Club ownership | Senior management team talk

Redstain said:
I think it's fair for many to be objective in their assessments but I can't see INEOS being a success given the resources around their respective ownership model and their approaches to resolve issues essentially exposing their own limitations.

The situation with the Glazers is such a unique instance that Manchester United's demise under their occupation is so bad it reflects poorly on the premier league for having such a poor sustainability criteria that newer rules to 'protect' clubs only happened after the Americans intervention.

Subsequently, that's only looking at the facilitated debt and omission of infrastructure development but then when you observe Woodwards / Murtough's ineptitude, it further compounds that issue with the money owed to clubs and the crippling finances which is the concurrent circumstance of the clubs efficiency today.

All in all it has created this extraordinary situation and provisionally the only ownership model that would resemble rectifying everything with the least amount of friction from an operational standpoint is middle eastern ownership or a very nuanced consortium.

INEOS simply don't have the resources to resolve these issues. The analogy that comes to mind is someone who earns 7 figures a year but is shopping around for a Koenigsegg. That salary despite being economically high is still not conducive to the market in obtaining that car assessing cost and expenses. The situation the Glazers have created has put United into a very exclusive market that the average owner can't rectify.
Click to expand...

Said it back in January and now recent reports about INEOS debts and operational constraints are coming to light.

United needed more financially affluent owners given the very unique circumstances the Glazers put the club in. It's something only a massive injection of capital is going to resolve. Sir Jim doesn't have the resources.
 
Lots of red flags everywhere.

How many financially struggling multinational powerhouses buy a massive participation in one of the biggest organizations of a very unprofitable industry? On a premium price per stock nonetheless?

How many businesses with a 300M loss over 3 years get sold on 6 billions?

How much of this 300M loss is a surprise to the buyer after a one year process with its respective due diligences?
 
Livewire1974 said:
Credit agencies worried about INEO debt.

We are in serious trouble.

https://www.theguardian.com/busines...s-chemicals-empire-ratings-agencies-downgrade
Click to expand...
This is the thing about Jim's comments today. I find it a bit of coincidence that he starts talking about the club finances on the same day his own company's financial health has been brought into question. I mean it was INEOS poor rating article that was in the Guardian headlines earlier today and now its replaced with the article about the club. Almost like he was trying to deflect from something.
 
in hindsight it was a mistake for INEOS to buy in. Should have let the glazers sink. I'd rather take administration than this bollocks.
 
KStandBarmyArmy1993 said:
This sentiment again.
There was no other option.
Click to expand...
There would have been. If Ineos wasn't in the picture Glazers wouldn't have any other choice but to lower their demands which in turn would have invited more suitors.

Jim threw them a lifeline and it was the absolute worst possible option for us.

Our future will be rough for a long, long time, that's for sure.
 
VWW said:
This is the thing about Jim's comments today. I find it a bit of coincidence that he starts talking about the club finances on the same day his own company's financial health has been brought into question. I mean it was INEOS poor rating article that was in the Guardian headlines earlier today and now its replaced with the article about the club. Almost like he was trying to deflect from something.
Click to expand...

The story about the INEOS credit rating is weeks old, it’s just being used now as clickbait.
 
pascell said:
Bleak outlook. I can see him syphoning off United in the future to help pay off debt for INEOS down the line, their finances sound like they're spiralling out of control.
Click to expand...

I think the Glazers have done an excellent job in making sure the cupboard is bare at United, so I don't see that been viable choice for them, even less so given they are minority owners.

Ratcliffe should just sell his shares in Ineos, buy the Glazers out, and spend the money it takes to get us back where we were before the greedy ginger leeches made it their mission to ruin us.

He can't take it with him.
 
Andy_Cole said:
I think you’re forgetting Glazers needed some sort of financial help as the model was unsustainable.
Click to expand...
It was unsustainable in the long run, absolutely. But they have been implementing it for a decade and I don't know about any indication for why they would be literally "forced" to abandon it now or in the immediate future. If they have a delusional valuation of the club, there is no clear way of forcing their hand to lower it.
 
If a Middle Eastern, Far Eastern, Russian , or American group, owner, part owner, paying to manger group. Did what Ratcliffe & INEOS are doing they’d be getting slaughtered. Let’s not hide it. He knew the clubs situation , he knew his situation before he decided to buy 28%. He’s taking fans for a mug.
 
Johnny boy 98 said:
So how do you think it would have played out if Ineos weren't in the picture?
Click to expand...
Obviously this is pure speculation, but I would fully expect that the "exploring strategic alternatives" mode could last for years, while the club kept rotting. Obviously eventually they would sell at a lower price (assuming that there would not be another premier league boom, otherwise they might get the full price just after a while), but there is no guarantee that we wouldn't be so far beyond mid-table clubs that it would require a miracle to get into even conference league challenge spots in a decade with great management. And there is also no guarantee that lower price would mean better management.
Elliot is basically an asset stripping sentence and there is not a lot of other buyers on the market.
 
Last edited:
Roboc7 said:
The story about the INEOS credit rating is weeks old, it’s just being used now as clickbait.
Click to expand...
It doesnt change the fact the article came out today and maybe they are using it as clickbait but it seems like there seems to be larger focus on his company today then when the news first broke and now hes taken upon himself to talk about the club to deflect. I can never say for sure but it sure looks real sus.
 
Andy_Cole said:
I think you’re forgetting Glazers needed some sort of financial help as the model was unsustainable.
Click to expand...

This doesn’t make sense. Think about it logically. It would only make sense if the $1b plus they received went into the club. Instead it went into their pockets. The more logical reason is they wanted cash for themselves and to profit on their investment by selling on 28% of it. And they wanted a local lad to do the dirty work. If this was all being doing without INEOS as the Glazer shield they’d be getting ravaged.
 
VWW said:
It doesnt change the fact the article came out today and maybe they are using it as clickbait but it seems like there seems to be larger focus on his company today then when the news first broke and now hes taken upon himself to talk about the club to deflect. I can never say for sure but it sure looks real sus.
Click to expand...

The Guardian are reporting news about INEOS that is 3 weeks old on their sports page because it’s ideal timing for clickbait and gets this type of reaction.
 
I’m going to bury my head in the sand and stay out of this thread , so depressing.
The only way this gets better is regular CL qualification, and that looks about as likely as cloning Sir Alex
 
Surely if the club is that financially embarrassed, i.e. Jim saying that staff cuts are necessary to avoid the club from going bust, then they all (Glazers and Ineos) need to sell up. If they're banking on the European super league to increase 'value', they may be waiting for years, and it may never happen. And therfore, what happens in the interim? How do they save money next year when there's no further jobs to be cut, or the year after that? If we're not careful, we're going to go down the Peter Ridsdale era Leeds United road.
 
Roboc7 said:
The Guardian are reporting news about INEOS that is 3 weeks old on their sports page because it’s ideal timing for clickbait and gets this type of reaction.
Click to expand...

Clickbait or context? It’s extremely relevant to the job cuts at United. Likewise the scramble to stiff the All Blacks for the sponsorship they were promised. You can’t blame the media for reporting about what is actually happening.
 
romufc said:
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...
Click to expand...
There’s a difference between sacking and redundancy. If you make someone redundant then you cannot advertise or hire for that role for a year.

On the other hand if someone was sacked, they’d have to be given a good reason why they’re sacked and have been on a HR disciplinary path.
 
pascell said:
Bleak outlook. I can see him syphoning off United in the future to help pay off debt for INEOS down the line, their finances sound like they're spiralling out of control.
Click to expand...
It’s more likely that he’s going to sell the petro-chemicals business to one of the major oil companies. Not because of United mind you, but because it’s long been forecast.
 
decorativeed said:
So, you're talking very confidently from a position of no actual knowledge, as expected.

One small case study, then: During the Mourinho era, with CL football, etc. Over 1m visitors to the museum and tour, that department had six permanent members of staff, and 50 zero hours staff. We were told there was a club-wide hiring freeze which led to this situation.

When one of those six permanent staff left, they waited 9 months before Richard Arnold agreed they could replace their (£22k per year) role. After the interviews and a position being offered to the candidate, Arnold rescinded the offer to save the cash and reinstated the hiring freeze.

The idea they'd been throwing cash around for years is absolute nonsense. I also know a few people who left there and took less senior positions elsewhere - taking a downward step in their career - because the money they were being offered was better than United paid.
Click to expand...
Just out of interest, why would they need 56 members of staff for that?
 
Putting the INEOS groups financial position into context, other large industrial groups are currently in similar positions.
German chemical conglomerate, BASF is something like €20 billion in debt.
Volkswagen Group, a giant corporation, have something like €200 billion of debts.

INEOS recently invested very heavily in US oil, so that "drill baby, drill" better yield some results for them.


.
 
romufc said:
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.
Click to expand...
I will stand by what i said. The optics are a car crash. The latest round of redundancies were for 100 people I believe. I gave a fag packet calculation of what the savings would look like, £5m on a good day.

Most of those savings you talk about are player related. And there is no way they will save that much unless a saudi club comes in, because we will be subsidising alot of wages even if Casemiro and Rashford are sold. Nobody is going to take on fully those contracts.

Finally, its alright sacking 25% of the workforce, but someone still has to do the work. It feels a tad extreme.
 
romufc said:
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?
Click to expand...
You are assuming INEOS know what they are doing.
 
REDARMY45 said:
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.
Click to expand...
Over 100 years ago, times have unfortunately changed a lot since then, football is just a business nowadays.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.