Surprised to see the responses on this on CafeMarx. The common majority view on the General section compared to the Football section is quite the opposite.
Last edited:
Club Ownership | INEOS responsible for the football side
- Thread starter Solius
- Start date
- Status
We're considerably bigger than City, it's like saying the Trafford Centre has more staff than my local corner shop. It's madness to compare the two.
We’re not cutting 500 out though, I was just using their example as they are local and a rival.
It will be interesting to see where the jobs go and if some just get sent out to agencies. Someone mentioned how many worked for us when SAF was here, maybe it just emphasises that the priority changed from the football side to more sponsorship/advertising side. If we get back to the top, a new stadium with all the opportunities that may present, a lot of those job may be required again.
I appreciate your posts in this topic, must be frustrating.
Moshiri and Usmanov say hi.
Exactly. So overly dramatic and needlessly damning of the club/owner. It’s not personal, it’s just business and is necessary to rid the club of the malaise, lack of focus and total incompetence that we have bemoaned for the last 11years.
If we want success once again we must pull our heads out of our asses and take our medicine. The correct prescription is not more of the same just so we don’t upset a few folk none of us know.
The "Community Club" that has offices miles away in Mayfair.
How many work there, didn't they say that would be going, so some of the redundancies might be there.
So that puts you on the auto-twit register immediately, and he's backed that up in the multiple interviews I've seen from him since and certain decisions.
How does being a billionaire and wanting Brexit make him a big scumbag? How is him wanting brexit even relevant here?
Last edited:
...
You can just type in Jim Ratcliffe controversy on google and see all about him and his company. Unfortunately most owners these days are twats.
They pretty much all are twats. I'm not sure why it's so hard to understand that Ratcliffe is better for United than the Glazer's or being owned by a nation state while also acknowledging that he's still an awful piece of work and should be getting held to account (as the Glazer's have been) rather than every shit thing he says or does being defended or rationalised because maybe in a few years we might have a good team again.
It isn't that though is it? Or there is no way you can possibly know that's what it is
It's just as likely a greedy billionaire running the club the same way he runs his other private businesses.
What's freeing up the wages of 250 people on average salaries going to contribute to improving the footballing side of things? Might pay a couple of weeks of De Ligt's wages if we sign him?
That's not to say it isn't something that needed to happen but I find the idea of dressing it up as a good move even more ridiculous than criticising it. No one here knows what any of the people who's jibs have gone actually did. So not one person in this thread has a valid reason to say its a positive other than just purely hoping it is. Where as suddenly laying off a quarter of your work force is, regardless of the context, a bit of a dick move. So criticism is entirely valid.
Is he decent at selling players? That’s our main weakness. We’re awful at selling and making reasonable money back.
You’re on a discussion forum mate, people share and discuss their opinions here. It’s kinda the whole point.
Exactly this. You can't compare 1:1 with other clubs. Not every club operates the same.
Feel for everyone losing their jobs. That’s never nice to see. Guess they’re trying to save the club a bit of money.
Quality control
So wealthy people with different political views are an automatic red flag to you and give you justifiaction to insult them. Basically you are a jealous hater
From the looks of it it is not per se sacing money but gaining efficiencies since this club is bloated and not ran properly for over a decade
It's perfectly valid to assume a self made billionaire who wanted Brexit is a knob.
Not all knobs are billionaire brexiteers but all billionaire brexiteers are knobs.
The goalkeeping coach is a interesting move because I've been in a bit of a back and forth with a friend of mine for over a year about why United haven't brought in a goalkeeping coach who prioritises ball playing ability, sweeping and passing out from the back.
We've currently got Richad Hartis who joined us in 2019 under Solskjaer. Hartis was someone who had already worked under Ole at Molde and Cardiff City. But Hartis isn't someone who is known to improve a keeper from a ball playing perspective, so bringing Jelle ten Rouwellar on board looks to be a positive move imo.
FFS
Frankly, it's what the posts deserved.Really adding a lot to the conversation with these
Just be careful with those kind of replies, you'll end up with warnings from the powers that be for just posting a single
(or whatever) all the time.Saw analysis today that estimate cutting 250 jobs could save £17m a year...less than Mason Mounts wages + transfer fee
Yeah, that is a very smart comparison that absolutely makes sense
We have a revenue of about £750m a year if I recall correctly so £17m is nothing to scoff at. This move is purely profit oriented which is not a surprise as every corporation ultimately wants to make money on their investment. It’s also fairly easy to justify in a year when most large companies do the same.
Does anyone know what role Darren Fletcher has moved to? It was said he’d be a part of senior leadership going forwards, but I’ve heard little.
People talk as though job cuts and a change in transfer policy to stop wasting millions on players are two mutually exclusive concepts; but they aren’t. One can both sell unwanted players, cut the playing staff wage bill, and spend more judiciously, AND cut jobs to create a leaner, more efficient, and sustainable organisation.
Just because money has been wasted in one area in the past, doesn’t mean money should be wasted in another area in the future. We have to cut costs in both areas.
Last edited:
It makes logical sense to bring in a goalkeeping coach who specialises, or is well versed, in the way you want your keepers to play now and in the future. So I agree with you
I love how being an owner and operator of Manchester United has somehow been reduced to a popularity contest. “He’s a knob!”. Okay…..do I care? Not really. I assume pretty much everyone with the wealth to buy into a club of United’s size will be considered a knob by the average fan. There’s no such thing as a purely altruistic, warm hearted, morally pure billionaire who is willing to buy the club and run it in a way that meets the approval of all the fans, while simultaneously echoing all their diverse social and political views.
So, aside from clearing the bar of whether the owner in question is not some front for a murderous, human rights abusing regime, all that matters is the job they do as a steward of the club. So far Ratcliffe has invested his own money, something the Glazers have never done in 20 years, made progress on the stadium, started a massive infrastructure improvement project, and overhauled the executive football side of the club with best in class personnel throughout. And it’s not even been six months. Instead, every time some little headline comes out about the new regime not fixing every issue yet, people trot out silly, petty examples like “well at least the IT department is clean” in some reductive effort to justify their own petty jealousy or agenda.
It’s all so stupid. To get United back to the top is a multi-year project, and yet I have seen more positive restructuring and change in the last four months, than I’ve seen in the last 12 years. And for the first time since Fergie retired, been given the feeling that lasting and meaningful change might not just be possible, but is in fact probable. I never wanted a club owned by some bottomless pocketed nation state, I only ever wanted a club that was self sustainable, intelligently and decisively run, and one that was a positive agent for change in both the local community as well as on a wider level through its foundation. Ineos is clearly putting us on a path for the first two, and time will judge on the third. If they are able to collaborate with local and national government to push ahead with the Trafford Park regeneration project, and deliver a Stadium for the North - as envisaged - then they will have done much to deliver on that goal too. The fact that the Manchester United Foundation has been exempted from planned redundancies also shows that they are not completely the cold, cynical bastards that some would have you believe. Although, let’s all be realists here and acknowledge that to run a massive company efficiently, you are going to have to make unpopular decisions along the way, and objective appraisals rather than emotionally subjective reactions will always be the order of the day. Last time I checked United was a publicly listed company, not a non-profit,
In a limited pool of potential new owners, one full of Oligarchs and human rights abusing national wealth funds, for us to get a self made local billionaire, born minutes from the ground, and a lifelong United fan, I’d say we’ve done pretty well for ourselves. I know some of you make an emotional living off hating on everything United, despite your supposed support of the club, and suck on the lifeblood of your hatred for wealthy successful people to sustain yourselves; but it might shock you to know that someone whose scale of wealth you are opposed to on ideological grounds, can actually be right about some things you care about, and might actually be good for your club.
I heavily opposed Brexit, and think it is one of the all time worst self inflicted economic wounds in history. I heavily disagree with anyone who supported it, on either social or economic grounds. I also think Jim Ratcliffe has already done a great job in taking over the running of the club, and have a lot of belief and optimism in his competency and vision for the future. None of these are mutually exclusive concepts. To not be able to see past one issue (“he’s a billionaire, lynch him!”, “he supported Brexit, he’s a cancer on society”) to objectively analyse an unrelated other issue, is just myopic, exhausting, and self defeating.
So, aside from clearing the bar of whether the owner in question is not some front for a murderous, human rights abusing regime, all that matters is the job they do as a steward of the club. So far Ratcliffe has invested his own money, something the Glazers have never done in 20 years, made progress on the stadium, started a massive infrastructure improvement project, and overhauled the executive football side of the club with best in class personnel throughout. And it’s not even been six months. Instead, every time some little headline comes out about the new regime not fixing every issue yet, people trot out silly, petty examples like “well at least the IT department is clean” in some reductive effort to justify their own petty jealousy or agenda.
It’s all so stupid. To get United back to the top is a multi-year project, and yet I have seen more positive restructuring and change in the last four months, than I’ve seen in the last 12 years. And for the first time since Fergie retired, been given the feeling that lasting and meaningful change might not just be possible, but is in fact probable. I never wanted a club owned by some bottomless pocketed nation state, I only ever wanted a club that was self sustainable, intelligently and decisively run, and one that was a positive agent for change in both the local community as well as on a wider level through its foundation. Ineos is clearly putting us on a path for the first two, and time will judge on the third. If they are able to collaborate with local and national government to push ahead with the Trafford Park regeneration project, and deliver a Stadium for the North - as envisaged - then they will have done much to deliver on that goal too. The fact that the Manchester United Foundation has been exempted from planned redundancies also shows that they are not completely the cold, cynical bastards that some would have you believe. Although, let’s all be realists here and acknowledge that to run a massive company efficiently, you are going to have to make unpopular decisions along the way, and objective appraisals rather than emotionally subjective reactions will always be the order of the day. Last time I checked United was a publicly listed company, not a non-profit,
In a limited pool of potential new owners, one full of Oligarchs and human rights abusing national wealth funds, for us to get a self made local billionaire, born minutes from the ground, and a lifelong United fan, I’d say we’ve done pretty well for ourselves. I know some of you make an emotional living off hating on everything United, despite your supposed support of the club, and suck on the lifeblood of your hatred for wealthy successful people to sustain yourselves; but it might shock you to know that someone whose scale of wealth you are opposed to on ideological grounds, can actually be right about some things you care about, and might actually be good for your club.
I heavily opposed Brexit, and think it is one of the all time worst self inflicted economic wounds in history. I heavily disagree with anyone who supported it, on either social or economic grounds. I also think Jim Ratcliffe has already done a great job in taking over the running of the club, and have a lot of belief and optimism in his competency and vision for the future. None of these are mutually exclusive concepts. To not be able to see past one issue (“he’s a billionaire, lynch him!”, “he supported Brexit, he’s a cancer on society”) to objectively analyse an unrelated other issue, is just myopic, exhausting, and self defeating.
Last edited:
- Status