Such statements really grind my gears. How can they now that they will support EtH after the review when they haven't done ìt yet? A true complete audit should be done open minded and if results show that Murtough and Arnold to a fantastic job and Fletcher and EtH have to be sacked into oblivion so be it.
Isn't Soriano both the CEO of Man City and the head of City Football Group? It certainly looks like INEOS might want to replicate their model - I wouldn't think it impossible for him to be the CEO of their flagship club.
Rangnick was placed into a no win situation. The squad had imploded, morale was in the shitters, he was brought in mid way through the season (thus poaching coaches from elsewhere was tough) and he wasn't even allowed to sign players. As manager he was a poor fit as well. First of all he was more of a DOF then a manager to start with. Secondly his philosophy (which is also used by Klopp and Tuchel btw) needed a whole revamp of the squad something Rangnick couldn't do as a temp. I think that the more time passes the more we understand that speeches like the club need open heart surgery makes more sense then ever.
I can't answer to that. What I do know is that Blanc isn't CEO of Nice and that INEOS has specified the need to have an independent CEO for every club.
It's just stated that ten Hag's job is expected to be safe as it's thought he has his admirers at INEOS so yeah a full review of the football side will take place but nobody is expecting them to suddenly change their minds and change managers. I'm guessing which ever director they look to hire (most likely Mitchell or Edwards) will be on the same page as INEOS and be willing to work with ten Hag and give him a chance under the new structure.
Well that is sound management policy, so I'm all for that.
Or they are replacing the executive management right away, but not the manager, and letting them determine what to do with the manager as the season progresses.
I prefer that tbh.
Exactly my thoughts.
That is inherently wrong and presents a vastly different reality to what was truth. Could argue it’s an outright lie.
You ever heard of Sir Matt Busby.
Murtough spent all of the summer of 2022 chasing De Jong. He messed that up. Then he tried to get Rabiot, and messed that up. He then signed 30 year old Casemiro for 70m on a 4 year deal. That is already looking like a mistake. He signed Antony for 100m euros. Mason Mount only had 8 months left on his contract. Still paid 60m for him. 50m for Onana. Could have signed him on a free 12 months earlier. Hojlund for 74m. If Juventus or Bayern Munich made that deal it would be 45m tops.
What has any of this got to do with the point I was making?
No, they don't. They own 69% as of this moment. After the first phase of the sale, they will own 44%.
You've listed both legitimate and some nonsense criticism.
Why do we need to buy unknown players? We need a DoF who can identify Rodri as a player we need. Not find the new Caicedo.
It’s a myth he was not involved with the first team, was stated at time he was appointed he was already working on 1st team recruitment and had helped overhaul the clubs recruitment structure. He’s been part of repeated failure and not been held accountable just like Woodward and others.
Fair point.
You're right, but they ultimately will want the football club to do well. So they won't rock the boat with the manager or anything directly affecting the team. Not yet, but soon they will. If things don't pick up then I'm sure they'll have other managers in mind.
Do you ever read posts properly?
I don't think it matters if he's good or bad, or if he's been held back by incompetent upper management. He was, on paper, in charge of our wasteful recruitment, the hiring of Ragnick and gave the manager authority to overrule him on DOF responsibilities such as recruitment and strategy.
I agree with this. Would be very surprised if Murtough keeps his job.
Not sure, don't think they went through with it.
If that's how they intend to do it I can get behind it. It makes sense to start the overhaul from the top and only later act on the manager level (if necessary), but not as part of the first round of restructure.
I thought the whole thing was that it's being put through? But I guess if anyone can screw up something like this, it's us. Agree on the scepticism about major footballing control, though, will believe it when I see it with the parasites still around.
Agreed that arnold’s role would be reduced. But Glazers wouldn’t want to lose their puppet that bring them success, commercially.
I’m curious why you think Fletcher will be gone considering the recent conveyor belt of talent breaking through
Like devilish said, there might be a need for sacrificed lambt o look like there's a change, and INEOS to have their men inside. The one that Glazer would be less resistance on "high-level" position is removal of Fletcher as "Technical Director". Murtough and Fletcher as the sacrificed lambs.
It’s not generally a role where you see a specialist employed, usually players. So if Fletcher is removed for another former player I wouldn’t see the point, particularly when things are going good from that role at the moment
I really have mixed feelings on whether Fletcher will stay or go. On one hand INEOS would want to make their influence felt at sporting level thus they'll probably would want huge changes there. Rumors say that they were hugely critical on how United operated at sporting level which explains why INEOS made full control on that aspect as one of its very few red lines. The arrival of Mitchell might make things even worse for Fletcher considering that the guy is very close to Rangnick (ideologically and in terms of friendship). Rangnick had no clue what Fletcher did and he wasn't shy to out him in the public which suggest a certain antipathy between the two.
Reports throughout this saga is that Glazers have 69%. The confusing thing with this 25% is that it might not be 25% of the glazers shares, but split between Glazers/shareholders to avoid uproar. So the glazers could still have even more than we thought, worse case scenario really. They got everything they wanted again
According to roades its about 18%
Well results speak for themselves don't they? Paying 100 million for Antony is just incompetence on full display.
You could argue that Joel and his indecisiveness cost as Gakpo (who I believe was EtH preferred choice, I may be wrong) and then cost us with Antony when Ajax jacked up the price towards the end of the window.
I think it's been well reported that most personel would struggle under a Glazer sign off. So I'm not sure how much can be pinned on Arnold and Murtough really.
Sure, can't argue with that. The blame that lies on Murtough is the fact that there were no alternatives lined up besides Antony. ETH may have pushed him desperately to sign a player he's familiar with, but isn't it Murtough's job to push back against the manager as DoF? He couldn't have overruled the manager and gone for other players the scouts have lined up? You don't need 30 years in coaching or sports science or whatever the previous poster mentioned to recognize simple errors like that which result in massive consequences.
