Dan Ashworth (now working for Manchester United)

[r0cafella]

Just now, Unbelievable said:

 

I'm disappointed for the club, not in the club. Since my overall feeling about this whole thing is disappointment (in Ashworth and for the club) I fail to understand the glee so many are portraying. Maybe it's just me

Look at the way he and them have behaved, you should be happy to be rid. 
 

He’s not the only sporting director, hiring him was a mistake as it appears the next one will be more focused on recruitment. 
 

He’s not the only person capable of building the club up. 

[AyeDubbleYoo]

I’m not happy about the whole thing, I’m just happy Ashworth has proved himself to be a slime and that the club aren’t backing down for Man Utd. Schadenfreude is an essential part of being a football fan

[Dokko]

1 hour ago, Unbelievable said:

 

If we make him sit out his gardening leave, as suggested is what we'd prefer to do if we don't get Man U to offer reasonable compensation and what many seem to think is a great idea, we lose out on our investment (4.5m paid to Brighton plus 1.5 years of wages for someone doing nothing while we have to shell out for a replacement), don't we? Realistically there is no way we'd get millions back from Ashworth for wanting out of his job, or even for sharing the details of his contract with a prospective new employer.

 

We've got his strategy, and started implementing it. We know what good looks like, and with new to football owners, that is massive. 

 

That aside, he's basically done a Mutu and sniffed coke and made himself unavailable. He is an asset, not an employee, hence paying the money to Brighton. We're still paying him until legally we don't have to, and all this is adding up to a loss which he will have to pay for. His only way out of not being sued at this point is if Manure settle hard. He's absolutely knackered and will be made an example of.

[gdm]

2 hours ago, Unbelievable said:

I don’t like Man U anymore than you do. I loath us losing millions, when we are already financially constraint so much. to supposedly get one over them though. My point is I don’t understand why people seem to think this whole ordeal is somehow a positive development for NUFC, when it clearly isn’t.

I don’t get this idea that we are losing millions? Our price for him is double what we paid for him at least and we won’t budge and you’d imagine arbitration would rule that we at least get what we paid for him. 

[KaKa]

13 minutes ago, gdm said:

I don’t get this idea that we are losing millions? Our price for him is double what we paid for him at least and we won’t budge and you’d imagine arbitration would rule that we at least get what we paid for him. 

 

It's such a strange outlook man.

 

I'm completely dumbfounded by it all.

[Unbelievable]

11 minutes ago, gdm said:

I don’t get this idea that we are losing millions? Our price for him is double what we paid for him at least and we won’t budge and you’d imagine arbitration would rule that we at least get what we paid for him. 

I said we'd lose millions IF Man U look elsewhere. They are under no obligation to pay us what we want, and unless I'm mistaken the arbitration is between Ashworth and NUFC and doesn't oblige Man U to pay more that they may want to. It's not certain we'll lose millions, but it's certainly not far fetched.

[KaKa]

30 minutes ago, Unbelievable said:

I said we'd lose millions IF Man U look elsewhere. They are under no obligation to pay us what we want, and unless I'm mistaken the arbitration is between Ashworth and NUFC and doesn't oblige Man U to pay more that they may want to. It's not certain we'll lose millions, but it's certainly not far fetched.

 

If Man Utd look elsewhere then Ashworth will remain on gardening leave until 2025, which is another year and so £1 million in salary. Well worth it to protect all the information he was privy to during his time with Newcastle, which is the whole point of gardening leave.

 

As for having to write off what we paid Brighton, which was around £3 million. It's hardly some big disaster. Never mind the fact we still got some value out of the toad, as he put a baseline structure in place throughout the club and hired a bunch of new staff.

 

It's not at all some catastrophic loss of millions for Newcastle. A catastrophic loss is spending £90 million on Antony.

[80]

3 hours ago, Unbelievable said:

I’m not saying we’ve done anything wrong or should have done anything differently. I’m saying we are losing out. Two massively different things.

From my perspective, I think we're just already pricing in that it's a big shame we ever hired the guy. It was a bad move and a big misstep. But not one which wasn't very well justified at the time we made the decision in early '22, so no blame attached.

 

Since then we've found good reasons to question his quality as an operator - not slamdunks, but still. And now it's been revealed conclusively that he's poisonous, so we're well out of it. 

 

So yes, it would definitely have been better if either we'd never met him or if he was a higher quality man. But allowing for that, we've found out relatively quickly before he was in even deeper, our club's still standing, backroom functions seem to be carrying on just as well if not better, the evidence is we have one of the most ambitious and competent ownerships in the world, they're not letting us be pushed around, and one of our major rivals is publicly embarrassing itself and heavily suggesting they don't know how to conduct an effective operation.

 

There are plenty of positives to take from it once you accept that yes, it's a shame we ever met the guy. Edit: And yes, as Kaka said, we will still have extracted value from having him in the for the first 12 months or so, just down to the weakness of our previous club structures if nothing else.

 

 

Edited May 24 by 80

[Checko]

Imagine you're seeing someone for a bit, then you start hearing from your mates she's been seen out with some rich nob, the sort of wanker who makes pissy comments at homeless people, and it turns out she's started seeing him behind your back.

 

You're outraged, she says she's going to leave you for him, you have an angry break up, block her on social media, don't respond when she wants to come and pick up her beekeeping costume (turns out she's a keen apiarist in this analogy).

 

Yeah it's good you're not going to waste too much time on her. Yeah the rich nob and her deserve each other. Yeah you get your favourite CDs back.

 

Still, doesn't mean you should necessarily be happy about the whole thing. I mean, now you've got the hassle of going out on the pull again when you've got a Netflix boxset you'd much rather be getting on with. And besides, you're still using CDs. Who does that?

 

I think that's more or less Unbelievable's point.

 

 

Edited May 24 by Checko

[greydos]

3 minutes ago, Checko said:

Imagine you're seeing someone for a bit, then you start hearing from your mates she's been seen out with some rich nob, the sort of wanker who makes pissy comments at homeless people, and it turns out she's started seeing him behind your back.

 

You're outraged, she says she's going to leave you for him, you have an angry break up, block her on social media, don't respond when she wants to come and pick up her beekeeping costume (turns out she's a keen apiarist in this analogy).

 

Yeah it's good you're not going to waste too much time on her. Yeah the rich nob and her deserve each other. Yeah you get your favourite CDs back.

 

Still, doesn't mean you should necessarily be happy about the whole thing. I mean, now you've got the hassle of going out on the pull again when you've got a Netflix boxset you'd much rather be getting on with. And besides, you're still using CDs. Who does that?

 

I think that's more or less Unbelievable's point.

 

 

 

There’s a need to recruit new personnel whenever anyone leaves. Would you/Unbelievable have felt this way when Steve Bruce was sacked? At least with Ashworth we have had some value. With Bruce there was nothing other than the permanent signing of Willockinho

[Guest]

1 hour ago, Unbelievable said:

 

I'm disappointed for the club, not in the club. Since my overall feeling about this whole thing is disappointment (in Ashworth and for the club) I fail to understand the glee so many are portraying. Maybe it's just me

 

I think the glee is just seeing the type of guy he is in the end, and showing Man Utd to be the awful entity that they've become. I've no doubts he's probably one of the best in the role at what he does, but we'll move on.

 

 

Edited May 24 by Optimistic Nut

[Checko]

Dodgy Dan's definitely the pantomime villain now so might as well have some fun with it.

[KaKa]

2 minutes ago, Optimistic Nut said:

 

I think the glee is just seeing the type of guy he is in the end, and showing Man Utd to be the awful entity that they've become. I've no doubts he's probably one of the best in the role at what he does, but we'll move on.

 

 

 

 

There were a number of really good articles posted yesterday on the whole situation.

 

It turns out we are actually looking for something different with our next hiring, as Ashworth wasn't as strong on the recruitment side, and we really need that, particularly in regards to selling players.

 

The main things he was good at, have largely been put in place, and we needed a bit more from him, rather than having him just overseeing what he had implemented so far.

 

Looks like we are now targeting a stronger recruitment DOF along with a head of Performance.

 

Looks like we've taken the opportunity to better address what is needed at the club. Will not be losing any sleep whatsoever over Ashworth going.

[Unbelievable]

33 minutes ago, 80 said:

From my perspective, I think we're just already pricing in that it's a big shame we ever hired the guy. It was a bad move and a big misstep. But not one which wasn't very well justified at the time we made the decision in early '22, so no blame attached.

 

Since then we've found good reasons to question his quality as an operator - not slamdunks, but still. And now it's been revealed conclusively that he's poisonous, so we're well out of it. 

 

So yes, it would definitely have been better if either we'd never met him or if he was a higher quality man. But allowing for that, we've found out relatively quickly before he was in even deeper, our club's still standing, backroom functions seem to be carrying on just as well if not better, the evidence is we have one of the most ambitious and competent ownerships in the world, they're not letting us be pushed around, and one of our major rivals is publicly embarrassing itself and heavily suggesting they don't know how to conduct an effective operation.

 

There are plenty of positives to take from it once you accept that yes, it's a shame we ever met the guy. Edit: And yes, as Kaka said, we will still have extracted value from having him in the for the first 12 months or so, just down to the weakness of our previous club structures if nothing else.

 

 

 

I must have missed all the signs that Ashworth was doing a bad job for us. As far as I am aware we’ve been doing pretty well overall and he was an integral part of that?

[Unbelievable]

28 minutes ago, Checko said:

Imagine you're seeing someone for a bit, then you start hearing from your mates she's been seen out with some rich nob, the sort of wanker who makes pissy comments at homeless people, and it turns out she's started seeing him behind your back.

 

You're outraged, she says she's going to leave you for him, you have an angry break up, block her on social media, don't respond when she wants to come and pick up her beekeeping costume (turns out she's a keen apiarist in this analogy).

 

Yeah it's good you're not going to waste too much time on her. Yeah the rich nob and her deserve each other. Yeah you get your favourite CDs back.

 

Still, doesn't mean you should necessarily be happy about the whole thing. I mean, now you've got the hassle of going out on the pull again when you've got a Netflix boxset you'd much rather be getting on with. And besides, you're still using CDs. Who does that?

 

I think that's more or less Unbelievable's point.

 

 

 

 

My point is I don’t particularly believe loyalty or morals exists amongst football professionals (notwithstanding a few notable exceptions). It’s all about getting the best available people on board and allowing them to do what they do best. In any walk of life, if someone comes along and offers you better terms and/or a more appealing role you’re going to consider it. Quite aside from everything else we’ve lost one of the best in his field of work whilst still paying him, and have been rejected by or first choice replacement. It’s not a great situation for the club to be in no matter how we spin it.

 

 

Edited May 24 by Unbelievable

[Kimbo]

I think it’s impossible for us to really know if he was doing a good or bad job, but his behaviour this year isn’t that of someone you want at your club IMO. And I’ll say it again, he wanted Gary Neville as England manager.

[Nucasol]

6 minutes ago, Unbelievable said:

I must have missed all the signs that Ashworth was doing a bad job for us. As far as I am aware we’ve been doing pretty well overall and he was an integral part of that?

I heard Dirty Dodgy Dan wasn’t working but was instead going around the offices and taking lightbulbs out of fittings and fuses out of plugs.

[Checko]

I hear Tonali was gambling on his phone behind Ashworth the whole time during negotiations and people kept shouting 'Look behind you!' at him, but he didn't listen.

[Nucasol]

Ashworth apparently left Lego on the ground in the men’s team changing rooms.

[mouldy_uk]

15 minutes ago, Nucasol said:

Ashworth apparently left Lego on the ground in the men’s team changing rooms.

Is that euphemism for something? 

[80]

3 minutes ago, Unbelievable said:

I must have missed all the signs that Ashworth was doing a bad job for us. As far as I am aware we’ve been doing pretty well overall and he was an integral part of that?

We've been doing pretty well overall, although I don't think it's been clear he was integral to what's been going well. It's not clear what he's been involved with, which has made it harder to assess.

 

Signings? Going well before he got here and going well since, on first sight. Became more wobbly while he was here, if anything. Involved in getting Gordon, but we know Eddie had tracked him for years already and the documentary suggests Amanda handled the negotiations. And we can't totally ignore Tonali.

 

Training ground? Initial reforms seemingly based on Eddie's preferences, and began before Ashworth arrived. Developments on entirely new site sluggish.

 

Fitness? Using his physio hires, we've had the worst injury crisis in decades.

 

Player relations? Tasked with new contracts for Bruno and Joelinton, both became unsettled and ended up being escalated out of his hands and resolved quickly and satisfactorily by others.

 

Youth? Quite impressive overall. Things like our loans under Ameobi are questionable, but seemingly we've massively improved our recruitment and scouting. Happy to give credit here. 

 

Women? All I've heard is he's been invisible here.

 

As I said, it's not a slamdunk that he's useless at all. There are certainly possible excuses or justifications for most of the above. But nevertheless, before it all kicked off there were certainly already grounds to question what he was actually bringing to the party.

[Nucasol]

1 minute ago, mouldy_uk said:

Is that euphemism for something? 

No that would be what he did in the cream of cauliflower soup in the canteen the dirty fucking rat.

[80]

1 hour ago, Checko said:

Imagine you're seeing someone for a bit, then you start hearing from your mates she's been seen out with some rich nob, the sort of wanker who makes pissy comments at homeless people, and it turns out she's started seeing him behind your back.

 

You're outraged, she says she's going to leave you for him, you have an angry break up, block her on social media, don't respond when she wants to come and pick up her beekeeping costume (turns out she's a keen apiarist in this analogy).

 

Yeah it's good you're not going to waste too much time on her. Yeah the rich nob and her deserve each other. Yeah you get your favourite CDs back.

 

Still, doesn't mean you should necessarily be happy about the whole thing. I mean, now you've got the hassle of going out on the pull again when you've got a Netflix boxset you'd much rather be getting on with. And besides, you're still using CDs. Who does that?

 

I think that's more or less Unbelievable's point.

 

 

 

I don't really see anybody being happy about it, though? That's the bit I think we're confused by. It's more a sense of relief after a drunk driver hits you, and while you've got a damaged car, they're in a coma. There's no part of you that's glad you've been crashed into. Unless you're willing to put your body on the line to hurt drunk drivers I suppose.

 

 

Edited May 24 by 80

[PauloGeordio]

4 minutes ago, 80 said:

I don't really see anybody being happy about it, though? That's the bit I think we're confused by. It's more a sense of relief after a drunk driver hits you, and while you've got a damaged car, they're in a coma.

I’m happy  Fuck him. We’ll be even better going forward with whoever we choose to fill those 2 roles I’ve no doubt. 

[James]

Wasted a lot more money on Matt Targett than Dan Ashworth!