It’s partly his fault, just not exclusively. He wanted more control, made it a condition for signing with us according to most journos and he pressed for the release of Rangnick.
He didn’t take on the responsibility of choosing targets begrudgingly or against his wishes. He isn’t just a pawn on a board, he has agency and responsibility for his actions.
And why did ETH have so much power to make whatever demands he wanted? Was it because the club was being run well or was it that most fans would actually be ok with anybody but those running the club making transfer calls?
I still think there’s alot we don’t know about how transfers are determined and done, so a lot of the conversations are pie in the sky.There is alot of evidence to suggest the club quite often gets players who aren’t priorities or real targets but just attainable/available. Managers can’t come out and say “I didn’t want that player”, so I don’t understand how people just buy the narrative that every player signed is one they really wanted.
Focusing on the manager with regards to transfers is redundant. This has been our problem for 11 years. The reason top clubs fans aren’t singling out managers for blame when signings are made and don’t work out is because they don’t rely on manager’s in squad building. Managers job is primarily to coach a squad they get and top clubs consistently provide managers with good squads before additions are needed.
ETH walked into a sh*tshow and during his term it got even worse, with more questions now over who does what and what’s going to happen in the future.
Who else is there to make decisions on transfers? If you don’t have football infrastructure, that’s the problem, targeting the manager for ones that haven’t worked out should be seen as yet more evidence that our clubs a mess, not used against the manager who shouldn’t be having to be overly involved in transfers.