Amorim confirmed!

comment by Punbrey Plaza (U21588)
posted 33 seconds ago
comment by The Process (U20671)
posted 21 minutes ago
comment by Baz tard - Ineos your face (U19119)
posted 9 minutes ago
comment by The Process (U20671)
posted 10 minutes ago
comment by Baz tard - Ineos your face (U19119)
posted 4 minutes ago
comment by The Process (U20671)
posted 11 seconds ago
comment by Baz tard - Ineos your face (U19119)
posted 10 minutes ago
Amorim will do for a year til his inevitable failure and sir Gareth comes I.

----------------------------------------------------------------------
Still amusing that some actually thought he was a viable option
----------------------------------------------------------------------
7) Romano states southgate is the best option. The process blindly follows, along with his suggestion that Rolf Harris should be assistant manager.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
The daily Mail states Southgate could join and plans to sign Kalvin Phillips and put him in a trio of DM’s in front of a back 5. Baz believes this could happen.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Baz doesn't read the daily mail. But is surprisingly invited to the process and Romani’s wedding.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Who’s this Romani? Not sure the missus would be too impressed.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
He's a journeyman
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Yeah, travels a lot

comment by Playmaker
posted 41 minutes ago
comment by Vengeance (U23079)
posted 23 minutes ago
Piff,

The jury is still out on the new sporting structure. Initially, they impressed with their transfer approach, identifying multiple targets, closing deals early, and walking away when valuations didn’t meet their budget. Many of us saw their first transfer as a resounding success. However, in hindsight, they mishandled EtH’s contract. They explained that Ashworth needed more time to assess EtH, hoping Erik would deliver enough to get through successive transfer windows. This might have given the new structure time to complete a squad overhaul.

Now, with their chosen manager in place, the spotlight is on Ashworth to clean up the squad, moving players and characters that negatively impact the club’s culture. In my view, though, culture starts with ownership and filters down. It’s difficult to set a positive tone if the main owners are indifferent, treating the sporting structure as less important. So can Sir Jim et al truly steer Utd toward sporting excellence when the ownership seems detached? This new quasi ownership may well be at the root of many issues, with deeper complications present at the sporting level. What's clear the Glazers have destroyed us as a "football" entity, we are set up to fail prospective managers. While change is exciting, I can’t help but feel a sense of dread that Amorim won’t be given the time he needs to set things right. I hope he proves me wrong by achieving success from the start and, hopefully, lasting well beyond 2 years!
----------------------------------------------------------------------

I think the problem for INEOS is they came in with a manager already in place but who had only been there 18 months. And one that had come in after successive managers had tried and failed.

When Mansoor's lot took over they came in a few months after Hughes had been appointed manager. 18 months later he was gone. The difference was there was no pressure on City or their new owners as a club. They had little or no history of note. United are the complete opposite and so the pressure and spotlight is more.

This is probably not a popular view on here, but I liked the fact INEOS were prepared to stick with Ten Hag. To show some faith and give him time. It's a lot better than the d1khead who's taken over at Chelsea imo, sacking managers short term on a "hit and hope" approach until they find the right man.

I accept it would've been better to sack Ten Hag after the FA Cup, but I also respect the fact they were willing to shoe some faith in him and there's something about the way we do things, sticking with someone which is traditionally United's way.

I don't think it means we should question the new sporting structure or ppl like Ashworth. I reckon they're going to get it right but in an ideal world they would've come in, appointed their own manager straight away, and recruited players to suit, but it's not the way it works and what's more further complicated by the incompetence of Woodward and Murtough before them which impacted on Ten Hag's tenure as well with the players brought in before INEOS arrived.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
We should absolutely question the structure, rightfully so until it delivers success. It’s too early to dismiss them entirely, which is why the jury is still out. Until Sir Jim gains full control with a majority shareholding, complications at the executive level will persist, and issues at the sporting level may remain unresolved.

https://www.instagram.com/reel/DByuuJNPx4E/?igsh=MWF1MHB6bmpjaGozYw==

comment by Arctic Monkey (U14534)
posted 22 minutes ago
comment by Playmaker (U22780)
posted 34 minutes ago
comment by Vengeance (U23079)
posted 23 minutes ago
Piff,

The jury is still out on the new sporting structure. Initially, they impressed with their transfer approach, identifying multiple targets, closing deals early, and walking away when valuations didn’t meet their budget. Many of us saw their first transfer as a resounding success. However, in hindsight, they mishandled EtH’s contract. They explained that Ashworth needed more time to assess EtH, hoping Erik would deliver enough to get through successive transfer windows. This might have given the new structure time to complete a squad overhaul.

Now, with their chosen manager in place, the spotlight is on Ashworth to clean up the squad, moving players and characters that negatively impact the club’s culture. In my view, though, culture starts with ownership and filters down. It’s difficult to set a positive tone if the main owners are indifferent, treating the sporting structure as less important. So can Sir Jim et al truly steer Utd toward sporting excellence when the ownership seems detached? This new quasi ownership may well be at the root of many issues, with deeper complications present at the sporting level. What's clear the Glazers have destroyed us as a "football" entity, we are set up to fail prospective managers. While change is exciting, I can’t help but feel a sense of dread that Amorim won’t be given the time he needs to set things right. I hope he proves me wrong by achieving success from the start and, hopefully, lasting well beyond 2 years!
----------------------------------------------------------------------

I think the problem for INEOS is they came in with a manager already in place but who had only been there 18 months. And one that had come in after successive managers had tried and failed.

When Mansoor's lot took over they came in a few months after Hughes had been appointed manager. 18 months later he was gone. The difference was there was no pressure on City or their new owners as a club. They had little or no history of note. United are the complete opposite and so the pressure and spotlight is more.

This is probably not a popular view on here, but I liked the fact INEOS were prepared to stick with Ten Hag. To show some faith and give him time. It's a lot better than the d1khead who's taken over at Chelsea imo, sacking managers short term on a "hit and hope" approach until they find the right man.

I accept it would've been better to sack Ten Hag after the FA Cup, but I also respect the fact they were willing to shoe some faith in him and there's something about the way we do things, sticking with someone which is traditionally United's way.

I don't think it means we should question the new sporting structure or ppl like Ashworth. I reckon they're going to get it right but in an ideal world they would've come in, appointed their own manager straight away, and recruited players to suit, but it's not the way it works and what's more further complicated by the incompetence of Woodward and Murtough before them which impacted on Ten Hag's tenure as well with the players brought in before INEOS arrived.
----------------------------------------------------------------------

The new structure being put in place is designed to do distance the Glazers from the football side of things and allow football people to run the football side of the club. Had ETH got the team playing early in the season, he would have had a chance to benefit from this, unfortunately that wasn't to be. As someone said above, it was worth giving him a chance as coming in and sacking the manager straight away heaps even more pressure on them.

We look to have the right people in the right roles now, this should show positivity from the top (with the Glazers taking a back seat). It's still not a quick fix but they need to be given time to turn it around, hopefully Amorim will make a positive start, I'm sure expectations will be low this season and pushing for top 4 will be good enough next season (for Ineos). That gives at least 18 months and a few more transfer windows to see how the new manager/management will work out.
----------------------------------------------------------------------

Agree with this. Ultimately the minimum I'd like to see for the rest of the season is our performances improve, a clear identity to the style of football from Amorim, and our players buying into it and playing with confidence.

All of that tbf is nowt to do with the sporting structure. It's now out of their hands until at least the summer.

comment by Vengeance (U23079)
posted 25 minutes ago
comment by Playmaker
posted 41 minutes ago
comment by Vengeance (U23079)
posted 23 minutes ago
Piff,

The jury is still out on the new sporting structure. Initially, they impressed with their transfer approach, identifying multiple targets, closing deals early, and walking away when valuations didn’t meet their budget. Many of us saw their first transfer as a resounding success. However, in hindsight, they mishandled EtH’s contract. They explained that Ashworth needed more time to assess EtH, hoping Erik would deliver enough to get through successive transfer windows. This might have given the new structure time to complete a squad overhaul.

Now, with their chosen manager in place, the spotlight is on Ashworth to clean up the squad, moving players and characters that negatively impact the club’s culture. In my view, though, culture starts with ownership and filters down. It’s difficult to set a positive tone if the main owners are indifferent, treating the sporting structure as less important. So can Sir Jim et al truly steer Utd toward sporting excellence when the ownership seems detached? This new quasi ownership may well be at the root of many issues, with deeper complications present at the sporting level. What's clear the Glazers have destroyed us as a "football" entity, we are set up to fail prospective managers. While change is exciting, I can’t help but feel a sense of dread that Amorim won’t be given the time he needs to set things right. I hope he proves me wrong by achieving success from the start and, hopefully, lasting well beyond 2 years!
----------------------------------------------------------------------

I think the problem for INEOS is they came in with a manager already in place but who had only been there 18 months. And one that had come in after successive managers had tried and failed.

When Mansoor's lot took over they came in a few months after Hughes had been appointed manager. 18 months later he was gone. The difference was there was no pressure on City or their new owners as a club. They had little or no history of note. United are the complete opposite and so the pressure and spotlight is more.

This is probably not a popular view on here, but I liked the fact INEOS were prepared to stick with Ten Hag. To show some faith and give him time. It's a lot better than the d1khead who's taken over at Chelsea imo, sacking managers short term on a "hit and hope" approach until they find the right man.

I accept it would've been better to sack Ten Hag after the FA Cup, but I also respect the fact they were willing to shoe some faith in him and there's something about the way we do things, sticking with someone which is traditionally United's way.

I don't think it means we should question the new sporting structure or ppl like Ashworth. I reckon they're going to get it right but in an ideal world they would've come in, appointed their own manager straight away, and recruited players to suit, but it's not the way it works and what's more further complicated by the incompetence of Woodward and Murtough before them which impacted on Ten Hag's tenure as well with the players brought in before INEOS arrived.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
We should absolutely question the structure, rightfully so until it delivers success. It’s too early to dismiss them entirely, which is why the jury is still out. Until Sir Jim gains full control with a majority shareholding, complications at the executive level will persist, and issues at the sporting level may remain unresolved.

----------------------------------------------------------------------

The problem is though mate, as I've posted above there's not much they can do until at least the summer. Whether we like it or not it's now down to the incoming manager until at least the summer. What's left to question until then? Maybe the appointment of Amorim if it all goes pete tong but that's about it.

comment by Vengeance (U23079)
posted 34 minutes ago
comment by Playmaker
posted 41 minutes ago
comment by Vengeance (U23079)
posted 23 minutes ago
Piff,

The jury is still out on the new sporting structure. Initially, they impressed with their transfer approach, identifying multiple targets, closing deals early, and walking away when valuations didn’t meet their budget. Many of us saw their first transfer as a resounding success. However, in hindsight, they mishandled EtH’s contract. They explained that Ashworth needed more time to assess EtH, hoping Erik would deliver enough to get through successive transfer windows. This might have given the new structure time to complete a squad overhaul.

Now, with their chosen manager in place, the spotlight is on Ashworth to clean up the squad, moving players and characters that negatively impact the club’s culture. In my view, though, culture starts with ownership and filters down. It’s difficult to set a positive tone if the main owners are indifferent, treating the sporting structure as less important. So can Sir Jim et al truly steer Utd toward sporting excellence when the ownership seems detached? This new quasi ownership may well be at the root of many issues, with deeper complications present at the sporting level. What's clear the Glazers have destroyed us as a "football" entity, we are set up to fail prospective managers. While change is exciting, I can’t help but feel a sense of dread that Amorim won’t be given the time he needs to set things right. I hope he proves me wrong by achieving success from the start and, hopefully, lasting well beyond 2 years!
----------------------------------------------------------------------

I think the problem for INEOS is they came in with a manager already in place but who had only been there 18 months. And one that had come in after successive managers had tried and failed.

When Mansoor's lot took over they came in a few months after Hughes had been appointed manager. 18 months later he was gone. The difference was there was no pressure on City or their new owners as a club. They had little or no history of note. United are the complete opposite and so the pressure and spotlight is more.

This is probably not a popular view on here, but I liked the fact INEOS were prepared to stick with Ten Hag. To show some faith and give him time. It's a lot better than the d1khead who's taken over at Chelsea imo, sacking managers short term on a "hit and hope" approach until they find the right man.

I accept it would've been better to sack Ten Hag after the FA Cup, but I also respect the fact they were willing to shoe some faith in him and there's something about the way we do things, sticking with someone which is traditionally United's way.

I don't think it means we should question the new sporting structure or ppl like Ashworth. I reckon they're going to get it right but in an ideal world they would've come in, appointed their own manager straight away, and recruited players to suit, but it's not the way it works and what's more further complicated by the incompetence of Woodward and Murtough before them which impacted on Ten Hag's tenure as well with the players brought in before INEOS arrived.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
We should absolutely question the structure, rightfully so until it delivers success. It’s too early to dismiss them entirely, which is why the jury is still out. Until Sir Jim gains full control with a majority shareholding, complications at the executive level will persist, and issues at the sporting level may remain unresolved.

----------------------------------------------------------------------

I won't be questioning them this early on, they need time to get things in order, especially given the mess they walked into (Albeit with open eyes).

I still think the signs are good and they have done very well so far. We seem to have experts in the decision making positions and a positive first window. My opinion hasn't changed on any of this because they decided to give ETH a chance after winning the FA cup. It could've gone either way but unfortunately didn't work out

comment by Playmaker
posted 22 minutes ago
comment by Vengeance (U23079)
posted 25 minutes ago
comment by Playmaker
posted 41 minutes ago
comment by Vengeance (U23079)
posted 23 minutes ago
Piff,

The jury is still out on the new sporting structure. Initially, they impressed with their transfer approach, identifying multiple targets, closing deals early, and walking away when valuations didn’t meet their budget. Many of us saw their first transfer as a resounding success. However, in hindsight, they mishandled EtH’s contract. They explained that Ashworth needed more time to assess EtH, hoping Erik would deliver enough to get through successive transfer windows. This might have given the new structure time to complete a squad overhaul.

Now, with their chosen manager in place, the spotlight is on Ashworth to clean up the squad, moving players and characters that negatively impact the club’s culture. In my view, though, culture starts with ownership and filters down. It’s difficult to set a positive tone if the main owners are indifferent, treating the sporting structure as less important. So can Sir Jim et al truly steer Utd toward sporting excellence when the ownership seems detached? This new quasi ownership may well be at the root of many issues, with deeper complications present at the sporting level. What's clear the Glazers have destroyed us as a "football" entity, we are set up to fail prospective managers. While change is exciting, I can’t help but feel a sense of dread that Amorim won’t be given the time he needs to set things right. I hope he proves me wrong by achieving success from the start and, hopefully, lasting well beyond 2 years!
----------------------------------------------------------------------

I think the problem for INEOS is they came in with a manager already in place but who had only been there 18 months. And one that had come in after successive managers had tried and failed.

When Mansoor's lot took over they came in a few months after Hughes had been appointed manager. 18 months later he was gone. The difference was there was no pressure on City or their new owners as a club. They had little or no history of note. United are the complete opposite and so the pressure and spotlight is more.

This is probably not a popular view on here, but I liked the fact INEOS were prepared to stick with Ten Hag. To show some faith and give him time. It's a lot better than the d1khead who's taken over at Chelsea imo, sacking managers short term on a "hit and hope" approach until they find the right man.

I accept it would've been better to sack Ten Hag after the FA Cup, but I also respect the fact they were willing to shoe some faith in him and there's something about the way we do things, sticking with someone which is traditionally United's way.

I don't think it means we should question the new sporting structure or ppl like Ashworth. I reckon they're going to get it right but in an ideal world they would've come in, appointed their own manager straight away, and recruited players to suit, but it's not the way it works and what's more further complicated by the incompetence of Woodward and Murtough before them which impacted on Ten Hag's tenure as well with the players brought in before INEOS arrived.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
We should absolutely question the structure, rightfully so until it delivers success. It’s too early to dismiss them entirely, which is why the jury is still out. Until Sir Jim gains full control with a majority shareholding, complications at the executive level will persist, and issues at the sporting level may remain unresolved.

----------------------------------------------------------------------

The problem is though mate, as I've posted above there's not much they can do until at least the summer. Whether we like it or not it's now down to the incoming manager until at least the summer. What's left to question until then? Maybe the appointment of Amorim if it all goes pete tong but that's about it.
----------------------------------------------------------------------

This is a long term project, and while the challenges posed by the complexity and size of Utd are significant, especially with Sir Jim holding only a minority stake, it should not be exempt from scrutiny. Every aspect must be held accountable. My belief in them is not lacking, but it's too early to make definitive statements at this stage. The sporting team and coach now operate as a cohesive unit, with the coach selected by the sporting team. The DOF builds the squad, while the coach chooses the team. Every aspect will be closely examined until success is achieved. That’s my perspective, and I respect that others may have different views.

comment by Vengeance (U23079)
posted 1 minute ago
comment by Playmaker
posted 22 minutes ago
comment by Vengeance (U23079)
posted 25 minutes ago
comment by Playmaker
posted 41 minutes ago
comment by Vengeance (U23079)
posted 23 minutes ago
Piff,

The jury is still out on the new sporting structure. Initially, they impressed with their transfer approach, identifying multiple targets, closing deals early, and walking away when valuations didn’t meet their budget. Many of us saw their first transfer as a resounding success. However, in hindsight, they mishandled EtH’s contract. They explained that Ashworth needed more time to assess EtH, hoping Erik would deliver enough to get through successive transfer windows. This might have given the new structure time to complete a squad overhaul.

Now, with their chosen manager in place, the spotlight is on Ashworth to clean up the squad, moving players and characters that negatively impact the club’s culture. In my view, though, culture starts with ownership and filters down. It’s difficult to set a positive tone if the main owners are indifferent, treating the sporting structure as less important. So can Sir Jim et al truly steer Utd toward sporting excellence when the ownership seems detached? This new quasi ownership may well be at the root of many issues, with deeper complications present at the sporting level. What's clear the Glazers have destroyed us as a "football" entity, we are set up to fail prospective managers. While change is exciting, I can’t help but feel a sense of dread that Amorim won’t be given the time he needs to set things right. I hope he proves me wrong by achieving success from the start and, hopefully, lasting well beyond 2 years!
----------------------------------------------------------------------

I think the problem for INEOS is they came in with a manager already in place but who had only been there 18 months. And one that had come in after successive managers had tried and failed.

When Mansoor's lot took over they came in a few months after Hughes had been appointed manager. 18 months later he was gone. The difference was there was no pressure on City or their new owners as a club. They had little or no history of note. United are the complete opposite and so the pressure and spotlight is more.

This is probably not a popular view on here, but I liked the fact INEOS were prepared to stick with Ten Hag. To show some faith and give him time. It's a lot better than the d1khead who's taken over at Chelsea imo, sacking managers short term on a "hit and hope" approach until they find the right man.

I accept it would've been better to sack Ten Hag after the FA Cup, but I also respect the fact they were willing to shoe some faith in him and there's something about the way we do things, sticking with someone which is traditionally United's way.

I don't think it means we should question the new sporting structure or ppl like Ashworth. I reckon they're going to get it right but in an ideal world they would've come in, appointed their own manager straight away, and recruited players to suit, but it's not the way it works and what's more further complicated by the incompetence of Woodward and Murtough before them which impacted on Ten Hag's tenure as well with the players brought in before INEOS arrived.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
We should absolutely question the structure, rightfully so until it delivers success. It’s too early to dismiss them entirely, which is why the jury is still out. Until Sir Jim gains full control with a majority shareholding, complications at the executive level will persist, and issues at the sporting level may remain unresolved.

----------------------------------------------------------------------

The problem is though mate, as I've posted above there's not much they can do until at least the summer. Whether we like it or not it's now down to the incoming manager until at least the summer. What's left to question until then? Maybe the appointment of Amorim if it all goes pete tong but that's about it.
----------------------------------------------------------------------

This is a long term project, and while the challenges posed by the complexity and size of Utd are significant, especially with Sir Jim holding only a minority stake, it should not be exempt from scrutiny. Every aspect must be held accountable. My belief in them is not lacking, but it's too early to make definitive statements at this stage. The sporting team and coach now operate as a cohesive unit, with the coach selected by the sporting team. The DOF builds the squad, while the coach chooses the team. Every aspect will be closely examined until success is achieved. That’s my perspective, and I respect that others may have different views.

----------------------------------------------------------------------

I don't disagree with any of that. I just think it's a bit early to question/scrutinise/criticise whether they're doing things right or wrong based on what happened with Ten Hag. The rest I agree with

Btw Sir Jim holds a minority stake, but if we're to believe what he said a couple of weeks ago, that he won't interfere in footballing matters relating to what happens on the pitch, and those decisions are down to others e.g. Omar, Ashworth etc, then the only thing we can assume/hope for is that the Glazers do the exact same!

I appreciate Sir Jim ultimately will be deciding income/expenditure and infrastructure projects etc but that should happen either way regardless of the football we play, the manager, the academy, and player recruitment.

comment by Playmaker
posted 2 minutes ago
comment by Vengeance (U23079)
posted 1 minute ago
comment by Playmaker
posted 22 minutes ago
comment by Vengeance (U23079)
posted 25 minutes ago
comment by Playmaker
posted 41 minutes ago
comment by Vengeance (U23079)
posted 23 minutes ago
Piff,

The jury is still out on the new sporting structure. Initially, they impressed with their transfer approach, identifying multiple targets, closing deals early, and walking away when valuations didn’t meet their budget. Many of us saw their first transfer as a resounding success. However, in hindsight, they mishandled EtH’s contract. They explained that Ashworth needed more time to assess EtH, hoping Erik would deliver enough to get through successive transfer windows. This might have given the new structure time to complete a squad overhaul.

Now, with their chosen manager in place, the spotlight is on Ashworth to clean up the squad, moving players and characters that negatively impact the club’s culture. In my view, though, culture starts with ownership and filters down. It’s difficult to set a positive tone if the main owners are indifferent, treating the sporting structure as less important. So can Sir Jim et al truly steer Utd toward sporting excellence when the ownership seems detached? This new quasi ownership may well be at the root of many issues, with deeper complications present at the sporting level. What's clear the Glazers have destroyed us as a "football" entity, we are set up to fail prospective managers. While change is exciting, I can’t help but feel a sense of dread that Amorim won’t be given the time he needs to set things right. I hope he proves me wrong by achieving success from the start and, hopefully, lasting well beyond 2 years!
----------------------------------------------------------------------

I think the problem for INEOS is they came in with a manager already in place but who had only been there 18 months. And one that had come in after successive managers had tried and failed.

When Mansoor's lot took over they came in a few months after Hughes had been appointed manager. 18 months later he was gone. The difference was there was no pressure on City or their new owners as a club. They had little or no history of note. United are the complete opposite and so the pressure and spotlight is more.

This is probably not a popular view on here, but I liked the fact INEOS were prepared to stick with Ten Hag. To show some faith and give him time. It's a lot better than the d1khead who's taken over at Chelsea imo, sacking managers short term on a "hit and hope" approach until they find the right man.

I accept it would've been better to sack Ten Hag after the FA Cup, but I also respect the fact they were willing to shoe some faith in him and there's something about the way we do things, sticking with someone which is traditionally United's way.

I don't think it means we should question the new sporting structure or ppl like Ashworth. I reckon they're going to get it right but in an ideal world they would've come in, appointed their own manager straight away, and recruited players to suit, but it's not the way it works and what's more further complicated by the incompetence of Woodward and Murtough before them which impacted on Ten Hag's tenure as well with the players brought in before INEOS arrived.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
We should absolutely question the structure, rightfully so until it delivers success. It’s too early to dismiss them entirely, which is why the jury is still out. Until Sir Jim gains full control with a majority shareholding, complications at the executive level will persist, and issues at the sporting level may remain unresolved.

----------------------------------------------------------------------

The problem is though mate, as I've posted above there's not much they can do until at least the summer. Whether we like it or not it's now down to the incoming manager until at least the summer. What's left to question until then? Maybe the appointment of Amorim if it all goes pete tong but that's about it.
----------------------------------------------------------------------

This is a long term project, and while the challenges posed by the complexity and size of Utd are significant, especially with Sir Jim holding only a minority stake, it should not be exempt from scrutiny. Every aspect must be held accountable. My belief in them is not lacking, but it's too early to make definitive statements at this stage. The sporting team and coach now operate as a cohesive unit, with the coach selected by the sporting team. The DOF builds the squad, while the coach chooses the team. Every aspect will be closely examined until success is achieved. That’s my perspective, and I respect that others may have different views.

----------------------------------------------------------------------

I don't disagree with any of that. I just think it's a bit early to question/scrutinise/criticise whether they're doing things right or wrong based on what happened with Ten Hag. The rest I agree with

Btw Sir Jim holds a minority stake, but if we're to believe what he said a couple of weeks ago, that he won't interfere in footballing matters relating to what happens on the pitch, and those decisions are down to others e.g. Omar, Ashworth etc, then the only thing we can assume/hope for is that the Glazers do the exact same!

I appreciate Sir Jim ultimately will be deciding income/expenditure and infrastructure projects etc but that should happen either way regardless of the football we play, the manager, the academy, and player recruitment.
----------------------------------------------------------------------

Their initial decision was to back EtH, which proved to be a mistake, leading to a strategy that ultimately supported EtH at a considerable cost in the transfer market. Now, with nearly half the season gone, we're struggling in the league and Europe, making this season feel like a write-off. The new manager may introduce a system we’ve never seen before, raising doubts about whether he has the resources to effectively utilise the squad.

There are many uncertainties that could have been avoided had the right decisions been made in the summer. It's also unclear whether Ashworth has established a blueprint for future success, outlining the playing style, tactics, and formations that would guide the squad rebuild. With Almorim in charge, will a 3 at the back defensive setup be the norm moving forward? This is what I mean by the need for scrutiny!

comment by Vengeance (U23079)
posted 9 minutes ago
comment by Playmaker
posted 2 minutes ago
comment by Vengeance (U23079)
posted 1 minute ago
comment by Playmaker
posted 22 minutes ago
comment by Vengeance (U23079)
posted 25 minutes ago
comment by Playmaker
posted 41 minutes ago
comment by Vengeance (U23079)
posted 23 minutes ago
Piff,

The jury is still out on the new sporting structure. Initially, they impressed with their transfer approach, identifying multiple targets, closing deals early, and walking away when valuations didn’t meet their budget. Many of us saw their first transfer as a resounding success. However, in hindsight, they mishandled EtH’s contract. They explained that Ashworth needed more time to assess EtH, hoping Erik would deliver enough to get through successive transfer windows. This might have given the new structure time to complete a squad overhaul.

Now, with their chosen manager in place, the spotlight is on Ashworth to clean up the squad, moving players and characters that negatively impact the club’s culture. In my view, though, culture starts with ownership and filters down. It’s difficult to set a positive tone if the main owners are indifferent, treating the sporting structure as less important. So can Sir Jim et al truly steer Utd toward sporting excellence when the ownership seems detached? This new quasi ownership may well be at the root of many issues, with deeper complications present at the sporting level. What's clear the Glazers have destroyed us as a "football" entity, we are set up to fail prospective managers. While change is exciting, I can’t help but feel a sense of dread that Amorim won’t be given the time he needs to set things right. I hope he proves me wrong by achieving success from the start and, hopefully, lasting well beyond 2 years!
----------------------------------------------------------------------

I think the problem for INEOS is they came in with a manager already in place but who had only been there 18 months. And one that had come in after successive managers had tried and failed.

When Mansoor's lot took over they came in a few months after Hughes had been appointed manager. 18 months later he was gone. The difference was there was no pressure on City or their new owners as a club. They had little or no history of note. United are the complete opposite and so the pressure and spotlight is more.

This is probably not a popular view on here, but I liked the fact INEOS were prepared to stick with Ten Hag. To show some faith and give him time. It's a lot better than the d1khead who's taken over at Chelsea imo, sacking managers short term on a "hit and hope" approach until they find the right man.

I accept it would've been better to sack Ten Hag after the FA Cup, but I also respect the fact they were willing to shoe some faith in him and there's something about the way we do things, sticking with someone which is traditionally United's way.

I don't think it means we should question the new sporting structure or ppl like Ashworth. I reckon they're going to get it right but in an ideal world they would've come in, appointed their own manager straight away, and recruited players to suit, but it's not the way it works and what's more further complicated by the incompetence of Woodward and Murtough before them which impacted on Ten Hag's tenure as well with the players brought in before INEOS arrived.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
We should absolutely question the structure, rightfully so until it delivers success. It’s too early to dismiss them entirely, which is why the jury is still out. Until Sir Jim gains full control with a majority shareholding, complications at the executive level will persist, and issues at the sporting level may remain unresolved.

----------------------------------------------------------------------

The problem is though mate, as I've posted above there's not much they can do until at least the summer. Whether we like it or not it's now down to the incoming manager until at least the summer. What's left to question until then? Maybe the appointment of Amorim if it all goes pete tong but that's about it.
----------------------------------------------------------------------

This is a long term project, and while the challenges posed by the complexity and size of Utd are significant, especially with Sir Jim holding only a minority stake, it should not be exempt from scrutiny. Every aspect must be held accountable. My belief in them is not lacking, but it's too early to make definitive statements at this stage. The sporting team and coach now operate as a cohesive unit, with the coach selected by the sporting team. The DOF builds the squad, while the coach chooses the team. Every aspect will be closely examined until success is achieved. That’s my perspective, and I respect that others may have different views.

----------------------------------------------------------------------

I don't disagree with any of that. I just think it's a bit early to question/scrutinise/criticise whether they're doing things right or wrong based on what happened with Ten Hag. The rest I agree with

Btw Sir Jim holds a minority stake, but if we're to believe what he said a couple of weeks ago, that he won't interfere in footballing matters relating to what happens on the pitch, and those decisions are down to others e.g. Omar, Ashworth etc, then the only thing we can assume/hope for is that the Glazers do the exact same!

I appreciate Sir Jim ultimately will be deciding income/expenditure and infrastructure projects etc but that should happen either way regardless of the football we play, the manager, the academy, and player recruitment.
----------------------------------------------------------------------

Their initial decision was to back EtH, which proved to be a mistake, leading to a strategy that ultimately supported EtH at a considerable cost in the transfer market. Now, with nearly half the season gone, we're struggling in the league and Europe, making this season feel like a write-off. The new manager may introduce a system we’ve never seen before, raising doubts about whether he has the resources to effectively utilise the squad.

There are many uncertainties that could have been avoided had the right decisions been made in the summer. It's also unclear whether Ashworth has established a blueprint for future success, outlining the playing style, tactics, and formations that would guide the squad rebuild. With Almorim in charge, will a 3 at the back defensive setup be the norm moving forward? This is what I mean by the need for scrutiny!
----------------------------------------------------------------------

On the last point I agree, Ashworth, Omar, Wilcox, Vivell if he's still there, should implement the blueprint of the playing style and recruit a manager that implements this. That's the model most successful clubs work with... and we're just beginning to put that in place. So it will take time.

But formations and the finer details of tactics? I'm not sure they'll hold the reins that tight. Look at Livpl under Klopp. The overall identity of the football was high intensity, high press, regain possession and counter attack. But Klopp transitioned his formation as he went along, for example bringing Trent into midfield to create overloads in midfield leaving 3 at the back when they held possession. Still very much part of the high press, high intensity attack.

I'd like to think that whatever the ethos of the football Ashworth etc have put in place, from what they've seen of Amorim and the discussions they've had with each other, that he fits the bill and the finer details of formations, tactics are left up to him to deliver that.

But honestly, I'm no expert on this so if it all sounds naive on my part I'll hold my hands up. My feeling is there's a setup now that looks right, with ppl who've proven themselves in the past so I'm optimistic they've gone into this appointment the right way and they know what they're doing. Certainly a heck of a lot better than the previous lot!