Club Ownership | INEOS responsible for the football side

Status
Not open for further replies.
Meanwhile the Glazers are still using £250,000 club money each to unnecessarily take separate private jets and hotels to London and back just to pretend to be interested in football
 
Lash said:
Every cost counts to your profitability, which would count towards your FFP calculations? Would imagine something like that cost north of 200k, so to completely can it would be a relatively big saving.
Click to expand...
It doesn’t. If building a new stadium doesn’t, I highly doubt having a party does.
 
Mr Pigeon said:
The "way the world works" used to include the following;

Six day working weeks as standard
62 hour working weeks as standard
No minimum wage
No equal pay laws
No parental leave
No formal negotiations between employees and employers over pay and conditions
Employers didn't have to abide by contracts they signed with employees
No annual leave/holidays
Loose to zero health and safety rules in the workplace

Fortunately the world was able to look at these things and see them for what @decorativeed has already pointed out; shitty.

And another thing; quit with the pompous "oh, look at these people not living in the real world! Oh, for shame! They're like wittle childwen, not understanding what real life is!" I deal with multi million pound projects every year in a very competitive sector, spending my time outside of work raising four kids. I've worked my arse off to get where I am, and I still work my arse off now I'm there. I'm not immature simply for wanting more transparent business practices, and deriding someone for doing so is arrogant as feck - not to mention it probably comes from someone who really wants the status quo to be maintained because they benefit from it.
Click to expand...
Where's the like button?!
 
decorativeed said:
Do you suggest that we all turn a blind eye to shitty practices just because they are shitty practices put in place by a new owner?

And how long a grace period do you think they should they get before we should start to treat them to the same criticism as if it had been the Glazers?

We all want this new arrangement to benefit and improve the club. But I don't think treating the average members of staff like this is going to achieve that. It'll rightly put people's backs up. There's already a toxic culture at United as a workplace and this isn't a good start to improving it.
Click to expand...
How do you know what the practices are? And what the job entails and how the staff even feel about going back to the work place? What their actual contracts are? How do you know it’s not so that the new management can meet and get to know their staff and find ways of improving their work or making a more efficient working environment. How do you know the work that was taken place is adequate enough? How do you know that once the new management are familiar with their employees they may change back to hybrid work?

There are so many variables yet we are always looking negatively at it when in reality we are all clueless.
 
Dan_F said:
It doesn’t. If building a new stadium doesn’t, I highly doubt having a party does.
Click to expand...
Sorry, I think I confused myself on the acronyms. Would affect PSR, not FFP. I might be wrong on that too mind you.
 
fe33er said:
How do you know what the practices are? And what the job entails and how the staff even feel about going back to the work place? What their actual contracts are? How do you know it’s not so that the new management can meet and get to know their staff and find ways of improving their work or making a more efficient working environment. How do you know the work that was taken place is adequate enough? How do you know that once the new management are familiar with their employees they may change back to hybrid work?

There are so many variables yet we are always looking negatively at it when in reality we are all clueless.
Click to expand...
I've said it many times in this thread and elsewhere that I've worked there and known lots of people that also work there. Whole none of my closer friends and family work there any longer thankfully, they are still in touch with people who do. So that's how I know.
 
I cannot believe they are cancelling the end of season awards dinner with the women's team winning the FA Cup and the u18 winning the league, to save money. Absolutely appalling decision making by Ratcliffe and co. As well as giving no grace period to WFH employees. Seem quite ruthless and I'm not sure they understand what building a positive culture is about. I mean, I always expect someone in Ratcliffe's position to be a cnut, but you can be a cnut in a less cnuty way.
 
Skills said:
Where's this narrative that the clubs been shambles off the field come from?

Literally, the only things that have generally been functioning have been the things that have nothing to do with the first team. Our marketing dept has kept bringing record breaking deals for us year after year, even when the on-field performances have been shite.

Even the youth team has been constantly churning out talent year after year. The club for the most part has functioned fine - the mens first team has been awfully ran, and the infrastructure has been left behind due to a lack of investment.
Click to expand...

I'd say it still has been a shambles off the field despite good deals coming our way, if you look deeper into United's finances. I invest in the NYSE and move in and out of stuff every few months, so I use a tool called Simply Wall St just to get an overview of companies - out of curiosity, I had a look at United's profile today:

United have to be one of the worst stocks I've ever seen, if I'm being honest and objective as an investor.. return of 26% over 11 years (no real gains after inflation), an ever widening debt/equity (which is now sitting at 800%!!), lower revenue guidance in 2024 (660 million) etc. Our revenue has doubled over 10 years, so on average a 10% increase per annum, for perspective the Atlanta Braves (Baseball) who have much less global coverage than United, have delivered better revenue growth from 260M ten years ago to 650M now. I wouldn't even consider buying Man Utd stock for sentimental value, it's like throwing your money away. United should be doing a lot more to be honest, and that's probably why we've taken on a new CFO in May - I think even the likes of Collette Roche may be at risk of getting replaced eventually.

I was depressed about our financial situation before looking at all this and now I'm more depressed :lol: IMO it's not just the football operations but I think the whole club needs a lot of work, the employee count needs to be trimmed prioritising quality over quantity (We have a lot of employees relative to other clubs) and we probably need to have better leadership on the commercial side as well, given we're not really realising our full potential. This is just my opinion and it might sound extreme, but I'd rather the club swallow this bitter pill, be a bit ruthless, and get their house in order to not risk falling further behind our PL rivals.
 
Shoutout to big Jim for being super rich and featuring in the Times UK Rich List this year. Personal wealth £23.52bn. Save us Sir Jim!!!
 
The Mitcher said:
Good luck explaining basic economics on Redcafe! :lol:
Click to expand...
Mr Pigeon said:
The "way the world works" used to include the following;

Six day working weeks as standard
62 hour working weeks as standard
No minimum wage
No equal pay laws
No parental leave
No formal negotiations between employees and employers over pay and conditions
Employers didn't have to abide by contracts they signed with employees
No annual leave/holidays
Loose to zero health and safety rules in the workplace

Fortunately the world was able to look at these things and see them for what @decorativeed has already pointed out; shitty.

And another thing; quit with the pompous "oh, look at these people not living in the real world! Oh, for shame! They're like wittle childwen, not understanding what real life is!" I deal with multi million pound projects every year in a very competitive sector, spending my time outside of work raising four kids. I've worked my arse off to get where I am, and I still work my arse off now I'm there. I'm not immature simply for wanting more transparent business practices, and deriding someone for doing so is arrogant as feck - not to mention it probably comes from someone who really wants the status quo to be maintained because they benefit from it.
Click to expand...
Hey look Mitcher, someone managed to explain basic economics on Redcafe!
 
Ratcliffe should stick to the football side. Cutting down on staff perks will only hurt morale, which will have a damaging affect on productivity that in turn, could hit the commercial targets.

I also got told by stewarts I know (from being a regular) that Ratcliffe is bringing in more agency staff, potentially leaving them in the limbo.

The long serving stewarts expect to start the beggining of next season but after that it's anyone's guess I got told.

Two of the Stewarts I spoke to have been employed for over 20 years, really nice blokes aswell. It's stuff like this that's making me dislike Ratcliffe already.

No goodwill or respect for those staff. Seems like he'd rather force those long timers (with good perks and probably a decent salary) out the club, replacing them with agency.
 
Surely he can live on £22.52bn, instead of £23.52bn. Throw us some cash this summer, Jimbo.
 
TheRedDevil2019 said:
Ratcliffe should stick to the football side. Cutting down on staff perks will only hurt morale, which will have a damaging affect on productivity that in turn, could hit the commercial targets.

I also got told by stewarts I know (from being a regular) that Ratcliffe is bringing in more agency staff, potentially leaving them in the limbo.

The long serving stewarts expect to start the beggining of next season but after that it's anyone's guess I got told.

Two of the Stewarts I spoke to have been employed for over 20 years, really nice blokes aswell. It's stuff like this that's making me dislike Ratcliffe already.

No goodwill or respect for those staff. Seems like he'd rather force those long timers (with good perks and probably a decent salary) out the club, replacing them with agency.
Click to expand...
Someone will no doubt try to tell us that this will raise standards around the club.
 
TheRedDevil2019 said:
Ratcliffe should stick to the football side. Cutting down on staff perks will only hurt morale, which will have a damaging affect on productivity that in turn, could hit the commercial targets.

I also got told by stewarts I know (from being a regular) that Ratcliffe is bringing in more agency staff, potentially leaving them in the limbo.

The long serving stewarts expect to start the beggining of next season but after that it's anyone's guess I got told.

Two of the Stewarts I spoke to have been employed for over 20 years, really nice blokes aswell. It's stuff like this that's making me dislike Ratcliffe already.

No goodwill or respect for those staff. Seems like he'd rather force those long timers (with good perks and probably a decent salary) out the club, replacing them with agency.
Click to expand...
While I agree with you, it's worth pointing out that the stuards (I presume that's who you mean) and other match day staff are all on zero hours contracts and as such get no perks already.
 
I really don’t like the route Radcliffe is trying to take with the new stadium. If tax payers money is used to build over stadium it was would an absolute farce. Just as it was when City and West Ham ended up with their stadiums.
 
Josep Dowling said:
I really don’t like the route Radcliffe is trying to take with the new stadium. If tax payers money is used to build over stadium it was would an absolute farce. Just as it was when City and West Ham ended up with their stadiums.
Click to expand...

They don’t call him and his inner circle “The Rat Pack” for nothing!
 
Josep Dowling said:
I really don’t like the route Radcliffe is trying to take with the new stadium. If tax payers money is used to build over stadium it was would an absolute farce. Just as it was when City and West Ham ended up with their stadiums.
Click to expand...

I understood it the "tax payers money" would be towards the surrounding infrastructure, not the actual stadium. If that's the case then I don't see the problem - it would benefit the area.
 
Bastian said:
I cannot believe they are cancelling the end of season awards dinner with the women's team winning the FA Cup and the u18 winning the league, to save money. Absolutely appalling decision making by Ratcliffe and co. As well as giving no grace period to WFH employees. Seem quite ruthless and I'm not sure they understand what building a positive culture is about. I mean, I always expect someone in Ratcliffe's position to be a cnut, but you can be a cnut in a less cnuty way.
Click to expand...

He threatened to shut down a whole factory that would make hundreds lose their jobs in order to make them accept a worse pension and pay freeze. Cancelling a dinner is quite believable.
 
Bright_Eyes said:
He threatened to shut down a whole factory that would make hundreds lose their jobs in order to make them accept a worse pension and pay freeze. Cancelling a dinner is quite believable.
Click to expand...

Aye, he's a c*nt.
 
Josep Dowling said:
I really don’t like the route Radcliffe is trying to take with the new stadium. If tax payers money is used to build over stadium it was would an absolute farce. Just as it was when City and West Ham ended up with their stadiums.
Click to expand...

I am from Malta ie a country that rely heavily on tourism. I am also a Manchester United supporter who had visited Manchester multiple times (less then I wished).

Tourism is Manchester generate £7.5 billion per annum putting it third in the UK behind London and Edinburgh. From a tourism perspective there's precious little why one would go there apart from Manchester United. Yes the people there are amazing and its quite a nice city to live in. However its nowhere near to London in terms of tourism pull let alone the likes of Rome or even Venice. We can safely say that a huge chunk of that tourism come solely for Manchester United. But that's not all. Manchester United's brand is one of the most popular in the world. Companies and nations (Malta for example) pay huge money to be associated to it. Guess what written in such name? MANCHESTER United.

Its not uncommon for governments to fork money into the restoration of prime tourism sites irrespective of whether he owns them or not. Currently the Maltese government is paying huge amount of money to restore churches for example. Considering how important OT and Manchester United is not only to the community but also to tourism as a whole shouldn't it within the taxpayer's interest to take care of its golden goose?
 
Tom Van Persie said:
Click to expand...


maybe because at City its a serious performance driven culture that some cannot hack, while at Utd (at least under Woody) it was seen as a bit of laugh with loads of perks and free stuff. Hopefully thats changing now especially with the likes of Berrade, Brailsford and the other lads.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.