Dan Ashworth Leaves Man Utd

comment by Franko Cantona (U22187)
posted 1 minute ago
At least our women beat the Dippers 4-0
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Was VVD playing?

What a mess

comment by Robben Amorim (U22716)
posted 4 hours, 42 minutes ago
On Twitter they’re saying it’s because he didn’t want Ten Hag to leave. So if that’s the level of his football knowledge I’m fine with him going.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
I've read he wanted Southgate and spat his dummy out over it

https://x.com/UnitedRedReport/status/1865772738327015857?s=19

Suggestions that INEOS weren't impressed with Ashworth performance, and with all the other talent in the team both above and below him, the leadership structure appeared bloated. Very messy start to the INEOS era, and it reflects badly on Ratcliffe and Brailsford in particular. Only positive, I suppose, is if this reflects a culture in which mistakes are recognised and rectified quickly.

Best case scenario: Ashworth was solely responsible for preventing decisive action on ETH in the summer, and the new team will be much more aligned. Worst case scenario (as Rosso outlined) is Ratcliffe wanting much more personal control than he has communicated thus far, in which case we haven't left the Woodward era after all.

https://www.nytimes.com/athletic/5978018/2024/12/08/dan-ashworth-manchester-united-exit-reasons/

Some more detailed and reliable reporting on the Ashworth sacking here. Some key points:

- Ratcliffe was disappointed by Ashworth's lack of informed input on ETH replacement candidates. Apparently, the names he put forward was a list of people with PL experience: Eddie Howe, Marco Silva, Thomas Frank and Graham Potter.
- Ashworth wasn't really involved in the selection of / negotiations for Amorim. Ratcliffe was keen to select someone with the charisma to handle the burden of the United job.
- Ratcliffe was disappointed with Ashworth's lack of decisiveness / assertiveness around the head coach question, and the fact that he failed to look beyond figures he was already familiar with.
- Ashworth's core skill is as an operations manager who can optimise the organisational structure and ensure decision making works efficiently. There's a suggestion that Ratcliffe incorrectly expected him to have greater recruitment knowledge/impact, which would be a failure of due diligence on INEOS's part.
- Ashworth was popular among staff and actively working on changes to the sporting structure.
- Some see this as evidence of Ratcliffe being too involved in the running of the club. Others argue that he is naturally interested, having invested so much, but not overly influencing things. Ratcliffe himself has said: “I don’t make the decisions, but I like to feel comfortable that we’re making the correct decisions. I do get involved in most of the big decisions, but ultimately so that I can understand the rationale behind them.”
- It's possible that the executive team started to look a bit bloated, with Berrada (Ashworth's boss) able to get involved in sporting discussions as well as purely financial ones, and having a close relationship with Wilcox.

Does all beg the question where was the due diligence before appointing him.

Apparently, the names he put forward was a list of people with PL experience: Eddie Howe, Marco Silva, Thomas Frank and Graham Potter.
----
I can see where he's coming from logically but Silva, really?

The Athletic's Laurie Whitwell was on MOTD last night. Interesting short converstaion with the pundits.

https://www.bbc.co.uk/sport/football/videos/c0j1nv0epjvo

If Ashworth really was in the ETH camp... who also didnt want RA.... in this gang of Executives that Jim has assembled, then MUFC are well shut of him. The MEN are claiming that he even preferred his mate Southgate over RA. United have dodged a bullet sacking both ETH and Ashworth. But should have sacked both of them at the same time in the summer or not even appointed Ashworth after his £3M gardening leave. Especially whilst sacking low paid workers at OT and hiking the cost of tickets to save money to pay for the financial mess that they partly caused. Terrible business management by Jim and INEOS.

But Im sure United will get over it soon and progress under RA. Just keep out of things Jim... apart from your money. Thats all we want from you.

Thanks for sharing that link RBW. Agree with your wider comment. The charitable interpretation to this is that sacking Ashworth represents quickly acting on something that wasn't right. But it still means the initial decision making was flawed. INEOS wanted to bring in the best people to run the club (good). INEOS chose the wrong man for the job they had in mind (bad). It raises the question of whether INEOS also needed to rely more on external expertise to select their executives, and whether they relied too much on Brailsford's generic sporting competence over football-specific figures.

This is a shambles, but not a catastrophe if it means we go forward with a stable and coherent team. If it's evidence of a Ratcliffe tendency to stick his oar in, then my optimism about the INEOS era was misplaced.