First of all, this is not a thread claiming that the "manager is not be blamed". All of them have proved in their post-United managerial career, that they were not anything special, even though some have found some kind of success elsewhere (Moyes at West Ham, even Jose at Roma).
However, what hopefully will change under Ineos, is our short term vision, which has hampered the club and therefore any manager. Under Glazers the goal was simple; top four. They never had a clear plan or a vision of how to build a team that can challenge for titles. The only time that they seemed to understand that their strategy was flawed, was when they brought Rangnick. But then again, after a few months they had already moved away from this plan. I actually believe that Rangnick got a lot of underserving slack if we look at the bigger picture; many old players at the end of their contract, players performing poorly, Greenwood, no incoming transfers, rotten form etc. But I would agree that Rangnick was not an elite manager as well, but he was not brought to be the permanent manager. After many years of crazy spending and low achievements, the senior players who were getting paid as elite but were just either mediocre, or inconsistent and toxic (eg AWB, McT, Shaw, Rashford, Martial, Maguire, Ronaldo) would not get another chance under the new manager.
When ETH was made the manager, there was a clear red flag concerning his role on transfers and his powers. Again, the "blame game" strategy of the previous regime had started from day 1 of ETH's appointment, and ETH by his own decision, drank their poison chalice. I am sure they promised him a transfer budget and powers that he did not have with Ajax. And they delivered those to him, even though it was obvious that he had to reach top four. We did not bring ETH to rebuild the squad, which can take up to two-three years, but to deilver fast. Thus, we went in the summer just buying and chasing any player that ETH knew, and when the season started and we were getting hammered left and right, we panicked, as always, and bought Antony and Casemiro (again, someone has to wonder, would we have brought a player with Casemiro's profile with Rangnick as a consultant or in an important role?). Two years after his appointment, the same issues as before, more or less exist.
For me the success of the new manager (and the ones following him), would depend on one thing; build a structure to win titles and not just for top 4. That means that it is better to sell the underperformers in one summer and accept a mid to lower table position, than continue tolerating them for the sake of top 4 (and after spending alot again). We have a young spine that can wait for a year or two before starts challenging. Hopefully, Ineos are already monitoring these players this year and have made their plans to clear them out. Otherwise, we would need again another cycle of managers before we clear out the deadwood. No need to rush again and expect fast "success". No need to repeat the same mistakes.
However, what hopefully will change under Ineos, is our short term vision, which has hampered the club and therefore any manager. Under Glazers the goal was simple; top four. They never had a clear plan or a vision of how to build a team that can challenge for titles. The only time that they seemed to understand that their strategy was flawed, was when they brought Rangnick. But then again, after a few months they had already moved away from this plan. I actually believe that Rangnick got a lot of underserving slack if we look at the bigger picture; many old players at the end of their contract, players performing poorly, Greenwood, no incoming transfers, rotten form etc. But I would agree that Rangnick was not an elite manager as well, but he was not brought to be the permanent manager. After many years of crazy spending and low achievements, the senior players who were getting paid as elite but were just either mediocre, or inconsistent and toxic (eg AWB, McT, Shaw, Rashford, Martial, Maguire, Ronaldo) would not get another chance under the new manager.
When ETH was made the manager, there was a clear red flag concerning his role on transfers and his powers. Again, the "blame game" strategy of the previous regime had started from day 1 of ETH's appointment, and ETH by his own decision, drank their poison chalice. I am sure they promised him a transfer budget and powers that he did not have with Ajax. And they delivered those to him, even though it was obvious that he had to reach top four. We did not bring ETH to rebuild the squad, which can take up to two-three years, but to deilver fast. Thus, we went in the summer just buying and chasing any player that ETH knew, and when the season started and we were getting hammered left and right, we panicked, as always, and bought Antony and Casemiro (again, someone has to wonder, would we have brought a player with Casemiro's profile with Rangnick as a consultant or in an important role?). Two years after his appointment, the same issues as before, more or less exist.
For me the success of the new manager (and the ones following him), would depend on one thing; build a structure to win titles and not just for top 4. That means that it is better to sell the underperformers in one summer and accept a mid to lower table position, than continue tolerating them for the sake of top 4 (and after spending alot again). We have a young spine that can wait for a year or two before starts challenging. Hopefully, Ineos are already monitoring these players this year and have made their plans to clear them out. Otherwise, we would need again another cycle of managers before we clear out the deadwood. No need to rush again and expect fast "success". No need to repeat the same mistakes.