It has been over a year since Ineos took charge of Manchester United’s footballing operations and so far a series of poor decisions have been defining.
Sir Jim Ratcliffe has changed plenty of things at Manchester United in the opening year of his time as part-owner. However, not every decision has been good.
Ineos cleared house to create their own footballing structure with chief executive officer Omar Berrada and technical director Jason Wilcox arriving at the club along with recruitment director Christopher Vivell.
Most notably, United paid £2.5m in compensation for director of football Dan Ashworth from Newcastle, with the Englishman Ineos’ top choice.
| Role | Person |
| CEO | Omar Berrada |
| Director of Football (now void) | Dan Ashworth |
| Technical Director | Jason Wilcox |
| Recruitment Director | Christopher Vivell |
Outside of the footballing structure, Ineos have slashed over 250 jobs at United, which is said to have saved only £8m per year – a figure which doesn’t even cover Ineos’ shambolic decision-making.
Among the biggest blunders on Ineos’ hands was the decision to keep Erik ten Hag last summer, with a one-year contract being handed to the Dutchman, which hardly showed any confidence in his long-term suitability.
Raphael Varane shared his shock United didn’t sack him in May and in October the Dutchman was gone. The decision to hire Ashworth, aged equalling poorly.
Manchester United to make the decision on Dan Ashworth’s replacement
After an underwhelming five months or so, Ashworth and United parted ways in December and it cost the club a further £2.5m to get rid of him.
Ashworth was said to have a difficult relationship with Ratcliffe and instead of waiting in the hope it would work out, the part owner acted swiftly and made the decision to let him go.
This left United without a director of football as Wilcox became the kingmaker for Ineos, and the former Southampton director of football – along with Vivell – was pivotal in United’s January transfer business.
However, according to Manchester Evening News, there could yet be a move from United to appoint a director of football.
United are in the midst of a review of the footballing department, which could conclude an addition is needed – although Wilcox and Vivell is a more likely scenario with the latter due to become permanent according to the same MEN report.
Ineos are however taking a risk by waiting so long to decide their outcome.
Ineos risking summer sabotage
With February ending next week, there are only three months left of the season, which means plans should already have started for United, and they seem to have done.
United have agreed personal terms with Geovany Quenda already with a £33m move planned to bolster the right wing-back position this summer.
However, if United were to decide a director of football is needed, the time scale to identify and appoint one could end up encroaching on the summer transfer window.
If the director of football is given commanding power, then it may even mean a swerve away from targets and United would therefore see the window sabotaged.
We saw this last summer with some Ten Hag signings made due to the upheaval at the time within the recruitment department.
Receive a digest of our best United content each week direct to your mailbox
