FOLLOWING a short meeting with Manchester United chief executive Ed Woodward on Tuesday morning, the news filtered out to the press quickly. Jose Mourinho, United manager for the last two and a half seasons, was gone. For a club that pride themselves on supporting their managers and offering a level of patience that’s rarely seen at the upper echelons of the sport, the decision was a momentous one.

Mourinho’s sacking in and of itself wasn’t particularly surprising, given the extent of Manchester United’s decline this season. Sixth in the table after 17 games is a pretty poor showing from a side that finished in second place the previous season and, as it stands, United are closer to the relegation zone than they are to their rivals Manchester City in second place.

The weekend’s 3-1 defeat to Liverpool was the final nail in Mourinho’s coffin and the point of no return where the board decided that enough was enough. Despite the abundance of evidence that would lead just about any club to parting ways with their coach, the decision caught many off-guard. After all, this is United. Giving a manager the majority of, if not the entirety of, a season is the status quo. Even David Moyes got until the end of April until he was relieved of his duties.

So why the change in policy from the Old Trafford boardroom then? Can they still claim to be more patient than other top-level clubs?

Those keen to defend United’s decision to sack Mourinho can point to the fact that the Portuguese has had two and a half seasons, so it’s not as if he hasn’t been given a fair crack of the whip in Manchester. This is certainly true, but it’s also important to point out that Mourinho was never seriously under pressure in the previous two seasons. Last season, United were only second-best to Pep Guardiola’s record-breaking Man City. During the 2016/17 season Manchester United finished in sixth place, but won the League Cup and the Europa League - with the latter securing qualification for the Champions League.

Ultimately, this is what the Manchester United board care about more than anything else. Challenging for the Premier League title should always be the goal, but Champions League qualification is their red line. Both Moyes and his successor Louis Van Gaal got the boot when it became mathematically impossible to qualify for Europe’s premier club competition, with many assuming it would be the same case with Mourinho. But it didn’t turn out that way.

The two and a half seasons that Mourinho was given may sound like the United board gave the 55-year-old a generous stint at the club, given the short term nature of managerial appointments in England’s top flight. While this is true of most Premier League clubs, the reality is that it is different for those at the top end of the table.

While it’s not uncommon to see teams embroiled in a relegation dogfight replace their manager one or twice a season, managers at the Premier League’s top clubs are given far more time to get their ideas across. In recent seasons the hair-trigger approach previously employed has given way to a more patient approach.

Look at the Premier League’s ‘Big Six’. This is Guardiola’s third season as Manchester City manager, Jurgen Klopp has been at Anfield for over three years and Mauricio Pochettino has been at Tottenham since May 2014. Both Arsenal and Chelsea have managers who are competing in their first seasons at the clubs.

Arsenal obviously have form for showing patience with their manager, as Arsene Wenger can attest to. Even the infamously ruthless Chelsea owner Roman Abramovich gave Antonio Conte until the end of last season, despite the fact that it became clear by February that qualifying for the next season’s Champions League was unlikely.

We can see, then, that Mourinho’s tenure as Manchester United manager wasn’t an especially long one after all, compared to other top English clubs. Performances and results have certainly went downhill at an alarming rate - United have already conceded more league goals this season than they did during the entire 2017/18 Premier League season - but the board’s timing is still somewhat unusual. Moyes and Van Gaal got until qualifying for the Champions League was mathematically impossible, so why wasn’t Mourinho afforded the same courtesy?

It’s widely assumed that there was a clause in Moyes and Van Gaal’s contracts that meant if Manchester United failed to qualify for the Champions League, then the coaches would be entitled to a smaller amount of compensation from the club. It’s fair to assume Mourinho would have had the same condition in his contract too, which means that United’s decision to relieve him of his duties will have been a costly exercise indeed. Estimates around Mourinho’s compensation package have reached as high as £20 million.

One theory behind Mourinho’s sacking rests on the unhealthy relationship he had developed with a number of the club’s top players. Stars like Paul Pogba, Anthony Martial and David De Gea are reportedly unsettled and with next month’s transfer window looming, United have decided to act. The club could have waited until Champions League qualification was unattainable - and presumably saved themselves a fortune on Mourinho’s compensation package - but this would have happened after the January window had closed. Had Mourinho stayed on until then, it’s perfectly plausible some of the aforementioned players could have moved on, if only to escape Mourinho’s idiosyncrasies.

It seems as if the United hierarchy have decided that keeping a hold of their top talents was more important than saving money or continuing their tradition of offering patience to their manager. The club have stood out from their contemporaries in this regard for years but it appears as if the decision to give Mourinho his P45 signals a change in approach. Manchester United will be in a far better position to keep a hold of their superstars next month, but it has came at a price: no longer can they claim to give their managers more time than any other top English side.