Ratcliffe left with bloody nose after Ashworth farce

The sporting director's exit further tests United fans' faith in the direction of travel under Ineos owner

- Jamie Jackson

To avoid rot: the characterisation employed by a powerful Manchester United executive to explain Dan Ashworth's departure. As in: better that he left after five months as sporting director rather than stay and allow festering damage to Sir Jim Ratcliffe's reset of the club.

In play, partly, here was a face-off between Omar Berrada and Ashworth that had the chief executive emerging as victor.

Ratcliffe's recent interview with the United We Stand fanzine featured profuse praise for Berrada and none for the man now history.

Zoom out from this turf war and the wider picture is hardly gleaming. The collateral damage of Ashworth's culling is widespread.

The £3m compensation paid to Newcastle to dislodge Ashworth may be chicken feed compared with the fortunes wasted on transfers - Antony, £86m, for example - and wages - Casemiro, £360,000 a week.

But in an economy drive that features raising the minimum members' ticket price to £66 and making 250 employees redundant, identifying Ashworth as the candidate to drive Ratcliffe's shiny new United forward then deciding he is no longer best-in-class is a bloody nose to internal morale and supporters' faith.

The neutral finds the latest convulsion in the United soap opera questionable, too. "Farce" was the apt term for the saga of Erik ten Hag's sacking in October.