Ineos Under Scrutiny: Questions of Loyalty or Stubbornness After Ten Hag’s Dismissal

Manchester United co-owner Sir Jim Ratcliffe addressed inquiries from BBC’s Dan Roan concerning Erik ten Hag’s future. Erik ten Hag’s position had been uncertain following Manchester United’s significant 3-0 loss to Tottenham Hotspur at Old Trafford the previous month. The Dutch manager had overseen a poor beginning to the current Premier League season, even though the club had invested over half a billion pounds in player acquisitions since his appointment two years prior. His tactical approaches had proven ineffective, and the players recruited under his tenure had largely failed to meet expectations. Consequently, the manager’s dismissal was not unexpected. Three weeks prior, Sir Jim Ratcliffe, United’s co-owner and the Ineos billionaire, had refrained from endorsing Ten Hag when questioned about his confidence in the manager. Ratcliffe expressed his liking for the coach but also forebodingly acknowledged the necessity to “take stock,” asserting that accountability rested with the executives managing the club on his behalf. Ten Hag subsequently remained in his role after a meeting of the club’s leadership a few days later and through the October international break, yet the perception was that his time was limited, a prediction that ultimately materialized. Although few supporters will lament the manager’s dismissal, his exit prompts difficult inquiries for the leadership at Old Trafford. Some might question why the club did not intervene earlier, thereby permitting potential successors like Mauricio Pochettino and Thomas Tuchel to be secured by other teams. Was this a display of commendable loyalty or a counterproductive obstinacy? What led an end-of-season assessment conducted in the summer – overseen by Sir Dave Brailsford, Ineos head of sport and former British Cycling performance director – to determine that retaining Ten Hag was the correct course of action? This is particularly pertinent given that United had nearly replaced him, having contacted multiple prospective managers, a process that exposed their uncertainties and potentially weakened the Dutchman’s position. Indeed, the notable FA Cup final triumph against Manchester City was a factor, following Ten Hag’s guidance of his team to the EFL Cup victory in the preceding season, coupled with backing for the Dutchman from both supporters and players. Nevertheless, his team concluded the Premier League season in eighth place, marking the club’s poorest performance in the competition. Despite this, the manager’s contract was prolonged, a choice that, according to multiple informed sources, could now obligate United to pay over £15m in compensation. United has declined to comment on the financial implications of Ten Hag’s dismissal, but this expenditure, combined with the £200m allocated for additional new signings during the summer, is expected to face rigorous examination. The Manchester United delegation present at Villa Park in October comprised co-owner Sir Jim Ratcliffe, Ineos head of sport Dave Brailsford, chief executive Omar Berrada, sporting director Dan Ashworth, technical director Jason Wilcox, and former manager Sir Alex Ferguson. In February, following his investment of £1.25bn for a 27.7% stake in the club, a transaction that granted Ineos oversight of United’s football operations, Ratcliffe informed BBC Sport that his priority was transforming the club itself, rather than the coach. Ratcliffe stated, “If you look at this last 11 years, United has had quite a few coaches…no-one’s been successful…so that would say to me that there’s something wrong with the environment.” Despite these assertions, Ten Hag was dismissed merely eight months subsequent to these remarks. The challenge confronting the manager was that on-field underperformance could no longer be attributed to the Glazer family, the majority shareholders, or the existing organizational structure, given that Ineos had assumed control of footballing affairs, and Ratcliffe had restructured the senior leadership. Chief executive Omar Berrada and sporting director Dan Ashworth both commenced their roles at United in July, subsequent to Ten Hag’s retention. However, their choice to publicly offer the manager their full support last month drew attention at the time and now appears even more perplexing. Did their statements constrain them, making it more difficult to later acknowledge an error? The lack of communication and the ambiguity concerning Ten Hag’s status after a seven-hour meeting of the club’s executive committee at Ineos’ London headquarters three weeks ago exacerbated the situation, leading some to criticize the public handling of the matter. BBC Sport received information indicating that potential replacements for Ten Hag were deliberated during the meeting on 8 October, but that the club’s leadership still intended to provide the coach with every opportunity to retain his position. Nevertheless, some observers contend that the circumstances could have been managed more effectively. At that time, Sky Sports pundit and former United captain Roy Keane questioned, “Why can’t they have these meetings without anyone knowing where they are?” He further remarked, “A couple of months ago everyone was saying, ‘they’ve got new people coming on board, they’ll have all the answers, more money on recruitment’, and United have gone backwards… I’m not sure I’m seeing proper footballing people who are making the right decisions for the club.” Numerous supporters were enthusiastic about the new direction Ratcliffe pledged upon his arrival, following years of deterioration under the widely disliked ownership of the Glazers. However, despite his recruitment of highly regarded executives like Berrada, Ashworth, and technical director Jason Wilcox, there have also been adverse consequences. A reorganization at United resulted in the elimination of 250 positions, undertaken as part of an effort to reduce expenses and achieve annual savings of approximately £45m. Employee benefits prior to last season’s FA Cup final were curtailed. Even Sir Alex Ferguson was affected by these reductions, as Ratcliffe’s choice to discontinue his £2m ambassadorial salary also generated controversy. Off the record, United officials assert that these decisions were not taken without careful consideration. The club maintained the largest number of employees in the league. Conversely, other individuals within the club have suggested a negative impact on morale and a diminished sense of identity, contending that inadequate recruitment for the first team in recent years has squandered significantly more funds than will be recovered by reducing the general workforce. Veteran defender Jonny Evans described it as “hard and difficult to see… there’s people you’ve known for 20 years,” while former assistant manager Rene Meulensteen stated that the cost-cutting “needs some justification.” An anonymous former senior United executive conveyed to BBC Sport their serious apprehensions regarding the new leadership’s methodology. This executive informed BBC Sport, “They believed just because they were now in charge, things would be different.” They added, “Sustained sporting excellence is hard to find. My main issue isn’t the sporting side which is volatile, it’s the destruction of culture which underpins a meaningful sporting organisation.” The executive characterized it as “[It is a] cost of everything, value of nothing approach.” The new leadership at United can cite the £113m net losses reported by the club in its most recent accounts in September as evidence of the urgent need for significant changes at Old Trafford. This figure succeeded losses of £115.5m in 2021-22 and £42.1m in 2022-23. Certain experts are of the opinion that the club circumvented a breach of Profit and Sustainability Rules (which cap losses at £105m over a three-year period) only because ‘exceptional’ expenses, resulting from the effects of Covid and last year’s sale process, were considered. At the time, Berrada stated, “We are working towards greater financial sustainability and making changes to our operations to make them more efficient, to ensure we are directing our resources to enhancing on-pitch performance,” commending “transformative cost-savings and organisational changes.” However, United did not secure qualification for this season’s expanded Champions League, and another failure to participate in the competition would incur even greater financial penalties. The club’s financial statements disclosed that its agreement with kit manufacturer Adidas contains a provision stipulating a £10m penalty for each season the team fails to qualify for the competition. Over the course of the year, Ratcliffe contributed £153m, as outlined in his club investment, for infrastructure improvements, encompassing an upgrade of the club’s training facility. The billionaire is scheduled to invest an additional £76.5m before the year concludes. He is also evaluating whether to proceed with a £2bn proposal for a