Club ownership | Senior management team talk

The Glazers will cut their loses if they see the club being this bad for the next couple seasons, and not being in the CL or even europa league. If this means they sell to Qatar then I can stomach the pain of United being poor.

Sir Jim won’t invest anymore unless he gets more equity. Also, why would he want to get more equity if he already has control of footballing matters of the club?
 
DownRiver said:
The Glazers will cut their loses if they see the club being this bad for the next couple seasons, and not being in the CL or even europa league. If this means they sell to Qatar then I can stomach the pain of United being poor.

Sir Jim won’t invest anymore unless he gets more equity. Also, why would he want to get more equity if he already has control of footballing matters of the club?
Click to expand...
I dunno man. We’re just cursed. I’m imagining us being sold to Mike Ashley in a few years in the above scenario. Or worse.
 
Andy_Cole said:
Unfortunately many on here will respond with things like ‘better than Qatar’, or ‘there was no other bids’ or some other defensive bullshit. There’s a few on the Cafe on Jim’s payroll.
Click to expand...

It's not about Qatar. I'm not saying they would or wouldn't have been a better option.

It's purely the fact that is the Glazer's had no other offers the asking price would of fallen. They weren't selling through choice, it was a necessity as the club needed the investment.

With a lower price who knows which others suitors may have been in play, we'll never know.

Instead we got INEOS, who leveraged the "Manchester lad" and "xenophobic" aspects of the fanbase to agree a crap deal in a footballing sense.

We don't know if an alternative would of been better, but we do know INEOS aren't looking to be a positive change.
 
DownRiver said:
The Glazers will cut their loses if they see the club being this bad for the next couple seasons, and not being in the CL or even europa league. If this means they sell to Qatar then I can stomach the pain of United being poor.

Sir Jim won’t invest anymore unless he gets more equity. Also, why would he want to get more equity if he already has control of footballing matters of the club?
Click to expand...
Cut their losses? The glazers aren’t making any losses yet. But I get your point… they’ve milked the club dry and you’d hope we must be coming close to the endgame where they sell the club while it’s still worth something. If they leave it much longer then it’s too broken to sell, so there must be a “moment” for them, when their cash cow is ready to be slaughtered and for them to walk away into the sunset with the money.

I cannot wait for that day to happen. The Glazers have pillaged our club like a bunch of vikings. There’s nothing much left now, surely.. So, please, just feck off and let us rebuild. It’s going to take years even after they’ve gone.

I’m just worried that their focus is on the redevelopment of the area around Old Trafford and that they’re in it for that. That could take ages and leave us in their thrall for another decade and beyond. A situation in which our club, and football, is irrelevant and it’s all about urban property development. A terrifying thought.

And Sir Jim, a self professed fan, is letting this happen under his watch. It just doesn’t make sense. What fan, with any stake in the matter, would allow this shit show to continue? It’s a fecking train wreck and we’re watching it happen, in slow motion, right in front of us.
 
Last edited:
lilcurt said:
It's not about Qatar. I'm not saying they would or wouldn't have been a better option.

It's purely the fact that is the Glazer's had no other offers the asking price would of fallen. They weren't selling through choice, it was a necessity as the club needed the investment.

With a lower price who knows which others suitors may have been in play, we'll never know.

Instead we got INEOS, who leveraged the "Manchester lad" and "xenophobic" aspects of the fanbase to agree a crap deal in a footballing sense.

We don't know if an alternative would of been better, but we do know INEOS aren't looking to be a positive change.
Click to expand...

If the Glazers dropped the price it would have just meant they found another minority investor, that was clearly their intention. They think the club is worth even more than INEOS paid so there was zero chance of a full sale at a much lower one.

The Glazers will leave in their terms and may be here for another 5-10 years. The only way they don’t leave according to their plan is if we get relegated or there’s a proper boycott of the stadium.
 
Andy_Cole said:
Unfortunately many on here will respond with things like ‘better than Qatar’, or ‘there was no other bids’ or some other defensive bullshit. There’s a few on the Cafe on Jim’s payroll.
Click to expand...

People who disagree with Andy_Cole must be brainwashed or something. How could they not see it exactly the way he does?

sphagnum said:
Fair enough, and businesses do gamble. But that's where risk management comes in again - you don't gamble without having a backup plan if it goes wrong. What is the backup plan for Ashworth not working out? Oh, we'll just absorb his position into the board and it'll be like he never existed. Pointless exercise. Shabby management.
Click to expand...

The back-up in these cases is obvious: you change the personnel who don't represent performance.

Which is what Ineos are doing. If they don't work out? You go again.

It's the same for every football club in the universe.
 
MaxZorin said:
The back-up in these cases is obvious: you change the personnel who don't represent performance.

Which is what Ineos are doing. If they don't work out? You go again.

It's the same for every football club in the universe.
Click to expand...

You make it sound so simple. Who did they replace Ashworth with? And how does that fit into a long-term plan?
 
Roboc7 said:
If the Glazers dropped the price it would have just meant they found another minority investor, that was clearly their intention. They think the club is worth even more than INEOS paid so there was zero chance of a full sale at a much lower one.

The Glazers will leave in their terms and may be here for another 5-10 years. The only way they don’t leave according to their plan is if we get relegated or there’s a proper boycott of the stadium.
Click to expand...
No sane investor would invest in a failing business with idiots in command unless they put clauses there to push the owners out if they don't invest/get their house in order. That's what happened at milan with Elliott group. SJR went beyond anything that made financial sense
 
lilcurt said:
There was no bid because of the asking price.

If no one came in they would have needed to lower the price, we know now that they NEEDED to raise funds to keep things afloat as has been reported this week.

In the end they had INEOS who would invest at a value, lower the price a billion and there may have been many other alternatives.
Click to expand...
Yeah we just dont know. But it was strange that not more bidders were there and thats telling
 
devilish said:
No sane investor would invest in a failing business with idiots in command unless they put clauses there to push the owners out if they don't invest/get their house in order. That's what happened at milan with Elliott group. SJR went beyond anything that made financial sense
Click to expand...

Yeah there would have been a compromise for the Glazers just like there has been with INEOS but anyone thinking the Glazers would have sold at for less money is living in a dream world. That’s the least likely thing to have happened.

Financially the only change for the club was the 300m that went in from INEOS which was desperately needed. That’s all they needed to raise, it’s much more likely they found that by other means than they knocked a billion off the asking price.
 
lilcurt said:
Instead we got INEOS, who leveraged the "Manchester lad" and "xenophobic" aspects of the fanbase to agree a crap deal in a footballing sense.
Click to expand...

Not sure about this.

It implies the supporters have a definitive say on football matters. Of course, we do not.

Furthermore, opposing Qatar's state bid is hardly evidence of parochialism, or even, as you stated, xenophobia. It's an obvious political manoeuvre.

sphagnum said:
Who did they replace Ashworth with?
Click to expand...

A reshuffle in the boardroom, wasn't it? They'll either do this or hire someone else in the future.

devilish said:
SJR went beyond anything that made financial sense
Click to expand...

It was a huge risk, alright.

Think Ratcliffe played his only hand against the might of a state bid.

Honestly think we'd be a sportswashing tool for Qatar by now had Qatar's bidders not attempted to woo everyone broadcasting Big Plans for the area. When the Glazers got wind of that, they, quite understandably, wondered why that money wasn't been spent on them.

Escobar said:
In what sense have they brought more than the Glazers did?
Click to expand...

They're supposed to benlifting the gloom and so far, so bad.

You can't blame them for everything but they're still at fault for their own mistakes, which they have committed a fair few of.
 
MaxZorin said:
A reshuffle in the boardroom, wasn't it? They'll either do this or hire someone else in the future.
Click to expand...

Indeed. And if you go back a couple of posts, that was my point! That’s not a strategy. There’s no planning, foresight or risk management there.

To “hire someone else in the future” if it doesn’t work as your management strategy would get you sacked in my industry and just about everywhere else too. A fecking dog could bark that as a strategy and take a place on the board. Doesn’t require any input, insight, effort or acumen.

It’s unprofessional. Yes, things can go wrong… you might have to lose someone, like Ashworth. But you have to have a vision and an idea of who you’d appoint instead. Not just absorb the role into the board like it never existed. Or wait for another idea to appoint someone you haven’t thought about yet.

The role of the board is to define a strategy, an endgame, and to choose who to appoint to get there. And to be prepared when it all goes tits up. Because any person who works in the real world knows that it could always go tits up.
 
Last edited:
sphagnum said:
Indeed. And if you go back a couple of posts, that was my point! That’s not a strategy. There’s no planning, foresight or risk management there.

It’s unprofessional. Yes, things can go wrong… you might have to lose someone, like Ashworth. But you have to have a vision and an idea of who’ll you’d appoint instead. Not just absorb the role into the board like it never existed. Or wait for another idea to appoint someone you haven’t thought about yet. Isn’t the role of the board to define a strategy and know what to do, and who to appoint, to get there?
Click to expand...

I don't disagree.

Having staff you are not performing has been a major problem at United. If Ashworth is not a good signing, surely removing him now rather than letting him fail upward and atrophy other aspects is best?

The Glazers would have let him run riot.

Also, appointing people is more to do with whose available. Ashworth himself caused a massive stink at Newcastle to get out of his contract.

I'd imagine, and hope, Ineos have learned their lesson and are resharpening focus.

You would hope.
 
Escobar said:
In what sense have they brought more than the Glazers did?
Click to expand...

They were supposed to be a positive change. We expect nothing from the Glazers, but when you get hope that something good is going to happen, it feels more crushing when it does not.

INEOS have also made some terrible calls all on their own, some of which even Woody/Arnold would not have done (No way they would have kept ETH on and spent more money on his players over the summer, for example)

The Glazers are bad, but we don't need to pretend that INEOS has been good since they've been here.
 
MaxZorin said:
People who disagree with Andy_Cole must be brainwashed or something. How could they not see it exactly the way he does?



The back-up in these cases is obvious: you change the personnel who don't represent performance.

Which is what Ineos are doing. If they don't work out? You go again.

It's the same for every football club in the universe.
Click to expand...

You have to base your argument on evidence to back up the claim. There is little evidence INEOS can manage a football club to be amongst the elite. In fact, their handling of the club (transfers, manager, football director, etc...) in the past 12 months is very worrying.
 
If you can’t see this is a culmination of years of mismanagement, there’s no way to educate you.

INEOS(I’m not a fan of them) don’t have too much room to manoeuvre.
 
Roboc7 said:
Yeah there would have been a compromise for the Glazers just like there has been with INEOS but anyone thinking the Glazers would have sold at for less money is living in a dream world. That’s the least likely thing to have happened.

Financially the only change for the club was the 300m that went in from INEOS which was desperately needed. That’s all they needed to raise, it’s much more likely they found that by other means than they knocked a billion off the asking price.
Click to expand...
The compromise would have been purely financial. That means either a loan on ridiculous interest where the club would be used as a collateral or they go in as a minority stakeholder (let's say 1/4) with both parties committing to invest in a series of projects with their own money and according to how many shares they have. At that point the glazers would be forced to either cough the money or sell on the cheap. Hence why none of these hedge funds were considered in the first place. These are hawks who want a return on investment

I am hoping that there's more to the SJR deal. Maybe the plan is to get all the ducks in order (club doing profit, stadium plans are in motion with taxpayer money allocated etc) and then sell. There again I met a lot of old hawks who realized that there's more to life than making money. Maybe SJR plan is actually that of playing real life FM. If he gets it right then he gets the glory. If not well his inheritors can't really complain with the inheritance either way
 
Adisa said:
If you can’t see this is a culmination of years of mismanagement, there’s no way to educate you.

INEOS(I’m not a fan of them) don’t have too much room to manoeuvre.
Click to expand...

In reality its a culmination of years of mismanagement with Ineos adding their own costly mistakes on top.
 
I fear we are in the worst possible case scenario. SJR is able to oversee decisions that the Glazers would never have been able to get away with. Had the Glazers made half the decisions Ineos have since taking over (penny pinching, redundancies, price rises, SAF, etc) there would have been literal protests to shut down games and disrupt the club. But Ineos can do it because the Glazers have managed to structure their ownership in such a way that seemingly now absolves them of any footballing responsibilities of the club.

I'm sorry, you have to be willing to swallow a pretty big PR pill to buy that one. What other football club have 75% majority owners who get a free pass on the one part of the club fans actually care about? The Glazers must be fecking laughing all the way to the bank. In spite of everything, they have "successfully" overseen such a demise of the club that we are able to rationalize us sitting just above the relegation area with a new manager incapable of winning games in the league, and the majority of fans are happy to accept us gutting our squad and replacing multiple outs with an unknown LB from Lecce. All this without a peep from match going fans - just apathetic acceptance of our demise.

We are beyond mediocre. Imagine if Madrid, Barca or Bayern fans were watching this at their clubs? I guarantee the response would be different and success would be a season or two away from returning. But we are kidding ourselves if we think we can be talked about along the lines of those clubs really. Our history is probably best confined to two unbelievably successful managers, and regular domestic cup success beyond that.

We have absolutely plummeted down the football hierarchy and we will likely be going into next season aiming to avoid relegation above all else. Absolutely dead.
 
Adisa said:
If you can’t see this is a culmination of years of mismanagement, there’s no way to educate you.

INEOS(I’m not a fan of them) don’t have too much room to manoeuvre.
Click to expand...

Our sharp decline this season is only hypothetically connected to accumulation, there is little evidence to back this up. Our worst position with the Glazers is 8th last season and we still won a trophy. The only mutual factor with our sharp decline to relegation battle is the arrival of INEOS. Yes the Glazers have a part in it mismanaging the club, but lets not pretend INEOS are making better decisions.
 
Ineos have still not done what's needed in terms of boardroom structure. Lots of briefs to the Athletic about best in class, but nothing substantial.

Where is the DoF? Why is the CEO still picking managers? What about the poor scouting and recruitment that's plaguing the club.

Rebuilds are not necessarily extremely expensive affairs. Take Liverpool's case. They signed Mane and VvD from Southampton, Firmino from Hoffenheim, Fabinho from Monaco and Salah from Roma. None of these players were big names prior to their moves, but they elevated their team to elite levels. These transfers cost them money, but the value they added outstripped the spend 100x times.

Whereas, we are unable to scout or identify such players. Either we get whomever the manager knows, or we depend on agencies like SEG to sign dross like Hojlund, or if we scout someone, he turns out to be a very obvious and expensive target (like Kane) or rubbish (like Zirkzee).

The coach is one problem. But the biggest reason for our failure is recruitment. And who have we hired to fix it?
 
groovyalbert said:
I fear we are in the worst possible case scenario. SJR is able to oversee decisions that the Glazers would never have been able to get away with. Had the Glazers made half the decisions Ineos have since taking over (penny pinching, redundancies, price rises, SAF, etc) there would have been literal protests to shut down games and disrupt the club. But Ineos can do it because the Glazers have managed to structure their ownership in such a way that seemingly now absolves them of any footballing responsibilities of the club.

I'm sorry, you have to be willing to swallow a pretty big PR pill to buy that one. What other football club have 75% majority owners who get a free pass on the one part of the club fans actually care about? The Glazers must be fecking laughing all the way to the bank. In spite of everything, they have "successfully" overseen such a demise of the club that we are able to rationalize us sitting just above the relegation area with a new manager incapable of winning games in the league, and the majority of fans are happy to accept us gutting our squad and replacing multiple outs with an unknown LB from Lecce. All this without a peep from match going fans - just apathetic acceptance of our demise.

We are beyond mediocre. Imagine if Madrid, Barca or Bayern fans were watching this at their clubs? I guarantee the response would be different and success would be a season or two away from returning. But we are kidding ourselves if we think we can be talked about along the lines of those clubs really. Our history is probably best confined to two unbelievably successful managers, and regular domestic cup success beyond that.

We have absolutely plummeted down the football hierarchy and we will likely be going into next season aiming to avoid relegation above all else. Absolutely dead.
Click to expand...

As much as the Glazers enjoy not being held accountable, INEOS have been a disaster of genuinely epic proportions. The Glazers don't want the entire value of the club to tank by missing out on European football and having United hovering just above relegation. What's that going to do to future sponsorships if this clown show continues on into next season? Nobody wants their asset value to plummet because of the idiocy of their 25% stake partners regardless of them being able to bear the brunt of the blame. Makes me wonder if the Glazers are mulling over forcing Ratcliffe to sell his shares and find another buyer after the 18 month mark since the sale.
 
groovyalbert said:
I fear we are in the worst possible case scenario. SJR is able to oversee decisions that the Glazers would never have been able to get away with. Had the Glazers made half the decisions Ineos have since taking over (penny pinching, redundancies, price rises, SAF, etc) there would have been literal protests to shut down games and disrupt the club. But Ineos can do it because the Glazers have managed to structure their ownership in such a way that seemingly now absolves them of any footballing responsibilities of the club.
Click to expand...

I think you’ve nailed it. I think that’s the fundamentals of the club now. I nearly believed it for a minute, when Sir Jim was professing himself as a fan. I couldn’t imagine that a fan would sell our club down the river.

But he’s not a fan, is he? Not like we are, at least. For him, profit comes first and he’s willing to hack away at the corpse of our club - laying off the people that are at the heart of the community, when 10 years of their salary barely pays any of our player’s wages for a single week. It’s sickening.

I don’t mean to be the harbinger of doom, but it’s so fecking depressing right now… I’m having to ask myself why I still care.
 
Last edited:
Giggsyking said:
Yes the Glazers have a part in it mismanaging the club, but lets not pretend INEOS are making better decisions.
Click to expand...

'Having a part' meets 'are the primary reason'.

After 'yeah, but...'

Giggsyking said:
The only mutual factor with our sharp decline to relegation battle is the arrival of INEOS
Click to expand...

The financial shitheap they've inherited, knocking against PSR, is another issue, before we encounter the massive influence of mismanagement.

What were you expecting? A magic wand?

I appreciate you wanted Qatar, despite everything, but going easy on the Glazers and ignoring the decade plus of mismanagement is not going to make their bid more compelling.

Agree Ineos have not performed, but was really not expecting anything but. Not by any means okay with our current lot but not accepting Ineos are the primary cause of it, either.

Cue 'Ratcliffe bootlicker' chit-chat.
 
Cerberus said:
As much as the Glazers enjoy not being held accountable, INEOS have been a disaster of genuinely epic proportions. The Glazers don't want the entire value of the club to tank by missing out on European football and having United hovering just above relegation. What's that going to do to future sponsorships if this clown show continues on into next season? Nobody wants their asset value to plummet because of the idiocy of their 25% stake partners regardless of them being able to bear the brunt of the blame. Makes me wonder if the Glazers are mulling over forcing Ratcliffe to sell his shares and find another buyer after the 18 month mark since the sale.
Click to expand...

I imagine they're not too bothered as they're not required to invest any of their funds or dividends from the club back into the only part of club ownership that demands a large outlay. They will probably be looking at relegation parachute payments as their next big potential windfall! They honestly couldn't care less. They have acquired a cashcow on borrowed money and lived off unearned profit for the best part of 20 years. They won't stop now - expect asset stripping next.
 
groovyalbert said:
I fear we are in the worst possible case scenario. SJR is able to oversee decisions that the Glazers would never have been able to get away with. Had the Glazers made half the decisions Ineos have since taking over (penny pinching, redundancies, price rises, SAF, etc) there would have been literal protests to shut down games and disrupt the club. But Ineos can do it because the Glazers have managed to structure their ownership in such a way that seemingly now absolves them of any footballing responsibilities of the club.

I'm sorry, you have to be willing to swallow a pretty big PR pill to buy that one. What other football club have 75% majority owners who get a free pass on the one part of the club fans actually care about? The Glazers must be fecking laughing all the way to the bank. In spite of everything, they have "successfully" overseen such a demise of the club that we are able to rationalize us sitting just above the relegation area with a new manager incapable of winning games in the league, and the majority of fans are happy to accept us gutting our squad and replacing multiple outs with an unknown LB from Lecce. All this without a peep from match going fans - just apathetic acceptance of our demise.

We are beyond mediocre. Imagine if Madrid, Barca or Bayern fans were watching this at their clubs? I guarantee the response would be different and success would be a season or two away from returning. But we are kidding ourselves if we think we can be talked about along the lines of those clubs really. Our history is probably best confined to two unbelievably successful managers, and regular domestic cup success beyond that.

We have absolutely plummeted down the football hierarchy and we will likely be going into next season aiming to avoid relegation above all else. Absolutely dead.
Click to expand...
Great post, all really strong valid points and well said. Spot on.
 
sphagnum said:
You make it sound so simple. Who did they replace Ashworth with? And how does that fit into a long-term plan?
Click to expand...
Ashworth was effectively replaced by Vivell.

When INEOS took over Vivell only got a very short contract to help get things going and was expected to leave when the new structure settled.

Instead he got a longer contract and Ashworth's was terminated. The tasks as I understand were redistributed and look different between Berrada/Wilcox/Vivell than expected for Berrada/Wilcox/Ashworth. But overall the leadership looks as intented.

So that wasn't a panic move or destroying the long-term strategy.
 
stefan92 said:
Ashworth was effectively replaced by Vivell.

When INEOS took over Vivell only got a very short contract to help get things going and was expected to leave when the new structure settled.

Instead he got a longer contract and Ashworth's was terminated. The tasks as I understand were redistributed and look different between Berrada/Wilcox/Vivell than expected for Berrada/Wilcox/Ashworth. But overall the leadership looks as intented.

So that wasn't a panic move or destroying the long-term strategy
Click to expand...

That’s another way of looking at it. Do you think they actually decided Vivell was the way to go and they preferred him to Ashworth - or was he only promoted after they fell out and had to reposition?
 
Last edited:
Complete and utter disaster so far. They managed to suck any hope of progress and it is like they are putting the last nail in the coffin. Before there was at least hope.. now you just know we are a shelll of a club we used to be. Am not even angry, it is what it is. Tickets up, strategy nowhere to be find, spending a lot of cash in the summer only to fire people after. Feck them. Am almost, almost sorry we didn't get state ownership.
 
Mercurial said:
Our owner DGAF.

ROB-p29-avram-glazer-COMP-v3-3.jpg
Click to expand...

Our owners. Give me strength.
 
It's not looking good so far, but as with Amorim I'm reserving full judgement until next season. If we asset strip during the summer and replace everyone with cheap punts like Dorgu then it'll be time to accept we're utterly fecked.
 
sphagnum said:
OK, so Vivell taking over Ashworth’s position at this point in time wasn’t a panic move and was part of a long-term strategy? Was that really intended from the get-go? If so, what was the point of Ashworth in the first place?

Do you think they realised after working with them that Vivell was who they really wanted? Just seems weird that they went out on such a limb to get Ashworth if that’s the case. I really, sincerely, hope it is part of a plan and not just a stab in the dark.
Click to expand...
Of course it wasn't part of the plan to keep Vivell instead of Ashworth. The whole Ashworth saga was a massive blunder and I think it was even predictably bad to go for him.

My point is that there is a relatively clear idea how the leadership should look like and that they stayed true to that idea. Details and names changed, but not the overall structure.
 
sphagnum said:
OK, so Vivell taking over Ashworth’s position at this point in time wasn’t a panic move and was part of a long-term strategy? Was that really intended from the get-go? If so, what was the point of Ashworth in the first place?

Do you think they realised after working with them that Vivell was who they really wanted? Just seems weird that they went out on such a limb to get Ashworth if that’s the case. I really, sincerely, hope it is part of a plan and not just a stab in the dark.
Click to expand...
There is no such thing as 100% great new hire/transfer/executive decision in any industry without hindsight. You can and should try to maximise the chance, but the uncertainty will always be there. Obviously they wanted to make Ashworth work and expected him to be a good hire and changed their decision afterwards.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.