Who cares. About time someone makes the club more efficient and cleans up. This club is a mess in every single department, ffs even IT needed to be cleaned up, literally
Club Ownership | INEOS responsible for the football side
- Thread starter Solius
- Start date
-
In the latest episode of the United Hour Podcast, Nik (@Rood) and Jamie (@Vault Dweller) are here to talk about United's dreadful home defeat at the hands of Big Ange's Tottenham Hotspur. Should this have been the end of Ten Hag? How long does he actually have left? And does Nik finally want ETH out?!
- Status
They are shitting themselves that Sir Jim is making all the right moves, assembling an elite executive team and moving the club in the right direction.
No more laughing at us anymore
The posters determined to fellate Jim for everything he does are nauseating.
Guarantee if it was the Glazers making this move the attitudes towards it would be totally different.
Guarantee if it was the Glazers making this move the attitudes towards it would be totally different.
If he ONLY cut staff numbers, then yes, we absolutely would.
But when he pays a 9-figure sum, improves our tfr pot, bans Dividends for 3 years, brings in new/top Execs, has a plan for OT, puts £50m for Carrington and we seem to have a tfr plan… then I don’t want to fellate him but I think there’s more pros than cons.
Maybe the reason the commercial staff numbers are so high is the Glazers just took on as many as they could to drag in every penny of commercial income… that they took a lot of in dividends.
The Glazers must be involved in the redundances though if as reported they are mostly on the comercial side as Sir Jim isnt in charge of that side.
Last edited:
For context so we don't lose sight, Real Madrid isn't just the men's football club, they have a basketball team (Baloncesto) which is an elite team with loads of moving pieces, they have the female team (Femenino), they have the junior sides (Castilla and C). Huge operation, so you'd expect that much staff. Always important to add context when throwing out statements like yours.
Jim is a big scumbag. Wake up.
Does it really matter?
People need to be realistic. How much personnel does Liverpool, City, Arsenal, Chelsea and Spurs have. If we can get those figures we can see if we are over staffed or not
Confused about the multiple posts in this thread talking about sackings. The report is that people are being made redundant which whilst it is not what they may want is a very different thing from being sacked as there will be compensation and possibly other forms of support offered to those leaving such as assistance with finding new employment. Having been through a couple of redundancies it is also fairly common for employers to first ask for volunteers if it is a case of reducing a department by a certain number for example and in that case it is not uncommon to have more people asking to go than the company is actually looking for.
I of course have no idea exactly how all of this will unfold but I will reserve my righteous anger until INEOS are actually shown to have acted despicably rather than just go with the knee jerk response that seems to be the case on social media.
I of course have no idea exactly how all of this will unfold but I will reserve my righteous anger until INEOS are actually shown to have acted despicably rather than just go with the knee jerk response that seems to be the case on social media.
Some of those were in the Daily Mail article, City apparently have half as many as we do despite having a much bigger wage bill than us.
Stop saying their lives are getting ruined please. Most of them probably started working there 1-3 years ago and most of them will find another job without any problem.
Man City are more succesful than us and they have half the number of staff. That says it all really.
We had 865 staff in 2017 so we're basically going back to that size, no big deal. About 700 staff when SAF left.
Great decision.
Man City are more succesful than us and they have half the number of staff. That says it all really.
We had 865 staff in 2017 so we're basically going back to that size, no big deal. About 700 staff when SAF left.
Great decision.
City have less than us and I don't believe anything that City publish. How many do they have that are paid "black". We have more than all the top teams
Last edited:
Big Jim is having to tidy up the mess created by our wonderful owners since 2005.
The result of absentee owners in the US handing over day to day control to a chinless banker. One who had no business operating experience and was based in Mayfair because his wife refused to move to Manchester.
You don’t need a big commercial staff when you don’t need to find/negotiate contracts… because they’re just doubled, doubled again, add the first number you think of and signed.
How do you know who is losing their job?
How do you know how long they have worked there?
How much revenue do City make compared to United with half the staff?
In terms of full time staff at United it's not as black and white as it looks. I started in 2012 on a casual contract (zero hours) many people at the club were on these contracts due to the nature of the buisness, this suited me, I worked more hours on average than a full time position. Fast forward to 2022 and the job was horrendous (understaffed ironically, and general Glazer penny pinching) the final straw was my contract not being renewed, and a replacement full time contract being offered (this was rolled out to many people) the contracts were obscene (basically fire/rehire) and most people declined them and moved on, had I signed and stayed I would technically be one of the new full time members that you view as disposable. There probably are 250 people that are unfit to wear the badge as the cliché goes, the chances of Ratcliffe finding them are very unlikely.
Successful businessman wants the business he’s just bought to be successful. What a shock.
A sobering thought, if you’re just looking at the football side of the operation, the wide ranging responsibilities of Wilcox, Ashworth and Vivell (all well regarded in their respective specific roles) were all sitting with John Murtough (who he never carried out even one of the those specific roles before he became Utd football director). Amazing really, any small success achieved was by default owing to sheer weight of money spent rather than any operational nous.
Liverpool (and to a lesser extent), United, are community clubs that got massive and never lost sight of that. They are giants of the game compared to your other 4 examples.
United having 100 more employees than Liverpool is sensible.
The other clubs having leaner staff numbers is no badge of honour. You need to look at the why.
You can advocate for us having too many people doing the wrong things. But I’d fully expect us to have far more employees than London clubs.
Comparing full time staff numbers of clubs is misleading as this is only a fraction of their overall employee numbers. Some clubs use different companies for many staff, for example United use a different company for their (many) security staff, yet unlike many clubs they have their own in house catering, whereas City use a third party for their catering, then we have casual staff, due to the sporadic patterns of a football club casual staff make up a huge chunk of the staffing, and often work more hours and accumulate more money per annum that full time staff, you also have vast numbers of agency staff. Then consider the infrastructure, modern stadiums require less staff but that saving would be factored into the cost of building/paying for the stadium. Some clubs have a bigger non matchday events buisness than others, some stadiums have restaurants, hotels, if a club is making healthy revenue there's no reason it shouldn't have high staffing numbers.
Because people would be thinking the Glazers are doing it for personal gain. There's nothing in it money wise for Ratcliffe, he's never going to see a return on his investment and it's been made clear any money the club saves due to cuts is basically being put back into the club. They are doing what's necessary to make us a successful club again. Any smart owner would be doing exactly what he's done.
Tell us why then, since you know him so well.
On the firings, every conpany that has blown up needs to cut to remain competitive and efficient. And we were surely not in the past 10 years. It is always hard but ineviteble after being mismanaged for over a decade
Yeah like many have already said it's awful people are losing the jobs, however if clowns like Woodward hadn't allowed the workforce to get bloated we wouldn't need to do it
Jimmy 'Brexit' Musk.
I'd also assume that there's a decent chunk working under the parent company as well, who are doing work for Manchester City.
Not that it really matters all that much, it's not like they did a review and only looked at number of staff at the different clubs, they will obviously have looked at the how the organizations are set up and operated.
And yes, people losing jobs can potentially be a disaster for a large amount of families or individuals, that's how it's always been. Not many businesses will run for longer periods of time with too many employees that aren't really needed, this was always likely to happen with new owners.
Disgusted by the attitude of some of the posters on here I console myself with the fact that they are overseas fans who other than united got no vested interest in our country if not hope they never have to worry about their jobs and no body ever gives the little feckers voting cards
No idea what you're on about. Most people work in the private sector where there will always be cycles with people being laid off.
Both are multi-sports clubs so that should put this into perspective.
Its horrible to see staff get laid off. These are real people with families and financial obligations. Hopefully most land on their feet, and get the proper severance/compensation they deserve.
But every takeover almost always comes with cost cutting and redundancies. Its just part and parcel. I genuinely hope that this will benefit the club in the long term.
Its also indicative of the economy we are living in right now and not exclusive to football clubs at all. There have been plenty of financial institutions and mega tech companies that have laid off tens of thousands in the past year or two. Its just a horrible situation everyone is in right now.
But every takeover almost always comes with cost cutting and redundancies. Its just part and parcel. I genuinely hope that this will benefit the club in the long term.
Its also indicative of the economy we are living in right now and not exclusive to football clubs at all. There have been plenty of financial institutions and mega tech companies that have laid off tens of thousands in the past year or two. Its just a horrible situation everyone is in right now.
I've worked in the private sector all my life and job security is one thing anyone that works in this sector knows isn't certain. You need to be ready for this eventuality, especially after any major alterations to the company's structure or shift in operation. Posters on here that are up in arms about "real people losing jobs" "families to feed" and all that, yeah but it's part and parcel of the job. It's a private company with a balance sheet that needs balancing. If the OPEX is too high for what is needed then cuts will be made. Letting people go isn't some moral deficiency or some act against humanity, it's a business decision made by a BUSINESS. United is a football club but some of you conveniently forget it's also a business.
Ratcliffe has a reputation for being hard nosed, and rightly or wrongly it's made him a billionaire. My Dad has told me a story of a Chemical site he took over years ago (my dad knew people who worked there) and what he did to make it more productive - essentially taking on the staff and threatening of close the site if they didn't fall into line. He was unpopular, but he didn't care.
Noting how poorly the club appears to have been ran on the football side, it wouldn't surprise me if it was generally ran badly and was bloated in terms of staff. It also wouldn't surprise me if a lot of the numbers being let go, end up getting replaced later, as I agree, outsourcing often doesn't work.
Indeed - no such thing as a "job for life" anymore.
He's a rich billionaire that wanted Brexit.
It’s a sad situation that 250 are losing their jobs. Maybe he could have let 10 go a month over a 2 year period, so it would be easier for them to get other jobs versus 250 chasing jobs all at the same time. Saying that if we are double the staff of City then these cuts are needed as it’s obviously bloated staff wise.
Pain English isn’t it I’m a strong trade unionist any job lost is a life interrupted
Great post!
You're preaching to someone who's got a personal shrine of Musk.
- Status