Club ownership | Senior management team talk

Does anyone really believe this isn’t necessary? The club is £1bn in debt and haemorrhaging £100m a season.

This isn’t a game. The future of the club is on the line. For all the handwringing and bedwetting about relegation this season (never going to happen) the far bigger threat is points deductions from the club going into administration. Feck PSR at this point, the club is simply striving to stay in existence.
 
hasanejaz88 said:
That is admirable (how much of this was being driven by Jim rather than being something other buyers were also putting forward though?) but then how much did he pay to first give Ten Hag a new contract and then sack them, then do the same with Dan Ashworth? Is there a need to pay the high ranking members as much as he does?

There have been so many more poor financial decisions that have taken place and have cost the club rather than giving free lunches to the lower wage staff.
Click to expand...
Ten Haag didn't get a new contract
 
Roboc7 said:
This makes no sense, why is the club in a position that cuts are being made?. How can any Utd fan defend the Glazers, they loaded the club with debt, sucked out huge sums of money for themselves, cost huge sums in interest and have created more debt.

How are you impressed by the Glazers doing nothing to sort out the clubs finances?. The logic is just baffling.

These cuts are shit but this is what happens in companies all over the world when the business is failing and losing money. None of the people let go are responsible for this mess, the ones who are will still make hundreds of millions before they leave.
Click to expand...
I'm not impressed by the Glazers. They're horrible and yes they put the club in that position. But I don't believe for one second that excessive cost cutting that's mainly hitting the staff will have any impact in the large scheme of things. It's just Jim doing what the likes of Musk likes to do, treats your normal staff like shit, cut any decent benefit the club offers as much as possible, even WFH, and just be as cruel as possible. Since joining Ineos made enough bad decisions worth a lifetime of all the nonsense they're cutting.
 
Plant0x84 said:
Does anyone really believe this isn’t necessary? The club is £1bn in debt and haemorrhaging £100m a season.

This isn’t a game. The future of the club is on the line. For all the handwringing and bedwetting about relegation this season (never going to happen) the far bigger threat is points deductions from the club going into administration. Feck PSR at this point, the club is simply striving to stay in existence.
Click to expand...

Stop being melodramatic
We are not striving to to stay in existence.
All we need is for the Glazers to put us up for sale for a reasonable price, it’s not like we are going bankrupt or into administration as we make too much money.
If Chelsea can find a Todd Boehly, why can’t we?
We just need to get rid of the Glazers and Ineos and find some billionaires who will fund us.
 
rooney2009 said:
Stop being melodramatic
We are not striving to to stay in existence.
All we need is for the Glazers to put us up for sale for a reasonable price, it’s not like we are going bankrupt or into administration as we make too much money.
If Chelsea can find a Todd Boehly, why can’t we?
We just need to get rid of the Glazers and Ineos and find some billionaires who will fund us.
Click to expand...
I can't tell if this is sarcasm? If it's not, then you really don't understand how this all works...
 
Jassim would have been 1 billion times better then this penny pinching twat.

We are a laughing stock and the whole club is demoralised with how things are going including the players.

I was told they removed the chargers so there is now no free electricity for player and staff cars as well.
 
izzydiggler said:
Jim Ratcliffe is just as greedy, vile, disgusting and leeching as the Glazers...if anything he's even worse, given he's supposed to be a 'fan'.

He's purely in it to make money...the idea he's doing this for the benefit of the club is absolute fantasy.
Click to expand...
I could be wrong but I don’t think a 72 year old who the Times Rich List said has a net worth of c29Bn is buying United just for the money.

Let’s say he gets majority/full ownership in 2-3 years, turns us around in… another 3-5 years and then the club is worth a couple of a billion more so he sells, netting that couple of a billion.

So he’s 80 and worth 31Bn? Again, I could be wrong, I don’t see that as a driving factor… I think it’s more legacy based myself.
 
Employees:

Liverpool 1000
Arsenal 500+
Chelsea 900
Man City 500+
Madrid 900
Barca 1500

We are towards the top end it seems, but hard to get direct comparison on staff profile. cancelling free lunches is a £2k pay cut so naughty imo. For context, assuming the average employee is on £40k, Casemiros wage alone covers around half the support staff at a guess.

The waste is in the squad and breaking a social contract to be a good local employer is frankly disgusting. United may not be a charity, but it's heart is with the people and ruthless treatment of local employees is not in the spirit of football. Poor on field performance due to strategic failures should come at the expense of continued dividend reductions, not normal people losing their jobs.

Frankly the Glazers should go now but SJR seems like a poor choice thus far.
 
izzydiggler said:
Jim Ratcliffe is just as greedy, vile, disgusting and leeching as the Glazers...if anything he's even worse, given he's supposed to be a 'fan'.

He's purely in it to make money...the idea he's doing this for the benefit of the club is absolute fantasy.
Click to expand...
He invested £238.5m of his money into the club over the past year. If he's in it to make money, he's playing a very, very long game.

I don't like the guy and I don't like what he's doing but this is conspiracy territory.
 
Ultimate Grib said:
Jassim would have been 1 billion times better then this penny pinching twat.

We are a laughing stock and the whole club is demoralised with how things are going including the players.

I was told they removed the chargers so there is now no free electricity for player and staff cars as well.
Click to expand...
If only he’d have proven he had the funds to cover his “bid”, we’d have known? But he didn’t.. more than once… so we’ll never know?

 
rooney2009 said:
Stop being melodramatic
We are not striving to to stay in existence.
All we need is for the Glazers to put us up for sale for a reasonable price, it’s not like we are going bankrupt or into administration as we make too much money.
If Chelsea can find a Todd Boehly, why can’t we?
We just need to get rid of the Glazers and Ineos and find some billionaires who will fund us.
Click to expand...
I’ve heard about billionaires who like sports washing… let’s get them in, then we can sack the clubs laundry staff too. Win win.
 
HackeyC said:
The waste is in the squad and breaking a social contract to be a good local employer is frankly disgusting. United may not be a charity, but it's heart is with the people and ruthless treatment of local employees is not in the spirit of football. Poor on field performance due to strategic failures should come at the expense of continued dividend reductions, not normal people losing their jobs.
Click to expand...

I think we haven't been paying dividends for a couple of years now...
 
Crimson King said:
Ten Haag didn't get a new contract
Click to expand...
No, instead the club took up its option to add a year to his existing deal (despite there being absolutely no reason to do so), thus increasing the pay-off he had to receive when he was sacked three months later. Business genius.
 
BeforeKeanetherewasRobson said:
If only he’d have proven he had the funds to cover his “bid”, we’d have known? But he didn’t.. more than once… so we’ll never know?

Click to expand...

Thank you for this, I tried to tell people this before but was told it was a "myth".

They couldn't/wouldn't show their funds. They clearly weren't serious.
 
Aretak said:
No, instead the club took up its option to add a year to his existing deal (despite there being absolutely no reason to do so), thus increasing the pay-off he had to receive when he was sacked three months later. Business genius.
Click to expand...
We don't actually know if it increased it. Judging by his payout there was probably already a bunch of clauses where he was guaranteed so much if they sacked him. Even if he did get more due to the 12 month extension, that would have only been an extra 9 months of wages by the time he was sacked. So it really couldn't have added a huge amount on.

They still should have sacked him in the summer, obviously.
 
Berbasbullet said:
Thank you for this, I tried to tell people this before but was told it was a "myth".

They couldn't/wouldn't show their funds. They clearly weren't serious.
Click to expand...
They also offered the same thing that caused the legal dispute, something to do with paying less for the class A shares? So it was an illegal bid anyway, even if they'd shown where the money was coming from
 
Berbasbullet said:
Thank you for this, I tried to tell people this before but was told it was a "myth".

They couldn't/wouldn't show their funds. They clearly weren't serious.
Click to expand...
Unless Raine Group lied and put their billions of “assets under management” investment business at risk of an easy lawsuit, just to preference Ratcliffe (not Ineos) over Sheikh Jassim.

This mega thread has a lot of useful info in for anyone who’s actually interested in what Ratcliffes deal was. At no point does he say his expected end game is guaranteed, but a lot of it is factual/now public information. Posters a lawyer/United fan hence why he refers to the Glazers as “the bastards” :)

 
BeforeKeanetherewasRobson said:
I could be wrong but I don’t think a 72 year old who the Times Rich List said has a net worth of c29Bn is buying United just for the money.

Let’s say he gets majority/full ownership in 2-3 years, turns us around in… another 3-5 years and then the club is worth a couple of a billion more so he sells, netting that couple of a billion.

So he’s 80 and worth 31Bn? Again, I could be wrong, I don’t see that as a driving factor… I think it’s more legacy based myself.
Click to expand...
I'm not even an INEOS fan but when fans sit there and call him a leech, what money has he actually taken out? He's put more in.
 
rooney2009 said:
Stop being melodramatic
We are not striving to to stay in existence.
All we need is for the Glazers to put us up for sale for a reasonable price, it’s not like we are going bankrupt or into administration as we make too much money.
If Chelsea can find a Todd Boehly, why can’t we?
We just need to get rid of the Glazers and Ineos and find some billionaires who will fund us.
Click to expand...
It’s not melodramatic, unless you haven’t been paying attention. Parts of the clubs debts have financial tests/conditions attached to them which if not met render the whole sum payable immediately. We are losing £100m a year, so any lump sum that suddenly becomes due would not be able to be repaid. There’s a word for that situation - bankruptcy.

Furthermore, the Glazers didn’t sell SJR his percentage at a reasonable asking price, so why would they do so now?

It’s far too simplistic a view to say ‘we need more money’. INEOS have the funds to invest plenty, but they have to do so in-line with financial rules or we become the new 115 FC. It’s also not reasonable to expect them
to pump in billions without return. Nobody is going to do that.
 
BeforeKeanetherewasRobson said:
I could be wrong but I don’t think a 72 year old who the Times Rich List said has a net worth of c29Bn is buying United just for the money.

Let’s say he gets majority/full ownership in 2-3 years, turns us around in… another 3-5 years and then the club is worth a couple of a billion more so he sells, netting that couple of a billion.

So he’s 80 and worth 31Bn? Again, I could be wrong, I don’t see that as a driving factor… I think it’s more legacy based myself.
Click to expand...
You could just as easily say that if he really is worth £29bn then he could pay off the debt, become a hero to millions across the globe and still be worth £28bn. Now that’s a legacy.

The idea he has lost interest in making money because he is old and already has lots is nonsensical and does not chime with everything we know about billionaires and Ratcliffe in general.
 
romufc said:
Exactly, all I hear is ohh.. lets punish the overpaid players, they are mercenaries, which is true, I agree they need to be reigned in.. INEOS have done that, trying to get rid of all these high earners.

However; there is alot of backroom staff that run United, scouts, stats people, catering, the list goes on.. why are they immune to criticism?
Click to expand...
Hold on, what have catering done wrong?
 
izzydiggler said:
Jim Ratcliffe is just as greedy, vile, disgusting and leeching as the Glazers...if anything he's even worse, given he's supposed to be a 'fan'.
Click to expand...
How is Jim Ratcliffe worse than Malcom Glazer and his broodlings though?

The latter buried the club under a mountain of debt to facilitate their risky and highly leveraged takeover, ensured that we couldn't build a proper dynasty in the late 2000s when we had the chance to, have precpitated Manchester United's decline on off the pitch over many, many years, have not benefited the club in any meaningful way (some point to their commercial acumen but Manchester United consistently posted some of the highest turnovers in club football prior to their arrival... we did not need them), and continued to take out dividends even when the club's financial health was endangered while giving nothing in return...

ezgif-478f170d97654a.jpg


Ratcliffe seems to have some antisocial tendancies and hasn't been able to implement revolutionary change in over a year of part-ownership. But how is he worse than the worst and most parasitic ownership in the history of club football, who jeopardized the health of the institution from the onset and got us into the present mess in the first place?
izzydiggler said:
He's purely in it to make money...the idea he's doing this for the benefit of the club is absolute fantasy.
Click to expand...
What money, how much money could a 70 year old make with Manchester United (relative to what he already has)? How much money is the geezer making with his other sporting projects? Some have this idea that there's endless amounts of money in professional football but Manchester United's revenues pale in comparison with INEOS. He didn't acquire a stake in the club by saddling it with debt (unlike the Glazers), and has also injected money into the club at a critical point in time for a slightly increased holding...
Manchester United’s latest filing to the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission (SEC) reveals that £120million has been cleared from their revolving credit facility following Sir Jim Ratcliffe’s $300m (£234.2m) cash injection.
Click to expand...
Manchester United clear £120million from club debt following Sir Jim Ratcliffe investment

And while he and his executive team have committed a lot of unforced errors over the course of their part-ownership and seemed ill-prepared for the task at hand (he deserves criticism for this, for some of his bigoted views and for treating everyday people like disposable objects, no doubt about that), Ratcliffe is actively planning for ventures that could restore Manchester United's prestige, boost its revenues and have it on a surer footing for the long term (like the new stadium project, which would increase revenues by a considerable margin). At least on the sporting and developmental fronts, improper execution ≠ improper intent.
 
Why can we sack managers and other members of staff but not players? Is there something fixed in players contracts, do they have special clauses, do agents have too big a say? Never understood this. It would be nice to sack half our playing staff on big contracts, especially Casemiro, Mount etc
 
acnumber9 said:
You could just as easily say that if he really is worth £29bn then he could pay off the debt, become a hero to millions across the globe and still be worth £28bn. Now that’s a legacy.

The idea he has lost interest in making money because he is old and already has lots is nonsensical and does not chime with everything we know about billionaires and Ratcliffe in general.
Click to expand...
Pay off the debt for a business he minority owns, then the Glazers stay and (as majority shareholders), can start loading more debt back in and in 2ish years, can start taking tens of millions in dividends again.

So three years from now, we’re in EXACTLY the same position.

Genius.
 
Ole'sgunnarwin said:
Why can we sack managers and other members of staff but not players? Is there something fixed in players contracts, do they have special clauses, do agents have too big a say? Never understood this. It would be nice to sack half our playing staff on big contracts, especially Casemiro, Mount etc
Click to expand...
We’d have to pay out their contracts.

(edit. and carry on paying for their tfr fees to the clubs we bought them from… depending on date bought.

And knock them off the balance sheet… they’re assets)
 
BeforeKeanetherewasRobson said:
Pay off the debt for a business he minority owns, then the Glazers stay and (as majority shareholders), can start loading more debt back in and in 2ish years, can start taking tens of millions in dividends again.

Genius.
Click to expand...
But it’s not about the money, it’s about the legacy. That’s the yarn you’re spinning isn’t it? He’s got so much money he doesn’t care about making any more.

He could pay the Glazers £10bn for the club, clear the debt, build a stadium, spend a couple of billion on the squad and still have more money than he could spend in a thousand lifetimes.
 
neon_badger said:
I could be wrong but is there not a chance staff meals are part of the job package, ie benefits? I'll see if I can find any old contracts that mention this. I would only occasionally eat in the staff restaurant as we usually had access to better food (which will cause headaches in the future) it was mostly used by GPS and office staff, during my time the staff restaurant was subject to a lot of criticism so perhaps it's a "don't like it, fine we'll get rid of it" move. I would add it was valued by some people who perhaps relied on it, it was also a great way of reducing food waste which is inevitable it the current stadium after matchdays, it also helped retain staff, something the club struggles with (as the food hygiene rating demonstrates) and served as an opportunity to train apprentices.
Click to expand...
I would assume not. I've seen companies who offer things like this, it's a perk but not a contractual obligation and can taken away at any point. Naturally as you suggest, it's a perk that might not mean much to higher paid staff but hits lower paid staff harder.
 
acnumber9 said:
But it’s not about the money, it’s about the legacy. That’s the yarn you’re spinning isn’t it? He’s got so much money he doesn’t care about making any more.

He could pay the Glazers £10bn for the club, clear the debt, build a stadium, spend a couple of billion on the squad and still have more money than he could spend in a thousand lifetimes.
Click to expand...
So me clearly stating (twice) that I could be wrong and I think it might be more legacy linked is me spinning a yarn.

But you posting he could throw a billion away to pay the Glazers debt off, which would mean they’d stay… is a good post?

Sigh…
 
Plant0x84 said:
It’s not melodramatic, unless you haven’t been paying attention. Parts of the clubs debts have financial tests/conditions attached to them which if not met render the whole sum payable immediately. We are losing £100m a year, so any lump sum that suddenly becomes due would not be able to be repaid. There’s a word for that situation - bankruptcy.

Furthermore, the Glazers didn’t sell SJR his percentage at a reasonable asking price, so why would they do so now?

It’s far too simplistic a view to say ‘we need more money’. INEOS have the funds to invest plenty, but they have to do so in-line with financial rules or we become the new 115 FC. It’s also not reasonable to expect them
to pump in billions without return. Nobody is going to do that.
Click to expand...
This is public knowledge?
 
Ole'sgunnarwin said:
Why can we sack managers and other members of staff but not players? Is there something fixed in players contracts, do they have special clauses, do agents have too big a say? Never understood this. It would be nice to sack half our playing staff on big contracts, especially Casemiro, Mount etc
Click to expand...
You could try to put them on gardening leave, just like you can do with managers, or make a deal to end the contract prematurely (usually paying off the outstanding wages at once). That means the player would leave on a free and you would still have to pay full wages. That's stupid business.

And all that's theory because players do have a right to professional training. Excluding them from the training ground, even just putting them on a individual scheme, could result in lawsuits that the club would lose.
 
BeforeKeanetherewasRobson said:
So me clearly stating (twice) that I could be wrong and I think it might be more legacy linked is me spinning a yarn.

But you posting he could throw a billion away to pay the Glazers debt off, which would mean they’d stay… is a good post?

Sigh…
Click to expand...
I’m challenging what you are saying by pointing out the fallacy. If he was so disinterested in how much money he can continue to make why does he still work? Is is just because he likes to see poor people lose their livelihood? I know that’s part of it, but it can’t be all he lives for surely.
 
Ratcliffe and his minions were talking about a ten year plan, according to media last week. Google have him at 72. He could very well be dead or senile before that happens. Cant see what he gets out of it. If he were 52 or even 62, then could understand, from his point of view. This could also mean the leechs are here or at least ten years as well.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.