Tribal Football

Sacking Sir Alex? It's a disgrace - but no surprise after Man Utd co-owner Ratcliffe's year-long actions

Chris Beattie, Editor
Sacking Sir Alex? It's a disgrace - but no surprise after Man Utd co-owner Ratcliffe's year-long actions
Sacking Sir Alex? It's a disgrace - but no surprise after Man Utd co-owner Ratcliffe's year-long actions Action Plus
COMMENT: The 'sacking' of Sir Alex. It was a surprise. But then again, it wasn't. At least not for those paying attention to the upheaval Manchester United's staff have experienced this year...

So Sir Alex is gone. And he confirmed as much by his actions this weekend. That glib open invite - as leaks claimed - to attend games at Old Trafford snubbed, as Ferguson took his seat at Celtic Park, just as United were kicking off against Brentford. If a message of unity was to be sent. If claims of an "amicable" agreement with Jim Ratcliffe over the ending of his ambassadorial role were to be confirmed. Then getting as far away from Old Trafford as he could wasn't exactly the signal you'd expect.

Advertisement
Advertisement

But even if we can make an argument regarding the salary Ferguson was on. The cost-cuts that Ineos are driving through the club. That still doesn't explain the banning of the Scot from the dressing room. In the week it's leaked to the press that his £2m-plus job is no more, we also had news that United's former manager was ordered to no longer enter the home dressing room. Again, an Ineos initiative. A Ratcliffe initiative. Certainly, Erik ten Hag made it clear on Friday that this decision had no input from him.

“Of course it has an impact on us," Ten Hag said before Saturday's impressive win against the Bees. "Sir Alex, of course, IS Man United, he built United to where the club it is now and it impacts us.

"He wants to see a winning Manchester United and I’m sure he’s always available for every advice and we will need him, definitely, in the short-term, as we did in the last two-and-a-half years I am here."

As we say, for those paying attention, the decision is no great surprise. Ratcliffe's been at this from day one. From the moment that email calling out the club's tech team about the state of their office made it's way to the press. Branding it a "disgrace". You just knew something wasn't quite right with this billionaire. A good manager. A decent boss. You'd make your unhappiness known privately. Between yourself and those involved. You don't stick the people you've just inherited through a humiliation ritual, exposing your upset with them to the entire staff. 

But this is what Ratcliffe did. And from there, it appears there's been a mission to drive down morale and bring through an 'us and them' elitist culture to the club. Where Ferguson encouraged staff and players to mix and mingle. Ratcliffe has banned it. A tradition that goes back to the days before Sir Matt Busby. But not on Ratcliffe's watch.

And while the shedding of 250 employees would shake any organisation. Paying closer attention, it's clear that those left behind are feeling underappreciated and undervalued. The word coming from out of the club is that morale is at rock bottom. Not because of on-field performances. Not because of pressure from fans. But due to the actions of the new management team. It isn't about those who are in the process of leaving the club. Instead, it's how Ineos have left those who are staying feeling so adrift.

To be fair, it hasn't been every press source. But some reports have portrayed the issues as being around the cutting of perks. Staff cars. Company cards. And the like. But this goes beyond such fringe benefits. It's about how the staff feel they're being treated. Again, how they've been made to feel undervalued. The club is no longer a club. Over the past year, since Ratcliffe's arrival, the sense is that not every member holds the same value. In the past, everyone felt their place was recognised and valued. No matter the position. But that sense of a club spirit is now evaporating.

Which is why the deliberate distancing of Ferguson from United is no great surprise. It's just another action by someone who doesn't get the intangibles of football. Or is that, the marginal gains

But what about public support? Or public undermining? Where does that measure in the success of a team? Because in the week we see Sir Alex effectively sacked.  Someone who has NEVER publicly criticised the managers who have come after him. Nor the players who have pulled on the United shirt after his retirement. In this very same week, we had Gary Neville acting as United ambassador in India. The same Neville who has done everything he can to undermine the manager. The captain. And Ratcliffe's new business partner at United. Yet, while Ferguson is shunned. Neville is embraced. Just what on earth is going with Ratcliffe and this Ineos team?

OF course, for those who reach the levels of Ratcliffe, there's always a trail of human wreckage behind. We know this. But as an industry, football is a different animal. It's unique. It truly is a case of the whole being stronger than the sum of the parts.

Staff morale. The presence of legends. The spirit and enthusiasm around a club. They're factors that cannot be measured. But they all contribute to the success of a football team. Something that Ratcliffe and his middle-managers would do well to understand.