Club ownership | Senior management team talk

[Insanity]

Ah yes, that's a better alternative, the club going bankrupt, losing points and probably going the same way as Bury FC.
Halcyon days.

You may not like it, or him, but SJR is making the changes required to steady the ship at United.

He's talking sense, truth and isn't afraid to make the decisions this club needs to get back to challenging again.

An institution like Man Utd wouldn't have gone the way of Bury FC. Someone would have come forward and the Glazers would have had no choice but to sell.

Ah yes....that was a better alternative.

SJR so far has enabled the Glazers and is going after the low hanging fruit. Little evidence to suggest that he will get us back to challenging again besides his words.

What did he say when he bought the club in Switzerland? At Nice?

 

[devilish]

And what happens if the Glazers refuse to pay the debt? It falls on the club and the club and fans suffer again. People need to get over this whole free lunch fiasco. The majority of employees in the current world do not get free lunches, especially not from an organisation which is suffering financially.

It all goes down to pre agreed clauses. Sjr would pump the necessary money in and if it can't be matched then he gets equity. The club was running out of cash and hedge funds would have never settled for just a football manager role. The buyers had a strong hand either at the time or in the near future

 

[devilish]

Ah yes, that's a better alternative, the club going bankrupt, losing points and probably going the same way as Bury FC.
Halcyon days.

You may not like it, or him, but SJR is making the changes required to steady the ship at United.

He's talking sense, truth and isn't afraid to make the decisions this club needs to get back to challenging again.

Stop being dramatic. Name me someone who would rather lose 3b-4b then sell

 

[Lyng]

Ah yes, that's a better alternative, the club going bankrupt, losing points and probably going the same way as Bury FC.
Halcyon days.

You may not like it, or him, but SJR is making the changes required to steady the ship at United.

He's talking sense, truth and isn't afraid to make the decisions this club needs to get back to challenging again.

United wouldnt go bankrupt. If it was really that dire then how come we could afford to pay to hire and sack Ashworth and sacking Ten Hag mid season. None of the measures implemented have recouped even close to that money.
United going bankrupt by the end of the year is such a bullshit statement and its frankly almost impressive that people are buying his shite.

 

[matsdf]

They've obviously made mistakes, but I like the honesty. Think it's the right way to go, although it hurts now.

 

[devilish]

United wouldnt go bankrupt. If it was really that dire then how come we could afford to pay to hire and sack Ashworth and sacking Ten Hag mid season. None of the measures implemented have recouped even close to that money.
United going bankrupt by the end of the year is such a bullshit statement and its frankly almost impressive that people are buying his shite.

Bankrupcy was a non option. We might be 1b in debt but the club is easily worth 3-4b . The glazers could have easily fount buyers in that ball park.

 

[DRJosh]

SJR isn’t here to revolutionise the club - at least in any tangible way. To think of it as such is pure naivety. His main remit is to mask the continued Glazer-led exploitation - to strategically soften the blow of a strong legacy of financial mismanagement. But in an ironic twist of fate, SJR has actually perpetuated and amplified the exisiting chaos.

 

[romufc]

Its interesting that even after watching the interviews.. so many people still make up their own views as if its true. The number of posts I read about... saving meals wont make us not go bankrupt.

SJR never said the club is going bankrupt.. he said they will run out of cash... there is a massive difference in the two.

He came out and explained the Ten Hag mistake, like what some on here have been saying, it was a mistake that they acknowledge and have explained it.

 

[sixdwarf]

Where is the ineptitude exactly ? Most fans wanted to keep ETH. Were you one?

He refused to slag off the Glazers, yes, but what do you expect? "Oh yeah, Gary, you're right. These Yanks have put us up shits creek".

Fans are not paying for past mistakes. They are paying because the cost of everything in the world is going up.
Because I dont remember a ticket price freeze between 1990 and 2013 when we were winning things?

Most fans don't run businesses and don't go chasing for replacements for a manager publicly before deciding to stick. Once you go down that road you better be sure that there is a new manager in place. Right now Amorim has taken the side backwards and it is clear that there was a reluctance to have him in the summer when it would have made more sense.
I cannot for the life of me believe that there has been so much ineptitude and from this regime. What's changed. At least in the past the ordinary fan and staff member didn't pay the price for the mistakes.
Also for him to say United could have gone bust with the revenue streams we have is utter rot and scaremongering to justify cuts and ticket price rises. It is not in a great financial position thanks to Glazer debt but that's it.
One other thing that concerned me was when he said the aim was to bring the debt down by making the club profitable. Using profits through cuts and ticket price increases to pay for Glazer debt is shocking. We pay!!!

 

[sixdwarf]

I realise that it's never nice to see jobs go but has anyone seen the comments made by Jim Ratcliffe about how we were paying a 'body language consultant' £180k a year?????

There are worse crimes. Like you and I and the staff paying the price for Glazer debt.

 

[romufc]

I realise that it's never nice to see jobs go but has anyone seen the comments made by Jim Ratcliffe about how we were paying a 'body language consultant' £180k a year?????

Woah dont laugh... most of the caf are upset about these cuts.

 

[romufc]

Also for him to say United could have gone bust with the revenue streams we have is utter rot and scaremongering to justify cuts and ticket price rises

This is your interpretation of the quote... not the fact. Go listen to it again... he says the club would have run out of cash, he didn't say bankrupt.

There is a massive difference between going into administration and running out of cash.

 

[sglowrider]

United wouldnt go bankrupt. If it was really that dire then how come we could afford to pay to hire and sack Ashworth and sacking Ten Hag mid season. None of the measures implemented have recouped even close to that money.
United going bankrupt by the end of the year is such a bullshit statement and its frankly almost impressive that people are buying his shite.

Fear mongering always works in times of uncertainty or you want to change things or take advantage of people, which is what is being used.

 

[hasanejaz88]

Immediate think I found hilarious was when he was ranting that no one else gets free lunches, and he never got any, so why should the United staff get them, he and Neville forget the fecking millionaire players at the club are still getting free food.

Shows his mindset, poor people are leaches.

 

[Lay]

Meal deal prices are fecking criminal these days though.

 

[Castia]

I hope we get some pictures of the plans today apparently going off that interview both Gaz and SJR said the plans are incredible

Something to be excited about would be nice for a change

 

[amolbhatia50k]

I thought that was a really good interview. I mean, it was uncomfortable at times and SJR did tie himself in knots here and there, but that was always going to the case given our current situation combined with Gary taking a refreshingly honest approach as an interviewer.

What stood out is that you can clearly see that Ratcliffe does indeed give a shit unlike the leeches, and is willing to take the heat as every owner should.

Yes, a lot of the negative press is justified but this honesty and openness is a bit positive, for me. As is the faith in the team that’s been assembled.

 

[terraloo]

Whilst I think the snake oil salesman is a bit strong some of the claims in the interview are deliberately provocative and to be honest it has relled so many in.

Of course the Utd finances are no where near as strong as they were in days of past but that doesn’t stem from Doris the tea lady all roads lead to senior management be it at board level or indeed those associated with the playing side. That said don't blame the players ( for getting paid what was agreed or clubs that asked top money and Utd paid it that blame lies at board level.

Forget these fancy graphs or charts which show this or that because quite simply be players available or not unless they are off the payroll you pay them be they injured or on the naughty step to get a perspective of how Utd co pare you would have to look at every club in a similar way and that ain’t been done.

Sir Jim is going to be the fall guy for the Glazers at least when Newcastle had Ashley it was clear where the buck stopped in ownership terms but make no bones about all this his approach to all this will be far different and seismic than anything you have witnessed when it comes to on field matters than anything that has gone before at Man Utd.

I simply don’t believe that the numbers wouldn’t have been crystal clear when the 24/25 numbers were crunched . He was on the board when Utd embarked on the €250 million summer 24 spend he would have known the sums due to be shelled out for past signingsp and would or should have been over the need to find circa 50% of that sum immediately. It’s all well and good saying the players bought in prior to his tenure aren’t good enough or are paid too much but was the answer another big spend under his watch ?

In terms of cash flow the 24/25 playing income isn’t yet known maybe there is a projection that suggests that there were be some penalties from the clauses within commercial but sorry if anyone at the club was banking on CL qualification bonuses after your recent history then they need to be dealt with accordingly but I go back to Sir J being in post before any of your 24/25 signings were made.

Utd wouldn’t have runout of money that simply wasn’t going to happen and yes no doubt borrowing would have gone up and yes some of the savings such as lunch for stewards etc will see immediate savings but severing long term employees tenure will have come at a cost.

I have no doubt that some now gone weren’t earning their corn but it will be interesting to see which departments and task’s within are no longer. Cost cutting at a club usually means decline be it in terms of community work, commercial, maintenance ( ironically) but trotting out the leaner more efficient claim will be interesting to see if it actually manifests itself.

The real savings will always be around squad costs. It’s difficult to see how any notable fees will be incurred and trying to sell for even an accounting profit will be difficult now clubs now have been told have financial matters are at Utd.

 

[amolbhatia50k]

I should be replying to work emails but oh well. Please time my responses below in bold.

A snake oil salesman if I have seen one.

- Didn't know there would be so much scrutiny. Everyone who has joined United (player and manager) has said that. It’s the natural reaction. There’s a difference between watching it and experiencing it first hand.
- Was shocked to the see finances. What about the forensics you did before buying the stake? It’s probably more to do with how we’ve landed up in this mess. The things we’ve got wrong and the way we have. Unless you think he knew absolutely every little detail beforehand and learnt nothing new after.
- The answer to the 40k for the player fund was "Someone should have suggested those ideas to raise funds".
- He didn't want to go to the bank to provide for "free lunches" but is more than happy to go to the bank to pay for ETH, Ashworth, interest payments etc. etc. Yes those are necessities and the club’s success has to come before lunches.
- Skirted on the question of repaying the debt through equity by the Glazers, who so far haven't invested little in the club and extracted a lot. He’s not answerable for the glazers. They’re actually joint owners so what’s the sense in burning bridges? Did SAF call out the Glazers? Be realistic. He needs to achieve things not be idealistic.
- Tried to shift all the blame to Woorward, Murtogh and Arnold giving the leeches a clean chit. His job isn’t to indict his fellow shareholders.
- Wants the tax payer to fund the redevelopment project. A redevelopment project should always be government funded. Why should United or its owners fund anything other than the stadium?
- Jimmy's MUGA project is on full swing. No idea what this means.

I wish he didn't come in and the club had gone bust last November. At least that way we would have permanently got rid of the Glazers and didn't have a new vulture capitalist here doing their bidding. Great support indeed.

 

[Jezpeza]

At least the "Amorim is just a few signings away from awesomeness" gang can shut up.
We are broke. So Amorim maybe a few years away, if he survives.

Hopefully this results in clubs not asking for a Man Utd tax on player transfers. We are broke.

I think it takes 3 to 5 years just to sort us out financially. I can see us signing more Dorgu bracket players that fit Amorims system and may or may not kick on, so we will have to put up with development and inconsistencies. We may also be able to play his style but not necessarily have the highest quality players for it. Could easily see us spending a season or 2 in mid table. I wonder how many transfer threads with £350m outlays will still appear though

 

[justsomebloke]

SJR isn’t here to revolutionise the club - at least in any tangible way. To think of it as such is pure naivety. His main remit is to mask the continued Glazer-led exploitation - to strategically soften the blow of a strong legacy of financial mismanagement. But in an ironic twist of fate, SJR has actually perpetuated and amplified the exisiting chaos.

His statements don't sit well with me. Not so much because he's necessarily wrong about the things he comments on, it's more about how you affect the situation with what you say, how you see your role and what kind of accountability you accept. He's litigating in public (figuratively speaking), piling in on the public perception of a club in shambles and players who aren't good enough. I don't need him to tell me that, I need him to convince me he's going to fix it. Usually, people who are focused on that don't keep harping on about what a mess everything is. Maybe there's a need to make clear some home truths to wake everyone up to the realities, but in that case you don't keep going on about it. Not if your focus is fixing it.

 

[Big Andy]

I was more surprised when I read that there were still free lunches by an organisation in this day and age. It’s amazing that there was such a big Hoo haa about it when they made the decision to stop it.

I'm shocked it was ever a thing at all. Using money from the fans to give Doreen in accounts her Chicken Salad for free? feck off.

I can see the rationale behind providing it for the players, with strict dietary requirements, nutrition, etc, but certainly not a free for all for everyone. I've never worked anywhere where you get a free lunch EVERY DAY, and they still get a soup and a sandwich for free by all accounts, so it's just a stick to beat United (and Jim) with.

I can see where he's coming from with the cuts, we've got (had) a bloated work force, with over 1,200 people working at the club. We were paying £180k a year to a fecking body language expert ffs, what even is one of them?

 

[FlawlessVictory88]

Some of the narratives around Ratcliffe are a little bit tiring and it feels like we're going in circles. There's areas I think he's genuinely made mistakes and others not so much.

Over and over again we hear "why are staff being cut and not -Insert player X here" The reason is because most staff at United (or many businesses) don't have the contractual protections that a premier league footballer has. There's no doubt in my mind whatsoever that if Ratcliffe was allowed to just cut Sancho/Rashford/Mount/Shaw/Antony/Hojlund etc he'd do it in a heartbeat. Unfortunately for all of us fans he simply doesn't have the power to just end their employment with Manchester United, so he doesn't have that option available to him.

Are people seriously under the impression that Ratcliffe has a choice between cutting Sancho/Antony and canteen staff and that he choose to keep paying Sancho?

The areas he does deserve criticism is sticking with Ten Hag and then hiring/firing Ashworth.

What stood out to me in the interview and where I would have liked to see Neville press more was when he said that the Glazers were 3000 miles away and left the running of the club to previous management who have to take responsibility. This is no doubt what they've tried to convey but it's at best a half truth. The Glazers installed policies at United regarding transfers, specifically 3 major signings per window year. Ole brought it up in previous interviews that he wanted to overhaul the squad but was limited to 3 signings. Rangnick publicly said United needed 9-10 new players and was swiftly shown the door. This policy created a culture which rewarded mediocrity because a manager would come in and make 3 signings and then assess that players X/Y/Z were not good enough but have no ability to replace them, so when player X was up for a contract renewal the manager had a choice between renewing that player or losing him and getting no replacement. So of course every manager would rather have some player than none and thus mediocre player X now gets a new 5 year deal despite being below standard.

This was not an Ed Woodward policy nor a Murtaugh one. It was a Glazer policy that were instructed to follow and therefore the Glazers are responsible for it.

 

[romufc]

His statements don't sit well with me. Not so much because he's necessarily wrong about the things he comments on, it's more about how you affect the situation with what you say, how you see your role and what kind of accountability you accept. He's litigating in public (figuratively speaking), piling in on the public perception of a club in shambles and players who aren't good enough. I don't need him to tell me that, I need him to convince me he's going to fix it. Usually, people who are focused on that don't keep harping on about what a mess everything is. Maybe there's a need to make clear some home truths to wake everyone up to the realities, but in that case you don't keep going on about it. Not if your focus is fixing it.

Their focus is on fixing it though, their actions suggest they want to fix it. The reason why he has to keep harping on about the issues is because majority of the fans dont understand the issue.

 

[diarm]

When you see how wilfully and pigheadedly people insist on misinterpreting things he’s said, you can understand why owners don’t bother their arses engaging with fans.

He’s a minority owner but you have people seriously suggesting he refuses to pay the interest payments of debt structured by the majority owners.

Pretty much every financial expert who has looked into the clubs finances has said we are cash poor. Yet when he spells out the reality of those cash shortfalls - people go on about payments made to coaches (as per contracts he had nothing to do with) or deals given to players who arrived years before him.

He’s definitely made mistakes - the Ashworth one being the biggest, but Neville comments on a fundraiser for former players made the club look pretty pathetic as well. I personally don’t see the Ten Hag decision in May as such a big mistake - as I said at the time, with the management team not properly in place at that time, I think we were as likely as not to compound errors with another bad, rushed appointment if we’d pulled the trigger after the cup final. Ten Hag was the wrong man, clearly, but the timing was just unfortunate. I don’t hold that against them to the same level of the Ashworth fiasco.

But they’ve also done good work and started us down a road out of the bloated, inefficient financial disaster we are in the midst of. It’s simple and easy to say “sack the players and stop payments to coaches instead of stopping canteen meals or making redundant positions redundant”, but what does that look like in reality? The only way to avoid the Ten Hag payoff was to not sack him - are people advocating for that? Are people suggesting we should sack high wage players without paying them what they’re contractually owed?

They can’t do that. What they can do is commit to being better at safeguarding the finances of the club moving forward. They can’t put better recruitment and negotiating systems in place and enforce limits on fees and salaries we are prepared to pay. And they can’t streamline and cut inefficiencies in all areas of the club.

We’re a football club first and foremost - the team is the focus point and entire reason of being for the organisation. It’s not Ratcliffe fault that we have hundreds of staff more than our competitors and I empathise with him looking the scum bag while he attempts to clean up someone else’s mess.

 

[Amir]

- He didn't want to go to the bank to provide for "free lunches" but is more than happy to go to the bank to pay for ETH, Ashworth, interest payments etc. etc.

Would you have prefered us keeping ETH as long as we still give lunches?

 

[Jezpeza]

Ah yes, that's a better alternative, the club going bankrupt, losing points and probably going the same way as Bury FC.
Halcyon days.

You may not like it, or him, but SJR is making the changes required to steady the ship at United.

He's talking sense, truth and isn't afraid to make the decisions this club needs to get back to challenging again.

Club wouldnt have gone bankrupt it would have run out of cash. So they'd have had to borrow say £100m from the bank to maintain the day to day operations of the club for a period of time. Pay wages, pay other creditors, etc etc. But then when that £100m runs out, and you haven’t changed anything, you have to go and borrow another £100m. The previous £100m is now under the list of repayments you need to make using that cash. Endless cycle.

Its a cultural thing. As he says, most people dont get a free lunch. People pick up on that but he just identified as would most businessman that we had a large number of unnecessary and overly generous outlays for a club losing a large amount of money every year. The lunches is just one example. We were overstaffed. He mentions something else about the club paying for executive cars.

 

[romufc]

I'm shocked it was ever a thing at all. Using money from the fans to give Doreen in accounts her Chicken Salad for free? feck off.

I can see the rationale behind providing it for the players, with strict dietary requirements, nutrition, etc, but certainly not a free for all for everyone. I've never worked anywhere where you get a free lunch EVERY DAY, and they still get a soup and a sandwich for free by all accounts, so it's just a stick to beat United (and Jim) with.

I can see where he's coming from with the cuts, we've got (had) a bloated work force, with over 1,200 people working at the club. We were paying £180k a year to a fecking body language expert ffs, what even is one of them?

Why do we have so many fans that act as if Manutd is a charity? Comparing players and staff on food is also a joke, the reason Manutd exists is because of football, like in every other football club in the PL, players get food, does every staff in the PL get free food? I doubt it.

Majority of the fans are not happy with the job cuts, which means they are not happy with the language expert being sacked.

 

[Pep Guard Yolo]

Fear mongering always works in times of uncertainty or you want to change things or take advantage of people, which is what is being used.

Look at Trump… a prime example.

 

[justsomebloke]

Their focus is on fixing it though, their actions suggest they want to fix it. The reason why he has to keep harping on about the issues is because majority of the fans dont understand the issue.

What, the majority of fans think our players are better than they are, and that the club was well run until sir Jim took over?

I just don't think he's got a convincing narrative. Where's the plan? Future greatness through cost-cutting? Maybe we have been paying too little attention to costs and need to do some cutting, fine. But then what? Laying off 400 people and dropping lunch isn't in itself going to make us a contender, even if it's necessary. Is there some notion of how this is going to happen?

And the "We're paying 17 million for Sancho again this summer" thing. No shit, Sherlock. That's what's known as "amortisation". And amortisation also means that if you buy a 100m player this coming summer, you only have to spend 20m next season. Everyone does that, because it's an advantage. Ratcliffe talks about it like it's some sort of wildly irresponsible mortgaging that he now has to pick up the pieces from.

We're not in this mess because we've overspent, but because we've spent badly. Literally none of the things Ratcliffe is talking about - cost-cutting, past mistakes (some of which are his), new shiny stadiums - has any bearing on how that is going to be fixed. Let's hear you talk about that, Jim. It's what matters, and what you'll be judged on.

 

[Big Andy]

What, the majority of fans think our players are better than they are, and that the club was well run until sir Jim took over?

I just don't think he's got a convincing narrative. Where's the plan? Future greatness through cost-cutting? Maybe we have been paying too little attention to costs and need to do some cutting, fine. But then what? Laying off 400 people and dropping lunch isn't in itself going to make us a contender, even if it's necessary. Is there some notion of how this is going to happen?

And the "We're paying 17 million for Sancho again this summer" thing. No shit, Sherlock. That's what's known as "amortisation". And amortisation also means that if you buy a 100m player this coming summer, you only have to spend 20m next season. Everyone does that, because it's an advantage. Ratcliffe talks about it like it's some sort of wildly irresponsible mortgaging that he now has to pick up the pieces from.

We're not in this mess because we've overspent, but because we've spent badly. Literally none of the things Ratcliffe is talking about - cost-cutting, past mistakes (some of which are his), new shiny stadiums - has any bearing on how that is going to be fixed. Let's hear you talk about that, Jim. It's what matters, and what you'll be judged on.

I think that's more about how poor recruitment can hit us as we're still buying them even though they're no longer at the club.

 

[userman]

What, the majority of fans think our players are better than they are, and that the club was well run until sir Jim took over?

I just don't think he's got a convincing narrative. Where's the plan? Future greatness through cost-cutting? Maybe we have been paying too little attention to costs and need to do some cutting, fine. But then what? Laying off 400 people and dropping lunch isn't in itself going to make us a contender, even if it's necessary. Is there some notion of how this is going to happen?

And the "We're paying 17 million for Sancho again this summer" thing. No shit, Sherlock. That's what's known as "amortisation". And amortisation also means that if you buy a 100m player this coming summer, you only have to spend 20m next season. Everyone does that, because it's an advantage. Ratcliffe talks about it like it's some sort of wildly irresponsible mortgaging that he now has to pick up the pieces from.

We're not in this mess because we've overspent, but because we've spent badly. Literally none of the things Ratcliffe is talking about - cost-cutting, past mistakes (some of which are his), new shiny stadiums - has any bearing on how that is going to be fixed. Let's hear you talk about that, Jim. It's what matters, and what you'll be judged on.

No Sherlock, it isn't.. You're mixing up amortisation and actual payment structure that he's referring to here.

 

[Insanity]

Would you have prefered us keeping ETH as long as we still give lunches?

No, I would have preferred not giving him an extension & then getting him the players he desired, as hinted by Jim.
I would have preferred not chasing, hiring and firing Ashworth.
I would have preferred Jim negotiating a deal whereby the Glazers reduce some or all of the debt and reduce interest payments.

Also, it's not just about 'Lunches'. It's shafting the little guy because of the big guy's excesses. It's morally and principally opposing something inherently cruel when there were better ways of doing things.

 

[pascell]

I think it takes 3 to 5 years just to sort us out financially. I can see us signing more Dorgu bracket players that fit Amorims system and may or may not kick on, so we will have to put up with development and inconsistencies. We may also be able to play his style but not necessarily have the highest quality players for it. Could easily see us spending a season or 2 in mid table. I wonder how many transfer threads with £350m outlays will still appear though

This is why winning the EL is imperative to the clubs future. It will allow us more room to manoeuvre in the transfer market.

 

[justsomebloke]

When you see how wilfully and pigheadedly people insist on misinterpreting things he’s said, you can understand why owners don’t bother their arses engaging with fans.

He’s a minority owner but you have people seriously suggesting he refuses to pay the interest payments of debt structured by the majority owners.

Pretty much every financial expert who has looked into the clubs finances has said we are cash poor. Yet when he spells out the reality of those cash shortfalls - people go on about payments made to coaches (as per contracts he had nothing to do with) or deals given to players who arrived years before him.

He’s definitely made mistakes - the Ashworth one being the biggest, but Neville comments on a fundraiser for former players made the club look pretty pathetic as well. I personally don’t see the Ten Hag decision in May as such a big mistake - as I said at the time, with the management team not properly in place at that time, I think we were as likely as not to compound errors with another bad, rushed appointment if we’d pulled the trigger after the cup final. Ten Hag was the wrong man, clearly, but the timing was just unfortunate. I don’t hold that against them to the same level of the Ashworth fiasco.

But they’ve also done good work and started us down a road out of the bloated, inefficient financial disaster we are in the midst of. It’s simple and easy to say “sack the players and stop payments to coaches instead of stopping canteen meals or making redundant positions redundant”, but what does that look like in reality? The only way to avoid the Ten Hag payoff was to not sack him - are people advocating for that? Are people suggesting we should sack high wage players without paying them what they’re contractually owed?

They can’t do that. What they can do is commit to being better at safeguarding the finances of the club moving forward. They can’t put better recruitment and negotiating systems in place and enforce limits on fees and salaries we are prepared to pay. And they can’t streamline and cut inefficiencies in all areas of the club.

We’re a football club first and foremost - the team is the focus point and entire reason of being for the organisation. It’s not Ratcliffe fault that we have hundreds of staff more than our competitors and I empathise with him looking the scum bag while he attempts to clean up someone else’s mess.

Cost-cutting might be a necessary condition for turning the club around, but it's not a sufficient one.

 

[pocco]

An institution like Man Utd wouldn't have gone the way of Bury FC. Someone would have come forward and the Glazers would have had no choice but to sell.

Ah yes....that was a better alternative.

SJR so far has enabled the Glazers and is going after the low hanging fruit. Little evidence to suggest that he will get us back to challenging again besides his words.

What did he say when he bought the club in Switzerland? At Nice?

Little evidence he’ll get us back challenging again? How long has he been here? Did you expect a title challenge already? I’m sorry but that got a laugh out of me.

 

[Insanity]

Little evidence he’ll get us back challenging again? How long has he been here? Did you expect a title challenge already? I’m sorry but that got a laugh out of me.

He owns two other football clubs and has made some boneheaded decisions here.

I am sorry but got to laugh that you think I was talking about his time here.

 

[Plant0x84]

Wants the tax payer to fund the redevelopment project.

This is an out and out lie. He clearly stated the taxpayer money is not needed and won’t be used for the stadium.

 

[LordSpud]

I think it takes 3 to 5 years just to sort us out financially. I can see us signing more Dorgu bracket players that fit Amorims system and may or may not kick on, so we will have to put up with development and inconsistencies. We may also be able to play his style but not necessarily have the highest quality players for it. Could easily see us spending a season or 2 in mid table. I wonder how many transfer threads with £350m outlays will still appear though

£350 outlays are gone. The only teams that will spend anywhere close to that are City and Chelsea, and possibly Newcastle and Villa in time.

Clubs have to do actual scouting now and try to get deals instead of dropping 100m on luxury (albeit past it) players like Casemiro

 

[Plant0x84]

An institution like Man Utd wouldn't have gone the way of Bury FC. Someone would have come forward and the Glazers would have had no choice but to sell.

There were literally 2 bidders for the club. It was there for the taking and only 2 groups came forward. What you are saying is not based on reality.