Hence the 'making working conditions worse' part of @Dion 's post.
I've never seen a poster on here more committed to cheering on unknown numbers of job losses for regular folk than you are. Congrats on that.
Club Ownership | INEOS responsible for the football side
- Thread starter Solius
- Start date
- Status
I've never seen a poster on here more committed to cheering on unknown numbers of job losses for regular folk than you are. Congrats on that.
In the words of the great Pete Townsend meet the new boss same as the old boss
It seems we are getting a deluge of information that is somewhere between misquoted and disinformation.
Very well written
I hope this is complete BS. With 4 and 5 i completely agree and that is how things should work. Excellent stuff that.
Number 3 also makes sense.
But with first 2 rules you can't challenge even for top 4.
Why not Buy "galactico" signing if he will be game changer?
Why not buy player who is aged 27 or 28 if he is going straight to first 11 and will make huge impact?
It's not redundancy, it's only an annual bonus. Which for many employees will be far less than redundancy.
Critique the post, not the poster.
The rules today are not the rules that were there for the last 10 years, and you don't have to spend big, you have to spend wisely (and sell)
Don't even think that's true. Glazers were happy to throw money at the problem, but without any real plan. If this report is true, we're probably headed to the times of David Gill (no value in the market).
How do 4,5 and especially 3 make any sense?
If your goal is being like the top EPL teams: City, Arsenal, Liverpool, do you think that is how Pep operates? Or Arteta? Or Klopp? BULLSHIT. It is how Brighton operates. United is not Brighton and should not be Brighton.
Ratclifee is a moron, if he really set these rules
Fair enough. In that case it’s up to each individual to decide what’s best for themselves. The time to become concerned is when the redundancies become compulsory. I know INEOS has a reputation where this type of thing is concerned, but in the harsh spotlight of Manchester United they will have to tread very carefully or land themselves in very deep hot water!
It was reported was they sent an email around asking if there were staff who wished to take voluntary redundancy , if that isn't correct then I doubt anyone on here as any idea what has or is happening
INEOS are clearly briefing that they will be tight arses to change the narrative that we have endless wads of cash, which repeatedly fecks us in negotiations.
That’s okay, let’s all meltdown and rant and rave anyway. It’s a time honoured tradition.
If you look at all of Arsenal's best signings over the last 5-6 years all of them have been 25 or under. The only ones that have contributed otherwise are Partey (27), Raya (27), Jorginho (31) and Trossard (28).
Liverpool have only signed Thiago and Endo.
City have only signed Kalvin Phillips, Kovacic, Ortega and Akanji
Given our consistent signing of older players, it's natural we'll adopt a profile which is aimed at buying players who will grow into the squad but aren't kids. Most teams (excluding goalkeepers) don't average one over-25 signing a year.
That might be true if it didn't come with condition ruining back to office directives which are explicitly designed to force people to want to leave. If you're forcing people to leave then you should be paying them the proper redundancy, not making their life horrible with massive changes to terms of their employment then offering them paltry compensation to leave. This underhanded shit is abhorrent.
https://x.com/JamieJackson___/status/1795511852484477280
No, it wasn't voluntary redundancy.
A United spokesperson said: “This isn’t a voluntary redundancy programme. The club recognises that not everyone wants to work from the office full‑time so has provided options for staff who don’t wish to return to the office to step away now.”
It was voluntary resignation with an early payment of the annual bonus.
It could be made up but won’t surprise me if it’s not far from the truth.
Until we learn to sell, we can’t buy big. Just look at our transfer receivables and payables. It’s poor.
Until we learn to sell, we can’t buy big. Just look at our transfer receivables and payables. It’s poor.
Quite right, apologies.
What I meant to say is that I've never seen any one poster post so many posts cheering on staff losing their jobs. Presumably because they think that if Eleanor in the museum, John in Sponsor Servicing or Dave in the club shop are gotten rid of, we'll somehow start playing better next season.
So it would make sense to say "we will be focusing on players under 25, to invest in the future" instead of saying stupid "Age limit 25". And focus on under-25 is so obvious when you are rebuilding that I wonder if they even had to declare this as some big fecking revelation
I mean it is seemingly clear that INEOS are struggling, they started off well in terms of getting Barrada, Cox but since then its been average at best.
They have made a meal out of the managers situation, have provided some list of things they wont do, which is contradictory to what they initially set out.
Their moto was to get us challenging again, it seems SJR is just a good talker, the action seems to be lacking.
And when have we ever seen reports about any other club and a set of rules on how to operate? I really can’t remember a single case of any new owners or club presidents coming out with so much if any “this is how will do X: a. … b. … c. …”. Unless one believes this is all made up by the media which would be a strange thing to make up, I really just don’t get how this is the way to run a football club.
You're probably putting too much emphasis on the wording of the person who made the graphic for The Sun.
Couldn't agree more. Too much "blah, blah, blah" and so far the only thing they managed to do has been Berrada. They have been around for several months, it should be more results, less talk
Oh yeah those first two are comically stupid rules to have. Imagine Vinicius suddenly saying "I'd like to go to Manchester and the PL" but Sir Jim wagging his finger and saying "sorry Vini you are too good and famous already".
And strictly adhering to signing 25 and under players is how you end up like Chelsea with a million youngsters that all need minutes to develop and no clue how to fit them in. I think hard cap rules on transfers are stupid in general because you pidgeonhole yourself into not being able to take advantage of easy opportunites that might come into the market.
I think the Antony signing alone is enough to make me want there to be less of a free rein for managers wanting to sign their faves in future. But for the manager to have *no* say on which players we sign, beyond picking from a very limited set menu proposed by some suit, seems like a recipe for disaster.
I like this. Makes sense. I know people are saying you can’t challenge for things with a squad under the age of 25 but we won’t be challenging for anything for a couple of seasons anyway. The idea is to build a young team who can grow together and then start winning and dominate together. I was gonna use Arsenal as an example but their not the right team because they haven’t won anything yet but they’ve built quite a young team and let them grow together. I like number 3,4 and 5 especially on this list. That’s how it should be
If by reputable you mean Neil Custis or Jacob Steinberg, I’d hazard an estimation that 1 out of 20 things they write as news stories are actually directed leaks. When one such ‘less disreputable’ source prints an intelligent guesswork based on some usually peripheral sources, it is business as usual for other reptuable sources to report refer to this or report similar. I’ve talked to several journalists, this is how news outlets make a living. Assuming that most generally reported assumptions is a leak is completely unrealistic, I would say.
Yes but pep and Klopp are obviously good at signing players and picking out talents. ETH unfortunately as shown he isn’t. Why would you not want number 3? I mean how many times have we swapped managers who play completely different styles and then that means forever changing players and signing for different styles. At least this way it means we’ll already have certain players to play the same style no matter who the manager is
Other clubs run much better than ours though. INEOS are doing what they think is necessary to make us run much better. Who cares what other clubs do? Maybe more clubs will follow us if it starts to work for us.
So one year left on contracts, prem proven, under 26, hugh potential.
Are we actually going to be signing anyone
Are we actually going to be signing anyone
I got new rules, I count 'em
I got new rules, I count 'em
I gotta tell them to myself
I got new rules, I count 'em
Course it makes a ton of sense. Varane and Casimero have been a huge, huge waste of resources. Even going back to Sanchez type signings, awful. It hasn't worked for us in general that we sign these established stars post Fergie.
I'd imagine the headline has been slightly exaggerated, there will probably be very rare occasions where a superstar player turns up over 25 and they consider it. But as a general rule they're setting their stall out that it will be a very rare exception.
And no it doesn't mean you can't challenge for the league, the vast majority of the players City and Liverpool buy do not fall into that Galactico category so exactly is it shown that you need such a profile of player? It's easy to be reductionist and think it means turning us into money ball but it's not. It doesn't mean you're cheap - you may still spend a feck load to get the best talents, just not the ones of a certain age or status. What they want is the best talents identified earlier. Which is easier said than done but that's the goal.
I'd imagine the headline has been slightly exaggerated, there will probably be very rare occasions where a superstar player turns up over 25 and they consider it. But as a general rule they're setting their stall out that it will be a very rare exception.
And no it doesn't mean you can't challenge for the league, the vast majority of the players City and Liverpool buy do not fall into that Galactico category so exactly is it shown that you need such a profile of player? It's easy to be reductionist and think it means turning us into money ball but it's not. It doesn't mean you're cheap - you may still spend a feck load to get the best talents, just not the ones of a certain age or status. What they want is the best talents identified earlier. Which is easier said than done but that's the goal.
Working well for Chelsea so far
Well, we'll see. It's one season and in fact they were looking stronger than us as the season progressed. If you have a season of short term pain then it starts coming to fruition that's not a bad trade off.
It's 2 seasons, actually, and the main issue is the squad lacks experience, but lets go ahead and repeat their mistakes and to make it even worse pay over the top by focusing on player in the PL
You have to have a balanced approach, Chelsea didn't sign Maddison last summer because he was over 25, stupid decision, you shound't box your self in like that.
We should be for one looking to sign the best talents from around the world (not just the PL) and for 2 we should be creating a squad mixed with experience and youth.
4 and 5 have perfect sense and that is how every big club operates. Including City who has unlimited money and best manager in the world. Pep confirmed it many times. Same was in Luverpool under Klopp.
It was only United who gave managers "full backing" to dictate transfer policy. And THAT is why we burned over one billion in last 10 years.
Regarding no3; when Dof is on charge then he picks managers who play the same style. So again, you don't have situation when new manager needs "his own players". You will not have situation when Solskjaer spends 130 million on two defenders who can play only in deep defence while for new manager they are useless.
Number one and number two rules are absolute disaster though. That is for clubs like Brighton or Everton. Madness really if true.
On the other hand; best players win you trophies. If you can why not spend on world class players?
Regarding age; it is silly. Of course that you will not sign 4 older players at once but if it is a good deal why not sign one or two. Especially if they are 27 or 28.
Rubbish rule
You lot will whinge about everything. If Ratcliffe and co don't propose any changes then its an outrage, if they propose changes it's an outrage that they aren't the rules you want.
- Status