[Football] Dan Ashworth **Sacked by Man U 08/12/24**

BevBHA said:

Would you be happy to receive the same money in your job for half the responsibility? I would

Click to expand...

Guinness Boy said:

Pretty damning stuff in The Athletic. Looks like his ideas on “new manager” were actually “people I’ve worked with or know the name of”.

https://www.nytimes.com/athletic/59...ited-exit-reasons/?source=user_shared_articleInside Dan Ashworth’s shock Man United exit: What irritated Ratcliffe and how it ended

View attachment 193529

Click to expand...

sussex_guy2k2 said:

I’d say, based on what we’ve seen from the summer splurge on players, it’s a bit jump to suggest Weir’s an upgrade.

Click to expand...

sussex_guy2k2 said:

I’d say, based on what we’ve seen from the summer splurge on players, it’s a bit jump to suggest Weir’s an upgrade.

Click to expand...

Brovion said:

If I was being facetious after yesterday I'd say you have a point! But no, I would still maintain that we're in a better place now than we were when Ashworth left, and I would still maintain that part of that is because Weir has proved to be an able and more loyal successor to his higher-profile predecessor.

Click to expand...

Herr Tubthumper said:

Ashworth was very good at setting up the structure of the Albion, the hub-and-spoke management setup he often spoke about; this was his true worth to Brighton. Once this was in place his role was sitting in the middle, the hub, and more that of a routine director of sports…. a role others can fill. I feel we got the best out of Ashworth and his skill set.

Click to expand...

jcdenton08 said:

The spend was to bring the squad back up to the current level as well as invest in the future. That was a maintenance spend, not a Chelsea style £1.2bn attempt to buy the league spend.

We had to replace Caicedo, Mac Allister, Mwepu, Undav and others going back to Trossard who hadn’t really been truly replaced (RDZ’s big peeve) as well as the next development signings.

If we look at the signings we’ve made,

Cozier-Duberry (19) - free, loaned, prospect
Yalcouyé (18) - €7m, loaned, prospect
Osman (19) - €19.5m, loaned, prospect
O’Riley (23) - €29.5m, just returned from injury
Kadioglu (24) - €30m, injured
Gruda (20) - €31.5m
Wieffer (24) - €32m
Minteh (19) - €35m
Georginio (22) - €45.7m

Average age of the players we signed is 20.89 years old. Three signings worth €26.5m went out on loan immediately.

It is extremely clear to me that the (relatively, for a club our size) big spend was about investing in the next batch of young players to develop and improve with time and first team experience with us.

We weren’t buying a European campaign or title challenge (lol), we were signing what was absolutely necessary to a) try and maintain our position in the top half of the league and try for Europe and b) give these young players a platform to shine and hopefully be the next big money sale out of the door in order for the club to be self-sufficient financially.

I think it was an excellent window of superb business, but one which many people won’t recognise until like - as in the past with Mac Allister, Bissouma, Caicedo, Baleba and the rest - the players come good due to first time exposure and hard work on the training ground.

Click to expand...

Uh_huh_him said:

It was also a case of Tony playing 4D chess.

We were one of the few clubs with money to spend.
The surplus we had built up was about to become less use with the changes to PSR about to come in.
Tony purchased young prospects, which other Premier League clubs were looking at, but couldn't afford in the summer window.

Click to expand...

jcdenton08 said:

Excellent point, this was definitely a factor in getting Minteh and probably several of the others.

Click to expand...

Professor Plum said:

Would prefer to hear the story before being too damning TBH. There’s obviously been a major disagreement about some element of club strategy. Wonder what.

Click to expand...

Guinness Boy said:

Pretty damning stuff in The Athletic. Looks like his ideas on “new manager” were actually “people I’ve worked with or know the name of”.

https://www.nytimes.com/athletic/59...ited-exit-reasons/?source=user_shared_articleInside Dan Ashworth’s shock Man United exit: What irritated Ratcliffe and how it ended

View attachment 193529

Click to expand...

Sarisbury Seagull said:

Massive loss for United and no coincidence this decision was made by a group of non-football executives.

Would love to have him back here but strong rumours of Arsenal.

Click to expand...

5Ways Gull said:

I think it's probably the fundamental requirement to win football games.

Click to expand...

Professor Plum said:

Yet another glib, hilarious, and useless retort. I’ve never been keen on pile-ons, and am simply saying I wouldn’t mind understanding what led to this decision. Ashworth is very obviously not being sacked because he hasn’t, after 5 months, turned Man Utd into a ruthless, peak-Pep, winning machine. The decisions made by a good sporting director can take years to bear fruit. There’s more to this than a lack of instant success on the pitch.

On the surface, Ratcliffe seems to me to be the weaker link. You’ve only to look at other INEOS sporting ventures in F1, cycling, sailing, to wonder what it is he’s supposed to offer, apart from bags of cash. His wealth comes from success in business and certainly not in sport where his judgement is constantly being questioned. There’s all this penny-pinching terrible PR stuff like the redundancies of long-serving staff and the £66 tickets, balanced with the incredible waste of paying off Ashworth's Newcastle contract, and renewing Ten Haag's contract only to sack him a few months later. I'm curious about where Ashworth stood on Ten Haag, and if the strategy over ticket prices and sackings has created rifts at senior management level.

Click to expand...

jcdenton08 said:

The spend was to bring the squad back up to the current level as well as invest in the future. That was a maintenance spend, not a Chelsea style £1.2bn attempt to buy the league spend.

We had to replace Caicedo, Mac Allister, Mwepu, Undav and others going back to Trossard who hadn’t really been truly replaced (RDZ’s big peeve) as well as the next development signings.

If we look at the signings we’ve made,

Cozier-Duberry (19) - free, loaned, prospect
Yalcouyé (18) - €7m, loaned, prospect
Osman (19) - €19.5m, loaned, prospect
O’Riley (23) - €29.5m, just returned from injury
Kadioglu (24) - €30m, injured
Gruda (20) - €31.5m
Wieffer (24) - €32m
Minteh (19) - €35m
Georginio (22) - €45.7m

Average age of the players we signed is 20.89 years old. Three signings worth €26.5m went out on loan immediately.

It is extremely clear to me that the (relatively, for a club our size) big spend was about investing in the next batch of young players to develop and improve with time and first team experience with us.

We weren’t buying a European campaign or title challenge (lol), we were signing what was absolutely necessary to a) try and maintain our position in the top half of the league and try for Europe and b) give these young players a platform to shine and hopefully be the next big money sale out of the door in order for the club to be self-sufficient financially.

I think it was an excellent window of superb business, but one which many people won’t recognise until like - as in the past with Mac Allister, Bissouma, Caicedo, Baleba and the rest - the players come good due to first time exposure and hard work on the training ground.

Click to expand...

Harry Wilson's tackle said:

You need Bloom's algorithms to make the process work.

Something tells me that the rubric's big picture exists only in Tony's head.

Which was pretty obvious, frankly.

A man whose private betting company employs people who understand only their part in the machine, and are paid so it stays that way (articles passim).

Click to expand...

Nobby Cybergoat said:

Very sensible post

Click to expand...

Professor Plum said:

Yet another glib, hilarious, and useless retort. I’ve never been keen on pile-ons, and am simply saying I wouldn’t mind understanding what led to this decision. Ashworth is very obviously not being sacked because he hasn’t, after 5 months, turned Man Utd into a ruthless, peak-Pep, winning machine. The decisions made by a good sporting director can take years to bear fruit. There’s more to this than a lack of instant success on the pitch.

On the surface, Ratcliffe seems to me to be the weaker link. You’ve only to look at other INEOS sporting ventures in F1, cycling, sailing, to wonder what it is he’s supposed to offer, apart from bags of cash. His wealth comes from success in business and certainly not in sport where his judgement is constantly being questioned. There’s all this penny-pinching terrible PR stuff like the redundancies of long-serving staff and the £66 tickets, balanced with the incredible waste of paying off Ashworth's Newcastle contract, and renewing Ten Haag's contract only to sack him a few months later. I'm curious about where Ashworth stood on Ten Haag, and if the strategy over ticket prices and sackings has created rifts at senior management level.

Click to expand...