Club Ownership | INEOS responsible for the football side

Status
Not open for further replies.
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

Interesting. So the rules won't prevent them from spending big. Let's see if they actually decide to pony up the money.
 
Pisses me off too, then you have to work out who will play where and work out the formation from there.
 
Oh god, communal areas, that will get us out of our funk. Is he trying to do every cliche in the book?
 

Carrington has had more face-lifts than Joan Rivers, I'm pretty sure communal areas have been done already, i seem to recall an issue with it being generally too communal not long ago. It's getting like the Tory government, they'll go to all kinds of bizarre lengths to avoid addressing actual problems.
 
I get they want to run a business to be profitable but these news stories just make INEOS sound like real penny pinchers. Hopefully the focus is on improving the culture, standards and results first and foremost.
 
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

Thanks. I didn't know that. Well I did want the qatari bloke to take complete ownership of Utd.
 
Carrington has had more face-lifts than Joan Rivers, I'm pretty sure communal areas have been done already, i seem to recall an issue with it being generally too communal not long ago. It's getting like the Tory government, they'll go to all kinds of bizarre lengths to avoid addressing actual problems.
You are right they have. We need a new training facility. ETH said they would be completely rebuilding it that would have been better
 
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.
Great post
 
True, they dithered leaving staff uncertain, then eventually came up with their own version which was bobbins.
So did they actually tell staff that they were being furloughed? Must admit that's not something I've heard. Or seen anywhere.
 
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.
Which makes you wonder how they burn so much money on stupid contracts and wages

A bit like paying Zlatan 400k a week, but charge him for orange juice
 
What will penny pinching achieve when your paying underperforming players like Rashford 300k a week?

Introduce a maximum salary limit say 150k a week and the rest is made up of performance related bonuses.
I'm sure theyl bring in a new wage structure but there's little they can do about the ones on existing contracts.
 
What will penny pinching achieve when your paying underperforming players like Rashford 300k a week?

Introduce a maximum salary limit say 150k a week and the rest is made up of performance related bonuses.
Come back to the real world with that suggestion.
 
Would that not be a good thing?
Yeah, I’d love to see him at United. Centre forwards with a lot of potential are in such short supply these days. The issue is the fee!

He’s name checked in the article in any case. ;)
 
Last edited:
So did they actually tell staff that they were being furloughed? Must admit that's not something I've heard. Or seen anywhere.

I can't remember exactly how it unfolded, but I remember we were under the impression we were getting Furloughed, then they realised they'd face a backlash and slowly cobbled together their own version, I remember a lot of uncertainty. Now I think back, they may not have promised furloughed via an official communication, but during the beginning of covid there was an absence of any direct communication.
 
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
Pellistri could well be sold for more than we paid for him, that's the point of buying youth players and Maguire was the wrong profile of player in part because of his age. He was never going to get better than he was when he join, and he was only just good enough then.

If we buy Maguire at the time Leicester did, say for double the money as there's a United tax and an extra 50% on top of his wages, that's £25m and £130k a week. Now that doesn't make Maguire a brilliant signing, but by god it would feel a lot better and we'd have had buyers when we wanted to sell.
 
Last edited:
Interesting. So the rules won't prevent them from spending big. Let's see if they actually decide to pony up the money.
I'm sure I read we'd of actually had more spending freedom had we not qualified for Europe, as we now also have to abide by their stricter rules.
 
I feel like they are doing this to chance the thinking about the club, after years of everyone seeing United as a cashcow. United wants someone? Ask crazy money. United wants to talk contracts? Ask crazy salaries. I feel like it's all part of the bigger picture in which united is seen (because it is) a sensible club who's not wasteful because of endless revenue.
 
I think we have different perceptions on how the media work. I think when there is this much reporting from different outlets that sound the same, that screams a leak or a brief. It's not always accurate, but someone out there want it be reported for whatever agenda. I might be wrong but when I look back on the initial PR campaign SJR went on at the time of the takeover and how all his talk mirrored a populist politician to speak the fan's language. It fits with that narrative what we've seen reported afterwards.
C o r r e c t
 
I get they want to run a business to be profitable but these news stories just make INEOS sound like real penny pinchers. Hopefully the focus is on improving the culture, standards and results first and foremost.
The bit about budgets is daft, because they've always been run like that. Budgets for everything were always minimal. Middle management had a real penny pinching culture because they knew it'd get them a bigger bonus if they came in under budget for their departments.
 
What will penny pinching achieve when your paying underperforming players like Rashford 300k a week?

Introduce a maximum salary limit say 150k a week and the rest is made up of performance related bonuses.

I very much hope that the wage structure is evaluated and brought down to earth.

£200k per week should be the ceiling and only reserved for proven players who regularly deliver like Bruno. Rashford should never be on that absurd contract and should be moved on at the earliest opportunity.
 
I very much hope that the wage structure is evaluated and brought down to earth.

£200k per week should be the ceiling and only reserved for proven players who regularly deliver like Bruno. Rashford should never be on that absurd contract and should be moved on at the earliest opportunity.
Unfortunately, that's unrealistic unless we are okay with losing our best players regularly. That will only be possible if it's like a wage cap applied across europe or PL.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.