Manchester United are in pieces after another loss on Sunday with Michael Carrick set to pay the price, but sporting director Jason Wilcox is being held up as one of those responsible for their failings

Whenever Manchester United lose games, which at the moment is pretty regularly, you can always guarantee the camera will eventually pan to the stands.

There you will find a glum faced Jason Wilcox, the club's director of football, who is seen as the man responsible for their current demise, which looks certain to cost Michael Carrick his job sooner rather than later.

Wilcox was part of the Ineos overhaul, which in itself hardly makes him hugely likeable to the United faithful. His work at Manchester City and then Southampton earned him the gig at Old Trafford, but he's been unable to make the club the force they still dream of becoming.

Currently though things are at rock bottom with Carrick presiding over a dire start to the season, their worst in four decades, which owes in part to a shocking summer. United ploughed all their investment into their midfield, overlooking the need to bolster the defence or add a centre forward.

Make sure you don't miss sport's biggest stories and breaking news by making the Daily Mirror one of your Google preferred sources.

Already those decisions are coming back to haunt United with injuries exposing their squad and after their loss to Atletico Madrid Lisandro Martinez called out Wilcox himself during a post-match rant. But is it really all on the sporting director?

The case for Wilcox

- Not in charge of the budget: Whilst he might be one of the more senior figures at United he isn't the one deciding how much is spent every summer, that figure comes from above him. It means he may well have wanted to add even more players and give Carrick the squad he needed, but was simply unable to.

- Injuries and clubs backing out of deals: Manuel Ugarte was among those the club wanted to move on in the summer so they could raise the necessary funds. His injury at the World Cup meant no one wanted to go near the Uruguayan, hardly Wilcox's doing. He also saw Barcelona back out of a £26million purchase option for Marcus Rashford, instead spending nearly three times as much to land Anthony Gordon. Again, had that money come in, United may well have invested in more depth.

- Underperforming players: Gary Neville mentioned in the aftermath of the loss to Bournemouth that, yet again, those in red were downing tools. Several of them have been present when previous managers have been sacked, with their performances levels going up and down like no one's business. That seems to be happening again, and they are solely responsible for that.

The case against Wilcox

- No contact: This is an issue within the entirety of the United hierarchy, but Wilcox could certainly remedy this. We never hear from them. United's fans want answers, they spent decades with the Glazers making decisions that were never explained or questioned, and it seems that habit is continuing.

- Continuous backing: Wilcox seems to be the man surviving when others get the chop - sooner or later fans want to know why he seems to be freed from responsibility. It was Dan Ashworth who was axed when they clashed over who should replace Erik ten Hag. And it was apparently Wilcox who questioned Ruben Amorim's tactics, only for the Portuguese boss to get the boot.

- Transfer naivety: Whilst it is fair to say Wilcox's budget may have been limited, he still chose to sign off all £155m of it on midfielders. No new left-back, no new centre-halves, and this is a defence that has welcomed no new signings for years. So when you're conceding four in Como and three at home to Bournemouth, don't be so surprised.

- Ineos association: Like it or not, this current Ineos ownership led by Ratcliffe are proving as unpopular as the Glazers. And Wilcox is looking increasingly like Jim's man. Just like Ed Woodward was once the Glazers' man. Such links will not make you endearing to the United fanbase.