Club ownership | Senior management team talk

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...

We’ve been in the edge of a tipping point for a while, as many hired last season our results and position in the league massively flattered us. INEOS have made some bad decisions but this is the result of having to face reality and try and sort the mess out from our weakest position in the Premier League.

Palace are a mid table team, they probably have 4-5 players who start for us. We’ve gradually been slipping backwards into the pack whilst our ability to spend has been diminishing. You combine that with INEOS’ major football related decisions either going wrong or not having had a positive impact yet and that’s how we are where we are.
 
Grave Robber said:
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?
Click to expand...
VVD cost a fortune, yes it was a smaller club, but they made Liverpool pay. He cost 75m. Mane cost 34m rising to 36m. Firmino cost 29m. Fabinho cost 39m and Salah cost 42m euros. They definitely landed on their feet with those signings. Instead United kept going for headline grabbers even if they were past their best or not right for the team set up or chemistry.
 
DomesticTadpole said:
VVD cost a fortune, yes it was a smaller club, but they made Liverpool pay. He cost 75m. Mane cost 34m rising to 36m. Firmino cost 29m. Fabinho cost 39m and Salah cost 42m euros. They definitely landed on their feet with those signings. Instead United kept going for headline grabbers even if they were past their best or not right for the team set up or chemistry.
Click to expand...

The problem is when we go for those players, they look like cheap players.

Donny, Zirkzee, Telles etc...We cannot get 1 good signing done, which is the biggest cause for concern.
 
I'm far from convinced that Jim is a United fan at all. Yes he was born in Manchester but spent the majority of his formative years growing up in Hull. He might be a Hull City fan. And more recently he had a season ticket for Chelsea. Hardly screams 'top red'.
 
Roboc7 said:
We’ve been in the edge of a tipping point for a while, as many hired last season our results and position in the league massively flattered us. INEOS have made some bad decisions but this is the result of having to face reality and try and sort the mess out from our weakest position in the Premier League.

Palace are a mid table team, they probably have 4-5 players who start for us. We’ve gradually been slipping backwards into the pack whilst our ability to spend has been diminishing. You combine that with INEOS’ major football related decisions either going wrong or not having had a positive impact yet and that’s how we are where we are.
Click to expand...

We seem to be undergoing a process of marginal deterioration.

Or death by a thousand cuts.
 
golden_blunder said:
SJR has put as much money as he’s allowed into the playing side so far.
Structure wise he can put in as much as he likes but why would he unless he’s getting more shares from the glazers? Otherwise he’s just paying their stuff off
Glazers gotta go, it’s their debt around the neck of the club that’s the root of the issues
Click to expand...

Sorry for the late reply but I've been very busy over the weekend so only getting back to you now.

SJR can put more money into the club and playing side, there are ways and to give you an example we could have Ineos sponsor us for £10m a year (Which is similar to the amount they sponsor Spurs for their seats at the stadium and it's a revenue source we don't currently have any partner for) and it can't be questionned as "Not fair value" as there is a precedent with Spurs, that would allow us to spend £10m in January from an accounting perspective which could have been a £50m player over 5 years, we can pay the cash up front but account for it over 5 years. There are plenty of other ways to get money into the club as well such as selling off land we own to inflate revenue or having Nice purchase a player from us, there are many other accounting ways as well to show greater revenue involving the transferring of assets that Chelsea have done very well but any additional sponsors would pump up our revenue straight away.

I understand that SJR doesn't want to do these things and to have the club grow organically by cutting costs and being very healthy from PSR and then start to spend but it's a worry how far we could fall as we are loaning players out to save money and keep a small squad that has demonstrated it's particularly injury prone, within a few weeks we have a single first team player on the bench which anyone could have predicted.

Structure wise he can put money in, correct but I don't use the "Unless he's getting more shares from the Glazers" idea, I wouldn't part own a house unless I got assurances from the current owners of what they were going to put in too as I wouldn't trap myself in a position where I feel aggrieved to be the sole financier. He made the choice to get in bed with the Glazers so he doesn't get a pass from me.

100% on the Glazers - If SJR really cared he would get the Glazers to agree to pay off the debt (For which we pay around £100m a year in repayments) and divest that payment into creating additional shares (Thereby converting the loan into shares) so he has more of the club.

I understand why people feel empathy for Jim but if we use that anology I said about above regarding a co-owned property, surely you would be stupid to have got into the arrangement? The Glazers were running out of money and choices and SJR through them a life vest when they were drowning in the sea but the boat he pulled them onto is on fire!

SJR was the same person that trusted and hired people to pay for Ashworth, pay to sack him and extend Ten Hag's contract, that's cost more than all these savings have saved, they aren't helping - They are giving excuses - If he didn't have the capital he shouldn't have got involved.
 
AngeloHenriquez said:
If SJR really cared he would get the Glazers to agree to pay off the debt (For which we pay around £100m a year in repayments)
Click to expand...
What he could do if he was so inclined is to have a directors loan to clear the debt and have the business re-pay him at a more favourable interest rate. He obviously has zero desire to do that.
 
AngeloHenriquez said:
Sorry for the late reply but I've been very busy over the weekend so only getting back to you now.

SJR can put more money into the club and playing side, there are ways and to give you an example we could have Ineos sponsor us for £10m a year (Which is similar to the amount they sponsor Spurs for their seats at the stadium and it's a revenue source we don't currently have any partner for) and it can't be questionned as "Not fair value" as there is a precedent with Spurs, that would allow us to spend £10m in January from an accounting perspective which could have been a £50m player over 5 years, we can pay the cash up front but account for it over 5 years. There are plenty of other ways to get money into the club as well such as selling off land we own to inflate revenue or having Nice purchase a player from us, there are many other accounting ways as well to show greater revenue involving the transferring of assets that Chelsea have done very well but any additional sponsors would pump up our revenue straight away.

I understand that SJR doesn't want to do these things and to have the club grow organically by cutting costs and being very healthy from PSR and then start to spend but it's a worry how far we could fall as we are loaning players out to save money and keep a small squad that has demonstrated it's particularly injury prone, within a few weeks we have a single first team player on the bench which anyone could have predicted.

Structure wise he can put money in, correct but I don't use the "Unless he's getting more shares from the Glazers" idea, I wouldn't part own a house unless I got assurances from the current owners of what they were going to put in too as I wouldn't trap myself in a position where I feel aggrieved to be the sole financier. He made the choice to get in bed with the Glazers so he doesn't get a pass from me.

100% on the Glazers - If SJR really cared he would get the Glazers to agree to pay off the debt (For which we pay around £100m a year in repayments) and divest that payment into creating additional shares (Thereby converting the loan into shares) so he has more of the club.

I understand why people feel empathy for Jim but if we use that anology I said about above regarding a co-owned property, surely you would be stupid to have got into the arrangement? The Glazers were running out of money and choices and SJR through them a life vest when they were drowning in the sea but the boat he pulled them onto is on fire!

SJR was the same person that trusted and hired people to pay for Ashworth, pay to sack him and extend Ten Hag's contract, that's cost more than all these savings have saved, they aren't helping - They are giving excuses - If he didn't have the capital he shouldn't have got involved.
Click to expand...
Just on the issue of getting a lucrative sponsorship from INEOS as I’ve seen several mention this idea already, INEOS are trying to pull out of their AllBlacks sponsorship because they can’t afford it, why do people think they can afford to sponsor United?
 
acnumber9 said:
What he could do if he was so inclined is to have a directors loan to clear the debt and have the business re-pay him at a more favourable interest rate. He obviously has zero desire to do that.
Click to expand...
Doesn't make sense for him to take on the debt whilst Glazers are still majority shareholders.

It should have been a condition of the sale, buyer wanting contractual obligation for X% of the fee paid being used to pay down the debt principal.
 
lilcurt said:
Doesn't make sense for him to take on the debt whilst Glazers are still majority shareholders.

It should have been a condition of the sale, buyer wanting contractual obligation for X% of the fee paid being used to pay down the debt principal.
Click to expand...
It does though, but only if he has the funds. It stops money leaving the business at such a high rate with it being very unlikely the club are unable to repay him over time. It improves the cashflow, improves our ability to compete in the transfer market which in turn should help the team achieve and earn more from those achievements. I mean, him and his fans say he’s not in it for the money.

Do you know what won’t help us on the pitch? Cutting admin staff.
 
acnumber9 said:
What he could do if he was so inclined is to have a directors loan to clear the debt and have the business re-pay him at a more favourable interest rate. He obviously has zero desire to do that.
Click to expand...
Agreed, there are many things they could do and this is what needs to be written about in papers, not how the players are unhappy etc
golden_blunder said:
Just on the issue of getting a lucrative sponsorship from INEOS as I’ve seen several mention this idea already, INEOS are trying to pull out of their AllBlacks sponsorship because they can’t afford it, why do people think they can afford to sponsor United?
Click to expand...
If I read up on that correctly it's not that they can't afford it, they make ridiculous profits - It's that they feel the investment isn't worth it essentially, they made just shy of 3 billion euros for years ending 22 & 23 and 353 million euros ending 2024.
 
It’ll soon be coming round to that “put up or shut up” clause in the buy in contract, won’t it? Isn’t there something like that after a short period of time?
 
AngeloHenriquez said:
Agreed, there are many things they could do and this is what needs to be written about in papers, not how the players are unhappy etc

If I read up on that correctly it's not that they can't afford it, they make ridiculous profits - It's that they feel the investment isn't worth it essentially, they made just shy of 3 billion euros for years ending 22 & 23 and 353 million euros ending 2024.
Click to expand...
Pulling out of sponsorship deals/breaking contracts whilst also selling off bits of their portfolio, whilst being downgraded to the worst credit rating speaks to financial difficulties abound at INEOS
 
golden_blunder said:
Pulling out of sponsorship deals/breaking contracts whilst also selling off bits of their portfolio, whilst being downgraded to the worst credit rating speaks to financial difficulties abound at INEOS
Click to expand...
Maybe there is some truth to it but retained earnings are huge - There are financial levers such as delaying payment to suppliers which affect their credit rating but increase interest on retained cash, selling off bits of their portfolio and breaking contracts is business, they are looking for efficiencies and it's something the company has done for years. Lets ignore any of that and assume they are in financial difficulties, they still made over £300m profit last year after dividends, they could invest £10m a year to Manchester United as if they own a part of it they would also reap the benefit of that anyway.
 
Can we start to protest against the Ineos now like we used to protest against the parasite Glazers? It's hard to imagine that Ineos can be worse owners than Glazers.

Ineos actually made us worse. Football is worse than anything we have seen under Glazers. Cost cutting to the extreme. Raising tickets price while wasting money on sacking DOF, signing dross and put in a football structure that can't even appoint a right manager to suit the team.
 
Is it more likely that a billionaire businessman that is not linked to an oil regime will have bought United to make profit for himself or to genuinely make the club better.

When looking at the moving parts, the club (not the glazers) has massive debt which has to be serviced. The club also has issues with psr. If we invest in a new stadium, any non government funding will likely be paid for by the club as the Glazers won't pay for it, I also doubt INEOS will pay out of their pocket. So I can see us being restricted in terms of transfer windows for many a year into the future.
 
I wonder if the Glaziers have pulled a blinder here. Sell part of a club that is in free fall when they have not clue or interest in fixing, knowing that the buyers would get most of the flack for the teams performances. They probably looked at our squad, PSR, infrastructure etc and knew there was only one way we were going. They can then put their feet up, collect their dividends and let the newbies put some money in to the club and make some inroads to fund a new stadium.

Ineos have made some really poor decisions but drops in the ocean compared to the Glazers.
 
romufc said:
The problem is when we go for those players, they look like cheap players.

Donny, Zirkzee, Telles etc...We cannot get 1 good signing done, which is the biggest cause for concern.
Click to expand...

That's a side issue of course but the decisionmaking on signings appears to be focused more on headlines than on the actual improvement of the squad United has at the time, as the basics tend to be ignored in favor of how the transfer will look or feel like. Just looking at the forwards:

-Sanchez was hired at a record wage from Arsenal to one up City, and then the coach puts him on LW where there's two youngsters on the rise. The result is he was a flop, the youngsters development get disrupted and the real problem in the squad at the time (the RW) remains unsolved.

-Sancho arrives as supposedly the solution for the same continuing RW problem. He immediately states that he prefers to play on the LW, something that could have been figured out by the scouting team (or by just talking to the player) at any point of the year long sale process.

-Amad arrives as a young promising forward, turns out he's not in the coach plans. Gets loaned at about the same time the Greenwood scandal liberates a spot on the RW. Not only he isn't returned from the loan, but the club also decides to overpay for another RW (Antony). The club now has 5 of them: Antony who's about to become a flop, Sancho who already kinda is (and it's about to get worse), Greenwood who's outside the squad due to investigations, plus Amad and Pellistri on loan.

-Hojlund is a promising young striker from a different, slower league who needs time to be settled in order to adjust to the league and a new system. He is instead branded as the response to Haaland, the alternative to Kane (who was the player a lot of the fans wanted that transfer window) and forced to be the team's main striker and saviour at 20 years old. He predictably succumbs to the pressure and fails to make an impact.

-Zirkzee is a baffling one. Anyone that sees him play for 5 minutes pretty much understands what his strengths and weaknesses are, and that in order to get the most out of him he needs to get the ball on his feet. Then he immediately is signed for a faster, stronger league, in a team that doesn't have the ability to generate football on midfield, and in a position where there's the least possibility that he will get the ball on his feet.

A DOF is supposed to look through these kind of things and make the best decisions for the squad and for the team. I guess that's supposed to be Vivell now?
 
Feel sick for thinking it, however wish Ronaldo and the Saudis would take the club off these leeches and INEOS. That's not even remotely a realistic possibility.
 
croadyman said:
Feel sick for thinking it, however wish Ronaldo and the Saudis would take the club off these leeches and INEOS. That's not even remotely a realistic possibility.
Click to expand...
If the Saudis went all-in on buying United ASAP, they'd have the club by the end of the year. Same for the Qataris.

Glazers would sell in a heartbeat if it was a huge offer

I don't think genuine interest is there from them.
 
MaxZorin said:
I disagree any of it constitutes 'negligence'.

Most signings, including executive roles and managers, are fraught with risk. They're a punt. A gamble. Sometimes they work and other times not.

It's too early to say Amorim is 'negligence' when he took us over during a period of intense change. Keeping EtH on, maybe.

As for Ineos' 'penny-pinching', well... We are seeing what responsible management actually looks like, that's all. Sugar-fed for over a decade, on bullsiht, now it's time to reap the harvest.

It's a bit like Kier Starmer's Labour, expected to right the decade of wrong in five minutes around a hostile press and expectant, somewhat entitled, populace.

Grim times, but, well, there it is.
Click to expand...
Well said.
 
DomesticTadpole said:
VVD cost a fortune, yes it was a smaller club, but they made Liverpool pay. He cost 75m. Mane cost 34m rising to 36m. Firmino cost 29m. Fabinho cost 39m and Salah cost 42m euros. They definitely landed on their feet with those signings. Instead United kept going for headline grabbers even if they were past their best or not right for the team set up or chemistry.
Click to expand...
Robertson and Wijnaldum were signed off the back of relegation seasons

​

 
LawCharltonBest said:
If the Saudis went all-in on buying United ASAP, they'd have the club by the end of the year. Same for the Qataris.

Glazers would sell in a heartbeat if it was a huge offer

I don't think genuine interest is there from them.
Click to expand...

Yeah we are lumbered with the leeches and Glazers 2.0 unfortunately for the foreseeable future
 
croadyman said:
Yeah we are lumbered with the leeches and Glazers 2.0 unfortunately for the foreseeable future
Click to expand...
I don't think INEOS are under the same umbrella as Glazers personally.

They've already put in money, which is a hell of a lot more than what the Glazers have done. I think they'd put in more if they had full ownership. And they're having to do a lot of what they ideally wouldn't do if Glazers had done the right thing and sold 100% of their shares.

My gripe with them will be if they genuinely have no plans of full ownership and are willing to let Glazers cling on long-term.

And my goodwill towards them is under the assumption that they plan to buy all of the Glazers shares as soon as possible and will then run the club differently when they don't have to do things working with Glazer debt.
 
LawCharltonBest said:
I don't think INEOS are under the same umbrella as Glazers personally.

They've already put in money, which is a hell of a lot more than what the Glazers have done. I think they'd put in more if they had full ownership. And they're having to do a lot of what they ideally wouldn't do if Glazers had done the right thing and sold 100% of their shares.

My gripe with them will be if they genuinely have no plans of full ownership and are willing to let Glazers cling on long-term.

And my goodwill towards them is under the assumption that they plan to buy all of the Glazers shares as soon as possible and will then run the club differently when they don't have to do things working with Glazer debt.
Click to expand...
Yeh they’re different. But at the same time clearly really really bad owners. Possibly worse than Glazers.
 
Andy_Cole said:
Yeh they’re different. But at the same time clearly really really bad owners. Possibly worse than Glazers.
Click to expand...
Well I give them some grace because I look at all the rubbish and ask myself if they'd be doing the same thing if the Glazers weren't there, or hadn't messed up in the first place. Most of the time, the answer is that I doubt they would be.

The Ashworth hiring and firing is the thing I can't pin on the Glazers. Immediate price rises, job cuts etc are all likely brought on by the Glazer's previous mismanagement.
 
romufc said:
The problem is when we go for those players, they look like cheap players.

Donny, Zirkzee, Telles etc...We cannot get 1 good signing done, which is the biggest cause for concern.
Click to expand...
Yes. Poor recruitment more or less continuously since Fergie left. We obviously didn't intend to recruit poorly but, with the benefit of hindsight, how can you assess it differently.
Under Fergie we overperformed our investment in the squad. Post IPO, the club ploughed back in a much bigger proportion of the cash generated in to net spend. In the last 5 years to 2024, we have used more than all the cash we made on net spend alone. It's baffling really. To spend so much and accomplish so little.
 
Redjazz said:
Yes. Poor recruitment more or less continuously since Fergie left. We obviously didn't intend to recruit poorly but, with the benefit of hindsight, how can you assess it differently.
Under Fergie we overperformed our investment in the squad. Post IPO, the club ploughed back in a much bigger proportion of the cash generated in to net spend. In the last 5 years to 2024, we have used more than all the cash we made on net spend alone. It's baffling really. To spend so much and accomplish so little.
Click to expand...

Yep... we say we didn't intend to recruit poorly but some decisions didnt make sense..

Alexis Sanchez when we have 2 young LW / CF didnt make sense.
Donny didn't make sense as a transfer either.

Anyway the issue is that as a club there was no direction because we signed players but not profiles, if you look at Jose, we signed Lindelof (not a Jose style player), Bailly. Pogba, fair that one you cant moan, because he was a star signing that should have worked.

However; when you get to 50m on Fred, Maguire, AWB, Bruno, Mount, Hojlund, ZIrkzee, Sancho, Antony and Casemiro its just very of the cuff signings.

Some are technical, some are pace and power, whilst some are here for a payday. The signings have made no sense regardless of manager.

We now have a squad that is incapable of passing its way out of trouble and a squad that does not like to press intelligently.
 
lilcurt said:
As i see it, INEOS saved the Glazer's as without their minority ownership option, they would have been forced to sell the club in full.

They have come in, not cleared the debt and basically implied that they won't invest further and the club needs to be self sufficient.

This, in a world where we are already miles behind and the competition getting fierce.

IMO, INEOS have just prolonged the suffering of the football club and fanbase. You won't here G Neville say it as he stands to gain, but a club with the history and aspirations of Manchester united cannot be self sufficient, catch-up and pay over £40m per year. Those things just don't stack.

Glazers and INEOS need to go, but it won't happen.
Click to expand...

Yeah Gary reserves his hefty criticism for Ruben whilst says nothing on INEOS for obvious reasons
 
nmm85 said:
I wonder if the Glaziers have pulled a blinder here. Sell part of a club that is in free fall when they have not clue or interest in fixing, knowing that the buyers would get most of the flack for the teams performances. They probably looked at our squad, PSR, infrastructure etc and knew there was only one way we were going. They can then put their feet up, collect their dividends and let the newbies put some money in to the club and make some inroads to fund a new stadium.

Ineos have made some really poor decisions but drops in the ocean compared to the Glazers.
Click to expand...
The bit that stings is sir jim is about to deliver a brand new stadium/land regeneration on a silver plate for them. While they do feck all as usual. Why would they ever leave?
 
LawCharltonBest said:
I don't think INEOS are under the same umbrella as Glazers personally.

They've already put in money, which is a hell of a lot more than what the Glazers have done. I think they'd put in more if they had full ownership. And they're having to do a lot of what they ideally wouldn't do if Glazers had done the right thing and sold 100% of their shares.

My gripe with them will be if they genuinely have no plans of full ownership and are willing to let Glazers cling on long-term.

And my goodwill towards them is under the assumption that they plan to buy all of the Glazers shares as soon as possible and will then run the club differently when they don't have to do things working with Glazer debt.
Click to expand...

I just don't believe this club should have been willing to wait for INEOS to get full ownership (not convinced it happens). We needed more full sale options than just a dodgy Qatari fake sheikh. Sadly those leeches priced us out and so there was little interest from other parties. I lost any faith in this minority ownership when they bowed to fan sentiment by keeping Ten Hag after winning FA Cup
 
Monmouthshire Red said:
I'm far from convinced that Jim is a United fan at all. Yes he was born in Manchester but spent the majority of his formative years growing up in Hull. He might be a Hull City fan. And more recently he had a season ticket for Chelsea. Hardly screams 'top red'.
Click to expand...

Jim Ratcliffe serves himself. He knows how to use patriotism, tribalism, or whatever “ism” to get people to back him. But his track record proves that it’s all just words to manipulate and get what he wants.
 
golden_blunder said:
It’s time to pull levers

Stadium naming rights has to be on the agenda
Click to expand...
Mentioned this in another thread, but it's unlikely we'd get much for it, because everyone would continue to call it Old Trafford. It's an old stadium with an established name.

Prior to selling off their naming rights to Camp Nou, Barcelona were getting €55m/yr from Rakuten for their shirt sponsorship and €10m/yr from Beko for the training shirt sponsorship, for a total of €65m/yr. Now they're getting an estimated €70m/yr from Spotify for shirt sponsorship + training shirt sponsorship + stadium naming rights. In other words, they're not getting much for the stadium naming rights.
 
Big Ben Foster said:
Mentioned this in another thread, but it's unlikely we'd get much for it, because everyone would continue to call it Old Trafford. It's an old stadium with an established name.

Prior to selling off their naming rights to Camp Nou, Barcelona were getting €55m/yr from Rakuten for their shirt sponsorship and €10m/yr from Beko for the training shirt sponsorship, for a total of €65m/yr. Now they're getting an estimated €70m/yr from Spotify for shirt sponsorship + training shirt sponsorship + stadium naming rights. In other words, they're not getting much for the stadium naming rights.
Click to expand...
I think we’d all take 70m a year into the coffers and they can sponsor their pants for all i care.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.