Erik ten Hag - Manchester United manager

Big Ben Foster said:
Can vetoes (in general, not specifically the manager's) get overriden if there is unanimity from everybody else? If every person on the committee has a veto and there's no mechanism for overriding a veto, it could lead to analysis paralysis and gridlock down the line.
Click to expand...

What you are suggesting is a vote not a veto. That's why the veto thing is silly. Imagine if the club is working on a limited budget and they found the next Zidane. Unfortunately that would take 1/3 of the budget and he might need 1-2 years to mature. The manager whose assessment is pretty much performance based might veto the deal because he wants an immediate fix
 
Ten Hag's original contract was to finish at the end of the 2024/25 season, with United board having the option of extending it by a further 12 months which they have done now.

In the two seasons with United. Only Liverpool,Man City,Arsenal have got more league points than United and played in three domestic cup finals winning two of them.
 
devilish said:
He strikes me as a person who sticks to his core values more then anything else. That's not necessarily a bad thing. There are many system managers like him. However you cannot play the Mutual destruction game with guys like that by providing them with a veto cause they can be quite stubborn about it
.
Its been reported that ETH signed for us on the condition he has a veto, that ineos were set to offer him a 3 yr contract but they want that veto gone. We opted to trigger the 1 yr extension instead. This argument is far from over
Click to expand...

It certainly isn't perfect and obviously hasn't been a smooth process to get to this point.

Still, I think I'm going to be like that little dog with the hat in that meme, and hope for the best!
 
devilish said:
That a vote not a veto
Click to expand...
Not necessarily. The US President, for example, can veto legislation, but that veto can be overriden.

devilish said:
Imagine if the club is working on a limited budget and they found the next Zidane. Unfortunately that would take 1/3 of the budget and he might need 1-2 years to mature. The manager whose assessment is pretty much performance based might veto the deal because he wants an immediate fix
Click to expand...
Agree 100% which is another reason I hope there's an override mechanism in place.
 
Crimson King said:
It certainly isn't perfect and obviously hasn't been a smooth process to get to this point.

Still, I think I'm going to be like that little dog with the hat in that meme, and hope for the best!
Click to expand...

I am NOT anti ETH. I am just saying how silly the veto thing is in practice. I've been against it since it popped up under Moyes. We lost so many great talent because of it from Thiago to kroos
 
devilish said:
I am NOT anti ETH. I am just saying how silly the veto thing is in practice. I've been against it since it popped up under Moyes. We lost so many great talent because of it from Thiago to kroos
Click to expand...

Yeah agreed it's a stupid thing, and I don't think it's the kind of thing Ashworth would ever agree to judging by some of his past comments. So we'll see what happens in the long run...

If you disagree you should come together and discuss why that is and then come to a solution. Having a veto just acts as a way to shut down the conversation.

Feels like a lot of managers post- SAF have wanted the same level of power that SAF had, without having to earn it.
 
Fantastic news! Shows the club are not knee jerk, not reacting to hysterical internet fans and the gutter press. Lets see how Ten Hag does with support from football bosses not bankers, I am sure once the squad depth is improved beyond the first eleven we will see even more success.
 
Crimson King said:
Yeah agreed it's a stupid thing, and I don't think it's the kind of thing Ashworth would ever agree to judging by some of his past comments. So we'll see what happens in the long run...

If you disagree you should come together and discuss why that is and then come to a solution. Having a veto just acts as a way to shut down the conversation.

Feels like a lot of managers post- SAF have wanted the same level of power that SAF had, without having to earn it.
Click to expand...

What many fans and the club itself fail to understand is how unique SAF was. He was basically an elite manager, an elite sporting director, an elite technical director, an elite head of recruitment and an elite CEO rolled in one.No wonder why when he retired, Gill followed him to the door.

No modern manager is anywhere near to him in a holistic way. Someone like pep might be a better tactician but he will severely lag on everything else. That's why the veto must go. Its like having a pianist dictating how the entire orchestra should play
 
Big Ben Foster said:
Can vetoes (in general, not specifically the manager's) get overriden if there is unanimity from everybody else? If every person on the committee has a veto and there's no mechanism for overriding a veto, it could lead to analysis paralysis and gridlock down the line.
Click to expand...
I would imagine it’s similar to a vote. If for example there were 6 plus the manager choosing a player and it was 3-3 maybe even 4-2 for, then th could put his reason why he’s not keen iand say no
 
Stay on in the job - no problem if we deem there not to be a better fit right now.
But why extend the contract?
Trying to see the logic in that. Have a much better season next year, then do it surely?
 
1. Get rid of him
2. Okay keep him but strip him of his powers
3. Extend his current contract

Just a weird process to go from these different stages.
 
Berbaclass said:
1. Get rid of him
2. Okay keep him but strip him of his powers
3. Extend his current contract and let him keep his powers

Just a weird process to go from these different stages.
Click to expand...

Fixed.

But seriously, wtf is that arc. What was the point of the extension then? Why not just wait at least until January to see how he does in the new season?

I understand nothing from how the club is being run.
 
MadMike said:
Fixed.

But seriously, wtf is that arc. What was the point of the extension then? Why not just wait at least until January to see how he does in the new season?

I understand nothing from how the club is being run.
Click to expand...
I thought that didn't need saying to be fair.
 
MadMike said:
Fixed.

But seriously, wtf is that arc. What was the point of the extension then? Why not just wait at least until January to see how he does in the new season?

I understand nothing from how the club is being run.
Click to expand...

Ineos botched it all is the long and short of it. Fatally undermined the manager in the last week of the season and in the review afterwards, planned to replace him, failed to replace him, publicly announced he'd get a new contract to try and rescue the narrative, then failed to agree terms for it. So this announcement is the rescue job for the rescue job.
 
MadMike said:
Fixed.

But seriously, wtf is that arc. What was the point of the extension then? Why not just wait at least until January to see how he does in the new season?

I understand nothing from how the club is being run.
Click to expand...

At this point I don’t know either. I thought the new contract’s main purpose would be to be a vote of confidence in manager, basically show him that we trust him and will back him despite turbulent months behind us.

This extension, not even being a real extension, does not do that at all. I don’t see any purpose.
 
devilish said:
If ETH veto every deal he doesn't like then do you think ineos will accept their first summer to be without transfers?
Click to expand...
If Ineos veto every deal / suggested from ETH they don't like then do you think ETH will accept this summer to be without transfers?

The veto is way overplayed; its been there since the beginning when he worked with Murtough and United also always had a veto
 
Feck off already with this veto bullcrap. A manager who can‘t veto signings is crazy because he would end up not playing the players he didn‘t approve.

It is literally the first thing Ashworth said too.
 
Yeah I don't see how a director of football can properly work with with a manager (That he didn't pick) that has a veto.
 
Berbaclass said:
Yeah I don't see how a director of football can properly work with with a manager (That he didn't pick) that has a veto.
Click to expand...
Huh? Ashworth said that a manager has to have a veto. He did alright at other teams didn’t he?
 
Berbaclass said:
Yeah I don't see how a director of football can properly work with with a manager (That he didn't pick) that has a veto.
Click to expand...

Ashworth was part of the review, and so he did pick ETH
 
The veto is just symbolic of the new sort of role Ineos have now offered at least 2 different managers and been turned down both times.

Something about the head coach role as they're presenting it made it of no interest to Tuchel and no interest to ETH. Whether that's because of money, break clauses, responsibilities, chain of command, vetoes, all of the above, who knows.
 
I remember people were saying sacking him last season would be too expensive but somehow now triggering his extension for no reason is seen as logical.

Ineos wanted to replace him, ballsed that up and from look of things couldn't agree new terms with ETH either so they triggered the extension. Great start.
 
Also what’s concerning is that we couldn’t even agree a real extension with him now when we are the ones that have some leverage due to his (arguably) poor performance, imagine where we will be if we try to extend him next year on the back of a successful season.
 
Yeah that's fair enough. It's worth a punt to see how he does with an extra year under his belt and INEOS at the helm. Best case scenario is he does good but now nobody will have any complaints if we finish 5th/6th again and he gets the sack.
 
Cassidy said:
Berreda was also involved reportedly
Click to expand...
Don’t like this at all. Imagine a corporate executive actively participating in their competitor's strategic planning. Wrong at so many levels.
 
astracrazy said:
Mount wasn't an EtH signing at all.

According to the Athletic, EtH originally wanted FDJ with Rice as the alternative (and that summer Rice was interested), but the club went for Casemiro. The following year EtH wanted Rice again but we were too late to the table and Rice went elsewhere, so the club signed Mount.

It also claims EtH wanted Gakpo (to solve our striker shortage) and Antony (to solve our RW shortage after Sancho said he wanted to play LW), but the club said he could only have one - this is of course after the club failed to sign both Martinez and Antony for £100M. We ended up over spending on Antony at the end of the window and loaning Weghorst in Jan. EtH then wanted Kane but got Hojlund.

https://www.nytimes.com/athletic/5549017/2024/06/14/erik-ten-hag-player-tensions-principles-play/

It's interesting until recently most laid the blame of our signings at EtH door, but the reality appears to be quiet different.
Click to expand...

Yep
 
Sarni said:
Don’t like this at all. Imagine a corporate executive actively participating in their competitor's strategic planning. Wrong at so many levels.
Click to expand...

I mean they'd left their roles and their involvement probably didn't go beyond asking their opinions
 
Berbaclass said:
Yeah I don't see how a director of football can properly work with with a manager (That he didn't pick) that has a veto.
Click to expand...
It's a weird one for sure, can only think that the manager didn't want to agree to the new terms being offered as they aren't as good as his current terms so the club just extended knowing they can sack him fairly easily if this season doesn't work out.
 
MiceOnMeth said:
Anybody genuinely excited about the new season knowing ETH is the manager?
Click to expand...
I gave him hell last year for obvious reasons but I'll be excited when the season starts, depending on our signings and how pre-season goes. The writing was on the wall as early as pre-season last year so I'm expecting a massive improvement and I'm willing to give him another chance while there's no football currently being played, and worst case scenario is that I know he won't last the season this time if it goes tits up so it's only good news from here on out I would imagine.
 
Cassidy said:
If Ineos veto every deal / suggested from ETH they don't like then do you think ETH will accept this summer to be without transfers?

The veto is way overplayed; its been there since the beginning when he worked with Murtough and United also always had a veto
Click to expand...

The owner's main aim is to improve the business, the manager's aim is to improve his career/protect his reputation. Most of the time the two aims align with one another. Sometimes it does not. We've seen that with our own eyes under Mourinho. In his last year the manager did his very best to get himself sacked, pocket the money and move to another club before his reputation gets too much of a hit.

Football is very political this days as well and the manager would want to surround with people he can trust. That doesn't necessarily mean the best players. Again we've got a classic example of that with Antony, a player we overspent massively on not because he's talented but simply because he's an ETH man.

The manager must always play a central role in any transfer strategy. That's the big mistake many clubs did when the system started to change. I remember Silvestre complaining about Inter at the time where the manager would ask for a striker only to end up with two left backs. Needless to say one of them ended up rotting in the reserves (ie Silvestre). However the football system started to change precisely because there's a discrepancy between the club's aims (which are often long term and require consistency) and the manager (who often works with a system and is a performance based role). We've been hopping from one style to another since SAF left. At each step we had to rebuild the squad mostly from scratch because each manager brought specialized players that can only fit his style which means that once he's gone those players became redundant. Thus a balance must be reached

I believe that what happened with ETH's renewal of contract is quite significant. We've been hearing for ages that ETH was set to be given a 3 years contract and that INEOS wanted to get rid of the veto, the very veto ETH was insisted upon. What we got is essentially a kick at the can with ETH retaining his VETO but not getting the contract extension he need to consolidate power at the club.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.