Fine by me honestly. Obviously there are exceptions but anyone over 25 should be well known and if you're just breaking into football at 26 then some additional scrutiny is warranted. Or if you're so well established (Casemiro / Ronaldo) then sure there's a place for that type of signing but should be the exception rather than the rule.
Club Ownership | INEOS responsible for the football side
- Thread starter Solius
- Start date
- Status
Give Ten Hag another season.
Reason being to let Berrada, Wilcox and Ashworth use next season to do a proper assesment and then make the call who to employ as the new manager after Ten Hag is out of contract.
We are still actively trying to get Ashworth through the door and Berrada only starts in a month or two so giving them enough time to cook. This makes the most sense to me.
Reason being to let Berrada, Wilcox and Ashworth use next season to do a proper assesment and then make the call who to employ as the new manager after Ten Hag is out of contract.
We are still actively trying to get Ashworth through the door and Berrada only starts in a month or two so giving them enough time to cook. This makes the most sense to me.
No signings this season then while they are trying to do a proper assessment?
Didn’t the CAF want our board to be more ruthless?
CAF loves miseryDidn’t the CAF want our board to be more ruthless?
This sounds amazing
Not my call to make on what they should and shouldn't do regarding signings.
All I'm saying is that all the building blocks are not yet in place to start work on our rebuild which will undoubtedly take some time and you need to give our execs that time to assess and plan accordingly.
Its a tricky situation for the execs to be in and I don't envy who has to make these calls if they need to wait another season or make drastic changes now.
fecking hell.
David Batty as The Lost Cause
No it isn't. It's an incredibly insensitive word to use and has been the case for decades.
Watching South Park doesn't excuse you.
Yeah we want them to be ruthless in sacking the peasants scraping a living, but not when it comes to ruthlessly sacking millionaire HagDidn’t the CAF want our board to be more ruthless?
Sounds like what Di Zerbi playing style is.
There was a moment in the Brigton game last week in the 1st half where the camara panned in on Wilcox and Brailsford and Wilcox was making alot of hand gestures of what was going on in pitch explaining to Brailsford.
It was a time in 1st half of the match where Brigton where playing good football around us.
Why just one year and why only the manager? How about we give 3 years to everyone, including players, while they sit and assess?
A decision needs to be made by this coming Monday. Anything after that is incompetence.
Is that the end of the working day? Midnight? In time for the final post?
I don’t understand what you want from our new owner, especially when all the reports state we’re massively overstaffed and need to save money.
Do you want us to be in a better financial position or not?
Tbf, they haven't necessarily folded to anything.
The story in the press wasn't verified by anyone.
Nobody knows what they're planning. I'd argue that what will ultimately keep Ten Hag at OT, in the short term anyway, is the lack of available alternative.
I actually made a point on another thread that we do need to avoid make too many signings this summer. Signing 7 or 8 players like many on here want before we have a wider long term plan would be stupid. You run the risk of having a group of players in 18 months who aren't involved because their style doesn't suit. You then can't sell them because they have 3 years plus left on their contracts.
Fill the obvious gaps this summer (centre back, defensive midfield, striker and left back depening on Shaw's fitness) then work up that wider plan. If those 3 or 4 players are still playing and thriving in 4/5 years it would represent a successful window.
Last edited:
You are not wrongCAF loves misery
United are in a terrible financial position because of all the ridiculous transfer fees we've paid out on players over the last 10 years.
I made a similar point on the ticket price thread. It's always the fans (or in this case office staff) who pay the price for reckless spending. We're potentially going to make a combined loss of 50 million + if we sell Antony and Sancho this summer. That's not the fault of people working in the office.
I’ve been at a company which has been taken over before and what we’re seeing here is fairly standard practice where the new owners want to trim the fat and ideally hire their own people in.
Usually people move on anyway because the benefits and culture changed which upsets all the long termers there because they’re not used to change and most of them had worked there most of their lives, and the ones who hadn’t been there that long don’t care as much (like me).
I moved on like 12 months later after the takeover as did a whole bunch of people who weren’t really affected by the takeover and even though it was a good job and a good company pre-takeover, I got a better job with a much better company.
Usually people move on anyway because the benefits and culture changed which upsets all the long termers there because they’re not used to change and most of them had worked there most of their lives, and the ones who hadn’t been there that long don’t care as much (like me).
I moved on like 12 months later after the takeover as did a whole bunch of people who weren’t really affected by the takeover and even though it was a good job and a good company pre-takeover, I got a better job with a much better company.
Where have these reports come from though, and why only since Ratcliffe wants to get rid of everyone? And why are we all fine with that? He came in to sort the football side of things - the part of the business haemorrhaging millions per week from poor transfer business and silly contracts over the past 11 years. Why do the staff earning a fifth of a squad player's weekly wages per year come under his remit?
And i can tell you that in my time working at United, it was very much a skeleton crew. There was always a hiring freeze and actual permanent jobs would very rarely come up. They'd often replace a full time permanent role with two or three people working zero hours contracts and many other departments relied heavily on 6-12 month short term contracted staff.
Job security there was terrible, but then again, anyone that did leave was almost assured a job at City, because they could share the knowledge of how things were run with their rivals who also paid better money.
Personally, I wouldn't have taken a job over at the Etihad, but I know a fair few people who did do - it's full of former United staff there, many of whom did a good job at United, and are United supporters, but who were more appreciated over at City. As an employer we're terrible, but "bloated" or "overstaffed" is never a phrase I'd have used.
Sacking back room staff isn’t going to shot us up the money league the rat loathes the workers more than once he has threatened to close a plant down due to workers disputes over pay the reason he was so in favour of Brexit was because a lot of workers rights came from the EC
It's much difficult to get rid off players on huge wages, all players have agents who ensure such a tight contract. It's the average working class that get shafted always to save a few pennies. All the executives, directors in charge of the transfer mess would have had a significant pay off when they were relieved. It's the average office admin paying the price now.
The world has recognized working from home is going to be an important option post Covid, we are being dragged back to stone age again, just so a few people can voluntarily resign.
If I remember correctly, there was a report a couple of years ago (not sure if it was just before covid) about how United had the highest number of staff, like 1.5x-2x the next club in the list. And also remember discussions here about how that was a sign of a poorly run club.
Agreed. This is probably one of the main reasons big businesses backed Brexit: the erosion of workers rights.
Jimmy!
I wondered how long before someone pointed out the blatantly obvious
Garnacho's brother seemed to think differently
He was saying that they felt he needed a rest and that Amad should get more of a chance. Apparently AG told ETH he was feeling burnt out, and I think he's still played every game since then.Thanks for the replies. Why would we be looking at keeping ETH then or Southgate, hopefully they aren't.
Thanks for sharing this. Would not have known, but somehow not surprising.
The solution to every problem is to bench Amad, didn't you know?Garnacho's brother seemed to think differently
That's part of the story. I believe it's down to mismanagement as a whole. Which explains
A- too many employees
B- the stadium and Carrington falling into pieces
C- dividends taken when the real money laid in the club's value
D- lack of investment in the football management department which hurt us in transfers (in and out), contracts given (often they are too long and on silly money) and the strategy taken ,(ie bringing in managers with a totally different way of seeing football which meant that half of the squad would need to be replaced)
A shrewd owner would have invested heavily in keeping United on top and in hiring staff that is best in class. That means more CL football, more money generated by sponsors, more supporters and the value of the club would skyrocket to 10b. The academy in itself should have been a gold mine as promising kids could either strengthen the squad or sold for a profit.
This is simply not true, the Glazers, Woodwood, Arnold, Roche ect squeezed the life out of the place many years ago, it became a horrendous place to work due to staff shortages, corner cutting and penny pinching, it's coming back to bite them on the arse and the only way to resolve the problem is to invest in staff, this becomes difficult due to the flawed set up in the ownership, one group being unable to critise the other. I suspect this 'clearout' will be to facilitate most departments being put out to tender for private companies to lease like most other clubs. One final thought, many of these staff were at the club in the late 90s with more coming onboard during the 2000's when we were winning everything, were they a problem then? they've seen success at the club Ratcliffe can only dream of.
It is yeah because there’s no mention of fees. It’s just assumed that it refers to big-name, big-fee players. And whilst the hit rate for such players hasn’t been high at United over the years, that doesn’t mean one can’t work.
If it referred to players over 28 or 29, then I’d change my mind.
Last edited:
They're the sort of insights he get paid the big bucks for.
Wow. Insightful stuff from Jim there. Maybe he'll get the match day announcer (if he's not taken redundancy) to ask the opposition to be a bit more delicate?
- Status