supports all of his players, including Maguire, Van de Beek and even Sancho. One of his tasks is to keep the group together and is doing an excellent, much beter job than say Jose Mourinho ever did.
Last edited:
- Joined
- Sep 1, 2015
- Messages
- 15,144
- Supports
-
Some excellent posts in here recently.
Jesus wept.
The club should never have given him the fecking job if he wanted as much control over transfers as you lot seem to think he asked for, so as much as you can criticise his judgment on Antony, the majority of the blame still lies with the club for running the circus that (allegedly) gave him this power in the first place.
It's literally that simple.
Fergie had been our manager for over 20 years, had an excellent working relationship with the man in charge of negotiating these deals, and was working in an era when directors of football weren't nearly as common, and as such, managers did have a larger say in transfers, and were far more used to the responsibility.
The game has long since moved on from those sorts of structures, and more importantly, Ten Hag had only been in the job five minutes, and was following four managers who had failed under very similar circumstances.
Using Fergie (allegedly) putting stop to a transfer, over a decade ago, doesn't absolve the club for still running the club in the same way, giving managers with absolutely no track record of taking control of transfers, full responsibility for managing who we target and how much we spend on them, while also charging them with the monumental task of getting Manchester United back to the top of English football.
The moment it became apparent that de Jong wasn't particularly interested in the move and that Barcelona wanted a silly fee for him to make it happen, the club should have moved onto the second option. Same goes for the dealings with Ajax once it became apparent that Antony was going to represent a significant investment. It shouldn't have mattered who Ten Hag's personal preference was.
As a genuine question to you, how the feck do you think Arsenal (or any other remotely well run club) are structured?
It's not about keeping managers completely out of the loop when it comes to transfers, and no one's suggesting that should be the case. There's a massive middle ground between the director of football rocking up to training one day to introduce the manager to the new midfielder he's just spent £90 million on, and the director of football doing bugger all while the manager calls up his old club to wire them tens of millions of pounds for a player not remotely worth that much. That middle ground is, chiefly, the director of football, working closely with the scouts and recruitment analysts, creating a shortlist of potential targets for each position, asking which aras the manager thinks the squad needs and for his input on the potential targets they've identified.
Ten Hag made one comment in one interview, that people conveniently leave the start off to present the idea that he requested total control of transfers as a requirement of accepting the job. If he did make such a request (which I think seems unlikely given he's never had that power before), it's a massive indictment on the club to bend to such demands, and so any shite transfers that Ten Hag may now be responsible for, are essentially heavily caveated with the fact that he shouldn't have even been given the job by the club in the first place. The rest of the quote is him mentioning the importance of cooperation.
Here is the quote people always hark back to:
Here is the start of it:
Given that it's absolutely mental to expect him to have the time to thoroughly scout and value his own potential targets (or even the time to assign our 160 scouts to do that for him) - which would be a major part of having "total control of transfers" - while still having the time to do his actual duties as head coach, and literally everyone knows about the "veto" powers that Ten Hag and Murtough both have, it seems far more likely that Ten Hag's "control" of transfers stretches no further than being able to reject a player he absolutely doesn't want, and being able to make his own recommendations (that in turn, can be rejected).
From everything I've read, Ten Hag arrived to find that the scouting department only bothered creating proper reports for players in positions specified as needing strengthening in the next window or so, and not every position (in case they suddenly need to replace a player, for example), which is what basically every other professional club's scouting department does. This is how we ended up with Antony, because we hadn't considered that he might not want to play Jadon Sancho at right-wing all season. He also found out that his request for a midfielder "like Frenkie de Jong" had been interpreted as "Frenkie de Jong" which is how we ended up panic-buying Casemiro. I imagine this short-sightedness is also how we ended up with Weghorst, and not someone who could actually score a goal (even if that transfer was still a loan).
We've got enough ammo with the obvious tactical issues, that whole "Varane can't play left centre-back until he can" thing, and the general naff performances and results (even when considering the extenuating circumstances of injuries, etc.), we don't need to keep making up shit about Ten Hag thinking Antony was worth blowing most of our transfer budget on, or that he thinks Weghorst is a better player than Ronaldo.
As someone who actually wants a fresh start under INEOS, I'm only "defending" Ten Hag with this stuff because I have absolutely no faith that those constantly using transfers as a stick to beat him with, won't become just as negative and toxic about whoever replaces him as soon as we hit a bump in the road.
The point about being able to do deals simultaneously is an excellent one.
We shouldn't really be waiting to see how much one player is going to cost us before trying to sign another.
If we've got, for example, £150 million to spend in the summer (I know budgets aren't as simply defined as this, but there must be some sort of ballpark figure), and we need players for three positions, surely one of the first things you do is sit down and allocate a portion of that £150 million to each position? That way, you at least have some idea of the maximum amount you're going to be spending on each player.
You don't take your £150 million, spend way over the odds on your first transfer, do the same again for your second, then sit there wondering why you're having to resort to free-transfers and loans to secure the third.
Not only ETH is 100% responsible for buying Antony for 80 million, but he still believes that this was a good deal and that Antony is a world class "unstoppable" player. He has managed Antony for a long time now, he knows Antony, he believes in Antony.
So, perhaps the ETH supporters here should really support Antony, too? ETH believes he is unstoppable, why do you disagree with ETH and believe he is not good enough? You make ETH seem like he doesn't know his own players!
https://sports.yahoo.com/ten-hag-carragher-criticism-backing-131743980.html
More on Antony: "I backed him for a long time. I know his abilities. I know from the past he is unstoppable. He's one of the quickest in the first 10 yards. He is resilient. He is a character. He will fight back and I back him."
So, perhaps the ETH supporters here should really support Antony, too? ETH believes he is unstoppable, why do you disagree with ETH and believe he is not good enough? You make ETH seem like he doesn't know his own players!
https://sports.yahoo.com/ten-hag-carragher-criticism-backing-131743980.html
More on Antony: "I backed him for a long time. I know his abilities. I know from the past he is unstoppable. He's one of the quickest in the first 10 yards. He is resilient. He is a character. He will fight back and I back him."
At Arsenal, Arteta has the final say over transfers. If Arsenal signed Anthony for £82m, it would be because Arteta wanted us to - that would be on him. When the terms for Mudryk got stupid, the club allowed Chelsea to beat us to the player. When the price for Rice got stupid, the club ponied up the cash. It’s very clear why - Arteta viewed Rice as key part of his plans.
I completely understand that that no modern Manager is solely responsible for any transfer. The games hasn’t worked like that for decades. But you didn’t actually answer my question - does ETH have final say over transfers? I’m asking because I don’t know. The answer may be that you (and by “you” I mean United fans in general) don’t know either, but it’s a genuine question.
Watching United at the moment is a chore.
There's enough genuine reasons to be fed up with Ten Hag than convincing yourself and trying to convince others he's 100% to blame for every aspect of the Antony deal.
Of course, he has to defend his lad Antony, which is a nice gesture. He, the club, and the fans know he will not be here next year.
Something something manager's wages, something something veto.
Do you think he actually believes that? He's covering himself. He knows that he and the club screwed up.
If he said i don't rate him and he'll stay on the bench, Anthonys already fragile confidence will drop to a new low and if we ever wanted to sell him his valuation would be ever lower if that is possible.
I have not fallen into any "strawman" that "my kind" fall into. He can't coach players he hand picked but somehow he would have been great with players that others would have bought for him. That is a nonsensical argument as far as I am concerned. I am surprised that it is even a debate that he has bought poorly.
The Weghorst theory that you have put forth is completely of your own making. I never said he was the first or the fifth choice, I merely mentioned him as one of the players that we have signed, that he was familiar with, who was nowhere near the standard of a Manchester United player. And we haven't even started talking about the number 10 position in which he was deployed for a large number of games, which was more ridiculous than the signing.
As for "Toxic", I am sorry I post on Redcafe and spoil the perfect utopia that you come in search of; but it's a discussion forum and I can't sit here and sing Kumbaya for a manager that has been boring me to death for the last one year and has shown me that he simply is not good enough to manage the club that I support. And apologies again, but yes, I am going to equally
Antony - yes looking a poor signing and nowhere near worth the fee.
Weghorst - an emergency loan signing who wasn’t particularly good, but still contributed at times.
Malacia - Good attitude and at times last season played pretty well. Very unfortunate that he has been injured all season and that’s nothing to do with the manager. I don’t ultimately think he will be good enough as a starter but for the low fee, he’s a decent backup signing.
Onana - getting rid of De Gea is one of the best things Ten Hag has done for this club and despite all the criticism Onana has been an upgrade. Performances are picking up and he could easily play in a top side.
Mount - I have never fully been behind the transfer because I didn’t think he’s what we needed, but he’s clearly a better player than many make out. Again been injured nearly all season so very much a case of we cannot fully judge him in a Utd shirt yet and could yet prove a great signing.
Amrabat - Another last minute loan deal. He’s clearly a good player and exactly as advertised is brilliant at getting on the ball. He’s been vital squad cover at CM and LB. I personally would be happy to sign him for a low fee as he’s versatile.
I think there’s plenty of legitimate concern with Ten Hag mainly routed around our poor playing style and lack of control over games. I don’t think we need to start over exaggerating his signings when they are still far from our biggest problem players. All that being said, I’m hoping now the club is more competently run, we should be taking recruitment above the manager and just giving him input, rather than full control.
This is bizarre. So you’ll only post negative things here while we are crap? How is that support.
What's bizarre is this constant negative-positive discussion. Pointing out or being critical of the management/manager/team for not meeting the standards is not "negative", it's a realistic assessment of their performance. Isn't that what is the point of discussion anyway? Or is this some Jonestown **** and we are supposed to drink the cool-aid?
I agree there’s plenty to be critical about at the moment and it’s fine to highlight that. What I find bizarre is you made out as if you wouldn’t post here if we turned it around and it all became rosy. That seems strange, as if you prefer the negativity. I’m a pretty positive person so like to see the best side of things, but that doesn’t stop me being objective in my criticism when it’s needed.
We as a club should aim to become the best, not discard a player (even though it is "one of the best things") to get in another 50m signing on exorbitant wages just to get a marginal upgrade (which I don't personally think Onana is).
Criticism of the signings is a legitimate point of discussion when the manager has such a big say in them. No team can dream to become the best without getting it's recruitment right.
It’s easier avoid the miserable/negative people in real life.
I was only discussing something like this with my wife yesterday. When you think about it, we aren’t supposed to really be able to read what’s on people’s minds. Up until texts and the internet you might of only read people’s deepest thoughts in a letter.
No we can all spew out whatever crap comes to mind and some of it is unfiltered.
This is possibly not the forum for this kind of chat.
Let me get things back on track. XG, Anthony , ETH has no charisma , ETH hates dogs, he doesn’t know what he’s doing, something something spurs manager … Carry on….
Yes, I won't need to be here constantly. How many times can I go in different threads and say attaboy?
One can put forth their points if they think ETH is the man by the job without trying to project themselves as some kind of heroes and projecting others as villains. I don't think me or "my type" are being negative, but yeah the gross mismanagement at the club has been very frustrating and needs to be called out.
I personally think, the folks on here (not talking about you) who constantly want to discuss other posters or this negativity/positivity are the biggest moaners on the forum. The most miserable folks who exist on the forum. Simply trying to feel better about themselves.
Anyway, I am digressing. The state of Manchester United, not the forum, is my concern. This is my last post on this.
Last edited:
Agree with you mate. I am just sick to the core of how the Glazers have screwed this club. Some small signs that Jim may start to improve things. But all this squabbling and calling out negativity by the 'real' fans is pathetic. The number of posters on here who still post about Ajax and philosophy and give him time is insane. During the winter mini break there were some muppets saying now some time training with squad would see us much better, or a couple of returning players. I don't care about results at this stage but I want to be entertained and see good football. that is the bare minimum. And ETH has consistently failed to deliver anything close to that, not shown any real sign he knows how to do it.
We dont exaggerate his signings, they are awful. Antony was ETH's must have, he is woeful, Weghorst offered nothing, he didn't contribute and technically the worst MUFC player since Bebe. As one journo said, a forward who offers zero goal threat is not a forward. ETH then played him as some kind of advanced midfield target man, he sucked at that as he cant even head the ball. He played Weghorst ahead of Elanga who at least has shown he can score goals and assists in the Premier league. Malacia is very average and lots of surprise we signed him. Amrabat was not a last minute loan deal, we were linked all summer and widely reported if we had sold McT we would have signed Amrabat permanently. Way too slow for PL, as many predicted. Mount had one stand out season, every Chelsea fan I know glad to see him go and astonished at the fee, no idea how he fits into the team.
Please dont distort facts to suit your narrative.
Bit of self reflection wouldn’t go astray
Maybe. But Amrabat was only a last minute signing as we had no funds. And Weghorst contributed the square root of zero. If your happy with these sorts of players at United then fine.
I focus more on why our managers have to make these kind of signings. I believe the clubs job is to give the manager the tools to do the best they can. I don’t believe our club has done that for any of our managers,certainly not since SAF retired. That’s a trend that can’t be blamed on our managers.
Others have said it, but is overspending on Anthony or Maguire or whoever is a club thing. Even Diallo May end up cosying 37 million. Our club being crap at negotiating for players is the reason our managers end up with Ighalo/Weghorst level signings.
I think that I have always come at this from a “glazers are wasting our financial advantage and undermining our managers with a dysfunctional infrastructure” point of view. It’s not that I’m convinced all our managers are or were good enough but that I felt they all had to manage with a handicap to our rivals. I’ve always felt United throwing bad money at the problem was actually protection for the glazers incompetency as it puts the focus on the managers “who have had a fortune spent so have no excuse”.
Im not necessarily objectively correct as I feel I do what a lot of you do , but you guys over focus on our managers(I over focus on club infrastructure). You start from a point that when the football is bad or not meeting expectations, it’s the manager. Not completely wrong and quite often right but I feel the constant rotation of managers was never gonna yield the kind of success we all want.
If we were run like city/pool and had an actual record at doing well with what we have, I’d have no complaints. But our record has been consistent underperforming players/managers whose careers mostly tank when we are finished with them.
That to me is a “the problems not players/managers, it’s the club”’ kind of thing. And we, as fans will not leave the club so we focus our anger at the wrong people. Managers can be changed and are more likely to be changed then the morons running the club so our best hope; to be fair; is focusing on some exceptional manager coming in and making our broken club work.
Anyways , we can all agree that hopefully INEOs, whatever they do, makes it that managers really will be our main/only problem and easily replacable.
In truth we can't even blame the Glazers for it entirely because whatever said and done, they spent a great deal of money on players. The higher management at the club (e.g. Woodward) are also part of this - we can blame the Glazers for appointing sub-optimal execs like Woodward but they never really backed down from investing in players. INEOS have identified this as a key failing, and trying to right the ship now across the board - which I think is a better approach compared to constantly changing managers. It's naive to think that our problems get fixed with a new manager, as much as the media wants us to believe that to be the case.