Seems small time but apparently it adds up to a £1m saving per annum. Unless you want to see the club go under?
Hope that's sarcasm.
Club ownership | Senior management team talk
- Thread starter golden_blunder
- Start date
If he really wants to leave a legacy, he could buy us outright and gift the club to a fan trust.
Wishful thinking, but his name would be sung for generations.
Worst possible thing anyone could ever do.
Yet they're not oing to do anything about the major reason for that, the interest (as well as overpaid players) is killing us. That's why we needed a full sale to clear all the debt, not Jimbo riding in on his white horse to save the Yankee scum.
Not paying £5m for him would have kept the canteen going for another five years.
That, to me, shows just how stupid these cuts are in comparison to the millions Jimbo and co have pissed up the wall in the last year alone (not absolving the Florida scum, they needed to go not be shored up).
Your meme was about wages, not transfer fees. It’s clear they’re trying to do something about the wage bill so I don’t see the issue there. But they can’t affect the wage bill instantly like they can other areas, they either have to run down player contracts or sell them, and that’s no easy task as we’ve seen over the last however many years.
Re the transfer fees, I agree. But also the jury is still out on that. Problem is the fans want good players for peanuts. Even Brighton and other smaller clubs are having to pay £40m+ for players. If we shop in the bargain basement and turn down good players due to money then we’ll probably end up even worse. Will you be happy then? I don’t think you will. But INEOS have had one summer and it was a bit of a write off in many ways as they were still putting the structure in place to oversee recruitment, so tough to judge them based on that. In winter we signed one player who looks decent so far, signed for a reasonable fee and probably on lower wages even though he’ll be in the first 11. Hopefully we’re on the right course there.
Exactly, they probably get more in a week that these emplyees earn in a year or two.
Said it many times - Jimbo does not have enough liquidity to buy the whole club out. The rats family were ready to sell and are still willing which is exactly why the drag-on sale of shares condition was included in their agreement with Ratcliffe. So SJR saved the rats and he knew that he would not be able to buy more shares. He does not have liquidity, Ineos lost around 4-5 billion in the last 12 months, and are due to pay another 5 billion this year. Since Ineos joined the club we have become worse both on and of the pitch.
Do the "normal" employees not have a contract of employment?
That’s why these are redundancies and not sackings.
You can't be serious
Has someone done a breakdown of the possible savings from all these cuts? It reminds me of people who dont turn the heating on in their homes to save money but then eat out all the time.
The previous round of redundancies actually COST the club £8.6m in redundancy packages which should illustrate that these people aren’t just kicked out and forgotten about. You have to imagine there will be a similar outlay this time too.
That said, the Athletic are reporting that the cuts will save £40-45m per year. Thats a huge chunk of our losses recouped moving forward, well worth doing even if it is incredibly painful for the club and those involved.
That said, the Athletic are reporting that the cuts will save £40-45m per year. Thats a huge chunk of our losses recouped moving forward, well worth doing even if it is incredibly painful for the club and those involved.
Can you post link for that article because that doesn't sound right .
It was clear to a fair few of United fans that we needed a sugar daddy to bail the club out of the financial mess the Glazers have put us in, and rejuvenate the club, local area and people associated with it.
Instead, in the name of "improvement and performance", we are being moulded into what INEOS are - a cold, soulless MNC.
The Glazers and INEOS epitomise perfectly the ugly, extractive and exploitative side of western capitalism.
Instead, in the name of "improvement and performance", we are being moulded into what INEOS are - a cold, soulless MNC.
The Glazers and INEOS epitomise perfectly the ugly, extractive and exploitative side of western capitalism.
I see you're not familiar with how companies like INEOS gut businesses. They don't care if it impacts it as long as it works somewhat and they can maintain it.
Agreed. He bought into the club purely for legacy stake and not because he could afford to improve it outright.
These penny pinching decisions are a drop in the ocean compared to the debt/footballing expenses. It's cruel and makes absolutely no significant difference in either the short or long term finances of the club. Unless we are literally on the verge of going bust.
Yeah I got 20 years of success so will always be grateful to Fergie for giving me that, like you say this feels grimmer than even the late 80s
We wouldn't have signed Dorgu if that danger was there.
This is just the usual - a Tory being cruel for its own sake.
How I wish this was possible, but then you remember they couldn't be bothered to stop it in first place
Let's say 450 employees at an average of 45K a year would cost the club about 20M a year. The layoffs would cost severance pay off course, so the first year would only see a fraction of the savings actually materialize.
So being very generous (and forgetting that there are not 450 redundancies in the staff so there's no way this doesn't cause issues on the commercial/operational/financial side of the business) let's say 10M on the first year and 20M starting on the second.
The interest payments alone are reaching 50M a year. The wise decision for United is dealing with the debt first. But that would mean for either (or both) the Glazers or INEOS to put the money from their own pockets. And that goes against the "Always look out for number one" rule of never spending your own money.
Either way you make this calculations, you always come back to the debt and the interests payments that come from it. ¿Lay off 40% of your staff? The savings' a little less than half the financial spending. ¿Stop spending on bad transfers? The interests are one Mount transfer a year. You just can't circumvent it, just as you can't blame the Glazers for an INEOS decision.
So being very generous (and forgetting that there are not 450 redundancies in the staff so there's no way this doesn't cause issues on the commercial/operational/financial side of the business) let's say 10M on the first year and 20M starting on the second.
The interest payments alone are reaching 50M a year. The wise decision for United is dealing with the debt first. But that would mean for either (or both) the Glazers or INEOS to put the money from their own pockets. And that goes against the "Always look out for number one" rule of never spending your own money.
Either way you make this calculations, you always come back to the debt and the interests payments that come from it. ¿Lay off 40% of your staff? The savings' a little less than half the financial spending. ¿Stop spending on bad transfers? The interests are one Mount transfer a year. You just can't circumvent it, just as you can't blame the Glazers for an INEOS decision.
Clearly he couldn't pay them £10bn for the club, if that was possible they would have finally fecked off to Florida for good in Dec 2023. Maybe I feel differently about Glineos if they had paid what it took for the full sale back then