No, we have as much if not less than Liverpool. We have a larger stadium that needs more maintenance and we have more visitors to the club.
Club ownership | Senior management team talk
- Thread starter golden_blunder
- Start date
I’m afraid you’re just buying the party line. Cutting admin staff isn’t the road to prosperity. They aren’t the costs that are making us run at a loss.
They bought equity. The money that would ordinarily go to the previous owners of that stock has gone on infrastructure instead.
Firstly, sorry if this has directly affected you. In terms of your question, it was widely referenced in the summer, United have/had the largest staff list in the country and globally + we have made a loss like 5 years in a row.
I don't really get the electrician point though, surely that is normal? You have a specialist on the permanent staff and then will use contractors/likely have a firm on retainer whenever you need additional people (for example on matchday). I'm not going to pretend I know the ins and outs of PL electrician hiring, but that is how it is in other corporate sectors with big events or complexes given they are not used to capacity most days of the week, maybe it is different in the PL but I guess you'd have to give examples of what Arsenal, Pool etc. do to compare.
Where are the numbers to back this up compared to other clubs in relation to comparative size?
Fan base has a ton to do with certain departments. Merchandise, engagement etc.
If they are not doing their job they should be sacked and replaced. That has nothing to do with bloat though?
Agreed but what if the reason why they're not doing their job is because of new clear strategy above them?
As I said above, getting rid of people is the easy part. Putting in a clear plan to make us more efficient/successful is something very different.
He won't answer. Happy to shut down people who have actually worked for the club though.
I agree with you.
We all know what is killing the club. The cost of club ownership mainly due to the Glazers.
They got away with it for years due to low interest rates, but now the club can't keep up and compete.
It's a fecking joke that they got away with this.
They got away with it for years due to low interest rates, but now the club can't keep up and compete.
It's a fecking joke that they got away with this.
Yeh the Glazers put us in the coffin. But the transaction with INEOS was the nail in the coffin.
Yes, but you will never see a headline saying "Manutd hire new staff to conduct day to day activities" but you will kick up a fuss when you read they are getting sacked.
How do you know that there are sackings but not replacements?
Obviously I dont think 200 will be replaced but some may be, neither you or me can be totally sure.
Its usual.. fans lap up negative headlines then complain about journalists doing it for clicks...
Because people who work for this club are telling you that things were already threadbare and things are getting worse.
Hardly negative headlines when it’s affecting real people who post on this very forum.
Not nice not having an axe hanging over your neck, is it?
This is a common theme in everyday work. Higher ups get rid of staff to save money and expect the remaining staff to pick up their work aswell on the same wage.
But the funny part is the remaining staff get criticised for not getting the work done.
How much would Qatar or another buyer need to put up to buy us now?
You are acting as if if you are employed in a failing business, due to the negligence from previous owners, every Manutd employee job should be safe because Red Army45 thinks its not nice.
Thats not how ANY business operates, especially when you get a someone new running it.
The first thing any new management does, is look at overheads.
Its like saying we are cutting costs, so we will get rid of staff and players and not replace them. We will get rid of a manager but not replace him?
Clearly, its not the case, they are being replaced with competent people.
Its not nice having an axe over your head but if you are an employee and your company is having a 1 out of 5 hygeine rating... you're job should be safe... because you work for Manutd?
Except United is a football club which was built on working class values. I don’t identify with a business and I don’t follow a business - I follow a football club as most fans do. I appreciate that it must be run correctly, but your average working people shouldn’t be left holding the bag for the shitshow that has been the Glazer ownership. If you the club has got some money issues - hows about the owners stop taking dividends or and pay off some debt from their own pockets.
I was agreeing with your point. I was stating how business people make a mockery of the working class and how it happens everywhere.
It's not happening so I wouldn't worry about it.
The United stand has a click bait show this morning about 'United takeover?' I didn't watch it as its BS but it might have put a value on it
If parts of the club are threadbare then it probably means other areas are over staffed. If Madrid can operate on about 550 non player/coaching staff then maybe Utd didn’t need 800.
They need to get on with it and treat people fairly and make sure that there is more stability going forward.
It’s not nice and I don’t think it’s the right way to go about things. They’re looking at the wrong overheads then, cause they’re barely making a dent by the cost cutting they’re doing.
As I asked previously, how’s about servicing some of that debt from their own pockets first? No more posts left for the day, but either way, maybe look at how the club is run from the top, and the mistakes that were made in getting Ashworth, then firing him, keeping Ten Hag then firing him. How many years you reckon it’ll be before we recoup all the compensation we’ve paid to them, from all these overheads that we’re getting rid off You’ll be trimming that fat for decades.
Fair enough mate, my apologies.
I understand why INEOS want to make the club more efficient.
But it has to be said the optics are awful when we are spending 40-60 million a year servicing a debt pile that did not exist prior to the glazers.
Not to mention the zillions wasted on people like Casemiro, Luke Shaw, Mason Mount, Rashford, Eriksen and so on. Plus the Ashworth and Ten Hag payoffs.
Sacking 100 people on 50k saves 5 million. Peanuts when compared to the above. But devastating to those who get made redundant.
But it has to be said the optics are awful when we are spending 40-60 million a year servicing a debt pile that did not exist prior to the glazers.
Not to mention the zillions wasted on people like Casemiro, Luke Shaw, Mason Mount, Rashford, Eriksen and so on. Plus the Ashworth and Ten Hag payoffs.
Sacking 100 people on 50k saves 5 million. Peanuts when compared to the above. But devastating to those who get made redundant.
The Guardian are reporting that a Qatari consortium are eyeing up Spurs
Let me explain to you... INEOS are not going to service the debt that is not theirs from their pockets... forget it. You are making loads of points that are not making sense.
1. This is the Glazers debt who own majority of the club... they have been paid billions for a share of the club and they should pay the debt off not INEOS.
2. The club has looked at how it has run from the top, its you who ignores it, CEO, DoF and many more upper management were sacked first.
3. INEOS made a mistake with Ashworth, they recognise that, came out saying they have made mistakes.
4. This Ten Hag thing, I see it all the time, why do fans act as if if he was sacked in the summer, there would be no compensation to pay? They would have had to pay compensation regardless when he was sacked. If you are so worried about the compensation about sacking a manager, your point should be more, we should have kept Ten Hag for his contract.
Finally, the savings from all the staff.. say for example average salary of 40k. 200 staff = £8m a year, along with all the other savings they are making, you could argue they have made up to 20m a year cuts on staff, including SAF.
Gagging to try and find any kind of link to Jassim no doubt, the AI sheikh who 'likes nice things'
INEOS are actively trying to get rid of the highest earners from the club also. We can't blame them for those that have been inherited
Technically you do follow a business. Clubs are formed by members who can decide what the club does. United is a company that has owners. And it's this way for ages.
If fans don't own the club, it's not a real club. Simple as that.
So you only understand what fits your agenda?
The debt is on the club because of the Glazers, why should INEOS who own a % of the club remove the debt? They have paid billions for their share, it makes no sense to get rid of someone else's debt.
So, what is the best way to deal with it? look at costs and where savings can be made. You mention all these players who are on the out, there has been a clear effort from INEOS to shift the high earners, I dont know what you are trying here.
Ten Hag pay off, again another fan who wanted Ten Hag to stay? Just because we had to pay him off. So you think we should have kept Ten Hag because that would have saved jobs?
THey have not just sacked people on 50k, Fergie was on over £1m a year, all the other directors such as Murtough, Arnold are also gone, why dont you also add those figures?
Calm down fella. Did I say INEOS should pay the debt off? All I said was the optics are a car crash. Which they are.
I'm an accountant. I know a thing or two about cutting corporate costs and streamlining. You dont need to teach me to suck eggs.
Ineos will not buy out the club. They are skint to do so. Ratcliffe does not have 4-5 billion more. I am pretty sure he knew this from the very beginning. So the plan all along was likely to trim the fat, make the club more attractive to potential buyers. Ineos win, the Glazers win. It is not a vanity project, Jim is just after more money. Is there anybody here who believes that Ratcliffe/Ineos will become a majority stakeholder before he turns 75?
Ratcliffe was never going to do that, that's for sure.
So if you understand that.. why do you think the optics look bad on INEOS?
Well, from your post it didnt look like you understood as you said 5m is peanuts, when its not 100 people getting sacked, we are saving circa 20m a year from the cost cutting as alot of higher earning people also got sacked. I.e SAF.
Add to that the salary savings from getting rid of players, we are clearly trying to get rid of Casemiro, Rashford, Sancho, Eriksen, Lindelof...
If you understood, you will know that all of this could save the club 70/80m a year... now in your book thats peanuts but from where I look at it, that is alot of money.
So we are not to believe any headlines or the message from people employed there right now, but we should automatically believe that they will hire competent people.
That seems a tad naive. Especially when taking in to account, the whole Ashworth debacle.
Can you show me an interview of the people who working there now?
If you are talking about sacked employees, then I think you would be naive to believe everything a sacked employee says...
I am naive yes, I believe that when you hire people to replace negligent staff, you will get it wrong sometimes....
I have never come across any business that has a 100% success rate in employees, I guess you think that is normal.
Not saying this is true but it's how INEOS seems to be behaving here. Trim and make a profit
Nothing screams making a profit like massively overpaying for shares of a company that has been horribly mismanaged in an industry where most companies aren't profitable.
Depends on what INEOS value United long term, according to Forbes the club is valued at $6.5bn now and they paid $1.6bn for over 27%. So wouldn't say they massively overpaid and clearly they think the club can be managed better.
INEOS have not started well and I suspect Jim is far too involved in decisions, as many of these self made billionaires are. But he did not buy into United to make money, he loves sport and wants to leave a legacy. Not sure its going to work out but people should get some perspective. I doubt there is anyone rushing to buy out Glazers and Radcliffe given state of club, stadium etc. Glazers are the real villains here,