Erik ten Hag - Manchester United manager

[stefan92]

I'll offer you a different perspective as a Real Madrid fan.

The club fired managers more often back when the level was lower. Now that the level is higher, we don't. The club is more patient now, not less.

The challenge of getting to that high level, is that sometimes you have to say "this is good, but it's not going to get us where we want to be. If we want to get there, we need a change."

To me that's the problem with "long-term plans." They can become an excuse to never make that assessment. To wait until you've reached the wrong destination instead of changing course.

Good points. If you make a long-term plan you also have to define clear milestones so that you can quickly detect if things go wrong and in which department. And whoever is responsible either has to up his performance or has to be replaced. No matter who - player, manager, DOF, scout, analyst, medical team...

If you don't have clear goals for all your departments you are damned because you won't notice what's going wrong in your organisation until the end result becomes apparent (which in football is bad results). It feels like if you ask anyone in United boards "what should X achieve this season?" they wouldn't have an answer except referring to the end result. Which doesn't help

 

[redcucumber]

He specifically mentioned that wasn't the deal breaker for him just that timing wasn't right then , he wasn't ready to leave Dortmund when United made the approach .

Where did he specifically mention that? Because it's well known he was turned off by the pitch we made. United shouldn't be getting turned down by the manager of Dortmund and presenting such an unappealing proposition that it becomes a point of public ridicule, but it's completely unsurprising given the absolute shit show that we've been post Fergie.

 

[Skills]

Where did he specifically mention that? Because it's well known he was turned off by the pitch we made. United shouldn't be getting turned down by the manager of Dortmund and presenting such an unappealing proposition that it becomes a point of public ridicule, but it's completely unsurprising given the absolute shit show that we've been post Fergie.

Show me proof where it says he was turned off by the pitch?

 

[Chumpsbechumps]

How is not blaming managers going for you?

They get sacked so we know that’s not helping , nothing else changes

 

[Marwood]

They get sacked so we know that’s not helping , nothing else changes

But how do you know it's not because we keep appointing the wrong guy. Is that an impossible scenario?

Look at their careers post United.

 

[Chumpsbechumps]

I have blamed and blame the ownership too. I'm not blaming only the managers, I'm just not deflecting from their own failings,

Who of the managers from the last 10 years would you want to have kept? Go on, speak up.

I wounldnt of hired the managers we put I. Charge.

My issue is with those making the decisions on everything football related. A manager doesn’t hire themselves

 

[Chumpsbechumps]

But how do you know it's not because we keep appointing the wrong guy. Is that an impossible scenario?

Look at their careers post United.

And look at the players we sign and their careers post United. Some would say we destroy everything we touch, what’s your excuse for this?

 

[gajender]

Where did he specifically mention that? Because it's well known he was turned off by the pitch we made. United shouldn't be getting turned down by the manager of Dortmund and presenting such an unappealing proposition that it becomes a point of public ridicule, but it's completely unsurprising given the absolute shit show that we've been post Fergie.

These are his words , Klopp wasn't entirely convinced by that sales pitch — he found it a bit 'unsexy', he told a friend — but he didn't dismiss the proposition out of hand either.

And the Quote about being adult disneyland is bit cheesy but there is not much wrong with it.

 

[MadMike]

I disagree with this and the underlying sentiment.

You're more than welcome to disagree. It's a forum.

As for deluded - many posters have said we should do what Barca, Real and Bayern do, presumably they expect the same results. I’m not sure why you’re making a swathing statement that no-one thinks that way - clearly they do.

Read again what you wrote. You said people are deluded to think we're at the level or Real, Barca and Bayern. No one is saying that and I'm quite comfortable making that swathing statement, because clearly no one is.

Now you're staying that it's deluded to expect the same results by doing as they do, and that many are. That's entirely different. I'm not expecting we'll be Bayern, if we sack ETH. I'm merely expecting a new manager bounce as has happened every time after Moyes.

 

[CraftySoAndSo]

ETH signed Weghorst, how often does Klopp or Pep have to sign a player who was loaned out by championship side Burnley?

Probably not wise to put Klopp in there as he signed two bang average players from the Championship while at Liverpool. Firstly Caulker on loan where he ended up sticking him up front much to everyone's amusement. And second Ben Davies on a permanent from Preston a couple of years ago when Liverpool had that injury crisis at centre back.

 

[Marwood]

And look at the players we sign and their careers post United. Some would say we destroy everything we touch, what’s your excuse for this?

I agree with you none of the players who've left have done anything.

But you genuinely believe we destroy them?That their middling careers after they've left United is down to Woodward and Arnold.

As opposed to the other explanation. That all of them just had middling to poor ability and therefore carried on that way once left.

 

[erikcred]

Watzke (CEO) and Zorc (DOF) were there before Klopp, developed their vision and signed a manager they believed could pull it off (Klopp). Also crucial other parts of staff were already in place when Klopp arrived like Mislintat who was an excellent (later chief) scout. Dortmund had a fantastic structure of highly qualified people in place. He was a crucial part of the puzzle but it's not like he created the structures there.

Even at Mainz he had Christian Heidel as DOF who had this job for more than two decades and gave the club structure and identity. Nothing about Klopp's career suggests that he could create these structures, he always joined them.

Well, of course, Klopp was not the only employee at Dortmund!

But it's disingenuous to suggest there was a "footballing vision" when Klopp was signed. There was only a financial vision, which is that having barely escaped bankruptcy, they couldn't afford the best players, so they'd have to work extra hard to uncover potential and Klopp would have to go along with it.

Watzke said after Klopp left that he probably should've changed the entire team instead of letting Klopp leave. He wasn't "a" crucial part of the puzzle. He was "the" crucial part of the puzzle if they cared about winning anything.

To suggest that Klopp needed a super set-up above him to manage consistent top-4 finishes and deep runs in the CL with fecking Liverpool (whom Benitez regularly took to quarters and semis) is just laughable.

 

[MadMike]

So if you recall the saga, Antony was a name early on. And reportedly the price wasn't always as high as it was. Our incompetence in pursuing targets led us to chasing him to the end of the window, where his price was higher. Also ten hags decision making at that time is probably "well yes feck it il take him, given the windows about to close anyway".

Im not saying he's free of blame given how poor Antony has been. And I'd rather that Ten Hag turned to Gakpo. But what I think is the true failure - our own scouts didn't like Antony and Murtough didn't have the balls to veto the signing.

That doesn't set a manager up for success. A manager will invariably get shit wrong if he's got that much power. His job is to coach and manage and work with his higher ups on targets, not confer with yes men thatl do what he asks. That's a strucural issue not limited to ten hag. It would still be an issue if we had Marco Rose or De Zerbi etc.

If you recall the saga a little bit better, you'll remember we spent all summer long chasing FDJ who was coming out and saying that didn't want to leave. Big targets are signed in sequential, rather than parallel order, because you don't know how much budget will be left afterwards. Obviously FDJ was ETH's preference and obviously he shares part of the responsibility for chasing his man all summer long and leaving other major business till the last minute.

I take it as obvious that he said something of the sort like "well yes feck it i'll take him, given the windows about to close anyway".

Through all this it's obvious he has elevated responsibility/remit on transfer targets, which is consistent with how our club has previously operated and different compared to how other clubs operate. It's also obvious he's extremely bad at it, cause he has failed to identify good players and has sanctioned moves for a lot of money that are turning sour.

Which brings me back to the starting point of our discussion. How on earth do you see this and you say: "he needs more time and money". Considering he's failed to correctly assess the level of players he previously managed, he should not even be allowed to voice an opinion on players going forward.

 

[MadMike]

I wounldnt of hired the managers we put I. Charge.

My issue is with those making the decisions on everything football related. A manager doesn’t hire themselves

Okay, so you accept that hiring ETH was a mistake and he's not the man for the job then?

 

[stefan92]

Well, of course, Klopp was not the only employee at Dortmund!

But it's disingenuous to suggest there was a "footballing vision" when Klopp was signed. There was only a financial vision, which is that having barely escaped bankruptcy, they couldn't afford the best players, so they'd have to work extra hard to uncover potential and Klopp would have to go along with it.

Watzke said after Klopp left that he probably should've changed the entire team instead of letting Klopp leave. He wasn't "a" crucial part of the puzzle. He was "the" crucial part of the puzzle if they cared about winning anything.

To suggest that Klopp needed a super set-up above him to manage consistent top-4 finishes and deep runs in the CL with fecking Liverpool (whom Benitez regularly took to quarters and semis) is just laughable.

I do agree a bit on this "financial vision" vs "football vision" and that Klopp was crucial in developing that. Nonetheless it definitely needed their scouting setup and business acumen to get fitting players for what Klopp wanted as it definitely was necessary to find players in something like the Japanese second league (Kagawa). It's not like they bought a significant bunch of players Klopp already knew well.

And I am aware of Watzke saying it and I believe that a big reason why Dortmund has been struggling since Klopp's departure to find a coherent and consistent approach is that he is still looking for the second coming of Klopp instead of embracing the option that there are different approaches. A bit like United is still looking for the second coming of SAF. That will not happen for either club.

 

[Keanes Magic Hat]

Its been extremely poor but what does he have to do to turn it around in peoples eyes. We have Liverpool away the 17th of December and need to have form going into that match.

I really think before then he needs to qualify 2nd from the champions league group and get at least 13/14 points from the next 6 premier league games.

 

[L1nk]

He specifically mentioned that wasn't the deal breaker for him just that timing wasn't right then , he wasn't ready to leave Dortmund when United made the approach .

Where did he specifically mention that? Because it's well known he was turned off by the pitch we made. United shouldn't be getting turned down by the manager of Dortmund and presenting such an unappealing proposition that it becomes a point of public ridicule, but it's completely unsurprising given the absolute shit show that we've been post Fergie.

Show me proof where it says he was turned off by the pitch?

By all accounts the only word on this came from Raphael Honigsteins biography on Jurgen Klopp

'Woodward told Klopp that the Theatre of Dreams was ‘like an adult version of Disneyland’, a mythical place where, as the nickname suggested, the entertainment was world class and dreams came true. Klopp wasn’t entirely convinced by that sales pitch — he found it a bit ‘unsexy’, he told a friend — but he didn’t dismiss the proposition out of hand either.'

https://www.liverpoolecho.co.uk/spo...en-klopp-liverpool-manchester-united-23406899


I believe the only quote from Klopp himself is this, where it seems to indicate more that the timing wasn't right and maybe if we'd approached earlier we might have even got him

'We spoke. We spoke not a lot but, for me, it was a lot. It was a big honour, the whole talk, to be honest. But I could not leave Dortmund.
You are in April and you are in the middle of the planning for next season. You have this player and this player who are coming but then you are not there anymore? That doesn't work. Not in my life.'

https://bleacherreport.com/articles...ucceed-sir-alex-ferguson-at-manchester-united

 

[redcucumber]

By all accounts the only word on this came from Raphael Honigsteins biography on Jurgen Klopp


https://www.liverpoolecho.co.uk/spo...en-klopp-liverpool-manchester-united-23406899


I believe the only quote from Klopp himself is this, where it seems to indicate more that the timing wasn't right and maybe if we'd approached earlier we might have even got him


https://bleacherreport.com/articles...ucceed-sir-alex-ferguson-at-manchester-united

You'd have to be really blinkered to read that and still argue we did anything other than absolutely drop the ball with it. It reads like a very bad joke (or hilarious joke, depending on your affinity) and is completely inline with everything we know about Woodward's tenure at United. What are people trying to argue here? That the approach to Klopp was a successful one? That our direction in attracting and getting the right manager in has been adequate? I'm very confused by people's interpretation. And that extends not just to our attempt of recruiting Klopp, but also our general approach to managerial recruitments and how we support the manager once they are in position. It's been as inept as the player recruitment.

 

[Skills]

You'd have to be really blinkered to read that and still argue we did anything other than absolutely drop the ball with it. It reads like a very bad joke (or hilarious joke, depending on your affinity) and is completely inline with everything we know about Woodward's tenure at United. What are people trying to argue here? That the approach to Klopp was a successful one? That our direction in attracting and getting the right manager in has been adequate? I'm very confused by people's interpretation. And that extends not just to our attempt of recruiting Klopp, but also our general approach to managerial recruitments and how we support the manager once they are in position. It's been as inept as the player recruitment.

I don't think verbal reasoning is really your forte tbh.

 

[Rista]

It's unlikely that there is a 'next Guardiola' by the time the current Guardiola moves on from City, so there's that.

But in general, people overrate these "stable structures." You'd be hard pressed to come up with many examples of a stable club structure that yielded consistent results for longer than a decade. Guardiola's been at City for like 7 years so the odds are low.

Agree with this. This "structure" has almost become a buzzword now. Plenty of clubs with good "structure" end up eventually failing too, very few have stable strucure in the way people are describing it. It's not something you "get" and you're done with it. Bayern is being given as an example but they are more ruthless than anything else. Something people don't want us to be, ironically.

 

[Chumpsbechumps]

Probably not wise to put Klopp in there as he signed two bang average players from the Championship while at Liverpool. Firstly Caulker on loan where he ended up sticking him up front much to everyone's amusement. And second Ben Davies on a permanent from Preston a couple of years ago when Liverpool had that injury crisis at centre back.

These were 1st team starters ? My point wasnt that ETH wanted Weghorst anymore then Ole wanted Ighalo, its all they were offered.

 

[Chumpsbechumps]

I agree with you none of the players who've left have done anything.

But you genuinely believe we destroy them?That their middling careers after they've left United is down to Woodward and Arnold.

As opposed to the other explanation. That all of them just had middling to poor ability and therefore carried on that way once left.

You see, one or two managers and a couple of years you might have a point, but when something has passed the decade mark and the consistent failures are quite similar, you just cant blame managers or players. You have to look at who is putting the managers in charge , who is making the decisions that are leading to these failures.

 

[stefan92]

Agree with this. This "structure" has almost become a buzzword now. Plenty of clubs with good "structure" end up eventually failing too, very few have stable strucure in the way people are describing it. It's not something you "get" and you're done with it. Bayern is being given as an example but they are more ruthless than anything else. Something people don't want us to be, ironically.

Exactly... let's have some fun and look at Bayern during their ongoing BL winning streak.
- 9 managers (Heynckes two terms and it's probably fair to substract Sagnol who only was a one match interim)
- 3 DoF (position in the club changing between part of the board and below the board)
- 3 CEO
- 4 Club presidents (two terms Hoeneß)

That's not a lot of stability in decisive positions, definitely less than United had in the same time

 

[Chumpsbechumps]

Okay, so you accept that hiring ETH was a mistake and he's not the man for the job then?

No, I accept we have incompetent people running the club and even if we sign a good manager, he has to still work with these muppets.

So even if we do get a manager who is good, we might not necessarily know because they couldnt possibly achieve their potential at our club. Our managers are setup to fail because we have a proven failed football infrastructure. How many clubs were lining up for Woodward when he was sacked ? I mean Sir Jim is paying a quarter of the clubs value supposedly to just run the football side, that tells you all you need to know about what he thinks of how the club is run.

 

[RedUnited86]

Why does the club need a state of the art training ground in order to look somewhat cohesive on the pitch?

This is something that's worked and drilled into the players on the training ground. At its most basic level, you need grass and cones. Carrington already has video analysis that we utilise. It boils down to the players not being drilled and coached properly on that training pitch. Everything else (the broken tiles, old pool etc) is by comparison, not important.

 

[Marwood]

You see, one or two managers and a couple of years you might have a point, but when something has passed the decade mark and the consistent failures are quite similar, you just cant blame managers or players. You have to look at who is putting the managers in charge , who is making the decisions that are leading to these failures.

If they left United and suddenly snapped back to being top performers I'd be with you. But to a man, every player and manager, has had the middling to poor career you'd expect from what we saw of them at United.

 

[Chumpsbechumps]

Exactly... let's have some fun and look at Bayern during their ongoing BL winning streak.
- 9 managers (Heynckes two terms and it's probably fair to substract Sagnol who only was a one match interim)
- 3 DoF (position in the club changing between part of the board and below the board)
- 3 CEO
- 4 Club presidents (two terms Hoeneß)

That's not a lot of stability in decisive positions, definitely less than United had in the same time

We have a failed footballing infrasture, thats pretty obvious. But dont confuse that with "dont sack the manager" principle.

Chelsea under Roman and indeed Bayern have shown that its not about keeping a failing manager, but its about having squads that can manage this turnover. These clubs dont need massive rebuilds after every manager leaves because they have a structure that doesnt over rely on one manager. You cant blame united managers for how United is run and you cant selectively compare parts of clubs as if "that over there would work here" when United just keeps doing the same things over and over again.

Perhaps part of the issue is that the goals of Bayern (on field success) is not matched by our owners (where they said themselves "on field success doesnt affect turnover"). How about comparing us with a club where the owners are only taking from the club and who have rewarded people like Woodward with top positions? What comparable club can you point to thats successful with that level of dysfunctional thinking ?

 

[Chumpsbechumps]

Why does the club need a state of the art training ground in order to look somewhat cohesive on the pitch?

This is something that's worked and drilled into the players on the training ground. At its most basic level, you need grass and cones. Carrington already has video analysis that we utilise. It boils down to the players not being drilled and coached properly on that training pitch. Everything else (the broken tiles, old pool etc) is by comparison, not important.

The modern footballers get upset over not getting birthday cards or a manager asking them to work harder. How do you think they react when they dont have the best in class for training etc ?

 

[Chumpsbechumps]

If they left United and suddenly snapped back to being top performers I'd be with you. But to a man, every player and manager, has had the middling to poor career you'd expect from what we saw of them at United.

But they all did better before they joined United.

Seriously , this is a "its not United, its everybody else who is at fault" defence. The kind of people that use that defence, are the ones everybody else avoids.

I mean even managers at United alluded to the issues of how the commercial side is impacting the team.

Given the money spent , United should of even fluked a league or CL at this stage, but we cant build decent squads because we cant hire the right manager or sign the right players. You cant blame LVG or Jose or Ole for where we are at and yet we are exactly in the same place were were with them and for most its not surprising. I mean you look at all the drama and issues not even related to the manager, the club is a mess all over the place, there is not one area you can even identify outside of marketing that the club is doing well at and yet you think a manager can come in and do their best job possible ?

 

[stefan92]

Perhaps part of the issue is that the goals of Bayern (on field success) is not matched by our owners (where they said themselves "on field success doesnt affect turnover").

I agree on this and I think this is roughly the same point as in the post I responded to to support it. They set a goal (win everything) and whenever someone or something seems to turn into an obstacle he/she/it is ruthlessly removed. That's simply not what the Glazers are aiming for, they just want commercial success. Although it keeps astonishing me how they fail to see that a successful club could generate even more revenue.

 

[Chumpsbechumps]

I agree on this and I think this is roughly the same point as in the post I responded to to support it. They set a goal (win everything) and whenever someone or something seems to turn into an obstacle he/she/it is ruthlessly removed. That's simply not what the Glazers are aiming for, they just want commercial success. Although it keeps astonishing me how they fail to see that a successful club could generate even more revenue.

I have been arguing with our own fans since 2013 on this and the Glazers consistently prove me right. They dont need on field success, they even said it, so why do you think they would change anything for us ?. Look at the value of the club, granted its stagnated but despite a decade of Abject failure, its still holding up and the turnover is higher then anybodys.

Try telling a person whose asset is increasing in value in this manner that they are making the wrong calls. Even stupid/incompetent people can make money, look at Trump..

Our club isnt setup to succeed on field, its setup to succeed off field. The best you can say is that you dont have a clue how much that impacts the players we sign, the squads we build, the managers we hire , the pre season training or the infrastruture projects.

When Neville spoke of building a culture of success it made me think of United in the 90s v Liverpool. It wasnt just individual players, it was a culture in the squad where everybody was pulling in the same direction. I think of the liverpool squad at that FA cup in their fancy outfits versus United just being professional , not worrying about look. I think we are a club now more concerned with the look of things and the marketabiliy of things, then actual serious footballing team. We lavish money into players who know they wont be sold (like at other top clubs) once they get their contract extensions. No coincidence that players form usually peaks before an extended contract and falls off a cliff afterwards, happens with EVERY manager we have.

Its because we arent a serious football club. We are a soft touch, at other top clubs an unwanted player is offloaded quickly, not at United, its the next managers problem. Every new united manager has walked into a mess. Moyes, for all his faults, was signed Fellaini as his top player in his first season. Regardless of what you think of Moyes he was dead from the moment Woodward flew around the world buying nobody. And its been the same for every manager since, we have set them up to fail because our club isnt setup to succeed.

 

[MadMike]

No, I accept we have incompetent people running the club and even if we sign a good manager, he has to still work with these muppets.

Any manager will have to work with or against that ownership. However not all will achieve the same results. If you’re apportioning all the blame to the ownership, how do you begin to judge the managers then? Sounds like you’re completely whitewashing the managers, while scapegoating the ownership for everything.

At the moment Ten Hag is sinking faster than Mourinho and Ole did. He is failing, and if he doesn’t turn things around in November he won’t be here by Christmas. And he’ll be very much responsible for his failures, at least in part. Just the ownership are. It’s not the owners who are choosing the tactics or managing the dressing room.

 

[Chumpsbechumps]

Any manager will have to work with or against that ownership. However not all will achieve the same results. If you’re apportioning all the blame to the ownership, how do you begin to judge the managers then? Sounds like you’re completely whitewashing the managers, while scapegoating the ownership for everything.

At the moment Ten Hag is sinking faster than Mourinho and Ole did. He is failing, and if he doesn’t turn things around in November he won’t be here by Christmas. And he’ll be very much responsible for his failures, at least in part. Just the ownership are. It’s not the owners who are choosing the tactics or managing the dressing room.

I am not whitewashing managers careers, the issue is you want the problem to be managers and want to believe there is a Jesus Christ manager who can come in and make the muppet show function.

the next failed manager will be either "past it", "too inexperienced" , "wrong man , wrong time", "out of his depth". I am calling it now, tick one of these boxes in the next 36 months if ETH leaves and nothing else changes

 

[Dec9003]

I am not whitewashing managers careers, the issue is you want the problem to be managers and want to believe there is a Jesus Christ managers who can come in and make the muppet show function.

I don’t think anyone thinks that. People do think we could get a better manager that would get better results though.

 

[Chumpsbechumps]

I don’t think anyone thinks that. People do think we could get a better manager that would get better results though.

Is "better results" enough for you ?

I think thats at the hub of the differences here, it isnt that people think ETH or Jose or Ole were doing best jobs ever, its that they didnt think replacing them without implementing an actual successful football plan behind it, was destined to lead to anything other then what we have gotten.

 

[hobbers]

I am not whitewashing managers careers, the issue is you want the problem to be managers and want to believe there is a Jesus Christ manager who can come in and make the muppet show function.

the next failed manager will be either "past it", "too inexperienced" , "wrong man , wrong time", "out of his depth". I am calling it now, tick one of these boxes in the next 36 months if ETH leaves and nothing else changes

But that's the same at every other club. And no one is expecting a messiah manager. There are dozens of managers out there who would have done a better job than Erik has so far this season, or since March/April. Of that there is no doubt.

The transfers targets were wrong, the tactical changes are wrong, the direction hes taken the style of play is wrong, the fitness is dire, the team selections are bad and the subs even worse.

Even if we cant get a change in ownership or a change in DoF/CEO as fast as we'd like, changing a failing manager, if he's lost the confidence of the players and is just obviously floundering, is still something that has to be done.

Maybe his replacement will have a new manager bounce and then turn into another disaster. So what? That's not worse than the status quo. The ETH revolution is the most expensive revolution ever and what have we got to show for it. You want him to get another summer transfer window to waste another £200m?

 

[red_de_pologne]

I don’t think anyone thinks that. People do think we could get a better manager that would get better results though.

Just as we did with Jose, LVG, Ole, ETH. Just a manager is not enough to make a whole club better, we've seen it already. We have a whole football department waiting to find out if they're staying, we're the only major football club without a proper sporting director plus our facilities are 10 years past it. Plus we have a collection of players who have downed tools under 3-4 managers already when things got tough, a team that leaked news against every manager they worked with. A team of overpaid mediocre players that will either play or will sabotage the manager. I saw today a mix of articles from the times of Jose, LVG, Ole, Rangnick reigns, all undermining their methods.

 

[MadMike]

I am not whitewashing managers careers, the issue is you want the problem to be managers and want to believe there is a Jesus Christ managers who can come in and make the muppet show function.

You are and you’re creating strawmen arguments again. I have repeatedly said the way we are run is a major part of the problem. The managers have not been the only problem. But they have been part of the problem. You’re the one pinning all the blame on the owners and if the manager is failing, you still blame the owners for signing them and don’t apportion any blame on the manager himself.

The shite football ETH plays after signing players he knew and trusted is not exclusively the fault of the ownership. He spent £150m on Antony and Mount to end up playing Bruno at RW and McTominay at #10 instead, and serve up shite football. Whatever the owners did, a lot of this lands justifiably on ETH’s doorstep. He’s clearly not as good as we thought he was when we signed him.

 

[Chumpsbechumps]

But that's the same at every other club. And no one is expecting a messiah manager. There are dozens of managers out there who would have done a better job than Erik has so far this season, or since March/April. Of that there is no doubt.

The transfers targets were wrong, the tactical changes are wrong, the direction hes taken the style of play is wrong, the fitness is dire, the team selections are bad and the subs even worse.

Even if we cant get a change in ownership or a change in DoF/CEO as fast as we'd like, changing a failing manager, if he's lost the confidence of the players and is just obviously floundering, is still something that has to be done.

Maybe his replacement will have a new manager bounce and then turn into another disaster. So what? That's not worse than the status quo. The ETH revolution is the most expensive revolution ever and what have we got to show for it. You want him to get another summer transfer window to waste another £200m?

What other super club has the same issues as United for 11 years ?

United isnt brighton, we arent a plucky club trying to get back to our former glory. We are a club thats earning more money then every club in the world and our owners cant even steer us to a top 4 spot consistently.

You cant compare us to other clubs because there arent many clubs like United.

I tell you what, lets look at this another way, what do you know about United , in how its run, says to you that we are just unfortunate with managers. What is the club doing right for the last 10 years ?

 

[Laurencio]

It would reportedly cost £15M to sack Ten Hag. Seems like a waste of money.