Dan Roan
BBC sports editor

Since Manchester United’s dismal 3-0 defeat to Tottenham Hotspur at Old Trafford last month, Erik ten Hag’s job had been in danger.

After all, the Dutchman had made a miserable start to this Premier League campaign, despite the club having spent more than £500m on signing players since Ten Hag’s arrival two years ago.

His tactics had not worked and most of the players he brought in had not disappointed.

That’s why the coach’s departure was no surprise.

Three weeks ago, United co-owner Sir Jim Ratcliffe refused to back Ten Hag when I asked the Ineos billionaire if he still had faith in him.

Ratcliffe said he liked the manager but also admitted there was a need to “take stock” and insisted the responsibility lay with the executives who run the club on his behalf.

A few days later, Ten Hag survived a club hierarchy meeting and the October international break, but the feeling was that he was on borrowed time. And so it turned out.

However, while few fans will regret the decision to sack the manager, his departure also raises uncomfortable questions for those in charge at Old Trafford.

Why – some will ask – did the club not act sooner, rather than allowing potential replacements such as Mauricio Pochettino and Thomas Tuchel to be acquired elsewhere? Was it a case of admirable loyalty or stubbornness that backfired?

Why did an end-of-season review in the summer, led by Ineos head of sport and former British Cycling performance director Sir Dave Brailsford, conclude it was right to stick with Ten Hag?

Read more here