Club Ownership | INEOS responsible for the football side

[Semper Fudge]

Have you ever lost a job and worried how to pay your bills and put food on the table if not keep your opinions to yourself

By that logic nobody can discuss anything unless they personally have been through a situation. Might as well shut this place down now!

 

[Roboc7]

Agreed but start with the millionaires and their salaries before you get to the people at the very bottom of the ladder. If we manage to cut their salaries down, we wouldn't need to make these people jobless in the first place.

Why are you assuming it’s the people at the bottom of the ladder?. They did start at the top by getting rid of lots of Executives, players will be out the door as well. Given the volume of employees in comparison to others this would happen under any new regime, no one will keep a bloated work force for the sake of it.

 

[padzilla]

Jim Ratcliffe? Jim Reaper more like.

 

[neon_badger]

It's hard to imagine where the 250 people are coming from, it's very departmental at United, the department I worked in was chronically under staffed and had only a handful of full time staff yet the same department at the training ground was tripping over staff mostly on full time contracts. The stadium runs largely on casual zero hr staff and agency workers, the 900 full time staff Is a figure I always struggled to place, but this figure of 900 has been around for a while so it's not a recent problem as some suggest. Towards my final years I noticed more senior management, HR types, assistants, assistants to assistants etc I felt they were unnecessary and probably supplemented by departments such as mine, they wouldn't be missed if they were part of a staff cull, however I feel the cull will spare or reach beyond those people, perhaps there is 250 people deserved of being axed, but to get the right 250 people and spare those that deserve to remain requires precision that I don't believe Ratcliffe etc are capable of. It wasn't long ago approx 700 staff were being flown out to Moscow to watch us win the champions league, now we're here, staff caught between two sets of owners.

 

[roseguy64]

Maybe INEOS have outside consultant companies they can outsource those jobs we are cutting and that would cost less than having full-time employees on payroll. Corporate audits always lead to cost cutting moves like this, my employer went through 2 of those in 2019 and 2023 and the results are always the same - cut jobs, optimise the processes, streamline, outsource to countries with cheap labor bla bla bla corporate garbage.

Just for reference, the INEOS Mercedes F1 team, where they have 1/3 of the company has about 1200 employees which is the highest number from all F1 teams from the unofficial sources online I can see.

I have very little doubt that some of these roles we're cutting will now be outsourced.

 

[RedRover]

It's always sad to see people lose their jobs but no employer has an obligation to anyone, if they're not required, assuming it isn't just a cost cutting measure. I've seen this from both ends in my job.

I think it was always going to be the case that any owner with a proper business background, particularly someone like Jim Ratcliffe who's made his fortune how he has, is going to look at the structure of the club top to bottom and streamline it if they feel it's necessary and the right step for the business.

One thing's for certain, the owners won't care about any bad press this generates. Talking about what players earn in comparison to ordinary employees is emotive but lacks context.

 

[lysglimt]

There's no moving forward without fixing the mistakes made in the past. We start with the reduction of the staff and hopefully overpaying for players is next.

So ruining the lives of 250 people to save...I dont know £6 million a year - which ias basically the salary of one decent footballer - is a good step according to you ?

 

[Roboc7]

You said it can't be criticised - now you're adding qualifiers to said statement, proving that it can indeed be criticised. Again, you're wrong.

United isn't an institution that's in risk of going kaput by next week or something - I say that to say that there are potential measures that could be broached to prevent job loss of this scale. It's OK if you're with this in pursuit of sporting success - I'm not gonna turn around and call you a monster, but to read potentially 250 people are losing their jobs and saying it can't be criticised is crazy.

I’m not wrong, you just object to people losing their jobs, which is fine but naive as the purpose of the club isn’t to just keep people employed.

I have been made redundant in the past so I have sympathy for anyone but need a reason to be critical other than just don’t like it.

 

[IrishRedDevil]

It's hard to imagine where the 250 people are coming from, it's very departmental at United, the department I worked in was chronically under staffed and had only a handful of full time staff yet the same department at the training ground was tripping over staff mostly on full time contracts. The stadium runs largely on casual zero hr staff and agency workers, the 900 full time staff Is a figure I always struggled to place, but this figure of 900 has been around for a while so it's not a recent problem as some suggest. Towards my final years I noticed more senior management, HR types, assistants, assistants to assistants etc I felt they were unnecessary and probably supplemented by departments such as mine, they wouldn't be missed if they were part of a staff cull, however I feel the cull will spare or reach beyond those people, perhaps there is 250 people deserved of being axed, but to get the right 250 people and spare those that deserve to remain requires precision that I don't believe Ratcliffe etc are capable of. It wasn't long ago approx 700 staff were being flown out to Moscow to watch us win the champions league, now we're here, staff caught between two sets of owners.

Its a good insight and unfortunately some people will get sacked that don't deserve to lose their job, but this full club reset is needed.
If there is 900 staff, there is probably 100-200 dead weights doing no / very little work (I'm guessing).
City apparently have half the number of staff around 500.

 

[Coxy]

So ruining the lives of 250 people to save...I dont know £6 million a year - which ias basically the salary of one decent footballer - is a good step according to you ?

Not who you were asking - but sadly, yes.

I quote: At 1,112 as of June 30 last year, United had by far the biggest staff of any club in the Premier League. That number is considerably higher than all of their Big Six rivals, with Liverpool having around 1,005 employees, Chelsea 788, Tottenham 719, Arsenal 649 and Manchester City 520, according to each club’s latest figures.

it's sad so many people are losing jobs - but that's clearly not right.

 

[lysglimt]

It's always sad to see people lose their jobs but no employer has an obligation to anyone, if they're not required, assuming it isn't just a cost cutting measure. I've seen this from both ends in my job.

I think it was always going to be the case that any owner with a proper business background, particularly someone like Jim Ratcliffe who's made his fortune how he has, is going to look at the structure of the club top to bottom and streamline it if they feel it's necessary and the right step for the business.

I have been let go twice - both time outsourced - and both times the jobs eventually came back because the people who made the decision found out that maybe it wasn't a good decison anyway. So quite often it's just a knee-jerk reaction by inept managemeng

 

[lysglimt]

Not who you were asking - but sadly, yes.

I quote: At 1,112 as of June 30 last year, United had by far the biggest staff of any club in the Premier League. That number is considerably higher than all of their Big Six rivals, with Liverpool having around 1,005 employees, Chelsea 788, Tottenham 719, Arsenal 649 and Manchester City 520, according to each club’s latest figures.

it's sad so many people are losing jobs - but that's clearly not right.

And you don't think United is a much bigger club than Chelsea, Arsenal and City ? Second - it creates a lot of negativity which wasn't necessary. There is so little money to save - they could simply source remove these positions over a few years as people leave or go into retirement. There is so little money to save - so you genereate a lot of badwill for nothing

 

[IrishRedDevil]

n't necessary. There is so little money to save - they could simply source remove these positions over a few years as people leave or go into retirement. There is so little money to save - so you genereate a lot of badwill for n

£5-10 million per year is alot of money.

 

[Alvaro Maestre]

So ruining the lives of 250 people to save...I dont know £6 million a year - which ias basically the salary of one decent footballer - is a good step according to you ?

I'm not saying that ruining someone's life is good, but unfortunately, the current capitalist economy necessitates companies to reduce costs when necessary. This is currently happening all over the world, and if the global crisis continues, I'm afraid there will be more cuts.

 

[Robertd0803]

This is good. Upgrading the tunnel is also.

 

[neon_badger]

Its a good insight and unfortunately some people will get sacked that don't deserve to lose their job, but this full club reset is needed.
If there is 900 staff, there is probably 100-200 dead weights doing no / very little work (I'm guessing).
City apparently have half the number of staff, under 500.
Many of the full time staff were hired in the mid to late 90s after the northstand was big and the club was skyrocketing, they've seen things

Its a good insight and unfortunately some people will get sacked that don't deserve to lose their job, but this full club reset is needed.
If there is 900 staff, there is probably 100-200 dead weights doing no / very little work (I'm guessing).
City apparently have half the number of staff around 500.

Many of the full time staff have been at the club since the 90s when the north stand was built and the club skyrocketed, they've seen things Jim Ratcliffe can only dream of, they don't deserve to be caught up in this, I appreciate people's support for the club and wanting to be the best but not everything can be viewed through the lense of football being ruthless, just because we're used to players managers etc being fleeting commodities doesn't mean we need to apply this to ordinary staff, for marginal gains. You compare United and City, many work at both, I have myself much to my great shame, if City do have half the staff then that reflects well on United and badly on City being as one is a huge global brand and has been for decades the other is an empty vessel propped up by crooked finances. Also City employ less staff as some departments use third party companies for staff, as a club they amount to much less than half of United.

 

[MDFC Manager]

Its a good insight and unfortunately some people will get sacked that don't deserve to lose their job, but this full club reset is needed.
If there is 900 staff, there is probably 100-200 dead weights doing no / very little work (I'm guessing).
City apparently have half the number of staff around 500.

I really don't think city should be the reference point. They're a multi club group, likely with a lot of shared resources. They also don't need as many people as 'sponsors' appear magically for them and revenue generation is a piece of cake. And feck knows how many people they employ off the books.

 

[MDFC Manager]

Real Madrid, the club that we apparently want to emulate had about 900 employees in 2021-22.

 

[black country red]

By that logic nobody can discuss anything unless they personally have been through a situation. Might as well shut this place down now!

Their are certain situations in life you need to experience before you can discuss them worrying about impending poverty is one of them

 

[Valar Morghulis]

So ruining the lives of 250 people to save...I dont know £6 million a year - which ias basically the salary of one decent footballer - is a good step according to you ?

Yep, and hopefully another audit is done again in the next few years to weed out anyone else that might no longer be required. If we want the club to be elite, then Ineos need to operate ruthlessly and efficiently throughout every single area of the institution. This isn't a charity.

 

[Berbaclass]

Real Madrid, the club that we apparently want to emulate had about 900 employees in 2021-22.

Most of them work for the Spanish national bank though probably.

 

[Telsim]

Do whatever it takes. If the club has become so bloated and inefficient, then trim the fat. Just make sure to apply it across all levels equally.

 

[Marcelinho87]

I'm with you 100% but the cynical answer would be that Sancho is a multimillion pounds asset and the organisation did all their could to maintain his value. This unfortunately doesn't extend to the average worker

It’s not unfortunate it’s business.

70,000 people weekly pour into old Trafford to watch the likes of Sancho.

Nobody is visiting to watch Barbera in HR.

Using player wages as a stick to beat them with isn’t comparable it has to be said, as you say they are multi million pound assets.

 

[neon_badger]

How are we arriving at the assumption that the club is bloated? are you familiar with who has owned the club for the last 20yrs? some parts of the club seemed overstaffed but these areas were few and far between, as for saving X amount, some of the labour vacated will be taken up by more casual staff so the gains become even more marginal. Could this be one group of owners wanting to dismantle a disgruntled workforce because they're tarnishing their new plaything, instead of addressing what made the workforce disgruntled in the first place?

 

[Adnan]

The first two are particularly gutting but just shows what we all knew about how bad Murtough and Woodward were. Like another poster said it's encouraging our scouts identified them early one but disgrace they got ignored. Certainly wouldn't have needed to sign so many now if they got listened to.

Murtough brought those scouts to the club and why would he then undermine himself. It's pretty clear that the problem was at the very top. Lyndon Tomlinson who The Athletic mention was brought to the club by John Murtough.

 

[Roboc7]

The first two are particularly gutting but just shows what we all knew about how bad Murtough and Woodward were. Like another poster said it's encouraging our scouts identified them early one but disgrace they got ignored. Certainly wouldn't have needed to sign so many now if they got listened to.

There were similar stories when Murtough was promoted about the club missing out on De Jong and De Ligt as 17 year olds because of similar issues. Murtough was supposedly going to fix all that but it was entirely predictable he didn’t.

Hopefully now that we have some people with actual competence in roles they are qualified to do we will see some significant change.

Have to take it with a pinch of salt, people were lapping up Murtough and his trackerman system after articles written by Whitwell, now the same journalist is criticising exactly the same things.

 

[Mb194dc]

Not sure if you'll have a thread for this or goes in here, don't recall any football club ownership doing something like these ruthless cuts before. Thoughts with people losing their jobs:

https://www.espn.com/soccer/story/_/id/40488512/man-united-make-quarter-workforce-redundant-source

 

[roseguy64]

There were similar stories when Murtough was promoted about the club missing out on De Jong and De Ligt as 17 year olds because of similar issues. Murtough was supposedly going to fix all that but it was entirely predictable he didn’t.

Hopefully now that we have some people with actual competence in roles they are qualified to do we will see some significant change.

Have to take it with a pinch of salt, people were lapping up Murtough and his trackerman system after articles written by Whitwell, now the same journalist is criticising exactly the same things.

Where was Whitwell criticising that system? The criticism was mainly about United delaying contracts and silliness in negotiations. Also, despite the work put in and the systems management's decision-making hampered them.

 

[DSG]

I have been let go twice - both time outsourced - and both times the jobs eventually came back because the people who made the decision found out that maybe it wasn't a good decison anyway. So quite often it's just a knee-jerk reaction by inept managemeng

Sorry you were let go. It’s always difficult.

Making the changes now is imperative. Capitalism sucks in many ways, but I firmly believe that it’s the best system we have. Every company acquired goes through this process as priorities change with new owners. New management thinks they can do it better than the last group. Whether this turns out to be true or not, well, we will have to wait and see.

 

[Telsim]

How are we arriving at the assumption that the club is bloated? are you familiar with who has owned the club for the last 20yrs? some parts of the club seemed overstaffed but these areas were few and far between, as for saving X amount, some of the labour vacated will be taken up by more casual staff so the gains become even more marginal. Could this be one group of owners wanting to dismantle a disgruntled workforce because they're tarnishing their new plaything, instead of addressing what made the workforce disgruntled in the first place?

That's not an assumption. It's in Keegan's and Dawson's respective articles, who are saying the club is overstaffed comparative to rival clubs and a review back in February has deemed it necessary to fix that. If you doubt the veracity of what they are saying, that's another matter entirely. But it is not the first time it has been suggested the club has too many employees.

The bolded part however is actually an assumption, or more like wild speculation, unless you have some inside information? Because cost-cutting in this manner is common practice, and something INEOS have apparently done before at other ventures, so I severely doubt it's a part of an insidious plan to deal with a disgruntled faction. It's just ruthless calculus done by a ruthless businessman.

 

[MDFC Manager]

Real Madrid, the club that we apparently want to emulate had about 900 employees in 2021-22.

Bayern Munich seem to have 1000+ employees.

 

[Adnan]

Where was Whitwell criticising that system? The criticism was mainly about United delaying contracts and silliness in negotiations. Also, despite the work put in and the systems management's decision-making hampered them.

Agreed

I think it's pointless even arguing with some posters. How can you bring up de Ligt and de Jong who at 17 didn't even want to leave their native land. it's well known about de Ligt turning down clubs down as a teenager to stay at Ajax. Bayern were said to have wanted him but he didn't want to leave but Derek Langley seems to think de Ligt and de Jong would've come running to us at that time.

Also I'm completely behind Dan Ashworth and hope he succeeds at the club. But he's not a talent spotter as far as spotting players and he's not someone who negotiates contracts, which are things many on here thought the DoF did. INEOS are making it much smoother for hm structurally.

 

[neon_badger]

That's not an assumption. It's in Keegan's and Dawson's respective articles, who are saying the club is overstaffed comparative to rival clubs and a review back in February has deemed it necessary to fix that. If you doubt the veracity of what they are saying, that's another matter entirely. But it is not the first time it has been suggested the club has too many employees.

The bolded part however is actually an assumption, or more like wild speculation, unless you have some inside information? Because cost-cutting in this manner is common practice, and something INEOS have apparently done before at other ventures, so I severely doubt it's a part of an insidious plan to deal with a disgruntled faction. It's just ruthless calculus done by a ruthless businessman.

I'm not sure it's something that's easily comparable, I've worked for a few different stadiums and sporting events, non are like United, some may appear better run but infrastructure is a huge factor, newer stadiums for example are designed for this purpose. I'll give you an example, there are 4 full time guys (supported with 3 casual staff members) that receive the food deliveries and transport them around the stadium, at City this role doesn't exist, we have 500 more full time staff members than City is that not justified considering our size and actual real revenue comparer to theres? Yes, I am speculating about removing disgruntled staff, but we do know the staff are disgruntled, we know this arises from the Glazers running of the club and we know Ratcliffe is contractual unable to criticise the Glazers so it's not that wild.

 

[Roboc7]

Where was Whitwell criticising that system? The criticism was mainly about United delaying contracts and silliness in negotiations. Also, despite the work put in and the systems management's decision-making hampered them.

Scouts always make similar claims about who they should have signed and why it didn’t happen. Like I said in the past it was De Ligt and De Jong, now it’s Neto and Sesko. I’m sure they recommended plenty of flops as well.

I remember these exact same articles from the same journalist praising the same people and structure they are now criticism. Some absolutely lapped it up at the time and one or two still can’t let go of Murtough.

We now have qualified people who at least offer possibility of some improvement instead of likes of Murtough and Arnold.

 

[Roboc7]

Agreed

I think it's pointless even arguing with some posters. How can you bring up de Ligt and de Jong who at 17 didn't even want to leave their native land. it's well known about de Ligt turning down clubs down as a teenager to stay at Ajax. Bayern were said to have wanted him but he didn't want to leave but Derek Langley seems to think de Ligt and de Jong would've come running to us at that time.

Also I'm completely behind Dan Ashworth and hope he succeeds at the club. But he's not a talent spotter as far as spotting players and he's not someone who negotiates contracts, which are things many on here thought the DoF did. INEOS are making it much smoother for hm structurally.

Like you I don’t know if either De Ligt or De Jong would have signed just like whether any of Sesko, Neto etc would have. They’d all have had multiple options.

They are relevant because it’s exactly the same argument being made by scouts bragging about what might have been and criticising the club.

Some people just really bought into Murtough but as many of us predicted it was no different, you can see scouts and journalists saying very similar things before and after his tenure.

 

[Coleyoscar]

Not surprised but disappointed that the Ratcliffe regime approach is to act tough with ordinary workers.The "We're not a charity" argument is all very well but may not be quite as comforting when they turn their attention to ticket prices.

 

[Abraxas]

It's tough for those people, if you were in that situation nothing anyone says is going to console you or make you feel better until you've moved on and got employment elsewhere. Hopefully United treat them right on the way out.

But when we as fans demand acumen, both commercially and on the pitch then part of that is having commercial operators that get it right. We can't on the one hand expect they're going to do that while operating like a charity keeping redundant employees around or not having an ability to make big decisions. They have to make the best decisions for United. If it's saving 6 mill that could be better placed then that's what it is.

The whole thing about going for the "little man" is a bit daft too. Employees and footballers have completely different terms, different contractual obligations. That's the real world we live in, unfortunately. It's not related, they're looking across the board at what we need and don't need.

 

[Adnan]

Like you I don’t know if either De Ligt or De Jong would have signed just like whether any of Sesko, Neto etc would have. They’d all have had multiple options.

They are relevant because it’s exactly the same argument being made by scouts bragging about what might have been and criticising the club.

Some people just really bought into Murtough but as many of us predicted it was no different, you can see scouts and journalists saying very similar things before and after his tenure.

I agree with what you're saying mate. I feel your frustration and we both want Man Utd to succeed. And we can criticise many of the employees at the club, but the actual problem at the club has always been the owners and when you have owners like the Glazers, things will not function to a optimal level compared to owners like Arsenal and even Liverpool who have owners who take a more active role in running the football side of the club and create lines of communication that allows them to move quickly on targets.

Man Utd academy right now is a lot stronger than many of our rivals and we have a number of very interesting youngsters coming through and there's a defined way of playing throughout the u18s and the age groups below. But this has happened despite having owners like the Glazers. The Women's team created by scratch just a few years ago developed at such a rapid rate that it finished a close runner up to Chelsea last year but again nothing was done to solidify that team and all the hard work that was put into putting the team to together went to waste because at ownership level they under fund football departments hence the players wanting to leave.

 

[RedRocket9908]

There is a lot of outrage on social media from fans of other clubs over the rumoured redundances with Sir Jim getting slagged off for it, its hilarious how fans of other teams like to get outraged at any thing our club does.

Who actually made the decision on who should and shouldnt be fired? Its been reported that most of the sackings are people within the commercial side of the club which isnt part of Sir Jim's remit its part or the Glazers remit.

 

[black country red]

There is a lot of outrage on social media from fans of other clubs on social media over the rumoured sackings with Sir Jim getting slagged off for it, its hilarious how fans of other teams like to get outraged at any thing our club does.

Who actually made the decision on who should and shouldnt be fired? Its been reported that most of the sackings are people within the commercial side of the club which isnt part of Sir Jim's remit its part or the Glazers remit.

Sir tax exile has got form for it what they term a venture capitalist