Ratcliffe involved in football decisions? | Not really; read the article

[Mockney]

Football owner is sentient and forms opinions. Will United be able to ever hire again?

There’s a strain of sympathy for Amorim based on the fact the board are bigger incompetents for hiring him (no argument) and/or tried to interfere by not letting him see his purest project through, but by all accounts they did (or didn’t?) they were unfailingly loyal through some terrible results, only suggesting that he might be more flexible when it was clear they didn’t have the funds for a January haul (and some more terrible results) which - and I realise this may be an Earth shatteringly controversial football take - the people in charge of the club who employ Amorim are perfectly entitled to do! If you buy something you think looks good, and then it’s shit and broken for a whole year, it’s actually okay to start asking questions about what you can do about that.

At every juncture the problems Amorim encountered were invariably Amorim shaped. For example coming out and saying he couldn’t change his formation without undermining himself, only served to undermine himself, when not saying so wouldve just allowed him to do it without much scrutiny (or at best spin it as adaptable)… it was like he was playing mind games with himself!

Then when he stumbled upon a reasonable excuse to change tac, and accidentally played quite well and won some points, he fecked up a chance to go top4 by switching back just to prove a point. Both Amorim problems caused by Amorim.

By all accounts the higher ups were trying to make it work so we could eventually get to a place where his ‘perfect’ formation might work - which they at least realised had to involve sometimes winning matches - and he was just a giant fecking baby about the whole thing.

 

[gaffs]

Football owner is sentient and forms opinions. Will United be able to ever hire again?

Exactly.

 

[tomaldinho1]

There’s a strain of sympathy for Amorim based on the fact the board are bigger incompetents for hiring him (no argument) and/or tried to interfere by not letting him see his purest project through, but by all accounts they did (or didn’t?) they were unfailingly loyal through some terrible results, only suggesting that he might be more flexible when it was clear they didn’t have the funds for a January haul (and some more terrible results) which - and I realise this may be an Earth shatteringly controversial football take - the people in charge of the club who employ Amorim are perfectly entitled to do! If you buy something you think looks good, and then it’s shit and broken for a whole year, it’s actually okay to start asking questions about what you can do about that.

At every juncture the problems Amorim encountered were invariably Amorim shaped. For example coming out and saying he couldn’t change his formation without undermining himself, only served to undermine himself, when not saying so wouldve just allowed him to do it without much scrutiny (or at best spin it as adaptable)… it was like he was playing mind games with himself!

Then when he stumbled upon a reasonable excuse to change tac, and accidentally played quite well and won some points, he fecked up a chance to go top4 by switching back just to prove a point. Both Amorim problems caused by Amorim.

By all accounts the higher ups were trying to make it work so we could eventually get to a place where his ‘perfect’ formation might work - which they at least realised had to involve sometimes winning matches - and he was just a giant fecking baby about the whole thing.

I would agree. Everything we have done so far in terms of manager support has been quite, well, nice. Maybe overly so. ETH should have gone after the FA cup in hindsight - harsh but probably fair - and Amorim should have gone after the EL final - not harsh and fair. All these leaks are basically saying that football people who were supporting the manager had opinions on many things but none of them have seemingly challenged Amorim at all. More weirdly the player he seems most angry about not getting, 33 year old Emi Martinez, doesn't even seem that big an issue as our scouting team seem to have found a real gem in Lammens. I don't even think Ratcliffe and co wanted to fire him, they seemed so committed to supporting him despite all the external pressure, then he supposedly lost control of his temper and got himself sacked.

 

[criticalanalysis]

Amorim comes across as even more insecure, egotistical, arrogant and incompetent in that article, than what we already see in his pressers. Quite an achievement.

 

[justsomebloke]

So he sacks Ashworth, ditches Wilcox, and hires A.N. Other? Still,

Sporting director, not DoF, not clear exactly what that means or how it affects Wilcox. And I primarily meant the timing was right if they're going to do that.

 

[pcaming]

There’s a strain of sympathy for Amorim based on the fact the board are bigger incompetents for hiring him (no argument) and/or tried to interfere by not letting him see his purest project through, but by all accounts they did (or didn’t?) they were unfailingly loyal through some terrible results, only suggesting that he might be more flexible when it was clear they didn’t have the funds for a January haul (and some more terrible results) which - and I realise this may be an Earth shatteringly controversial football take - the people in charge of the club who employ Amorim are perfectly entitled to do! If you buy something you think looks good, and then it’s shit and broken for a whole year, it’s actually okay to start asking questions about what you can do about that.

At every juncture the problems Amorim encountered were invariably Amorim shaped. For example coming out and saying he couldn’t change his formation without undermining himself, only served to undermine himself, when not saying so wouldve just allowed him to do it without much scrutiny (or at best spin it as adaptable)… it was like he was playing mind games with himself!

Then when he stumbled upon a reasonable excuse to change tac, and accidentally played quite well and won some points, he fecked up a chance to go top4 by switching back just to prove a point. Both Amorim problems caused by Amorim.

By all accounts the higher ups were trying to make it work so we could eventually get to a place where his ‘perfect’ formation might work - which they at least realised had to involve sometimes winning matches - and he was just a giant fecking baby about the whole thing.

This is exactly

 

[gaffs]

There’s a strain of sympathy for Amorim based on the fact the board are bigger incompetents for hiring him (no argument) and/or tried to interfere by not letting him see his purest project through, but by all accounts they did (or didn’t?) they were unfailingly loyal through some terrible results, only suggesting that he might be more flexible when it was clear they didn’t have the funds for a January haul (and some more terrible results) which - and I realise this may be an Earth shatteringly controversial football take - the people in charge of the club who employ Amorim are perfectly entitled to do! If you buy something you think looks good, and then it’s shit and broken for a whole year, it’s actually okay to start asking questions about what you can do about that.

Completely agree with this.

The notion that I keep hearing is that "he is a 3421 manager so should be allowed to stick to that" is ridiculous. No one gets to keep failing by doing the same thing over and over, especially when they are asking for more money, which isn't there, to aid them.

Especially in the context of even Amorim saying that he didn't have the squad to play this way, as recently as last week. He even said he knew he didn't have the players from the get go....

"When I came here last season, I understood that maybe I don't have the players to play well in that system, but it was the beginning of the process. We are trying to build an identity. Today is a different moment. We don't have a lot of players and we need to adapt, but they already know and understand why we are changing."

At every juncture the problems Amorim encountered were invariably Amorim shaped. For example coming out and saying he couldn’t change his formation without undermining himself, only served to undermine himself, when not saying so wouldve just allowed him to do it without much scrutiny (or at best spin it as adaptable)… it was like he was playing mind games with himself!

Exactly. Far more interested not appearing to change because of how it would be perceived by the media and his players. He has been saying that he won't change because of media pressure for over a year.

Even last week when saying he would change he caveated it with....
"It is not because of the pressure of you guys [in the media], or of the fans, it's because now we understand the way we want to play and the principles are the same.

Far more interested in media perception than he was about doing that is best for the club,.

Then when he stumbled upon a reasonable excuse to change tac, and accidentally played quite well and won some points, he fecked up a chance to go top4 by switching back just to prove a point. Both Amorim problems caused by Amorim.

Agree. He likely switched back v Wolves to prove a point against a team he thought he could roll over. Didn't work and the player were equally confused prior....

In their face-to-face meeting at Carrington, Wilcox suggested to Amorim that the players were struggling to gain trust in his 3-4-2-1 system and had become confused over his vision. Amorim would train the team in a back four, only for a back three to be selected in games. They also sensed he lacked faith in them due to his selections and public statements.

No wonder we looked like shit v Wolves.

By all accounts the higher ups were trying to make it work so we could eventually get to a place where his ‘perfect’ formation might work - which they at least realised had to involve sometimes winning matches - and he was just a giant fecking baby about the whole thing.

Yep agree. They have given him backing in the media and financial support. Even put 100m on the credit limit for more players. Wilcox was trying to build a bridge for Amoim to eventually get his players, but Amorim wasn't having it...

"Wilcox said he wanted to work through the issues, evolving the squad over time but sticking with Amorim. Amorim reacted by saying he wished to leave the club and would be calling his agent."

INEOS obviously made a mistake in hiring manager whose ideas didn't fit the current squad, but it feels like they have done all they can to support him. Amorim though wasn't willing to make compromises. You can't work with someone like that.

Question I have, is why is he getting a pay out if he said he wanted to leave?

 

[Big Ben Foster]

You don't know the context of the discussion or when it was made.

Ratcliffe could have easily have just asked about if Mbeumo could have been versatile enough to play RWB at the time of approving the signing. A valid question given Amoirm was using another winger as a wing back.

This is the issue with these articles with snippets of information with no context, often gathered by speaking to second, third or fourth hand sources. It's like Chinese whispers.

Yet people like you run with them and make out like the owner is meddling with tactics.

And PS, you didn't answer the question re Amad being a better fit as a RWB than Mbeumo.

Agreed, context is key here. I read it as a meaningless off-the-cuff remark in a broader discussion rather than a tactical instruction from the owner to the coach.

 

[Kayla40TS]

I have a lot of experience of being a supporter of clubs and teams that have meddling owners. In my experience across NBA, NHL, and MLB fandom for the last decade or so of all three of my teams being meddled with by the owner the results are always disastrously bad.

 

[Damon1559]

You don't know the context of the discussion or when it was made.

Ratcliffe could have easily have just asked about if Mbeumo could have been versatile enough to play RWB at the time of approving the signing. A valid question given Amoirm was using another winger as a wing back.

This is the issue with these articles with snippets of information with no context, often gathered by speaking to second, third or fourth hand sources. It's like Chinese whispers.

Yet people like you run with them and make out like the owner is meddling with tactics.

And PS, you didn't answer the question re Amad being a better fit as a RWB than Mbeumo.

You also don't know the context of the discussion or when it was made.

How can you state that at the beginning of your comment and then go on to give your imagined theory of how it happened to then follow it up with "people like you run with them". You did the exact same thing but put yourself and your opinion/theory above that of the poster who you're berating for doing the exact thing that you're doing. Irony..

 

[gaffs]

You also don't know the context of the discussion or when it was made.

How can you state that at the beginning of your comment and then go on to give your imagined theory of how it happened to then follow it up with "people like you run with them". You did the exact same thing but put yourself and your opinion/theory above that of the poster who you're berating for doing the exact thing that you're doing. Irony..

Did I say I knew the context?

I simply gave a rational example of how it could have been very different. Note the words I used "Ratcliffe could have easily have". As opposed to the other poster, getting all animated and triggered about how SRJ must be meddling in team affairs, just based of one line, with no context, in an Athletic story.

Don't take all these stories as gospal, especially one liners with no published source, context or further information. Especially as we know they usually come from people who were not there when it happened, or have their own agendas to push.

 

[oreon]

If you are thinking about getting a 3rd DOF in 1 and 1/2 year span then maybe you don't know what you are doing

 

[Damon1559]

Did I say I knew the context?

I simply gave a rational example of how it could have been very different. Note the words I used "Ratcliffe could have easily have". As opposed to the other poster, getting all animated and triggered about how SRJ must be meddling in team affairs, just based of one line, with no context, in an Athletic story.

Don't take all these stories as gospal, especially one liners with no published source, context or further information. Especially as we know they usually come from people who were not there when it happened, or have their own agendas to push.

I'll hold my hands up and say that I didn't even see the post that you responded to. I read from one side and replied without much thought to what the other post contained, so I apologise for shooting from the hip, without even attempting to see context.

If it counts for anything, then I also don't think there is anything in the stories about him interfering. I would be more concerned if he had no reaction at all to us conceding against Wolves. I was frustrated and I would expect the owner to be as well. We all have opinions and I would expect no different from the man that has put his wealth into the club, where the clubs results actually does effect him in one way or another.

 

[davidmichael]

So reports of Ratcliffe wanting a new Sporting Director which implies Wilcox isn’t experienced enough or good enough for the role which should in theory show Ratcliffe that Berrada shouldn’t be allowed anywhere near footballing decisions seeing as Berrada was the one that pulled rank on Ashworth who was an experienced Sporting Director, pushed for Amorim against the advice of Ashworth, pushed Ineos into a ‘me or him’ scenario with Ashworth, put his mate Wilcox into the Sporting Director role despite a serious lack of experience and assumed some of Ashworth’s job responsibilities himself whilst not pulling the trigger on sacking Amorim earlier which is most likely down to how it made him look.

Berrada would be brilliant in a COO role, a head of sponsorship role or a head of commercial deals role but he has zero experience as a CEO and should not have had any say in bringing Amorim in which was the job of the footballing department and mainly Ashworth so the last 14 months for me is just as much on Berrada as it is Amorim, we’re a fecking shambles as I’ve said multiple times over the past year until we get an experienced Sporting Director who is allowed to run the footballing department without interference from suits we’re going to keep repeating this cycle.

 

[The Hilton]

This thread seems to be turning into another Amorim bad party, or perhaps folks just find themselves agreeing with the opinions attributed to Ratcliffe in the article. Either way it's very short sighted to celebrate this kind of owner interference.

Ratcliffe made a big deal about hiring best in class and letting them do their jobs, rather than yes men. Wilcox wanting Amorim to switch to a back 4 is fair game, but Ratcliffe shouldn't be anywhere near those conversations, he has no footballing expertise whatsoever and should know better than to try to micromanage the coach or the director of football.

 

[gaffs]

I'll hold my hands up and say that I didn't even see the post that you responded to. I read from one side and replied without much thought to what the other post contained, so I apologise for shooting from the hip, without even attempting to see context.

No problem.

If it counts for anything, then I also don't think there is anything in the stories about him interfering. I would be more concerned if he had no reaction at all to us conceding against Wolves. I was frustrated and I would expect the owner to be as well. We all have opinions and I would expect no different from the man that has put his wealth into the club, where the clubs results actually does effect him in one way or another.

Agree. Putting billions of your own money into the club and owning 30% of it, entitles you to an opinion and to ask a question.

 

[Mockney]

Far more interested in media perception than he was about doing that is best for the club,

He was seemingly putting his own pride above United getting the best results. That’s like the no1 most basic thing to never do as a manager, and he was seemingly doing it regularly, right up to the end where he had a big spaz and quit in the middle of this supposed rebuild process because he was getting the tiniest bit of pushback…. It’s really hard to have any sympathy for him, however annoying his bosses.

but Ratcliffe shouldn't be anywhere near those conversations, he has no footballing expertise whatsoever and should know better than to try to micromanage the coach or the director of football.

But nowhere does the article actually imply he was doing that, just some very vague statements that obviously made their way into the headline and Twitter pull quotes. We don’t even know the context of them. One of them is literally just reading his body language from that crowd picture after Wolves equaliser.

 

[gaffs]

He was seemingly putting his own pride above United getting the best results. That’s like the no1 most basic thing to never do as a manager, and he was seemingly doing it regularly, right up to the end where he had a big spaz and quit in the middle of this supposed rebuild process because he was getting the tiniest bit of pushback…. It’s really hard to have any sympathy for him, however annoying his bosses.

Agree. The biggest example of that was the Europa League final.

Big Ange could see the bigger picture and adapted in the competition with the aim of winning and getting into the CL.

Amorim plays the same midfield pairing (Case and Bruno) against an always physical 3 man Spurs midfield and gets beaten for the third time that season. Spurs park the bus after their goal because they know that United usually have an xG of less than 1.0, so fancy their chances of holding on. With Hojlund devoid of confidence and form starting, that was a good bet.

He would rather lose his way, than win by adapting.

 

[gaffs]

This thread seems to be turning into another Amorim bad party, or perhaps folks just find themselves agreeing with the opinions attributed to Ratcliffe in the article. Either way it's very short sighted to celebrate this kind of owner interference.

Ratcliffe made a big deal about hiring best in class and letting them do their jobs, rather than yes men. Wilcox wanting Amorim to switch to a back 4 is fair game, but Ratcliffe shouldn't be anywhere near those conversations, he has no footballing expertise whatsoever and should know better than to try to micromanage the coach or the director of football.

It says in the article that he leans on Wilcox for football opinions, so Ratcliffe could very well be supporting the opinion that Wilcox already shares.

Which makes complete sense given the cost that it would have taken to get Amorim all of his targets. Of which we don't know which were viable this January.

 

[The Hilton]

It says in the article that he leans on Wilcox for football opinions, so Ratcliffe could very well be supporting the opinion that Wilcox already shares.

Which makes complete sense given the cost that it would have taken to get Amorim all of his targets. Of which we don't know which were viable this January.

It isn't Ratcliffe's place though, he should have empowered the likes of Wilcox and Berrada to call the shots. Him wading in to tactical conversations is micromanagement, he shouldn't be anywhere near those discussions.

We all laughed at Marinakis when he was trying to get into the coaching minutia at Forest. Ratcliffe may not be storming onto the pitch, but if he's inserting himself into tactical conversations then it's just as disruptive, and is a huge cause for concern. He hired multiple people and set up a hierarchy for the express purpose of doing it, let them get on with it.

 

[OleGunnar20]

It appears our beloved billionaire hasn't a clue.. great stuff.

 

[gaffs]

It isn't Ratcliffe's place though, he should have empowered the likes of Wilcox and Berrada to call the shots. Him wading in to tactical conversations is micromanagement, he shouldn't be anywhere near those discussions.

We all laughed at Marinakis when he was trying to get into the coaching minutia at Forest. Ratcliffe may not be storming onto the pitch, but if he's inserting himself into tactical conversations then it's just as disruptive, and is a huge cause for concern. He hired multiple people and set up a hierarchy for the express purpose of doing it, let them get on with it.

It all depends to what extent he is involved. But it doesn’t sound like he’s in the minutia, so don’t think people need to be too concerned.

Crux of it seemed to revolve around the want for Amorim to play four at the back, which likely comes from the fact that to play Amorim’s desired system he would need more players, which the club can’t currently provide.

Amorim himself said last week that he doesn’t have the players for his system and was training the squad for four at the back.

I think most would agree this current squad is better equipped to play 433 than 3421, despite still needing better players, regardless of formation. So it’s hardly some Jim Ratcliffe inspired idea, that’s come out of left field. We will see in time if this United are better in a 433.

So I really don’t think it’s that unreasonable for the owner, along with DOF, to suggest a change until the time they have the critical mass of players, with the right profiles, to move to Amorims system.

The Athletic article said that Wilcox was happy to help Amorim get to that point. Amorim said no and asked to be sacked.

The Athletic also says that “an evolution was always part of the plan, with Amorim telling officials at the outset he wanted to start with a back three, but would add layers once players better understood his methods.”

With that in mind, is it unreasonable after 14 months to start asking when this “evolution” would start happening?

That also puts into question the notion that INEOS employed a 3421 only coach. Sounds to me like he told them from the start that he would change his ways over time, which for 13.5 months he didn’t.

 

[The Hilton]

It all depends to what extent he is involved. But it doesn’t sound like he’s in the minutia, so don’t think people need to be too concerned.

Crux of it seemed to revolve around the want for Amorim to play four at the back, which likely comes from the fact that to play Amorim’s desired system he would need more players, which the club can’t currently provide.

Amorim himself said last week that he doesn’t have the players for his system and was training the squad for four at the back.

I think most would agree this current squad is better equipped to play 433 than 3421, despite still needing better players, regardless of formation. So it’s hardly some Jim Ratcliffe inspired idea, that’s come out of left field. We will see in time if this United are better in a 433.

So I really don’t think it’s that unreasonable for the owner, along with DOF, to suggest a change until the time they have the critical mass of players, with the right profiles, to move to Amorims system.

The Athletic article said that Wilcox was happy to help Amorim get to that point. Amorim said no and asked to be sacked.

The Athletic also says that “an evolution was always part of the plan, with Amorim telling officials at the outset he wanted to start with a back three, but would add layers once players better understood his methods.”

With that in mind, is it unreasonable after 14 months to start asking when this “evolution” would start happening?

That also puts into question the notion that INEOS employed a 3421 only coach. Sounds to me like he told them from the start that he would change his ways over time, which for 13.5 months he didn’t.

I'm perfectly fine with Wilcox suggesting a system change to Amorim, that's his job, we should expect that kind of intervention from him.

Ratcliffe shouldn't be anywhere near those discussions in any way, nor should he be suggesting Mbeumo at wingback, he has no more football pedigree than anyone on the caf, and hired, in his words, best in class staff to deal with the footballing side.

Try to look past the fact that you didn't like Amorim's 3 at the back system, as the topic of interference isn't relevant to the problem here. Focus on the owner trying to dictate how the DOF and coach should be doing things. It's a recipe for disaster.

 

[gaffs]

I'm perfectly fine with Wilcox suggesting a system change to Amorim, that's his job, we should expect that kind of intervention from him.

Ratcliffe shouldn't be anywhere near those discussions in any way, nor should he be suggesting Mbeumo at wingback, he has no more football pedigree than anyone on the caf, and hired, in his words, best in class staff to deal with the footballing side.

Try to look past the fact that you didn't like Amorim's 3 at the back system, as the topic of interference isn't relevant to the problem here. Focus on the owner trying to dictate how the DOF and coach should be doing things. It's a recipe for disaster.

Would generally agree that owners shouldn't be in the ear of managers.

But in this case, I don't think Ratcliffe is out of order.

If we are taking The Athletic article as gospel, they say....
“an evolution was always part of the plan, with Amorim telling officials at the outset he wanted to start with a back three, but would add layers once players better understood his methods.”

So if Amorim has said "at the onset" he would evolve from a back three, then its fair to ask after 14 months of a back three, with a sub 40% win rate, if its time finally to see the changes that you said you would bring.

Especially in the context of Amorim admitting himself that he doesn't not have the player he needs to play his system. Which implies that he needs more of SJR's money to make his system work. Money that is likely not available right now - certainly not without extending the debt.

 

[ClaytonBlackmoorLeftPeg]

I'm perfectly fine with Wilcox suggesting a system change to Amorim, that's his job, we should expect that kind of intervention from him.

Ratcliffe shouldn't be anywhere near those discussions in any way, nor should he be suggesting Mbeumo at wingback, he has no more football pedigree than anyone on the caf, and hired, in his words, best in class staff to deal with the footballing side.

Try to look past the fact that you didn't like Amorim's 3 at the back system, as the topic of interference isn't relevant to the problem here. Focus on the owner trying to dictate how the DOF and coach should be doing things. It's a recipe for disaster.

Are we saying Jim told Amorim that he should Be playing Mbeumo at wingback?

Or

Jim, when discussing the team has a general wondering about whether Mbeumo could play in a different position?

They are very different. I’ve seen no indication that he’s been telling the manager who to pick and where.

 

[gaffs]

Are we saying Jim told Amorim that he should Be playing Mbeumo at wingback?

Or

Jim, when discussing the team has a general wondering about whether Mbeumo could play in a different position?

They are very different. I’ve seen no indication that he’s been telling the manager who to pick and where.

An owner asking about a players potential versatility. One that he wrote, or was about to write, a £70m check for.

Scandalous.

Hardly an outlandish question given Amorim already repurposed one winger in Amad to a RWB.

 

[Apokalips]

An owner asking about a players potential versatility. One that he wrote, or was about to write, a £70m check for.

Scandalous.

Hardly an outlandish question given Amorim already repurposed one winger in Amad to a RWB.

Exactly, I don't like Ratcliffe and never wanted him but he has done nothing wrong in this story. If you owned a club you would have opinions and you may even discuss them with the coach but it is never implied that he tries to force the coach to do anything. Naturally they will have discussions about performances and what things they have seen and what changes may occur. I think some are just trying to continue finding reasons to have sympathy for Amorim.

 

[The Hilton]

Would generally agree that owners shouldn't be in the ear of managers.

But in this case, I don't think Ratcliffe is out of order.

If we are taking The Athletic article as gospel, they say....
“an evolution was always part of the plan, with Amorim telling officials at the outset he wanted to start with a back three, but would add layers once players better understood his methods.”

So if Amorim has said "at the onset" he would evolve from a back three, then its fair to ask after 14 months of a back three, with a sub 40% win rate, if its time finally to see the changes that you said you would bring.

Especially in the context of Amorim admitting himself that he doesn't not have the player he needs to play his system. Which implies that he needs more of SJR's money to make his system work. Money that is likely not available right now - certainly not without extending the debt.

It isn't Ratcliffe's plan though. The hiring, firing, and management of the head coach, along with all other football decisions like recruitment etc, are the domain of Wilcox and the footballing management.

You're getting hung up on Amorim and 3 at the back being bad. They're irrelevant, that was for Wilcox, Berrada, and their team to deal with. Thev principle is no different to Marinakis telling Nuno when to use his subs, the owner shouldn't be meddling.

 

[gaffs]

It isn't Ratcliffe's plan though. The hiring, firing, and management of the head coach, along with all other football decisions like recruitment etc, are the domain of Wilcox and the footballing management.

Who intern serve at the pleasure of the owner.

Like it or not, the DOF and the football people at the club still have to go to SJR to get recruitment decisions approved. In the same way that previous management would need to fly to Tampa to get The Glazers approval. You recall them flying to Iceland, or wherever it was that he was fishing, to see SJR over the summer to free up more money for Mbeumo. Maybe that is why SJR asked about Mbeumo's flexibility to play wing back? Very valid question before signing a 70mil check.

You're getting hung up on Amorim and 3 at the back being bad. They're irrelevant, that was for Wilcox, Berrada, and their team to deal with. Thev principle is no different to Marinakis telling Nuno when to use his subs, the owner shouldn't be meddling.

This is very much about the back 3, not only being bad, but costing SJR more money to make work.

As I keep saying to you, Amorim said he doesn't have the personal to make it work - we can all see that. And as per what I have quoted from the Athletic, Amoirm "from the outset" said he would evolve from the three at the back. He didn't. Maybe im reading too much into that, but if that is true, then he got the job under false pretenses.

No doubt Wilcox is briefing SJR and telling him that our current squad is not well suited to Amorims plans, so it will either take more investment to make it work Amorims way, or a change of system needs to happen. A change that Amorim "from the outset" said he would evolve to. Can't the owner hold Amoirm to that promise?

So very fair for SJR to say to Amorim after 14 months and a sub 40% win rate, via the Wilcox filter, to stop tapping my pockets and adapt like you said you would.

 

[gaffs]

Exactly, I don't like Ratcliffe and never wanted him but he has done nothing wrong in this story. If you owned a club you would have opinions and you may even discuss them with the coach but it is never implied that he tries to force the coach to do anything. Naturally they will have discussions about performances and what things they have seen and what changes may occur. I think some are just trying to continue finding reasons to have sympathy for Amorim.

Of course they are. INEOS, if anything, have been too good to Amorim.

At any workspace, if you underperform, expect people to start having a say and getting involved in "your business". Especially if you are asking for more investment whilst underperforming.

 

[The Hilton]

Who intern serve at the pleasure of the owner.

Like it or not, the DOF and the football people at the club still have to go to SJR to get recruitment decisions approved. In the same way that previous management would need to fly to Tampa to get The Glazers approval. You recall them flying to Iceland, or wherever it was that he was fishing, to see SJR over the summer to free up more money for Mbeumo. Maybe that is why SJR asked about Mbeumo's flexibility to play wing back? Very valid question before signing a 70mil check.



This is very much about the back 3, not only being bad, but costing SJR more money to make work.

As I keep saying to you, Amorim said he doesn't have the personal to make it work - we can all see that. And as per what I have quoted from the Athletic, Amoirm "from the outset" said he would evolve from the three at the back. He didn't. Maybe im reading too much into that, but if that is true, then he got the job under false pretenses.

No doubt Wilcox is briefing SJR and telling him that our current squad is not well suited to Amorims plans, so it will either take more investment to make it work Amorims way, or a change of system needs to happen. A change that Amorim "from the outset" said he would evolve to. Can't the owner hold Amoirm to that promise?

So very fair for SJR to say to Amorim after 14 months and a sub 40% win rate, via the Wilcox filter, to stop tapping my pockets and adapt like you said you would.

Would you be happy with Ratcliffe picking the team? Insisting a certain player needs to play? I highly doubt it, and yet the principle is exactly the same.

Micromanagement by higher ups is destructive in any organisation. Ratcliffe specifically hired Wilcox to have the conversations with Amorim. You're defending it because you hate the 3 at the back system, but Ratcliffe getting involved sets a terrible precedent. The attitude you're expressing, that's it's his money and he can do what he wants, is the same justification for Marinakis storming onto the pitch to confront Nuno.

 

[ClaytonBlackmoorLeftPeg]

Would you be happy with Ratcliffe picking the team? Insisting a certain player needs to play? I highly doubt it, and yet the principle is exactly the same.

Micromanagement by higher ups is destructive in any organisation. Ratcliffe specifically hired Wilcox to have the conversations with Amorim. You're defending it because you hate the 3 at the back system, but Ratcliffe getting involved sets a terrible precedent. The attitude you're expressing, that's it's his money and he can do what he wants, is the same justification for Marinakis storming onto the pitch to confront Nuno.

He doesn’t pick the team, and doesn’t insist certain players play. What a leap you have made!

He’s entitled to ask questions. As far as I can see, that’s what he’s done. This was done behind closed doors. No issue at all.

Let’s remember this was a manger who said at times he didn’t know what he was doing, and that he was learning in the job.

Don’t conflate Jim (who I am no particular fan of) and Marinakis. It’s not remotely similar.

Managers can’t and should not expect to do exactly what they want, with no feedback and no consequences and no accountability.

Look at how Glasner tackled this issue and said how he dealt with people in the club. Grown up, and mature.

 

[The Hilton]

He doesn’t pick the team, and doesn’t insist certain players play. What a leap you have made!

He’s entitled to ask questions. As far as I can see, that’s what he’s done. This was done behind closed doors. No issue at all.

Let’s remember this was a manger who said at times he didn’t know what he was doing, and that he was learning in the job.

Don’t conflate Jim (who I am no particular fan of) and Marinakis. It’s not remotely similar.

Managers can’t and should not expect to do exactly what they want, with no feedback and no consequences and no accountability.

Look at how Glasner tackled this issue and said how he dealt with people in the club. Grown up, and mature.

You're arguing against a point I haven't made. The bit in bold in entirely agree with, but Ratcliffe hired an entire team of "best in class" staff to handle feedback and accountability for the manager.

In any professional organisation with a proper structure, stuff like this will be dealt with in a hierarchy, those at the top will question underperformance but won't get involved in micromanaging individual projects or employees down the chain of command, as there are managers in place hired for that specific purpose.

Jim and Marinakis getting involved is the same thing in principle, as we're the hypothetical examples I gave, is only the scale of interference and micromanaging that changes. Owners shouldn't be getting involved in the day to day duties of the DOF, it's unprofessional.

 

[gaffs]

Would you be happy with Ratcliffe picking the team? Insisting a certain player needs to play? I highly doubt it, and yet the principle is exactly the same.

I must have missed that part of The Athletic article that said Ratcliffe was picking the team.

Micromanagement by higher ups is destructive in any organisation.

Not when your employee is failing and not keeping the promises he made and asking for more of your money.

Ratcliffe specifically hired Wilcox to have the conversations with Amorim.

It was Wilcox that was having the conversations with Amorim.

You're defending it because you hate the 3 at the back system, but Ratcliffe getting involved sets a terrible precedent. The attitude you're expressing, that's it's his money and he can do what he wants, is the same justification for Marinakis storming onto the pitch to confront Nuno.

I am defending it because, as I tried to explain to you, but your closing to ignore, as per the Athletic article, Amorim said "from the outset" he would evolve his system. So after 14 months of failure with his system and Amorim himself saying he doesn't have the squad to make it work, then its more than justified for his paymaster to start asking "why are we not seeing the change you said you would deliver". Especially if continuing with 3 at the back is going to cost him more and more money.

This is why you end up in the stupid spiraling discussion on The Caf - like Amorim this season v ETH in his final full season that bored everyone to death. You choose to ignore what has been stated and the facts presented, and start raising things that have not happened, e.g. "Would you be happy with Ratcliffe picking the team? " Stay on topic and away from the nonsensical hypotheticals.

 

[The Hilton]

I must have missed that part of The Athletic article that said Ratcliffe was picking the team.



Not when your employee is failing and not keeping the promises he made and asking for more of your money.



It was Wilcox that was having the conversations with Amorim.



I am defending it because, as I tried to explain to you, but your closing to ignore, as per the Athletic article, Amorim said "from the outset" he would evolve his system. So after 14 months of failure with his system and Amorim himself saying he doesn't have the squad to make it work, then its more than justified for his paymaster to start asking "why are we not seeing the change you said you would deliver". Especially if continuing with 3 at the back is going to cost him more and more money.

This is why you end up in the stupid spiraling discussion on The Caf - like Amorim this season v ETH in his final full season that bored everyone to death. You choose to ignore what has been stated and the facts presented, and start raising things that have not happened, e.g. "Would you be happy with Ratcliffe picking the team? " Stay on topic and away from the nonsensical hypotheticals.

We're moving onto personal attacks already? I shouldn't be surprised it took so long really.

The hypotheticals weren't nonsense, it was an attempt to illustrate a point, someone debating in good faith would have engaged.

Amorim said, from the outset, the he would evolve his system. I agree. That he didn't was Wilcox's job to deal with, not Ratcliffe's. There's no point in him being here if Ratcliffe is micromanaging him.

Anyway based on previous debates with you, once the personal attacks start they tend not to stop, and the already bad faith posting only gets worse, so we can both save time and just accept a disagreement here.

We have different expectations of how Ratcliffe should act as owner, you're happy with him wading in to footballing discussions, I want him to treat it more like a serious organisation, like INEOS, rather than a startup where the owner meddles and micromanages.

 

[gaffs]

We're moving onto personal attacks already? I shouldn't be surprised it took so long really.

Anyway based on previous debates with you, once the personal attacks start they tend not to stop, and the already bad faith posting only gets worse, so we can both save time and just accept a disagreement here.

Where is the personal attack?

Was your "Amorim this season v ETH in his final full season" debate not stupid and spiraling?

You said here that was pointless....
https://www.redcafe.net/threads/ruben-amorim-sacked.490912/post-33938460

The hypotheticals weren't nonsense, it was an attempt to illustrate a point, someone debating in good faith would have engaged.

The hypotheticals are not relevant because they are not happening and would be far more of an extreme measure as to what Ratcliffe has been reported to have asked for.

Someone debating in good faith, doesn't have to raise ridiculous hypotheticals. I mean, what's your next hypothetical? "Would you be fine with Ratcliffe lacing up his boots?"

Amorim said, from the outset, the he would evolve his system. I agree.

Finally, agreement. So why wasn't he evolving?

And what would be the issue with anyone, be it the owner of DOF asking when this evolution would happen?

That he didn't was Wilcox's job to deal with, not Ratcliffe's.

Which Wilcox was doing.

There's no point in him being here if Ratcliffe is micromanaging him.

Is he micromanaging him? Where did it say that in the article?

You are making out that four at the back was Ratcliffe's brain waive, as if no one has every raised the fact that our squad is more equipped for this than Amorims 3421.

We have different expectations of how Ratcliffe should act as owner, you're happy with him wading in to footballing discussions, I want him to treat it more like a serious organisation, like INEOS, rather than a startup where the owner meddles and micromanages.

I will summarize my view, for the 15th time....

If Amorim said he was going to evolve "from the outset" (which to me sounds like it was when he was employed), and he admits that he hasn't got the squad to play his system without more money from SJR, than its fair for SJR to say, " no more money. go make that evolution that you promised before tapping me up for more players:"

And you keep saying I don't like 3 a the back. Im fine with 3 at the back, if you have the profiles to play it. Especially two productive wing backs, a CB than can move into midfield and two good midfielders. The last 14 months has shown that we are missing way too many of the required ingredients, hence the results, performances and form.

 

[The Hilton]

Where is the personal attack?

Was your "Amorim this season v ETH in his final full season" debate not stupid and spiraling?

You said here that was pointless....
https://www.redcafe.net/threads/ruben-amorim-sacked.490912/post-33938460



The hypotheticals are not relevant because they are not happening and would be far more of an extreme measure as to what Ratcliffe has been reported to have asked for.

Someone debating in good faith, doesn't have to raise ridiculous hypotheticals. I mean, what's your next hypothetical? "Would you be find with Ratcliffe lacking up his boots?"



Finally, agreement. So why wasn't he evolving?

And what would be the issue with anyone, be it the owner of DOF asking when this evolution would happen?



Which Wilcox was doing.



Is he micromanaging him? Where did it say that in the article?



I will summarize my view, for the 15th time....

If Amorim said he was going to evolve "from the outset" (which to me sounds like it was when he was employed), and he admits that he hasn't got the squad to play his system without more money from SJR, than its fair for SJR to say, " no more money. go make that evolution that you promised before tapping me up for more players:"

Amorim didn't ask for a penny from SJR. You keep coming back to that, it's blatantly false. Transfers are conducted with club money, any requests for spending made by Amorim were made to Wilcox. Ratcliffe isn't involved in any of these conversations unless he inserts himself into them.

 

[gaffs]

Amorim didn't ask for a penny from SJR. You keep coming back to that, it's blatantly false. Transfers are conducted with club money, any requests for spending made by Amorim were made to Wilcox. Ratcliffe isn't involved in any of these conversations unless he inserts himself into them.

He is asking for more money from the club. Same difference. He owns 30% so the club, you know?

 

[The Hilton]

He is asking for more money from the club. Same difference. He owns 30% so the club, you know?

But at no point is there a question asked to Ratcliffe for him to respond "no more money. go make that evolution that you promised before tapping me up for more players". Amorim asks Wilcox, the DOF.

 

[Iker Quesadillas]

I don't think the things mentioned in the article are particularly bad or unusual.

A manager's primary responsibility is to win football matches. They can have their own methods that they think are best, but implementing those methods is not their primary responsibility. The methods are just a means to the end of winning football matches. If they are failing at achieving at their objectives, it is perfectly reasonable for their higher-ups to prod them about taking a different approach.

Let's say I hire a guy to write me a computer program. The guy says he likes using programming language X. They start using X do write the program, and it is taking forever because implementing A/B/C features is a massive challenge using language X. The normal thing to do is to tell them that they need to consider using a different programming language. The abnormal thing to do would be to fire them just so that they can preserve some mystical "right to work freely".