Ive never seen anyone say that Ten Hag would warrant staying because theyve seen x improving or they think hes done y well. Its always that there are bigger issues at the club with the occasional line of you need to stick with a manager thrown in. You stick with a manager who is showing signs of improvement. Our club has issues a million times bigger than at United, our manager has to put up with disinterested owners wrangled in a legal case, players either sold by the owners with no reinvestment or players kept until their contract ends by the owners, we cant even always finalise registering new signings, a far cry from being allowed to blow probably 300m on 3 players you personally know from a previous club, a big money striker and 2 England internationals. Yet if the manager was underperforming, say when Coyle was shit, we wouldnt say lets keep him anyway as there are bigger issues.

He is giving his opinion, which just because he used to play for them doesnt make it automatically 100% factual. Same with Keane, just because they work for Sky and played for the club, I am capable of forming my own opinions. I havent denied that the problems go beyond the manager. But surely whatever they do with the manager, those problems are seperate and will remain. They dont absolve the manager of total blame, and whilst they might want a manager to stay in the job for a while, its a line often trotted out to justify keeping someone. But surely you have to have signs that the specific manager to be given time is the one that will progress them on the pitch. Still without any obvious style of play, and finishing as low as 8th, I would suggest he isnt the man to do that. Take Pochettino. He has had problems with injuries and also was underachieving but towards the end of the season, a style was developing and results were improving, there was clear signs of going in the right direction and warranting more time. Yet he is sacked before Ten Hag.

Chaddy has posted the link above, but basically that every manager has struggled in the last 10 years and that they need to stop the cycle. Its a very commonly trotted out suggestion and a nice idea but surely any manager trusted with time has to display signs that things are moving in the right direction. And even acknowledging all the other stuff that is wrong at club, I think there is enough evidence that Ten Hag armed with considerable resources and the autocracy to bring in players he has worked with before amongst others has failed to display that any semblence of identity is forming and results show considerable regression. Neville is probably not the best person to listen to, certainly not echo his every word. He is obviously a huge United fan so is desperate to cause publicity in order to put pressure on the owners and also as a Sky presenter has said numerous times that he wont actively suggest that a manager should lose his job, so not a balanced opinion.

The problems are of course beyond the manager but unlike here he has had loads of money to spend on players, some of whom he has worked with previously, and has not in 2 years shown any progress in how they play both in style and results. Just because Gary Neville says something doesnt make it right. He has said in the past that he wont call for a manager to be changed regardless.

Its not like at Rovers where the club is a proper shambles with owners that make progress on the pitch almost an impossible job. Ten Hag has signed a number of big money signings that he clearly has endorsed having worked with them before. In spite of that, there is absolutely no sign of any pattern to what they try to do on the pitch, and he does warrant criticism for that. They clearly have other issues but I dont see how people can look at Ten Hag and say that he deserves more time and has shown enough to suggest he is the best man for the job. Hopefully they keep him and they keep struggling though.

I acknowledge the difficulties injury wise in the last month or two in particular. And I take on board the ownership issues and it might be hypocritical considering my views on Venkys, but of course its not the same. Ten Hag has spent huge money on players he clearly played a huge part in signing, players like Antony, Martinez and Onana for example who he has worked with before. All them seasons post Ferguson havent led them to 8th and their worst Premier League finish, so winning the title doesnt have to be the benchmark. Both Mourinho and Van Gaal (and to a lesser extent Solskjaer who is not a good manager) have had success since Ferguson left. With a team with a number of his own signings, there is no sign of progression and no one is any wiser as to how he wants to play, 2 years in.

I hope he doesnt get sacked unless he is replaced by Southgate. But I cant understand why anyone thinks Ten Hag shouldnt be sacked. Spent shed loads on players he wanted and 2 years in all theyve had is regression and still no discernable style of play

It wont be a proper sporting structure here under Venkys and im surprised you havent learnt by now.

Im sure he would prefer that but I dont get the feeling that he would kick up a fuss if he wasnt backed. And its clear that the people who matter in India dont see progressing the club as a priority, the sole focus spending as little as is possible. As for Nixon, a hack who covers all bases to ensure he can pat himself on the back once one of the numerous clubs he links players too comes to fruition at some point. If you choose to hang on his every word and assume he is always right, thats your choice and you arent the only one as numerous mugs even pay him money for his drivel.

That team is frightening, even with a new keeper and striker. Playing 5 defenders and 3 midfielders none of whom offer a goal threat with Sigurdsson playing off a striker would not get us anywhere near enough goals.

He should make the full squad but it seems almost certain that with Southgate wanting enough players to cover the cup final absentees for the friendly games that he will probably be cut. Either way, it is a great achievement for him. But to be honest (and I know he wouldnt have been close to the squad had he stayed in the Championship) it just adds to the frustration and anger that he had to be pushed out for a poor price out of desperation purely for the owners to claw money back to cover their own self inflicted legal issues with no money available to better us.

These prices wont move the dial even though any decrease in price is welcome and will considering the stupid amount of moved games, the last season and the current state of the club will still lead to almost certainly reduced numbers. There are always various complications too, notably the surcharge when you dont buy online and this ballot thing.

Thanks, I didn't sorry but I have seen it since, and it agrees with my assertion that the income would only be recognised in the year to which the sales relate to, regardless of timing of payments which is a common misconception.

I know. My point was in relation to a poster suggesting that we may be delaying announcing season tickets to have income in the next years set of accounts. My point or at least question was, surely as any season tickets relate to services in the 24/25 set of accounts, that even sales made before June 30th would be deferred as income into the next set of accounts. Therefore it is irrelevant when the sale is actually made.

Chilwell himself has been injured and to be honest isnt that good to begin with. Colwill is obviously more of a centre back but has also been injured. And with Mainoo, he clearly has ability but like Wharton is unproven. Regarding those positions, the worries are not specific to Southgate's selections. We are just very weak in those areas. We could (Southgate sounded pessimistic on Shaw's fitness) very feasibly enter the tournament without a single left back in the squad. And reliant on a 33 year old right back who has himself recently had an injury and some poor form in the last few months to plug that gap. Bellingham isnt going to play and doesnt play in a deeper midfield role. So doesnt count for those positions. I think Wharton and Mainoo should go and compete with Alexander Arnold beside Rice.

Glad that Rashford and Henderson have been dropped but a bit of a strange squad overall. 8 centre backs and only 1 left back who himself is unlikely to make it shows the imbalance, and 6 of the centre backs are likely competing to be understudy to calamity Maguire. We also look thin in midfield with Wharton (who will probably be cut) and Mainoo having potentially a huge responsibility on them. We have a number of injured players, players out of form and players not playing often.

Would any income automatically go in next seasons accounts regardless as even if recieved before June, it relates to services post June so should be deferred?

Because of the difference in money. Brereton would have raised £8m which is a big amount for us. A normal club takes that over keeping him for a solitary year and reinvests a good chunk to replace him. Gallagher also had an extra 6 months on his deal but crucially, it came at a point where the owners pocketed a club record sale and still wouldnt authorise spending a couple of million on a striker. Therefore its fair to assume that any comparatively tiny Gallagher proceeds would have gone the same way. Ideally I would have sold Gallagher and brought in 2 strikers, not happening under these owners, so we had no choice but to cling on because he is considerably better than our only other striker.

Doubt it. Got to save space for Henderson, Maguire, Rashford, Chilwell and probably otherd who are injured and/or havent played well/barely at all in a long while.

I dont doubt that Wharton as an individual had many teams wanting him. But Nixon does that with every player, hes started doing the same with Szmodics. Then when the player moves to one of those clubs at whichever point, which in all probability he will as hes hedged his bets, then he will then as the narcissist that he is pat himself on the back and his merry band of followers will all tell everyone how knowledgable he is.

I dont think a coach needs to have played at elite level to be suitable. If anything, former quality players are likely to get roles because of their name from their playing career.

He played Buckley regularly for years and got form from him since unrepeated and he fits the same physical profile. It was time to go but we saw in the following season under Tomasson a similar fall, not quite as drastic but we still went from comfortably in the top 6 for ages having been in the top 2 before tumbling just outside. I think both did a good job but small squads not strengthened in January saw to our chances twice. Ultimately the state this club is ever in is massively hindered because of the owners. But Tomasson inherited a squad with a big sellable asset of a goalscorer, the club was considerably better off financially post Armstrong sale (sadly like with everyone it vanished) and there were still some good Championship players beyond that. Regarding the academy players, like with Tomasson, they both did well in bedding in and improving the players in the first team but due to the owners we have to rely too much on them.

We finished 8th the season before, had a goalscorer we could have sold that summer, £10-15m from Armstrong the summer prior and some younger players he had brought through. So it was healthy and night and day from what he inherited.

He probably has. Hes the only mainstream reporter who bothers with us and he ensures that he covers all bases, for example he was right on Wharton to Palace because he linked half the Premier League with him.

Theyve also released Gibson and Giannolous.