I am starting to think this may resolve Carrick anyways…

Man United just put in their best performance in years, squashing an admittedly defensively depleted Man City. I suppose it isn’t impossible that Carrick could be named permanent manager. Unlikely but no longer impossible. They looked completely committed for the first time in a long time.

Hey all,

Indeed it's a confusing market, my bad on the rules and wording.

But my intentions were rather clear - judging whether the next manager is interim on both the official communication and lenght of the contract, and I communicated such earlier.

Carrick is clearly an interim manager, and the current situation does not resolve this market.

I'm happy to leave it up to mods if they want to resolve it N/A, otherwise I would keep this market open and resolve when the next permament manager is appointed for the next season (and maybe also part of the current one), which might still be Michael Carrick.

@itsTomekK Contract length is a better criteria, but I strongly disagree with you on "But my intentions were rather clear" as your quote stated you would be using the text of the official announcement to resolve the market.

@itsTomekK i also strongly disagree on “intentions were rather clear”. If anything, the question had more clarity based on the initial description and we can judge based on news reporting. But you clarified that the official statement from the club is the sole source for resolution and how they would “historically name” coaches based on titles. So this should already resolve to Carrick based on your quote imo.

The only reason Carrick had that high % even before the official news was because people looked for the text/title from your clarification, since every other news agency was already reporting that he was going to be contracted for end of the season 24 hrs before clubs official announcement

I hate to bring mods in but I just don’t see how it was meant differently when someone specifically asked about this scenario and it happened https://www.manutd.com/en/news/detail/official-statement-manchester-united-appoint-michael-carrick-as-head-coach , and then somehow it’s no longer valid for resolution. @mods hope to hear your opinion

Official statement: Carrick appointed as head coach

Michael's return is officially confirmed, along with his support staff.

@Mochi I don't see how this is a problem at all. It's pretty clear Carrick, at least right now, is an interim manager, contracted to the end of the season. Generally, the mods go towards the good-faith interpretation of market resolution, so I'm curious to see what they say. I don't really see this as causing any contention, though.

Also, I don't agree with the view that "The only reason Carrick had that high % even before the official news was that people looked for the text/title from your clarification" either. I was the main holder, but I held on to the temporary belief that an interim position could be converted into a full managerial role (like Ole, ah I miss those days lol), but I don't think thats true anymore. Happy to hear your thoughts tho I agree with mochi nvm

@prismatic Thanks for sharing your thoughts. Look, I get it, Carrick is clearly an interim manager contracted for remainder of the season, but in the screenshot someone lines out this exact what if situation (announced as new manager but contracted for remainder of the season). And the creator’s reply was that United generally specifies the title and if the “temp” title is not mentioned then it is considered permanent. So if this clarification had any bearing it should be valid for resolution already imo

@Mochi That's true, as the other comments below alluded to, if people are feeling really pedantic, it can be argued that he was appointed as the head coach and not the manager

@prismatic I would agree with that as well if not for the title of the question including “after Ruben Amorim” who was also a head coach in title

@Mochi i put my money where my mouth is. lets see if carrick is correct :)

maybe not my mouth, more your mouth haha

Who are people betting on with Other? I cannot think of many candidates not already on the board.

@Xizted Maybe Xabi Alonso or someone else who gets fired over the course of the season.

@DevdaDavid Alonso was the only notable candidate I could think that was missing, but I think the probably wants something better than United. At the moment the job really is quite a rebuild

@Xizted True enough, it’s hard to imagine any already established manager taking the job. Too much bad karma until the Glazers are completely out. Never has an ownership so completely wrecked a great team. And I say that as a Liverpool supporter.

The official statement from Manchester United states that Michael Carrick is head coach of the men’s first team until the end of the 2025/2026 season. Contracted only for the remainder of the season in other words.

@DevdaDavid https://manifold.markets/itsTomekK/who-will-be-the-next-manager-of-man-C6yOsZZ2P6#2u8tlpabwfe as long as the announcement does not explicitly name them as interim / temporary/ caretaker then it counts according to prior clarification. And the official statement is not naming him in such way

Who will be the next manager of Manchester United, after Ruben Amorim?

This market will resolve to the next permanent manager of Manchester United [image]Update 2026-01-06 (PST) (AI summary of creator comment): A manager contracted only for the remainder of a season is not considered permanent. The Manchester United board typically states whether a new manager is interim or permanent when announcing the appointment. Update 2026-01-06 (PST) (AI summary of creator comment): A manager will be considered permanent if the official announcement from Manchester United does not explicitly state that the manager is temporary, interim, or caretaker. If the club's announcement does not specify the manager as temporary in any way, they will be considered permanent for this market's resolution.

@Mochi I guess from a semantic point of view you can choose between AI update # 1 or 2 above. From an accurate resolution point of view as of now he is clearly temporary. He could still be named permanent manager at the end of the season however. So full resolution of his status may have to wait until August or later.

@DevdaDavid the club generally specifies in name whether its interim/temporary/caretaker from ai definition 1, so there’s some contradiction here. The creator specified the semantic importance of the club’s official statement so judging by the semantics it should resolve to Carrick imo

Why rely on the AI when we can just quote the OP directly:

"Now - basically, if the official announcement from the club doesn't specifically say that the manager is somehow temporary, then it is considered as permament in this market.

Sorry for the confusion"

@Xizted In my opinion being named manager for this season only, certainly fits the bill as somehow temporary. I think the AI updates have led to needless confusion. Carrick has definitively not been named permanent manager and is unlikely to be named permanent manager at the end of the season. Accurate resolution of his status however will have to wait until then. In fact accurate resolution of the market will have to wait until the permanent manager is named which is also probably at the end of the season.

@DevdaDavid There is a direct quote from the OP stating that the criteria for the manager being "permanent" is the title being used in the official announcement. Based on that this should be a slam dunk resolve as the official announcement has no mention of "interim" or "caretaker" status.

@Xizted The direct quote that you mention makes no mention of the title he is given. It does however mention that if the official announcement does not “somehow” indicate that he is temporary then he should be considered permanent. The announcement indisputably indicates that he is head manager for the 2025/2026 season only. Does that sound temporary or permanent to you? I think you guys are hung up on the title which is somewhat understandable based on the misleading AI updates. If we are going to rely on the updates however, I would once again refer you to the first sentence of the first update.

@DevdaDavid I do not know of a truly permanent manager contract being given out. OP was very clear that the title used in the official announcement would be the criteria for permanence, and there was no explicit mention of this appointment being interim.

@Xizted I guess we just have different interpretations of the language of the announcement. I don’t know how naming him manager for the 2025/2026 season only does anything but explicitly imply temporary status. In my opinion and I think in 99.9 % of the footballing public’s opinion Carrick is the temporary manager of Manchester United. If you feel you have found a semantic/language loophole I guess you can appeal to a mod for resolution, but I would argue that at best one sentence in one update implies that the managers title is crucial in resolving the question. There are more sentences including the extremely unambiguous first sentence of the first update that states that a season long contract means the manager is not permanent. Don’t see how you can overlook that but without individual interpretations we wouldn’t have poetry!

@DevdaDavid To be clear, I personally dont think resolving this question simply based on the language used in the announcement is the best choice, I think using the contract length would have made more sense.

Edit: I previously did say that using the title makes sense, but I did leave out a suggestion to use both the title and length as criteria to not affect the market and to not seem annoying.

However as there is such a clear criteria put forward by the OP:

"if the official announcement from the club doesn't specifically say that the manager is somehow temporary, then it is considered as permament in this market."

which has now been fulfilled, as the announcement doesn't specifically state that the manager is explicitly temporary, I dont know why the question wouldnt be resolved.

I personally would not involve mods in this, but I just felt it was important to be clear about the situation. I personally would accept the criteria being changed to be contract length based even at this point, but I dont know if that is the consensus.

@Xizted yea I agree, I don’t necessarily disagree that most people would consider Carrick as a temporary coach based on contract length, but the clear criteria from a comment clarification as mentioned by OP has been fulfilled and from the clarification I believe it should be resolved accordingly to Carrick.

@Xizted Once again the announcement, in my opinion, does specifically say that the manager at this point is temporary by limiting the contract to this season only. That interpretation is also supported by the creator’s comment as I have repeatedly indicated. I think you are focused on the title which I understand, but to my reading the title is not the crucial factor in resolution. He is indisputably a temporary manager in the non title associated language of the announcement. Agree to disagree?

@DevdaDavid Maybe it is best to wait for @itsTomekK to make the final call, but I dont think it would be fair to say that the contract length itself translates to the club saying the manager is permanent. I do agree that Carrick isnt at the moment the permanent manager, but that is not what this market should be resolved based on.

@Xizted I think that the argument pivots on whether you emphasize the title or the announcement. If reasonable people can come to different but reasonable conclusions perhaps an N/A is indicated for Carrick. Enjoyed the debate!

@DevdaDavid Again, judging by the clarification it mostly reads to me that the emphasis is on the title, but agree to disagree! Clearly there is some ambiguity and maybe N/A makes sense here regarding this Carrick situation.