01 Nov 2026 13:52:14
I don't know whether this is true, but a search revealed that Carrick is on £5m a year but the club can sack him paying only for the remainder of this season. Hardly compares with the cost of relegation. A top manager is going to cost £10m+.
Now I have to admit as someone who is not fit to judge these things that Carrick had earned the chance, however I recall well Roy Keane being indignant about how United should go out and get the best manager they can. When pressed, however, he would not come up with a name. Gary Neville was also of the same opinion that the club should go out and get the best experienced manager available.
So, why didn't they do that? Was it all about control over transfers? The club wanted to take the responsibility for choosing players off the manager and put it on to the club hierarchy. ETH had been a disaster: Antony, Hojlund, Mount, Onana, Ugarte, de Ligt, Zirkzee, Malacia represent £400m. So Amorim and Carrick were hired as head coaches rather than managers. Truth is however, transfer policy had been poor to terrible since before SAF retired.
But any top manager would have looked at the club and made conditions about transfers and budget, insisting on some positions being dealt with. Could you imagine Ancelotti allowing the club to go into the season with this array of defenders? Would he have really wanted to invest £48m on yet another potential star like Santos in midfield when what we needed was proven players to step up immediately?
Right now nothing is going right. I think all of us put the primary blame on the ownership. The rot starts at the top. Many of us are so desperate we would countenance relegation if it would somehow pry the club away from the Glazers and Ineos. Unfortunately at this time, with all the uncertainty in the world, I don't see a white knight stepping forward and meeting their price. However, the cost of relegation would be enormous.
01 Nov 2026 14:01:26
Job title change or not, it was always reported that ETH, as with others before, didn't get their first choices nor choose how much was spent on the ones that came in. So again it points to someone/people higher up not doing a good enough job in either choosing or negotiating.
Surely any potential manager/head coach out there has seen that too, would make you wonder why anyone would take the job without assurances of having the set up they want.
01 Nov 2026 14:23:12
For me the problems start with Wilcox. He seems to want to micro-manage the club and has created more issues than we even know about. He fell out with both EtH and Amorim over trying to dictate tactics to them. He ignores the advice of Vivell on transfers (you know our head of recruitment), and it seems he chose to hire Carrick due to Carrick being more prepared to accept his "support". He also was a factor behind Ashworth leaving the club and him taking Ashworth's position.
While I agree that the idea behind allowing managers to pick their own transfers and build the team in their image, is a bad blue print long term. Having a DoF who controls things behind the scenes without taking any responsibility when it goes wrong is equally disastrous.
The idea is that we have an overarching philosophy, and we build and recruit to fit that. That philosophy shouldn't be over prescriptive.
Something like trusting in youth, developing young players, and playing an attacking, aggressive, front foot style of play. Is fine, it gives you a clear direction, but leaves room to manoeuvre within it.
It sets out the kind of players we should be looking to sign (but doesn't rule out signing the occasional older player when necessary). It ensures we continue our traditions of youth development. While it gives the club and managers a degree of tactical flexibility and support. You could be a high pressing side with or without possession, how you look to build attacks, a d defend is fairly open to adapting depending on the players available and/or the tactical landscape.
Then you hire managers who fit within that idea. They should be managers with a track record of giving youth a chance and developing younger players into top level talents. They should also be managers who look to play an aggressive, offensive style of football.
That's your first two filters when looking, anyone who doesn't trust or develop young players isn't the right manager for our club.
Likewise, anyone who will look to play slow, or defensive football isn't the right manager for our club.
Then you can start shifting through the remaining options for more specific skills and experience (winning titles/cups or exceeding expectations, managed in specific leagues or competitions, media savvy, a certain level of experience, dressing room management, language skills, specific coaching tactics that fit/suit the current team, etc). Ultimately whatever it is they feel the manager needs to have to be successful. The reality is that it's rare a person is the perfect fit, especially in football management. That isn't a problem as long as you understand what those short comings are and how you can support them or bridge that gap. For example maybe you have a manager who lacks a little in terms of experience, can you ensure they have a more experienced head or two amongst their coaching staff.
The problem with our club right now is the man who is really steering the ship is Wilcox, and every time he gets to make a major decision we get a little worse for it.
01 Nov 2026 18:47:40
As the fans sang yesterday, Jason Wilcox is a planker is a planker.