The John Murtough Era

ilrm

Full Member
Joined
Apr 22, 2022
Messages
582
Supports
Real Madrid
Either that or he is towing the Glazer line, which means he is worse than useless to us at this point.
Everyone who loves their job will always tow the owners’ line … I don’t know why this is used as a stick to beat him with. Why should he sacrifice his career and lifestyle just to please disgruntled United fans?
 

tjb

Full Member
Joined
Sep 6, 2013
Messages
2,650
The guy is a terminal bellend. He literally has no clue about the needs of the club in terms of what it will take to get us where we belong. Either that or he is towing the Glazer line, which means he is worse than useless to us at this point.
Did you actually see the full quote.

If we are bringing in 5 starting players to our first 11 after this window, something went wrong.
People don't seem to understand how unconventional it is for us to have to spend that way.
My understanding of what he said is pretty simple. He doesn't expect us to NEED to spend like this, especially at one go.
He also mentioned that as a club, we will continue to support ETH.

I think from here on, we are going to focus on signing specific players. Maximum 2 or 3 per window, whilst also getting some depth from our academy.
 

tjb

Full Member
Joined
Sep 6, 2013
Messages
2,650
The Manchester Evening News have quotes from the call related to the full year financial results.

Murtough simply states the obvious. We spent more than we can reasonably afford this summer. He said ""We also saw a higher-than-usual number of departures, and this was an equally important part of refreshing the squad after the disappointing 2021/22 season. We will continue to support Erik in ensuring he has players with the right quality and character to achieve success while ensuring that investment remains consistent with our commitment to financial sustainability.

Overall, we are ahead of schedule in our recruitment plans as envisaged at the start of the summer, and we do not anticipate the same level of activity in future windows. As always, our planning focuses on the summer window.
"

United spend 65% of revenue on salaries (65.9% last season, 65.2% the season before). It used to be 50%. Add in cost of host matches, keeping Old Trafford and Carrington in an acceptable state, dividends for Glazers, loan interest payments etc, it doesn't leave that much for transfers.

https://www.manchestereveningnews.co.uk/sport/football/man-utd-transfer-news-january-25081348

https://ir.manutd.com/press-releases.aspx
I think this is partially why this window was so important. We might not be able to get it back down to 50 for a while, but we can significantly reduce that cost by releasing players like Jones. The key issue we have had has been that players earning some of these huge salaries, haven't performed in a way that would lead to additional revenue. We got rid of a lot of deadwood this summer and over time, with the likes of Maguire and Shaw potentially unhappy, we may see more leave.
 

Grande

Full Member
Joined
Jun 22, 2007
Messages
4,780
Location
The Land of Do-What-You-Will
The Manchester Evening News have quotes from the call related to the full year financial results.

Murtough simply states the obvious. We spent more than we can reasonably afford this summer. He said ""We also saw a higher-than-usual number of departures, and this was an equally important part of refreshing the squad after the disappointing 2021/22 season. We will continue to support Erik in ensuring he has players with the right quality and character to achieve success while ensuring that investment remains consistent with our commitment to financial sustainability.

Overall, we are ahead of schedule in our recruitment plans as envisaged at the start of the summer, and we do not anticipate the same level of activity in future windows. As always, our planning focuses on the summer window.
"

United spend 65% of revenue on salaries (65.9% last season, 65.2% the season before). It used to be 50%. Add in cost of host matches, keeping Old Trafford and Carrington in an acceptable state, dividends for Glazers, loan interest payments etc, it doesn't leave that much for transfers.

https://www.manchestereveningnews.co.uk/sport/football/man-utd-transfer-news-january-25081348

https://ir.manutd.com/press-releases.aspx
Thanks. Yes, even if Rangnik’s Götterdämmerung prognosis is set as a schedule, I believe he mentioned 10-12 players and three windows. That means we’re maybe halfway there already with five signings. I think it’s clear Ten Hag has somewhat more trust in his methods and in a few of the players than he has in Rangnik’s input, so I would maybe expect a more normal three signings plus one or two fillers (some youth, a back up keeper) on the mext two windows combined.
 

Greck

Full Member
Joined
Dec 1, 2016
Messages
6,339
The Manchester Evening News have quotes from the call related to the full year financial results.

Murtough simply states the obvious. We spent more than we can reasonably afford this summer. He said ""We also saw a higher-than-usual number of departures, and this was an equally important part of refreshing the squad after the disappointing 2021/22 season. We will continue to support Erik in ensuring he has players with the right quality and character to achieve success while ensuring that investment remains consistent with our commitment to financial sustainability.

Overall, we are ahead of schedule in our recruitment plans as envisaged at the start of the summer, and we do not anticipate the same level of activity in future windows. As always, our planning focuses on the summer window.
"

United spend 65% of revenue on salaries (65.9% last season, 65.2% the season before). It used to be 50%. Add in cost of host matches, keeping Old Trafford and Carrington in an acceptable state, dividends for Glazers, loan interest payments etc, it doesn't leave that much for transfers.

https://www.manchestereveningnews.co.uk/sport/football/man-utd-transfer-news-january-25081348

https://ir.manutd.com/press-releases.aspx
Yeah no shit, their dilly dallying and poor planning added an extra 50-70m to this summer's budget. The market in the final week is always a seller's market. We essentially threw future money to cover today's mistakes. We are still criminally mismanaged but the glazers and co can always smooth things out by buying a shiny new toy with the club's money. It's like watching a politician. Suddenly bringing up the mismanagement looks ungrateful. Fix our rickety structure once and for all and end this mismanagement, megasignings, mismanagement loop. Every year is an extra 50-100m fixing some present or past mistake.
 
Last edited:

justsomebloke

Full Member
Joined
Oct 25, 2020
Messages
3,598
What really riles me about these statements isn't the amount of money, it's how they're speaking about the whole situation and the mindset that shows. It's all about how much money have we spent and how much money are we going to spend, and how the purpose of spending the money is "to support ETH". In other words, we put up a certain amount of money, and then it's the managers job to turn that money into a result. That's still the beginning and end of this club's vision.

What they would have been talking about if this was competent management is things like What is this club's level of ambition, and what will it take to get there, and how do we intend to achieve that? That's what actually should be driving investment, not how big a pot of gold you're prepared to throw at the manager.
 

wolvored

Full Member
Joined
Jul 6, 2016
Messages
8,559
Murtough can plan all he wants. At the end of the day if the glazers for example say £50 mill only for transfers, thats what we will spend. Its how he gets value for money that will make him stand out. So for me its how he does in this jan and summer windows that count. If he has scouted and planned with the manager correctly, we dont need to overspend on one player.
This summer was a crazy window with a new manager and Murtoughs first window, without being tied to the meglomaniac Woodwards apron strings Add to the fact there were a lot of players left on free transfers, in the end it was pretty decent.
 

georgipep

Full Member
Joined
Aug 14, 2015
Messages
1,661
Location
Not far enough
What really riles me about these statements isn't the amount of money, it's how they're speaking about the whole situation and the mindset that shows. It's all about how much money have we spent and how much money are we going to spend, and how the purpose of spending the money is "to support ETH". In other words, we put up a certain amount of money, and then it's the managers job to turn that money into a result. That's still the beginning and end of this club's vision.

What they would have been talking about if this was competent management is things like What is this club's level of ambition, and what will it take to get there, and how do we intend to achieve that? That's what actually should be driving investment, not how big a pot of gold you're prepared to throw at the manager.
This is what financial reports are all about. The key is in the "financial" part...
Can't believe people still do not get it. This is business. It's ONLY purpose is to create shareholder value.
 

fezzerUTD

New Member
Newbie
Joined
Apr 26, 2015
Messages
1,105
Murtough can plan all he wants. At the end of the day if the glazers for example say £50 mill only for transfers, thats what we will spend. Its how he gets value for money that will make him stand out. So for me its how he does in this jan and summer windows that count. If he has scouted and planned with the manager correctly, we dont need to overspend on one player.
This summer was a crazy window with a new manager and Murtoughs first window, without being tied to the meglomaniac Woodwards apron strings Add to the fact there were a lot of players left on free transfers, in the end it was pretty decent.
Im convinced Woodward was the fall guy for joel glazer anyway. Now its Murtough.
 

Trex

Full Member
Joined
Sep 18, 2019
Messages
2,100
Location
Nigeria
This is what financial reports are all about. The key is in the "financial" part...
Can't believe people still do not get it. This is business. It's ONLY purpose is to create shareholder value.
There are two types of owners of EPL clubs, the sport washing project (Manchester city, Newcastle united) and the once in it for profit (Manchester united, Liverpool, Arsenal).
That's how it works, you can only hope which ever form they get the right people under them to run the club, I know we have been mismanaged from a sporting point of view the last 10 years but I would like to be optimistic things are getting better now. Either way it is a business to the Glazer and that in itself isn't a crime.
 

justsomebloke

Full Member
Joined
Oct 25, 2020
Messages
3,598
This is what financial reports are all about. The key is in the "financial" part...
Can't believe people still do not get it. This is business. It's ONLY purpose is to create shareholder value.
Yes, thank you, I am well aware that this is the financial report we're talking about. Nevertheless, this is the same narrative we're hearing from the club throughout - it is not unique to this context.

And you should probably get this: Not doing well on the pitch over time also erodes shareholder value, both by cutting into income and by requiring huge outlays in an attempt to rectify the situation. Which this financial report, with its record net loss, illustrates.
 

Garethw

scored 25-30 goals a season as a right footed RW
Joined
Feb 7, 2005
Messages
16,075
Location
England:
Im convinced Woodward was the fall guy for joel glazer anyway. Now its Murtough.
100%. if you think about it logically, why would the Glazers keep someone as seemingly incompetent as Woodward in place for so long? I fully believe that every single decision has to be signed off by Joel.

Woodward kept his job as the head of a multibillion pound club because he followed the instructions of his bosses to the letter.

Woodward has gone but the club is still making the same mistakes. Nothing changes until those parasites sell up.
 

Skills

Snitch
Joined
Jan 17, 2012
Messages
37,948
100%. if you think about it logically, why would the Glazers keep someone as seemingly incompetent as Woodward in place for so long? I fully believe that every single decision has to be signed off by Joel.

Woodward kept his job as the head of a multibillion pound club because he followed the instructions of his bosses to the letter.

Woodward has gone but the club is still making the same mistakes. Nothing changes until those parasites sell up.
It's even worse than that. This summer was reminiscent of the Woodward/Moyes first summer.

Its like all the lessons we might have learned under the Woodward regime were thrown right out of the window
 

Revan

Assumptionman
Joined
Dec 19, 2011
Messages
46,596
Location
Munich
I do not know how people are surprised that we won't spend in the winter, or that this window is not the norm. We just lost more than 100M this fiscal year, of course, that the norm won't be losing over 100M every year, that is not sustainable.

And of course, we need more signings. But needing, and being able to afford them, are completely different things.
 

Skills

Snitch
Joined
Jan 17, 2012
Messages
37,948
I do not know how people are surprised that we won't spend in the winter, or that this window is not the norm. We just lost more than 100M this fiscal year, of course, that the norm won't be losing over 100M every year, that is not sustainable.

And of course, we need more signings. But needing, and being able to afford them, are completely different things.
These people come from the Liz Truss school of economics
 

georgipep

Full Member
Joined
Aug 14, 2015
Messages
1,661
Location
Not far enough
Yes, thank you, I am well aware that this is the financial report we're talking about. Nevertheless, this is the same narrative we're hearing from the club throughout - it is not unique to this context.

And you should probably get this: Not doing well on the pitch over time also erodes shareholder value, both by cutting into income and by requiring huge outlays in an attempt to rectify the situation. Which this financial report, with its record net loss, illustrates.
If a company director starts going on operational tangents during financial presentations it will show incompetence or worse (hiding facts).
There is a place and time for these kind of topics. The quarterly results and shareholder presentations are not it.
 

Greck

Full Member
Joined
Dec 1, 2016
Messages
6,339
I do not know how people are surprised that we won't spend in the winter, or that this window is not the norm. We just lost more than 100M this fiscal year, of course, that the norm won't be losing over 100M every year, that is not sustainable.

And of course, we need more signings. But needing, and being able to afford them, are completely different things.
The unplanned money we spent on inflated late window transfers was part of why that figure is that big. It clearly wasn't in their financial projections. They messed up their own projections and have now compromised future windows, all because of their own lack of foresight. It's not an accounting error, it's a footballing one. In the first place 150m if properly planned can do a lot more, especially when you know what the budget is long term. You can't be making value mistakes in a rebuild. They screwed up their due diligence. It's a credible discussion.
 
Last edited:

justsomebloke

Full Member
Joined
Oct 25, 2020
Messages
3,598
If a company director starts going on operational tangents during financial presentations it will show incompetence or worse (hiding facts).
There is a place and time for these kind of topics. The quarterly results and shareholder presentations are not it.
"These kind of topics"? What CEO presents an annual financial report (to say nothing of a financial report recording a very weak result) without mentioning the company's vision going forward? Certainly not Murtough, who addresses that directly, in talking about the club's "investment plan" and what that will mean for future expenditure. I'm not criticising Murtough for what he isn't talking about, I'm criticising him for what he says about the things he does talk about. Which should, if anything, be more vision-focused and less operational than the stuff he is actually saying.
 

crossy1686

Full Member
Joined
Jun 5, 2010
Messages
21,417
Location
Manchester/Stockholm
This is what financial reports are all about. The key is in the "financial" part...
Can't believe people still do not get it. This is business. It's ONLY purpose is to create shareholder value.
Well when you’re on an earnings call, addressing shareholders, you kind of have to speak in that way. It’s the same for every other PLC.
 

devilish

Juventus fan who used to support United
Joined
Sep 5, 2002
Messages
58,224
Murtough can't be blamed for any lack of funds. However he can be blamed for us going in the transfer window completely unprepared which lead to us spending over the odds for ETH's targets. We were also unable to raise significant funds through selling our players either.
 

Vapor trail

Full Member
Joined
Mar 13, 2022
Messages
590
Murtough has already proven he's not up to it. The overspending this summer was a result of a lack of direction and strategy. You just don't get the feeling United will win anything substantial while the Glazers and their hierarchy still remain. There's a lack of dilligence that's very transparent from the top.
 

Freak

Born a freak always a freak.
Joined
May 8, 2004
Messages
21,554
Location
Somewhere in your mind, touching a nerve
I'm willing to give him the benefit of the doubt over this past summer's transfer spending. Our scouting department was literally ripped apart just a few months before ETH came, we could not rely on the scout recommendations from before because they were shit so he had to rely on ETH's recommendations instead and so we were fleeced by clubs who knew we were in a mess and desperate. I'm willing to see if he's gotten the scouting/recruitment department in order by the next 1 or 2 transfer windows and the type of players we bring in before judging him properly.
 

Zen86

Full Member
Joined
Jul 1, 2007
Messages
12,275
Location
Sunny Manc
Murtough has already proven he's not up to it. The overspending this summer was a result of a lack of direction and strategy. You just don't get the feeling United will win anything substantial while the Glazers and their hierarchy still remain. There's a lack of dilligence that's very transparent from the top.
To be fair, we were never going to have a direction and strategy in place for the summer. We pushed out several key figures in the scouting department and Rangnick was a complete and utter catastrophe. Add a new manager into the mix, as well as a new CEO and some senior restructuring not long before, and we didn’t really have a hope. If it’s the same story next summer however, we may as well just give up.
 

Grande

Full Member
Joined
Jun 22, 2007
Messages
4,780
Location
The Land of Do-What-You-Will
Murtough can't be blamed for any lack of funds. However he can be blamed for us going in the transfer window completely unprepared which lead to us spending over the odds for ETH's targets. We were also unable to raise significant funds through selling our players either.
It really is difficult to say wether Murtaugh has done a good or bad job so far, because it depends …

It depends on how early he was given real authority over restructuring the set up including recruitmen and scouting.
It depends on the reasons for why the two scouting tops left when they did.
It depends on how foreseeable Rangnik’s chemistry challenges with the squad could be.
It depends on how early we were able to know wether Ten Hag would be our next manager.

All these things, we reallydon’t know much about, and the answers could rang from Murtaugh having done a great job to him having done a terrible job so far. The answer is likely inbetween, and we’ll not see how it works until after next summer, realistically.
 

r0663664

Full Member
Joined
Aug 9, 2012
Messages
1,799
Location
Singapore
I believe there will a fixed budget set aside between 80-120 million for the next few years. We just need to be smart be get a right profile players. I would look at 2+2, 2 good players who potentially can be XI like Malacia and 2 under 21s players. Scouting definitely needs to be improve, we don't need to spend 60-80 million on players. Malacia is really cheap for the quality he brings (he has probably triple his value). Another 3-4 such players, we would do well.
 

devilish

Juventus fan who used to support United
Joined
Sep 5, 2002
Messages
58,224
It really is difficult to say wether Murtaugh has done a good or bad job so far, because it depends …

It depends on how early he was given real authority over restructuring the set up including recruitmen and scouting.
It depends on the reasons for why the two scouting tops left when they did.
It depends on how foreseeable Rangnik’s chemistry challenges with the squad could be.
It depends on how early we were able to know wether Ten Hag would be our next manager.

All these things, we reallydon’t know much about, and the answers could rang from Murtaugh having done a great job to him having done a terrible job so far. The answer is likely inbetween, and we’ll not see how it works until after next summer, realistically.
If he has little authority then he's just a Glazer's pen pusher which makes him as useful as bull's tits. If has authority then he is useless really.

A- Murtough has been here for many many years and had gained a reputation of being Woodward's fixer. He should have had a clear idea what was wrong in the club, who needs to be replaced by whom and he should have acted quickly. The fact that we started the summer transfer windows with two sacked chief scouts stinks of incompetence especially since its already nearly October and we haven't hired anyone yet. The fact that we're still working with the same modus operandi of 2013 (ie the manager providing the names we should sign) is inexcusable

B- The way we handled last season was diabolical. Ole was kept for too long, we then hired an interim manager who had barely managed in the past 10 years and whose style of football was totally different to Ole's only to refuse to buy him any players whatsoever. That's the personification of setting Rangnick and the club to fail.

C- We spent an entire summer chasing a ghost (aka De Jong) which ended with one huge egg on our face. We also overspent on most of our transfers. There's no way that Antony is worth 100m or that a 30 year old Casemiro is worth 60m.

D- Incoming transfers tells part of a story. The other part is outgoing transfers. Those are equally important as it put money back into the coffers for the manager to spend. We failed big time on that regard as well. Garner was sold for peanuts, Henderson was sent on loan which is stupid really and AWB, Maguire and co are still here.

Spending 100m on a winger from the Dutch league and a 60m fee on a 30 year old DM carries consequences. We probably won't be able to spend in January and we won't spend big next summer. That's why United need an experienced DOF who can unearth future stars and can bring some bargains in.
 

Grande

Full Member
Joined
Jun 22, 2007
Messages
4,780
Location
The Land of Do-What-You-Will
If he has little authority then he's just a Glazer's pen pusher which makes him as useful as bull's tits. If has authority then he is useless really.

A- Murtough has been here for many many years and had gained a reputation of being Woodward's fixer. He should have had a clear idea what was wrong in the club, who needs to be replaced by whom and he should have acted quickly. The fact that we started the summer transfer windows with two sacked chief scouts stinks of incompetence especially since its already nearly October and we haven't hired anyone yet. The fact that we're still working with the same modus operandi of 2013 (ie the manager providing the names we should sign) is inexcusable

B- The way we handled last season was diabolical. Ole was kept for too long, we then hired an interim manager who had barely managed in the past 10 years and whose style of football was totally different to Ole's only to refuse to buy him any players whatsoever. That's the personification of setting Rangnick and the club to fail.

C- We spent an entire summer chasing a ghost (aka De Jong) which ended with one huge egg on our face. We also overspent on most of our transfers. There's no way that Antony is worth 100m or that a 30 year old Casemiro is worth 60m.

D- Incoming transfers tells part of a story. The other part is outgoing transfers. Those are equally important as it put money back into the coffers for the manager to spend. We failed big time on that regard as well. Garner was sold for peanuts, Henderson was sent on loan which is stupid really and AWB, Maguire and co are still here.

Spending 100m on a winger from the Dutch league and a 60m fee on a 30 year old DM carries consequences. We probably won't be able to spend in January and we won't spend big next summer. That's why United need an experienced DOF who can unearth future stars and can bring some bargains in.
Maybe, maybe not, but I don’t think you’re quite the inside expert you make yourself out to be.
 

devilish

Juventus fan who used to support United
Joined
Sep 5, 2002
Messages
58,224
Maybe, maybe not, but I don’t think you’re quite the inside expert you make yourself out to be.
I have zero inside information. I only base my thoughts on what I see with my very eyes, a bit of common sense and my experience working directly under multiple CEOs. For example I refuse to believe that Woodward who allowed the man to grow into the club by first trusting him with huge projects (ex revamping academy recruitment and building the women team) and then by making him DOF would not listen to the guy let alone giving him admistrative power up until he left.Its even sillier to think that a manchester united CEO would engage himself in full Football manager mode . Its not physically possible. Trust me Murtough would not have reached such position at Manchester united if Woodward didn't trust him. Then of course there is the title of Woodward's fixer who was given to him by the media. This guy was close to Woodward's ear and throughout the years he was very involved in decision making


Another piece of proof can be seen when comparing the pre Murtough Dof's time with the post Murtough DOF's time. The same knee jerk reaction, incompetence and the throwing money at the problem reaction is seen.
 

elmo

Can never have too many Eevees
Joined
Jul 14, 2008
Messages
11,855
Location
AKA: Slapanut Goat Smuggla
I have zero inside information. I only base my thoughts on what I see with my very eyes, a bit of common sense and my experience working directly under multiple CEOs. For example I refuse to believe that Woodward who allowed the man to grow into the club by first trusting him with huge projects (ex revamping academy recruitment and building the women team) and then by making him DOF would not listen to the guy let alone giving him admistrative power up until he left.Its even sillier to think that a manchester united CEO would engage himself in full Football manager mode . Its not physically possible. Trust me Murtough would not have reached such position at Manchester united if Woodward didn't trust him. Then of course there is the title of Woodward's fixer who was given to him by the media. This guy was close to Woodward's ear and throughout the years he was very involved in decision making


Another piece of proof can be seen when comparing the pre Murtough Dof's time with the post Murtough DOF's time. The same knee jerk reaction, incompetence and the throwing money at the problem reaction is seen.
Exactly.

Murtough hasn't shown any signs that he's anywhere near a halfway decent director of football but you've people praising him for overspending on players late into the transfer window like what Woodward has done consistently and briefing the media on our every transfer business instead of actually working on them.
 

pascell

Full Member
Joined
Aug 3, 2012
Messages
12,055
Location
Sir Alex Ferguson Stand
Exactly.

Murtough hasn't shown any signs that he's anywhere near a halfway decent director of football but you've people praising him for overspending on players late into the transfer window like what Woodward has done consistently and briefing the media on our every transfer business instead of actually working on them.
After looking at his resumé I was dumbfounded on the glowing praise Murtough was being lavished in, especially from well liked posters on here, at the time of his hiring.

Working well within the academy and women's team is a whole different level to the men's team, with all due respect. You're literally talking about giving him majority control in keeping a billion £ company, relevant and competitive, it's a different stratosphere to the academy and women's team.
 

elmo

Can never have too many Eevees
Joined
Jul 14, 2008
Messages
11,855
Location
AKA: Slapanut Goat Smuggla
After looking at his resumé I was dumbfounded on the glowing praise Murtough was being lavished in, especially from well liked posters on here, at the time of his hiring.

Working well within the academy and women's team is a whole different level to the men's team, with all due respect. You're literally talking about giving him majority control in keeping a billion £ company, relevant and competitive, it's a different stratosphere to the academy and women's team.
I've said it before, people are praising him for being literally not Woodward.
 

Teja

Full Member
Joined
Aug 17, 2014
Messages
3,908

14m Compensation for 6months :eek:
re: Rangnick being terminated for 14m, I think it's fair to count this decision against Murtough. I'll also blame him for the incoherent transfer window we had this summer. Chased FdJ for far too long, panicked and signed a 30 year old Casemiro for big money + big wages, overpaid for Antony etc. Of course these are still opinions but given some of the midfielders that moved clubs in Jan / Summer we should've done a lot better than sticking Eriksen deep.

Still think we should wait and watch but if we finish 6th or below this season after spending 200m, then Murtough's head has to roll.

I think Arnold did a good job by distancing himself from the recruitment shambles. He'll give Murtough a fair shot but it's time to bring in actual expertise on the recruitment front. Someone from a club that plays positional football and not a total 180 to hunt down someone from Germany.
 

Rightnr

Full Member
Joined
Jan 25, 2015
Messages
7,240
I love the fact we've paid Rangnick 14m but people on here were telling me the 2-year thing was only an option.

Now money says it wasn't and they look like fools (again). Although to be fair part of the 14m is probably for the NDA Ralf would have signed not to publicly embarrass the rets even more.
 

justsomebloke

Full Member
Joined
Oct 25, 2020
Messages
3,598
I love the fact we've paid Rangnick 14m but people on here were telling me the 2-year thing was only an option.

Money says it wasn't although part of the 14m is probably for the NDA Ralf would have signed not to publicly embarrass the rets even more.
Not looking so pretty that, given that the cancelling of the consultancy was ostensibly by mutual consent, and motivated by Rangnick's responsibilities as Austria manager. This makes it look at lot more like United buying him out from that role.
 

kundalini

Full Member
Joined
Aug 26, 2004
Messages
5,299
In July 2021 Rangnick signed a 3 year deal to be manager of sports and development for Lokomotiv Moscow. It is reasonable to assume that he was being paid a significant salary after his work at Red Bull. In order for United to tempt him to join us for 7 months as temporary manager, we would have had to offer him more than the amount that he would expect to make in the rest of his LM deal.

£14m seems high but Rangnick was never going to be a cheap option, given his contract situation at Lokomotiv. In hindsight, it was a poor decision from Murtough as Rangnick was unable to bring in his first choice support staff, not allowed to make signings and his style of football was a poor match for the squad.

Murtough and Ten Hag should be forced to adjust to the situation they created by over-spending this summer. Bring in cheap signings and sell players that are unlikely to get much game time.
 
Last edited:

Rightnr

Full Member
Joined
Jan 25, 2015
Messages
7,240
In July 2021 Rangnick signed a 3 year deal to be manager of sports and development for Lokomotiv Moscow. It is reasonable to assume that he was being paid a significant salary after his work at Red Bull. In order for United to tempt him to join us for 7 months as temporary manager, we would have had to offer him more than the amount that he would expect to make in the rest of his LM deal.

£14m seems high but Rangnick was never going to be a cheap option, given his contract situation at Lokomotiv. In hindsight, it was a poor decision from Murtough as Rangnick was unable to bring in his first choice support staff, not allowed to make signings and his style of football was a poor match for the squad.

Murtough and Ten Hag should be forced to adjust to the situation they created by over-spending this summer. Bring in cheap signings and sell players that are unlikely to get much game time.
What is this bullshit? It is not Ten Hag's responsibility to spend the club's money. He was promised signings and the club failed to execute.

There are enough people at the club being paid too much money to fail for our manager to have responsibility of transfers as well
 

ilrm

Full Member
Joined
Apr 22, 2022
Messages
582
Supports
Real Madrid
Murtough and Ten Hag should be forced to adjust to the situation they created by over-spending this summer. Bring in cheap signings and sell players that are unlikely to get much game time.
This is going to be easier than what it looks like when you consider the players whose contracts are set to expire. Rashford, Ronaldo, De Gea, Jones, Shaw, Dalot and Fred expire in 2023. That should automatically save about £55m in wages bringing down wages to £330m.
Potential sales of players in the last year of their contracts (2024) Maguire, AWB, Martial and Lindelöf, may bring in further £££.
 

Greck

Full Member
Joined
Dec 1, 2016
Messages
6,339
I love the fact we've paid Rangnick 14m but people on here were telling me the 2-year thing was only an option.

Now money says it wasn't and they look like fools (again). Although to be fair part of the 14m is probably for the NDA Ralf would have signed not to publicly embarrass the rets even more.
Yet another misread that has cost the club millions. Accumulating mistakes that would wipe out the average team's summer budget.
 
X