Inside Dan Ashworth’s farcical Manchester United exit and the power struggle in the Old Trafford soap opera

Dan Ashworth has left Manchester United because Sir Jim Ratcliffe ultimately wanted to act on something he felt wasn’t working rather than wait in the hope it would. The stance from the club’s principal decision-maker is that there is no time to waste. It has led to shock at Carrington.

The great question at Old Trafford is whether that same seriousness will now extend to United’s leadership structure, given the image of farce.

Personality clashes have contributed to Ashworth’s departure, and he wasn’t really fitting into the structure, although that was in part a case of having “too many chiefs”. Within that was also doubt about some of Ashworth’s judgment.

Word quickly spread after Sunday’s announcement – in the way that often happens in football – that the 53-year-old was not one of the voices who pushed for Ruben Amorim.

Ashworth’s admiration for Gareth Southgate and Graham Potter is well known, and it has now frequently been pointed out he did not lead the talks to bring the Portuguese manager last month. It has since become apparent he was not influential in selecting the manager, despite his position as sporting director being intended to specialise in this.

Worse, that role had less of a remit than expected, especially under a chief executive as strong and involved as Omar Berrada.

The latter has made a significant impact in his time at Old Trafford so far, and impressed Ratcliffe with his assertiveness. That feeling did not extend to Ashworth, with sources insisting that increased questions were being asked about his role and his recruitment. Ratcliffe has been irritated by some public comments and felt the club was unnecessarily held back by the prevarication over Erik ten Hag, that Ashworth is now seen as a part of.

The minority owner would have moved Ten Hag on much earlier. He also wanted someone with the charisma to handle a job of United’s size, and felt Ashworth’s suggestions were limited. The increased scope resulted in Amorim, who Ratcliffe wants to give every possibility to succeed.

The Ten Hag era has nevertheless compounded the issues at United, given how the excessive expenditure has left them with an even more ill-fitting squad, in severe need of an overhaul. Only Noussair Mazraoui has so far really worked out of the summer signings.

Senior figures at the club have lamented about how “there is so much to sort”, speaking in even bleaker terms than Ratcliffe did to fanzine United We Stand.

It is within this that some have even questioned Ashworth’s wider record. They point to how Brighton have kept on improving recruitment, despite the departure of Ashworth and many others.

If such talk now seems harsh now that a man has left his job, the more pressing issue is how United need to be much more efficient where it actually matters, rather than in terms of relative negligible income from harsh ticket price rises.

The image of so many suits in the stands at games – something all the worse for photos when United suffer another setback – has played into the sense of farce. People at other clubs openly wonder who is contributing which part to what decision. The irony is that one of Ashworth’s great strengths is in drawing up technical plans. United’s top structure just doesn’t look like it works, which was visible in the departed sporting director’s own role.

Berrada’s reach impacted on it from above. Underneath, some see interim director of recruitment Christopher Vivell as sufficient, and he could now be made permanent. United sources openly talk about “constantly learning about what the best structure will be to help us to win”.

Some with knowledge of the club also interpret all this as interesting in the context of the wider power dynamic. Although Berrada has grown in influence, the two figures who Ratcliffe most listens to are Sir David Brailsford and Ineos sport CEO Jean-Claude Blanc. Ashworth is seen as especially close to Brailsford, as part of a high-profile group of sporting figures associated with “high performance” principles. Brailsford was nevertheless said to be much more aligned to Ratclilffe regarding the stance on Ten Hag.

United’s minority owner ultimately felt things weren’t right, and needed change. As figures who know Ratcliffe well say, his opinion can turn quickly and “when his mind’s made up, that’s it”. It essentially represents the assertiveness that wasn’t displayed with Ten Hag.

That has for the moment contributed to the sense of farce, that has also had real human effect. Regular employees have lost their jobs while ticket prices have gone up, only for major errors at the top of the club to bring a huge waste of time and money with the Ten Hag and Ashworth situations. United spent months of drama trying to get Ashworth out of Newcastle United only for him to spend less time in his actual role at the club.

It’s even worse if you stand back further. They appointed a huge new team of executives before standing by Ten Hag and extending his contract, spending £200m on recruitments for his system, then sacking him anyway and appointing a new coach with a different approach before the sporting director left.

The optics, in the words of one source, are not good. “It never got close to anything this bad under Ed Woodward.”

The view from those close to Ratcliffe, however, is that this is why it is better to act now rather than let situations worsen; that these are simply necessary ructions en route to getting it right.

A problem for United has long been that there was no guiding ideology or a clear structure with key figures all sharing the same outlook.

The stories about tensions around Ashworth would indicate this move is at least a step towards that. He won’t be short of offers. Meanwhile, United again look like a soap opera. Those close to Ratcliffe would say a move as serious as this is about changing the story.