Sir Jim Ratcliffe, a minority owner of Manchester United, has expressed strong support for Erik ten Hag by calling him a “good coach.” Despite considering replacements for Ten Hag before the FA Cup final and in the weeks following the victory over Manchester City, Ineos ultimately decided to continue backing the 54-year-old. Ten Hag had a disappointing season last year, finishing in eighth place in the Premier League and last in their Champions League group. However, a win against City in the cup final led Ineos to extend his contract for a third season. This decision followed a comprehensive end-of-season evaluation that included considering other managers, such as Thomas Tuchel. Ten Hag is anticipated to sign a new deal with Old Trafford. Additionally, Ratcliffe’s criticism of UEFA transfer rules aligns with United’s altered strategy. Ratcliffe’s assessment of United’s initial transfer window under Ineos ownership is accurate. Ratcliffe expressed strong support for Ten Hag at The Times CEO Summit, after previously choosing to remain quiet about the club’s manager. Ratcliffe, who holds a 27.7% stake in United, did not give any remarks about Ten Hag following his £1.25bn investment in the club in February. He later issued a positive statement after the cup final without mentioning Ten Hag, and there were no public affirmations of support for the manager from United when they decided to retain him last week. Ratcliffe gave an interview to Bloomberg where he stated that the head coach was not the problem at Old Trafford. However, during the summit, he publicly praised Ten Hag for the first time since becoming the key decision-maker at the club four months ago. Ratcliffe explained that Ten Hag was retained as coach because of his strong coaching abilities. He also mentioned that while some people believe the coach is the most important factor in a team’s success, this may not always be the case. Ratcliffe pointed out that Manchester United has had multiple coaches over the years, none of whom have been able to achieve success, suggesting that the coach may not be solely to blame for the team’s issues.
