DID THE INEOS GO FOR RUBEN AMORIM WITH A BLIND SPOT?
By Ernest Tetteh Kabu
When Erik Ten Hag was sacked and Ruben Amorim chosen as his successor, and with the playing problems Manchester United had endured before the Portuguese took over, one may have thought that, Amorim was the savior of Manchester United. Maybe the first and last. So that the issue of getting rid of him and bringing another was not part of the considerations at the time at all.
Barely twelve (12) months after being named as Manchester United coach, Ruben Amorim was sacked almost based on the same reasons Ten Hag lost his job. Did anyone see this coming? It pretty explains one thing that, no matter how technically good a football coach may be, for traditional teams that are run on unwavering policies, the coach could be forced to find his way out.
The strange thing about this Amorim exit saga is that, it wasn’t as if the United’ hierarchy were not aware of the limitations around what they were going for.
Football news report has said that, the United football operations head knew right from the onset that, a chunk of the playing decisions will be decided by them and the inevitable could happen for that matter, they must guard against it but they did not: ‘Shortly after assuming control of Manchester United in February 2024, Sir Jim Ratcliffe, minority owner and in charge of the club’s football operations, gathered his executives for a meeting and said the team’s style of play “will be determined in this room’’.
The news report went on to explain that, it may have come as a surprise to Man. United faithful that, upon all the parameters that the INEOS have in place that guides them in their decision making, it was a coach that gave an earlier indication that he’s going to prove difficult to handle when it comes to systems of play that they chose:
‘It was curious, then, for some of those present to learn that when Erik ten Hag was sacked in November, the man Ratcliffe wanted to replace him—Sporting CP boss Amorim—had a specific coaching philosophy and no history of compromise’.
It was not as if the Man United part-owner did not also know that, it could be a huge worry for the side with the incoming fixated on one approach. A United team that has played under different coaches with different systems of play may struggle.
Getting players to fit that kind of system alone can also be financially draining, the report indicated, ‘Ratcliffe was told at the time that hiring Amorim was a risk; he was warned that reshaping the squad to fit a 3-4-3 system—Amorim’s preference after having success with it at Sporting—would take millions that the club didn’t have’.
United Chiefs should have then known that, their falling away with Amorim would have likely been about a coach who may not advance the fortunes of a club with just one system which may also not deliver the game outcomes they wanted: ‘United sources insisted the decision was not taken solely because of a breakdown in Amorim’s relationships with club bosses—particularly Wilcox— but rather because there had not been “enough signs of evolution or progress” on the pitch’- Rob Dawson reported for espn.co.uk
Conclusion
It is interesting that, the very things that the INEOS management was cautioned about in their attempt to sign on Ruben Amorim were the same things that resulted in his sacking. Did it mean that, United Chiefs lacked foresight? Yes indeed they lacked foresight and this has cost Manchester United financially.
This was a coach that the INEOS spent ten (10) million pounds to move him urgently from Sporting CP to Manchester United. United had to pay an extra one (1) million pounds for his exit from the Portuguese champions (Sporting CP).
The INEOS may have projected with hope in Amorim’s plans for United’ that, they will get value on the financial sacrifice they made to bring him on board. Paying a coach for one year without meeting the team targets that may have been agreed on is just as paying an Artisan who produced an unusable craft or wasted the material.
There may have been subtractions or deductions before his departure monies were paid but on the whole, it hasn’t been a financially profitable deal in terms of time value of a two-year contract and what United Chiefs wanted to achieve within the period.