Club ownership | Senior management team talk

FlawlessThaw said:
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.
Click to expand...

So they have overpaid... the club is worth how many people make profit? Buy the club for overpriced sum, spend 300m in the first year as a cash injection.

Add to that all the costs to develop a stadium and what not, you think SJR at his age is looking to make a short term profit whilst investing in a 7 year infrastructure project.

What you are saying has no logic at all.
 
romufc said:
What does the fan base have to do with number of staff the club employ?

I dont know how we can question efficiency?

I will give a basic example.... United hire staff in the health and safety dept, in the catering department.

With all the staff we had, like the football there was no responsibility, which is why we received a 1 out of 5 hygeine rating... if the people tasked to do their job are not doing it well, like in the football dept they need to be sacked.

We are inept in so many different departments, its a joke and INEOS are trying to get things back together, they have sacked footballing staff too. You can see players wise, the same is happening, they are trying to get rid of the players on high wages not performing.
Click to expand...
We can measure efficiency- Ebitda margin is one such tool. And we are better run than city operationally. We generate more revenue relative to our running costs. We are more efficient operationally than most any PL club and better than the other top dogs in Europe while carrying similar staffing numbers.
Neither City or PSG have to earn their commercial corn. And their commercial corn is what keeps then viable. And, it miraculously comes to them from the east. The do not need the staffing levels commercially that Bayern, Real Madrid, Barcelona, and ourselves need. Neither are they established elite clubs with mature business books- we have been an elite level club financially for over 30 years. City will no doubt grow, expand, and take on more staff. Indeed, their headcount as of 2024 was around 615, an increase of 15% from the previous year.
Comparing ourselves to smaller PL clubs staffing wise is like comparing a convenience store to Tesco. And coming to the conclusion that Tesco are overstaffed.
So Manchester United serving up a bad chicken, or pie, the club having a vermin problem is the only "metric", or rationale you need to determine "we are inept in so many different departments" and people need to be fired.
Maybe, just maybe, we need to invest more in quality control, in training. Actually hire more staff to supervise catering events. Maybe, just maybe, we shouldn't expect the (presumably lazy) stadium caretakers to climb ladders to plug roofing leaks with caulk. Maybe, just maybe, we need to invest more in infrastructure.
 
Last edited:
FlawlessThaw said:
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.
Click to expand...
The average stock return is usually estimated at under 10% per year. They bought their shares at twice the traded price in an industry that is historically horrible at being profitable and sustainable. United would have to be worth like 15 billion in 10 years for it to even be close to being a good investment for money sake alone.
 
Redjazz said:
We can measure efficiency- Ebitda margin is one such tool. And we are better run than city operationally. We generate more revenue relative to our running costs. Wa re more efficient operationally than any pl
Click to expand...

We make more money than most clubs, agreed but that does not = efficiency.

Also, operationally, if we were better run than City, we wouldn't be sacking managers every 26 months, or spending £80m on a player then loaning him to a mid table Spanish team.
 
So, how many years would it take to pay the Glazers debt (the clubs) without a single transfer in just focusing on paying it of? Is it even doable in say ten years?
 
Gordon'sHill said:
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,
Click to expand...
What kind of legacy he wants to leave being a minority shareholder and having no plans to buy more shares. Has not he lost around 4-5 billion of his wealth in the last 12 months. I am absolutely sure he will not become a majority shareholder in the next 3 years, and by that time he will be 75 years young.
 
Red flags raised after debts soar at Sir Jim Ratcliffe’s chemicals empire

Ratings agencies downgraded outlook for Ineos Group to ‘negative’ as tycoon’s sporting interests also hit crisis point

https://www.theguardian.com/busines...s-chemicals-empire-ratings-agencies-downgrade

Fitch Ratings and Moody’s, which provide financial health checks for most big companies, said Ratcliffe’s chemicals business had racked up debts that were between five to six times larger than the company’s annual earnings.

They added that Ineos could take longer than expected to repay those debts in part because of weakness in the European chemical industry after years of rocketing energy costs after Russia’s invasion of Ukraine dramatically cut exports of gas to across Europe.

Specifically, Fitch said there was “uncertainty” over the plan to repay related-party loans of £800m to other parts of the Ineos business empire, meaning the company could remain weighed down by hefty debts until 2027.
 
romufc said:
We make more money than most clubs, agreed but that does not = efficiency.

Also, operationally, if we were better run than City, we wouldn't be sacking managers every 26 months, or spending £80m on a player then loaning him to a mid table Spanish team.
Click to expand...
Again, operations refer to core costs, not shite transfer business. Don't conflate the two. We have a bigger profit base (EBITDA) than City. Our running costs ( targeted by INEOS in the cost cutting exercises) are lower than City's. They are much better at football. Their net player trading position (amortization less profit from player sales) is much lower than ours and of course they don't carry our finance costs. Hence they make bigger profits than us and are less restrained by the profitability testing than we are. Seeing were our problems are is not complicated.
 
Redjazz said:
Again, operations refer to core costs, not shite transfer business. Don't conflate the two. We have a bigger profit base (EBITDA) than City. Our running costs ( targeted by INEOS in the cost cutting exercises) are lower than City's. They are much better at football. Their net player trading position (amortization less profit from player sales) is much lower than ours and of course they don't carry our finance costs. Hence they make bigger profits than us and are less restrained by the profitability testing than we are. Seeing were our problems are is not complicated.
Click to expand...

Manchester United get revenue based on the football club, not because we are selling a product, transfer costs are part of the operation cost of the business.

Without the transfers, Wages etc.. there would be no Manutd operation.

Its like saying Nike should only look at their revenue from sales and not look at what they spend for advertising.

Its very narrow minded to say we bring more money in so we are better than everyone else.
 
"Sir Jim Ratcliffe believes his decision to cut about 200 more jobs at Manchester United is necessary to help the club avoid going bust"

What the feck is this shit I'm seeing in the guardian?
How fecking incompetent do you have to be to not be able to make money off a cash cow like United. Just fecking sell the club. Disgusting, parasitic motherfeckers.
 
caid said:
"Sir Jim Ratcliffe believes his decision to cut about 200 more jobs at Manchester United is necessary to help the club avoid going bust"

What the feck is this shit I'm seeing in the guardian?
How fecking incompetent do you have to be to not be able to make money off a cash cow like United. Just fecking sell the club. Disgusting, parasitic motherfeckers.
Click to expand...
Cash cows don't lose £300m over a couple of years. Cash cows don't max out their revolving credit facility just to keep operating.
 
My concern is this:

They are sacking people all over the place and making decisions to scrape together maybe around 80-100m for the summer. Amorim gets one or two players and it's not enough. We still end up mid table.

What's the plan for next summer (2026)? The more years we spend outside the CL the more the sponsorship dwindles.

I am feeling more and more like this is the start of a mad downward spiral over the next 5 years that eventually sees us relegated. Think the club has been had.
 
romufc said:
Manchester United get revenue based on the football club, not because we are selling a product, transfer costs are part of the operation cost of the business.

Without the transfers, Wages etc.. there would be no Manutd operation.

Its like saying Nike should only look at their revenue from sales and not look at what they spend for advertising.

Its very narrow minded to say we bring more money in so we are better than everyone else.
Click to expand...
I am not making that argument though. I am sayin that for the revenues we do make we are keeping our running costs under control. Hence we are more efficient operationally than other PL clubs and more efficient than our big European counterparts. The cost cutting so far is directed at regular running costs. We are seeking to improve in an area where we are not inefficient relative to other clubs, including city.
Our problem is what we subsequently do with those cash profits (EBITDA) in terms of transfers and finance costs.
 
caid said:
"Sir Jim Ratcliffe believes his decision to cut about 200 more jobs at Manchester United is necessary to help the club avoid going bust"

What the feck is this shit I'm seeing in the guardian?
How fecking incompetent do you have to be to not be able to make money off a cash cow like United. Just fecking sell the club. Disgusting, parasitic motherfeckers.
Click to expand...

I’m sure I’ll be corrected but has a PL club ever ‘gone bust’? I don’t think so. In general it’s clubs who are paying premiership wages in the championship.
 
LordSpud said:
My concern is this:

They are sacking people all over the place and making decisions to scrape together maybe around 80-100m for the summer. Amorim gets one or two players and it's not enough. We still end up mid table.

What's the plan for next summer (2026)? The more years we spend outside the CL the more the sponsorship dwindles.

I am feeling more and more like this is the start of a mad downward spiral over the next 5 years that eventually sees us relegated. Think the club has been had.
Click to expand...
Nah, you are missing the main goal of the Ineos atm. Either rebuild Old Trafford or build a new staadion by 2032. That needs money whether we get some from the government or not.
 
Frosty said:
It feels like he has been played by the Glazers.
Click to expand...

Of course he hasn’t, it was well known the club was running out of cash, even Richard Arnold was mouthing off about it. That’s why the Glazers gave up some equity for cash as there wasn’t much choice.

We have the long standing issue of the leveraged debt but what’s really given us a big problem now is incompetence that has resulted in paying interest to effectively run the club on a credit card. On and off the pitch cost cutting is required to correct that.

We don’t want anyone to lose their jobs but when Real Madrid can operate with 250 odd less people (excluding coaches and players) that’s an obvious area for improvement. As of course is our massively overpaid and over rated squad of players.
 
i think there would be a lot less anger if people knew the 200 redundancies were just the food prep team for shaw.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.