I think INEOS are going to be a disaster if you are hoping to get back the good times how can you look at Brighton has a roll model
Club Ownership | INEOS responsible for the football side
- Thread starter Solius
- Start date
- Status
I’d say that’s right, to a certain extent at least. The club has been rinsed for years on transfers.
Ineos need to deliver this summer or we are going to have some uncomfortable conversations.
They need to get rid of players who we clearly need to move on e.g one of Maguire/Lindelof, Sancho, Greenwood, Antony, Casemiro and generate good funds from this (selling has been a major issue for the club and if they don't show improvement here then that is not a good sign)
They need to beef up this squad with quality and depth in key areas
All their talk of best in class and high performance environment, well that what they need to also be judged by
They need to get rid of players who we clearly need to move on e.g one of Maguire/Lindelof, Sancho, Greenwood, Antony, Casemiro and generate good funds from this (selling has been a major issue for the club and if they don't show improvement here then that is not a good sign)
They need to beef up this squad with quality and depth in key areas
All their talk of best in class and high performance environment, well that what they need to also be judged by
Poor effort, that’s still pretty condescending.
At no point have I ‘cheered on’ people losing their jobs, so I resent the implication.
I do however find it weird how personally some posters have taken these actions (with the obvious exception of anyone who is directly affected).
It’s clear from the football how ineffectually the club has been run under the glazers, so why wouldn’t this extend to behind the scenes too. I was under the impression we weren’t happy with the status quo as a fan base? How are we to raise standards across the club if we can’t make painful decisions?
It may not be palatable but it is a normal function of business - and if it is deemed necessary then it must be to the benefit of the club, not necessarily solely relating to the on pitch activities.
It is also grating that internal confidential emails like these are consistently leaked and dissected in the media. They are then jumped on by fans who oppose Ratcliffe, INEOS or the club for whatever reason - and make it hard to have any positivity or excitement about the new project.
This voluntary redundancy thing isn’t something I like very much, usually leads to losing of best talent because people who take it are usually the ones who are confident of being able to find a better job elsewhere ie not the sort of people you want to lose. It’s cheaper than just letting your worst performers go through a review process but also less efficient.
As with any corporate there’s probably fat in the back office, many companies are going through re-alignments of their structure currently (including the one I work for).
As with any corporate there’s probably fat in the back office, many companies are going through re-alignments of their structure currently (including the one I work for).
Its not just jobs being affected, Jim has also ordered the canteen team to stop ordering from Marks & Spencer's and instead focus on Iceland, Farm Foods etc. All stationery is now to be ordered from The Range, and not Rymans, and all cigars are to no longer be lit with £50 notes.
Also if these idiots bring Southgate anywhere near this club after going on about best in class….
It's not very extreme anyway. How do you get to 24/25 and nobody knows you're a good player these days. Doesn't really happen, even if you're at a lower tier club you're known. Nothing about the strategy is particularly extreme, it does not imply shopping for 18 year olds every time or 8 million quid from the Croatian league. So I don't think it matters what Chelsea are doing, it's just a way to eliminate these silly decisions that cost us fortunes on stagnant or past peak players.
Its does not eliminate anything we threw money away on Van De Beek, Antony and more. The real issue is signing the right players for the style we want to play ans having a plan for the player. And also having a valid succession plan for all players in all positions. For instance Casemiro should have had a shorter contract and a young DM should have been signed the following summer. Or even better we should have signed Rice instead.
Also focusing on signing players from the PL will incur PL tax there is much better value for money outside of the league
Why are they idiots? Have I missed something?
I think people have taken the actions personally because they have empathy for others and possibly some experience of having gone through nonsense like this in their own careers and workplaces. It sucks.
Behind the scenes it has been a mess, correct. Something does need to be done. But not in the way it has been. And the idea that they are massively overstaffed is miles off the truth. It's bare bones outside of management.
There's nowhere near enough time elapsed between the takeover being confirmed and this redundancy threat for there to have been a comprehensive review of the staff. It's bull in a china shop stuff and also seems to be out of the remit of the 'footballing side of the business'.
To categorise posts like mine as being made because I "oppose Ratcliffe and/or Ineos" is daft. I oppose his actions. As I would if it were the Glazers or the Saudis/Qataris or any other possible ownership who tried to get away with this stuff. And how can what he's done so far possibly result in positivity or excitement unless you have no social conscience and only care about the possibility that shitting on the staff will directly bring us a few more trophies.
Pep and Klopp didn't sign players.
Pep confirmed couple of times that he gives parameters for position to Txiki and then Txixi does the rest.
Until Edwards left, Klopp operated the same as we want now. Edwards gave him a list and Klopp picked a players.
This year Klopp (rumours say) had "ultimate power". And look how his signings worked. Szobo flopped, Gravenberch was a sub, Endo was meh, only Mac Allister was a success.
If 4 and 5 are true, that would be great for us. I hope it will work the same for outgoings. In recent years we failed to get good fee for players like Lingard, McT, Maguire, Martial because managers wanted to " have a depth".
And clubs with the best players don't sell players in their peak years. They buy them younger and let them grow into the team.
Take Real Madrid, all of their best players were signed under 25.
How many of Di Maria, Schweinsteiger, Ibrahimović, Mkhitaryan, Matic, Sanchez, Maguire, Cavani, Telles, Ronaldo, Varane and Casemiro have turned out to be good value for money? Or even performed at a level which suggests they could be part of a title challenge for more than a few months?
No but it eliminates Casimero, Varane, Sanchez, none of these late career wonders have done anything. Hundreds of millions in the hole in overall resource. Those signings need to be near certs as by their very nature that's the point of them.
It captures Bruno, Lisandro, our best mid career signings and best current players. And it will capture early career signings.
So how's it an issue? Eliminate ideas that do not work within our current status and focus on ones that are more likely to.
Not sure what your point is with PL players. They didn't say everyone to be cheap, they specified an age which is more about improvement and identifying players earlier. Doesn't mean to say everyone will be an absolute bargain. Reasonable to assume players from many leagues will be targets.
They would be if they hire Southgate
You could do that by not signing players over 29. Its make very little sense to set 25 as the limit as a top club which means you cannot sign players at their peak when available
Also we are in the whole not because we signed aging players. We are in the whole because we overpay on both fees and wages and we are absolute shite at selling players and hand out contracts to players who we shouldn’t.
Nothing to do with an age limit of 25
Of course but they won’t be hiring him this summer given he’s in the Euros.
I’m sure all the journalists are simply going off the fact he’s worked with Ashworth in the past.
He is apparently according to reports both Ashworths and Brailfords first choice and they are sounding him out for taking over in the future. I never said this summer in my post.
These new rules sound like he wants United to be a selling club. Buy them young, sell them on, make a profit for Daddy Jim.
Not worth getting worked up over currently
That same Real signed Modric, Rudiger, Navas, Courtois and Alaba who were over 25.
Restriction about age in a club is a pure madness. You don't need a rule about that. It is just on DoF to make a right call. To make right call will signed "older" player will be Modric esque or Scweinsteiger esque.
And don't get me wrong; i was against Ineos taking over. But i will give them a chance. One season though
So you're called them idiots preemptively eh
According to you, the rumours circling that he will be approached after the Euros and ETH kept on for the season with Southgate lined up as his replacement, I think that is something I will concern myself with thanks
Life’s too short my friend. It is what it is.
Except it doesnt remove all peak players, it removes peak players aged 26 and older. But not everyone peaks at that age and not everyone has a fixed 1-2 year peak that you have to sit around waiting for.
Simple solution, buy earlier peaked players or players 1-2 years from peak and get the full benefit. Bruno is an example, what's significantly changed about his game? Nobody goes from 25 and shit to 26/27/28 peaked world class. So it's on the scouts to pull their fingers out and buy pre peak players and the managers job to put together a team where they look peak.
Think he’ll be aiming to make us a massive RBL style club. We can still win things with good recruitment but they aren’t going to find the stupid cost of going toe to toe with a state backed team. It’s probably the best long term solution but think there’ll be some unpopular player sales in the future.
Well Southgate even being in contention is enough for me to call them idiots, lets hope the likes of Berada and Wlcox are not, although this Ashworth saga has not filled me with confidence about him.
Yes along with other things we have seen e.g going into a summer where we have competition for players and our manager situation isn't clear allowing rivals to get the jump on us
The main man telling people they have to work in the office and saying he will lead by example only to renage on this and use his tax status as an excuse
Offering voluntary resignation to cut staff when all that will happen is you lose the best staff and the staff that isn't so good will remain (since they don't have confidence of finding a new job)
The atmosphere amougst club staff at the moment must be dire, and the focus here when that is far from our largest expenditure
The apparent transfer policy
Yet Kobbie is essential in every line up.
I call BS on this, anyone could have figured this out.
Honestly don't see anything wrong in these rules. In the long term, it would make sure our signings are great and balanced. We wouldn't ever be in a position where we are hamstrung with players past their sell by date that we can't sell.
In the short term, these rules will ensure that a clear player identity is set. We will never be a selling club, as noone would have the money to buy anyone we'd like to keep.
Most players peak between 26-29
Some reach you have on you. Do you write for The Sun
This was what Rangnick proposed 2-3 years ago. Get the players on the upcurve, sell them on the downcurve whilst they still have value.
We'd probably make a special case for some players - we actually want to win things but we need to be more ruthless with our academy.
Its not like we have much choice. PSR rules have to be followed.
"..Transfer fees have contributed to United recording losses in their last two published annual accounts, which impacts spending. After years of making profit, United recorded losses of £115.5 million in 2021/22 and £28.7 million the following season.
Under PSR, clubs are allowed maximum losses of £105 million over a three-year period and United still need to tread a very careful path on spending despite qualifying for the Europa League at the weekend.
After the win, Ten Hag was seen in deep conversation with Toby Collyer, 20, who travelled with the squad and is regarded as a player with first-team potential. Harry Amass, 17, has arrived from Watford’s Academy and is also highly thought of...."
https://www.telegraph.co.uk/football/2024/05/29/sir-jim-ratcliffe-manchester-united-spending/
Two of those are goalkeepers, I don't think it's a reasonable inference that the rule extends to them as well. Likewise Alaba and Rudiger was a free transfers who they didn't pay any money for, I don't see any suggestion frees would be included in that.That same Real signed Modric, Rudiger, Navas, Courtois and Alaba who were over 25.
Restriction about age in a club is a pure madness. You don't need a rule about that. It is just on DoF to make a right call. To make right call will signed "older" player will be Modric esque or Scweinsteiger esque.
And don't get me wrong; i was against Ineos taking over. But i will give them a chance. One season though
And Modric was a 26 year old who was signed by Mourinho 12 years ago. The only outfield player they've actually signed for money who is over 25 in the last 10 years is Eden Hazard, and if you ever needed a better reason to keep to that system then there it is. Before Modric is was Carvalho back in 2010.
I think you need to read this thread
We do not have issues with PSR this summer we had issues last summer 21/22 does not count against PSR for the coming season. Not to mention Ineos are free to inject cash into the club in order to record a profit for the season/help with transfers, if they do not (considering the importance of this summer) they are not much better than the Glazers
Were they good at 23, 24 and 25 do you reckon or did they just figure out how to pass at 26? I struggle to work out how a strategy that would encompass all our most successful current signings (such as they are) and eliminate ones that have been utterly useless and cost the club hundreds of millions is a bad one. Seems like a common sense look at what has worked and what hasn't.
I think they're also looking at this project with some stark realism as depressing as it is. We aren't doing shit in the next year or two in major competitions. If you've got a couple of years to build a team which lets be honest is absolute minimum you ideally want players that will develop.
Even by your initial rationale of all players peaking at 26-29 which you've now softened it would be a lot more productive in terms of squad management to have those players hitting that peak in a team that has developed (so they'd be 24-25 now), then you hopefully have the current crop coming through that are 19-20 coming into their pre peak period. Then whatever youngsters you've bought will complete the churn. That's where we are, no sense pretending we can exploit the peak of an expensive signing - we bloody can't and it's proven, how many times do we try the same mistake.
Agree, SJR hasn't bought the club to act like scrooge and consign us to mid table.
This is a vanity/legacy purchase for him, so all he wants from it is to get us back to the top, and build us a nice new stadium.
Woodward might as well as just given out the clubs credit card number when he came out with crap about us doing what only other clubs of only dream of, etc, the worst transfer negotiation tactic ever.
Except 2+2 !=5
As I already pointed out the signings that failed were nothing to do with age and more to do with signing the wrong profiles, the fees paid, wages given and lack of succession planning for positions.
We have also signed the likes of Maguire, Van De Beek, Sancho, Antony, Pellestri to go with your Varane, Casemiro examples the common denominator for poor signings and sunk costs is not the age of the players so its not smart to set an arbitrary age limit for signings to fix a problem caused by something else.
When players fail we need to be able to move them on (so we should not offer crazy wages), we also need to not pay over the top transfer fees which means we lost money if we sell them on (which means focusing on PL players isn't the best idea)
The last signing we made which actually won us a title was Van Persie in his peak
A player being good at 23/24 and 25 is great that's got nothing to do with what I said because I have not said we should not sign them. Why should we eliminate the possibility to sign players at their peak? Its not smart for a top club
Maguire was 26, Pellistri cost less than Hannibal did. These are not a great list of examples.
They are failed signings and sunk costs
Pellestri and Maguire were the wrong profile of player, they being failed transfers had nothing to do with their age
Better to understand the point of the post... which was failed transfers and sunk costs has more to do with signing the right profile of player and getting the wages and fee correct than the players age
- Status