That idea..*flummoxed*.. don’t you read the news? INEOS, AllBlacks?
Club ownership | Senior management team talk
- Thread starter golden_blunder
- Start date
Where did you hear that?
It was posted in one of the threads here. Don’t know how true hence i used the word “allegedly”
Employees are getting sacked, charity money cut, ticket fees are going up, we are made to watch tripe but somehow that should improve with 1-2 signings a year. Also what makes you think that the same guys who hired them sacked ashworth in matter of months + did the same with ETH will get every single signing right?
Yeah, he would be mad investing any more money. As has been said the only option was a complete buyout. He should have backed away from it all unless the Glazers agreed to a full sale, but unfortunately he didn't.
I fully agree hence why this deal was foolish to start with. The glazers were set to sell. They had no choice. Sjr gave them a lifeline
Which does not bode well for any other decisions he is going to make.
I think we will soon move to the same frame of mind they have at Nice FC were fans kind of admit that they can never compete with PSG because the latter are generous towards their club.
Could it be that they are not sacking people so they have more money to spend but because United became a bloated ineffective, uninspiring organization with too many people, getting their monthly wage and no results. Maybe changes were needed. A lot of people are talking about a total reset, but when they finally do this everywhere in the organization they get a lot of criticism. It’s very very hard for the people that get sacked, as it is always hard if someone gets sacked wherever he or she works, but maybe it is really needed at United to change the culture in every department. Yes it’s an unpopular opinion.
Unless we are going to send some of our kids to Nice on loan for their development, don't see why he doesn't sell the other clubs he owns and concentrate fully on us. He obviously isn't a Todd Boehly. Although Chelsea are sliding a bit now. Think like us they would like the extra income a bigger stadium would generate.
We are the 3rd lowest amount of wages per pound revenge.
I am not against a radical reform but not to the expense of success or/and the very structures that made this club great (charity etc).
It's a shame that Jim Glazer doesn't seem to see the Glazers debt + the expense of hiring/extending contracts to people which then they sack as something that should come out of their own pockets. Thus the fan is expected to pay for Jim and the glazers mistakes by paying match tickets which is appropriate for a team like Real Madrid but with a squad that is more similar to Ipswich and a strategy which is closer to Everton's (sell to buy). That's not on
There's a lot of questions marks surrounding the guy. For example why does local lad and fan had never bothered sponsoring us? He does sponsor Spurs
Just wondered if them keeping Ole on was their first big mistake, I know there were probably others before then. Caretaker managers being promoted rarely work out in the longterm. When Ole got us on a good footing they should have gone for a top class manager then. Instead they let the club stagnate even further in my view because they were scared of sacking a club legend. They sacked LVG, when he won a cup, although it was obvious they were talking to Jose in the background. Then kept ETH on after a couple of cups because their so called high standards couldn't find anybody to replace him in the summer. I would love to know what exactly happened in those interviews.
Ive just read up on it, it seems INEOS are struggling and having to cut back financially due to high energy costs an the apparent deindustrialisation of Europe
Jasus, I hope your source for this isn't what I think it is.
I can safely predict that our net spend on players will remain high over the next few years. It might not produce a big pile of new players though.
I don’t. I can’t predict the future. But this is what the long term plan is and I’m saying it would be acceptable if at the end of it we can challenge for titles.
https://www.theguardian.com/footbal...-big-profits-and-huge-losses-at-the-same-time
Good read, by a quality analyst on football economics. Short version; when INEOS is talking about laying people off to avoid bankruptcy, they are full of s**t.
Good read, by a quality analyst on football economics. Short version; when INEOS is talking about laying people off to avoid bankruptcy, they are full of s**t.
Yes it is. It is the readable version of my wall of numbers up above. Says the same thing- strong cash profits, good cash generation, awful player spending. And a lot of dooming and glooming to give a moral argument for further redundancies.
Like I said I read it here, don’t know how true it is
Selling off bits of the INEOS portfolio, trying to pull out of sponsorship contracts.. it paints a picture of a company in a bit of a pickle. Time will tell how it’s going to impact United
No. Those are the old APT rules. There are now new ones. Who are also set to be assessed by the same tribunal, so I guess we'll see.
It's possible, but how can you tell?
Have to be careful about 'quality' analysts like Maguire, and, when Man United are the topic, anything printed by The Guardian.
The former is a go-to journo who likes the attention, whereas the latter specialise in selling 'United In Crisis' articles to their ABU btl (for ad revenue).
Not saying the article is wrong or right, but it's the type of deal which lubricates journalist, publication and audience, the last of which likes their 'Where's My Qatar' (as Maguire predicted) served hot.
Pinch of salt.
Mate, Maguire isn't even a journalist - he's an academic at Uni Liverpool, and a published author on football economics. As for "anything printed by The Guardian" being ABU, that's just nonsense in my view.
Exactly, which is why I thought the Glazers gave SJR 18 months to buy the rest off them or they're allowed to sell elsewhere timescale made the deal make sense.
I fully expected Ineos buying up the rest of the Glazers shares this year, but I'm beginning to doubt it now.
Not sure where that leaves us to be honest.
Last edited:
If the news about INEOS group being in a pickle financially is true then it may have some impact on United - especially as it’s become clear that this is a club that needs a bottomless pit of cash to get sorted even after buying it.
Its insane how credible news outlets like the Guardian and the Athletic get questioned as soon as they report something that isn't licking Jims boots
Depending how bad it is then Ratcliffe might be looking at it thinking the Glazers forcing a full sale elsewhere might actually be a good move.
Ineos suddenly having major cashflow issues is not helpful at all given the structure of the original deal, and the state of things at the club, we need the Glazers out.
Exactly it's going to require an owner to essentially write off the debt, invest in the stadium infrastructure and any facilities that need to be accommodated. It's a financial situation that your average billionaire can't afford without being liable to huge debts.
The Glazers have created a unique situation where the proceeds that would follow a standard sale are nonchalant. I still think SJR will sell his share percentage along with an outright sale from the Glazers. If he holds his position for 3-5 years he'll make a profit on the incremental gains of the clubs valuation.
I'm not an analyst but have called INEOS out from the infancy, they will sell their stake in United within 5 years. It doesn't make sense from a business perspective for them to rectify all the shortcomings.
Preferably both Glazers and Ineos out
If he's that skint, he should sell a kidney or something instead of taking the piss out of United.
That’s not correct, the Glazers have 18 months where they could force SJR to sell if they find a better buyer which surprise surprise isn’t going to happen.
We’re still in the same standoff with no real knowledge of what either sides plan is.
Insane not to factor their business model into their output.
Both are, after all, businesses.
I'd agree usually but it all depends on who the replacement is.
Any ideas?
I'm sure all academics have such a ubiquitous media presence. He is after all 'published'.
I strongly urge you to eschew the simile-ridden articles on the guardian and give closer inspection to it. Ewan Murray or Rob Smyth on Ferguson alone. Soup-stirring about former players they criticised to death.
I don't blame it. Their business is advertising revenue on their btl. Nothing sells like United, especially in a supposed crisis.
It does if they can turn it around.
I strongly doubt it, mind. I think they are in way over their heads at the enormity of problems the Glazers have created.
Damn them.
You think Ineos are going build a new stadium/Regen of area then leave before it's even open?
As they like to say on Twitter… FINISHED CLUB!!!
I think we are probably referring to the same source. It was a great read surely. I will leave it at that.
As we expected, injury to one of Amad or Garnacho would put us in a horrible position. We have 3 attacking positions and only 5 players available (one of them is Eriksen who can only play 30 minutes. So in reality, we have only 4 players for 3 places. Now we know Ugarte and Mainoo are injured, that would most likely mean Bruno play in the CM position. So we tomorrow have only 3 players for 3 attacking positions (Zirkzee and Hojlund who are allergic to scoring) plus Garnacho.
Please do not count Mount again.