Members of Manchester United’s hierarchy doubtless got a sense of deja vu during the executive committee meeting held at INEOS’ London headquarters on October 8. Because it was there, once again, that serious thought was given to sacking Erik ten Hag.

It had been a near-identical situation in May, during a similar summit in Monaco, when, as The Athletic revealed, INEOS figurehead and United co-owner Sir Jim Ratcliffe was first advised to change manager. On that occasion, United’s search for alternative candidates overshadowed their looming FA Cup final appearance but ultimately ended in Ten Hag staying in place and getting an extra year on his contract.

This time, although it took 20 days to come to pass, Ten Hag was relieved of his duties.

At the INEOS offices, over the road from Harrods department store, chief executive Omar Berrada, sporting director Dan Ashworth and technical director Jason Wilcox presented the football reasons for why a new manager might be required in a meeting attended by Ratcliffe, co-chairman Joel Glazer, club board member Sir Dave Brailsford, INEOS representatives Jean-Claude Blanc, Rob Nevin and Roger Bell, as well as United’s chief operating officer Collette Roche.

The executive committee (ExCo) meetings are monthly get-togethers to discuss the entire club, from commercial to stadium, hence the spectrum of people involved but, as The Athletic reported, this one carried extra significance given the talk around the manager’s future. Roche was among those on the business side who left the meeting before that major agenda item, which came amid a conversation about the wider picture at United and a full interrogation of club finances, as has become customary since INEOS took charge of United’s football and business operations this year.

Indeed, the state of United’s balance sheet has been a factor throughout the debate on Ten Hag. The cost of replacing him and hiring a replacement was a consideration at the end of last season, but the irony in United opting to trigger the 12-month extension in his contract is that his compensation now will be higher.

A figure of about £15million ($19.5m) has been confirmed as accurate by people briefed on the matter, who, like others in this article, will remain anonymous to protect relationships. That sum, while giving pause for thought due to United’s recent record of making losses, combined with financial regulations imposed by UEFA (European football’s governing body) and the Premier League, was not considered prohibitive to a change. The cost could be swallowed if those in charge judged the sporting case compelling. And United’s positions of 14th in the 20-club Premier League and 21st in the 36-team Europa League forced the issue. The drop in performance can be seen from their rolling expected goals (xG) chart below.