Club ownership | Senior management team talk

[Marwood]

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.

But it makes no sense to keep spending money on staff we don't need(if that's the case) just because we've spaffed stupid money on football players.

That'd just be doubling down on bad decisions.

Money for transfers and club staff levels can be separate things. You don't keep a bloated workforce because we overpaid for Antony.

 

[Insanity]

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.

I don't think there is an age limit to greed or thirst for power. Biden wanted to run at the age of 82 and Trump is the US president at the age of 78.The Koch brother are in their 70's & 80's and still want to change policy to benefit them and force their worldview on the populace. Murdoch is in his 90's. I can give you a hundred other examples.

Folks like Jim are wired differently. They don't want to take gondola rides in Venice after a hard life of work at 65. They want to accumulate more and more and want newer challenges. Their motivations and desires are different from the rest of us. You can say that they are "successful" because of that too.This is not Jim's first attempt at acquiring an English football club. He flirted with the Chelsea acquisition before.

We are also part of that motivation.However, like it always happens when vulture capitalists arrive, the ordinary worker and petty expenses get targeted first as they are the easiest to get rid of to show immediate uptick in finances. Then piece by piece other assets start getting stripped. The aim is to show United as a profitable entity to future buyers, not put Manchester back in United or whatever other nonsense that came out of Jim's mouth.

If we are lucky, Jim will probably sell his part to some other entity after showing that we are living within our means financially while remaining a yo-yo top 8-10 club. If we are luckier, we'll get a stadium out of it with the taxpayers footing some of the bill. If we are the luckiest, the fans will protest and we can get rid of both these leeches in the next couple of years after sustained efforts from the fans.

 

[Lyng]

But it makes no sense to keep spending money on staff we don't need(if that's the case) just because we've spaffed stupid money on football players.

That'd just be doubling down on bad decisions.

Money for transfers and club staff levels can be separate things. You don't keep a bloated workforce because we overpaid for Antony.

But is it really bloated? Given that we where on par with Bayern and Real Madrid in terms of staff, that doesnt seem bloated. We are one of the biggest clubs in the world still.

 

[golden_blunder]

We had a 1 out of 5 hygeine rating!

You don’t think though that having less staff is going to affect things like cleaning?

 

[Marwood]

But is it really bloated? Given that we where on par with Bayern and Real Madrid in terms of staff, that doesnt seem bloated. We are one of the biggest clubs in the world still.

I don’t know. I don’t think anybody does. Communication from the club would help.

But if you can sack hundreds and keep going in roughly the same way it would suggest at least some of those people were there unnecessarily wouldn't it.

But either way those decisions can't be influenced by transfer dealings. Two separate issues.

 

[romufc]

You don’t think though that having less staff is going to affect things like cleaning?

Not really, I have been at firms where they have made redundancies and it doesn't affect it. Cleaning in most instances is a third party contract rather than full time cleaners employed by the club.

If the club have decided, we are not giving free lunches anymore to staff, it means less staff required to make the food and clean, so they are not needed.

We also don't know what levels the staff redundancies are happening at, it could be scouts, data analysts, admin, cleaning etc... so if the club that is used to being in the CL and competing for top honours, need 300 staff to cope with those demands... when a club becomes a mid table club, those extra demands are not there, so the staff become redundant too.

Add to that, alot of operations over the last 5 years have become automated, which again reduces the need for staff.

I give you an example.. Morrisons, the supermarket, 5 years ago, there used to be 15 tills all maned, now I walk into my local Morrisons, there is about 2/3 maximum.

 

[golden_blunder]

Not really, I have been at firms where they have made redundancies and it doesn't affect it. Cleaning in most instances is a third party contract rather than full time cleaners employed by the club.

If the club have decided, we are not giving free lunches anymore to staff, it means less staff required to make the food and clean, so they are not needed.

We also don't know what levels the staff redundancies are happening at, it could be scouts, data analysts, admin, cleaning etc... so if the club that is used to being in the CL and competing for top honours, need 300 staff to cope with those demands... when a club becomes a mid table club, those extra demands are not there, so the staff become redundant too.

Add to that, alot of operations over the last 5 years have become automated, which again reduces the need for staff.

I give you an example.. Morrisons, the supermarket, 5 years ago, there used to be 15 tills all maned, now I walk into my local Morrisons, there is about 2/3 maximum.

All the supermarkets are doing that in fairness bar Aldi and Lidl (at least in Ireland)

 

[Castia]

I can’t help but think of the Sunderland series when they got relegated and laid off loads of staff and were down to 2 kitchen staff

The relegation is coming. Everything is set up for this club to fail and I have no doubt the moral within this already struggling club is at a new low.

The squad is overpaid and underperforming and we cannot offload the highest earners, there’s little to no money left to improve and now we’re considering selling our better players to PL rivals just because we’re fecking broke. It’s bad and I can only see it getting worse.

They’ve hired a manager with a clear view on how he wants to play the game and haven’t been able to back him, that in itself is a complete joke and adds yet another level of failure.

Bet we go down within 2 years.

 

[Remember the geese]

Bet we go down within 2 years.

Never happening.

 

[Giggsyking]

I'm comparimg a very powerful and influencial manager to an owner. Fergie was not just an employee.

He was an employee. There is nothing called powerful employee. At the end of the day he received his paycheck from his employer. No employee will talk against their employers without risking losing their job. No one. Have to use your common sense here.

 

[Plant0x84]

Can you post link for that article because that doesn't sound right .

https://www.nytimes.com/athletic/61...es-cuts-explained/?source=user_shared_article

Last summer’s round of approximately 250 redundancies is set to save the club an annualised cost of between £40m and £45m in the long run. United expect those savings to be realised in the club’s financial results over the course of this year and next.

 

[Amir]

He was an employee. There is nothing called powerful employee. At the end of the day he received his paycheck from his employer. No employee will talk against their employers without risking losing their job. No one. Have to use your common sense here.

That's beside the point, isn't it?

You wouldn't have expected him to talk against the Glazers, but he didn't have to praise them, did he? He chose to do that. But apparently that was OK. For Ratcliffe to do so is wrong.

 

[MaxZorin]

He was an employee. There is nothing called powerful employee.

Sorry, but have to disagree.

Ferguson is probably the most powerful employee the club has ever had. Definitely the most influential. Some employees have more power than others. Look at Berrada over Ayden Heaven, for an easy example.

Before anyone starts, SAF is not responsible for the Glazers taking the club over nor is he responsible for removing them. We castigate former players for criticising the club yet simultaneously demand Ferguson pile on in.

The brute fact is the Glazers bought the club from shareholders and did so legally. There was nothing Ferguson, or any of us, could do about it.

Ineos have been fairly woeful but, like the Labour Party, have been dealt the shittest of shit hands.
The media don't care if we, or 'malnourished' employees, sink or swim, they'll make a story out of it.

We desperately need to stop fighting each other and start on the Glazers.

 

[Giggsyking]

But it makes no sense to keep spending money on staff we don't need(if that's the case) just because we've spaffed stupid money on football players.

That'd just be doubling down on bad decisions.

Money for transfers and club staff levels can be separate things. You don't keep a bloated workforce because we overpaid for Antony.

We have less staff than Liverpool.

 

[Giggsyking]

Sorry, but have to disagree.

Ferguson is probably the most powerful employee the club has ever had. Definitely the most influential. Some employees have more power than others. Look at Berrada over Ayden Heaven, for an easy example.

Before anyone starts, SAF is not responsible for the Glazers taking the club over nor is he responsible for removing them. We castigate former players for criticising the club yet simultaneously demand Ferguson pile on in.

The brute fact is the Glazers bought the club from shareholders and did so legally. There was nothing Ferguson, or any of us, could do about it.

Ineos have been fairly woeful but, like the Labour Party, have been dealt the shittest of shit hands.
The media don't care if we, or 'malnourished' employees, sink or swim, they'll make a story out of it.

We desperately need to stop fighting each other and start on the Glazers.

What would have happened if sir Alex had talked against the Glazers?

Short answers please.

 

[KiD MoYeS]

So the hierarchy based these cost cutting exercises on the basis of Europa involvement over the next four years, good to see they're optimistic.

 

[Giggsyking]

That's beside the point, isn't it?

You wouldn't have expected him to talk against the Glazers, but he didn't have to praise them, did he? He chose to do that. But apparently that was OK. For Ratcliffe to do so is wrong.

If he was asked then he had to answer. It is sure to keep his job he would had to give them some compliment.

That does not apply to Jim, he is no employee.

 

[neon_badger]

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.

I think you're right in terms of contracts but even if it's presented as a perk then at some point it's likely costed into the buisness via staff salaries/hourly rates. An employee may have took a lower salary due to these perks let's say £1000 per year below rival companies, and now they must meet the cost of approx 260 lunches which may also average around £1000. It's all pointing towards a race to the bottom.

 

[Posh Red]

What would have happened if sir Alex had talked against the Glazers?

Short answers please.

You already answered your own question when complaining about JR praising them. Waxing lyrical about them or insulting them are obviously not the only two options here.

 

[vanderpants]

Not really, I have been at firms where they have made redundancies and it doesn't affect it. Cleaning in most instances is a third party contract rather than full time cleaners employed by the club.

If the club have decided, we are not giving free lunches anymore to staff, it means less staff required to make the food and clean, so they are not needed.

We also don't know what levels the staff redundancies are happening at, it could be scouts, data analysts, admin, cleaning etc... so if the club that is used to being in the CL and competing for top honours, need 300 staff to cope with those demands... when a club becomes a mid table club, those extra demands are not there, so the staff become redundant too.

Add to that, alot of operations over the last 5 years have become automated, which again reduces the need for staff.

I give you an example.. Morrisons, the supermarket, 5 years ago, there used to be 15 tills all maned, now I walk into my local Morrisons, there is about 2/3 maximum.

Sorry but you are wrong, being based at Carrington there are no 3rd party contracts, this is mainly due to Utd having people they can trust and also fewer security issues. Also, catering staff are casual staff and aren't affected by the cuts, The cuts will affect every single department in the cub, from Manchester, London and Hong Kong. How on earth can you compare Utd to Morrisons?

 

[downunder red]

Go to their heirs, I presume.

Your telling me that dog in the pram is going to inherit us.

 

[groovyalbert]

But it makes no sense to keep spending money on staff we don't need(if that's the case) just because we've spaffed stupid money on football players.

That'd just be doubling down on bad decisions.

Money for transfers and club staff levels can be separate things. You don't keep a bloated workforce because we overpaid for Antony.

Mate, I support a football team. I could not care less about the corporate side of things and the money saved here is minimal. There is a silly level of money in football for what it actually is, the more that can trickle down to normal people, the better.

 

[Insanity]

https://www.nytimes.com/athletic/61...es-cuts-explained/?source=user_shared_article

Did the current financial reports show these savings along with the savings we'd have made from dropping to Europa (25% drop in wages). Did our overall spending on wages come down by a significant percentage Yoy?

So the hierarchy based these cost cutting exercises on the basis of Europa involvement over the next four years, good to see they're optimistic.

I thought we were planning to win the league in the 2027-28 season.

 

[red_de_pologne]

 

[Insanity]

And if we miss out, which we are likely next season? 250 more gone?

 

[red_de_pologne]

The sheer pressure to win EL or FA Cup because club needs it so much is one of the reasons we won't win neither.

 

[F-Red]

But is it really bloated? Given that we where on par with Bayern and Real Madrid in terms of staff, that doesnt seem bloated. We are one of the biggest clubs in the world still.

Yes it's bloated, Arsenal are a relatively similar size club (infrastructure, not stature in world football) and they are operating with around 40-45% lower headcount.

 

[Roboc7]

But is it really bloated? Given that we where on par with Bayern and Real Madrid in terms of staff, that doesnt seem bloated. We are one of the biggest clubs in the world still.

We had 250 more non football staff than Real Madrid so we were probably bloated somewhere. Utd has been so mismanaged that some places are probably really over staffed whilst others are understaffed.

 

[Banana Republic]

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……..

There will be no sugar daddy, just chucking away £££billions on buying Utd, especially at the valuation that the Glazers and their advisors have put on the cost of a take over.
To pay off the debt will mean throwing away a massive amount of money that can never be recovered, so it would need a mega wealthy oil state, prepared to write off the total cost of a take over.
The fake sheik wasn’t that fairy godmother and there were no other sugar daddies on the horizon either.
The only other interested parties, were investment consortia types, non of who would be prepared to write off an investment of that scale and non who could get near the Glazer’s asking price.

If Utd is sold to another owner, or owner group, other than INEOS, then it will be bought as an investment.
They will want to see a return on their investment, i.e. take dividends and a share of any profit.
Nobody, but nobody is just going to put £££billions into a purchase, for no benefit
That money will also have to raised from somewhere, most of which is likely to be in the form of loans (i.e. debt).

With the valuation the Glazers put on the club, there’s little likelihood of a new owner being able to raise the value and selling it on at a later date, at a profit over the purchase price, especially if they had to pay off the debt.
So if there was to be another actor interested in making a bid, they’ll be looking at short to medium term returns and refinancing the existing debt, on top of their own borrowing costs.
With the current state of the business, that’s not going to happen !

………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 would certainly not put INEOS/SJR in the same category as the Glazers.
Nobody forced SJR to spend $1.25 billion to buy shares off the leeches.
( ….do you think he’s happy seeing them pocket such a vast amount of his companies money?)
He’s gone on to put in another £235m to cover operational and other costs, just to keep the club afloat.
It’s going to cost him a lot more.
Far from taking out, his company have taken a big risk and splashed out a vast fortune to get their 28% share, with no guarantees that they’ll ever get their money back.

The immediate task for Utd ( it’s Utd management under Berrada doing this, not INEOS Sport), is trying to stem the loss making and bleeding of cash.
Next season will see a big loss in income from reduced sponsorship payments and reduced PL and TV payments due to our expected poor league finishing position.
Costs are going up for all businesses across the board. Utd will be just as affected by this.
Increased NI costs being just one of several increases in outgoings.
Add on the outstanding payments due on players already with the club.
Hence cost cutting right across the company.
Not good for the employees affected, but that’s the cold hard reality of life.
If they could just make the players that they intend to offload, redundant, they would, but that’s not possible.
If Utd don’t get a grip on costs, the future is much bleaker than most fans would care to contemplate.

Unfortunately, the Glazers don’t have to sell and I suspect they’ll keep hold of their majority ownership as long as it takes to squeeze top dollar out of SJR or any new bidder.
If his people can turn our financial fortunes around, the Glazers can just sit back and reap the rewards again, but I don’t believe for one minute Sir Jim is here to allow that.
He will be working on some sort of leverage, where he can eventually gain majority or overall control.
It will take time, but it’s the only hope Utd have at the moment.
Alternatives (sugar dad due, fairy godmothers etc,) are just fantasy.



.

 

[romufc]

Sorry but you are wrong, being based at Carrington there are no 3rd party contracts, this is mainly due to Utd having people they can trust and also fewer security issues. Also, catering staff are casual staff and aren't affected by the cuts, The cuts will affect every single department in the cub, from Manchester, London and Hong Kong. How on earth can you compare Utd to Morrisons?

So are you saying in the whole of Unitd there are no 3rd party contracts and that we employ permanent staff for everything?

I am not comparing Manutd and Morrisons, go read what I said and understand the context.

 

[davidmichael]

So the payout was not double because you dont know the insides of the contract.

Right, so can you show me non speculation to show that Ten Hag and his staff would have cost £5m to get rid of in the summer? Most reports said it was around £15m to get rid in the summer too.

Right these are 2 different topics we are talking about here, 1 is the money, 2 is the appointment.

You are not happy with the Amorim appointment, that is a different discussion.

You are talking about gross mismanagement like the Glazers and the previous regime were so good... they have done worse, Jose and Ole were giving NEW contracts in summer and sacked 3 months later.

No football club gets 100% football decisions right.

The funny thing is, you are here being hypocritical in your post when you first say... they backed Ten Hag and wasted money on him... then moaning about the complete opposite of hiring Amorim and not backing him.

So either way... you would have moaned about it anyway. They keep a manager, back him - you have an issue.

They hire new manager, dont give him 100m in January, you have a problem.

Its also interesting you talk about no defending on the financial shambles but fail to realise that this financial shambles is down to Glazers mismanagement over the last decade... INEOS were in charge when we were losing 100m a year right?

It was INEOS who put the debt in the club?

Like so many fans on here... you are just clouded by recency bias and not understanding that the real cause for this is the Glazers.

United paying ETH on his contract upon firing him would obviously have been double seeing as they paid him out on two years rather than one year, in what world would ETH have got the same payout on a year on his contract as he did with two years on his contract ? Can you show that his contract payout was the same for a year as it was two years ? Seeing as that’s unheard of and one of the things the club briefed about when Ashworth left as they put the extension on him.

At what point have I or for that fact anyone on here said that the Glazer’s were better ? The fact that I refer to them as “the parasites” pretty much every single time I mention them should make my feelings on them known but then I’m only talking about the decisions under Ineos who run the football side of the business, the parasitic cnuts that have bled the club dry for 20 years is a different discussion.

How is it hypocritical to say they backed ETH and wasted £180 million then brought Amorim in and didn’t back him ? I think you’re clearly missing the actual point again which is that Ineos should have got rid of ETH after the cup final rather than their ridiculous internal review where they publicly spoke to other coaches then stuck with ETH and gave him £180 million just to fire him weeks later.

Not backing Amorim was just as bad seeing as his whole tactical set up is so far removed from ETH it’s untrue but again that comes down to gross mismanagement in allowing Berrada who is CEO to choose the coach in Amorim rather than Ashworth who was head of footballing department and was against bringing Amorim in due to him being an ill fit with the squad we had, Amorim himself has said he didn’t want to come in mid season but was told by Ineos it was now or never and then after bringing him in left him with a squad that is ill fitted to him and that he is ill fitted to as well.

Backing a coach you clearly you don’t have faith in (ETH) so you go out and publicly speak to others to then keep him and throw millions away bringing more players in to play a way that simply didn’t work and extending his contract then firing him weeks later to bring in a coach who doesn’t want to come yet and plays completely differently to the point your head of football says not to bring in yet still do and then you don’t back him is gross mismanagement.

Where did I say that the reason the club is a financial shambles was down to Ineos ? I remember very clearly who put us in the position we’re in financially very well and seeing as I’m old enough to remember where we were in the 80’s I don’t suffer with a recency bias but again I’m not talking about anything other then Ineos decision making as everything on the parasitic cnuts has been done to death, clearly you’re a big Ineos supporter so overlook their piss poor decision making since coming in or shall we attribute that to the parasites too seeing Ratcliffe is a local lad and United fan ?

As far as the footballing side of things since the summer which Ineos are in charge of it’s been a fecking shambles with no real direction other than sack everyone and try to save money, do you remember the things Ratcliffe said when trying to come in or once he had come in ? What Ratcliffe comes across as is practically the same as the leader of the opposition in politics where he says what people want to hear so they can get in then once there it’s more of the same.

Ratcliffe had full access to the clubs accounts nearly a year before coming in so knew everything financially and had 6 months from coming in to plan for the summer and this season to put everything in place yet dithered all through the summer and allowed a cycling coach and a sponsorship/commercial expert to make footballing decisions rather than the guy we publicly chased and paid compensation for to run the footballing department then ignored his decisions and has been winging it ever since.

 

[Bobby_2024]

I put few things on Glazers like -->70M loan amounts & 70M dividends per annum (> 2Billions in total), Leaking roof, leaking press conference room, dead mice in the stadium, no proper football structure.

But INEOES are taking this to next level--> 450 staff redundancies, cutting off ambassadors like SAF, Reducing 40K disabled fans support funds to 20K, cutting off X-Mas lunch, reducing 100£ staff X-Mas voucher to 40£, Sending back cello tapes, cutting down lunches, List goes on.

These guys are disgrace to be honest, only positive of all is if they are saving every penny. I hope they do the same with players extensions and new signings rather giving bloated contracts. Having said that being a die hard fan don't like to see UTD is being discussed in this way outside and also it's sad to see so many staff on low wages who gives everything every day has to leave because of top management mistakes over the years.

 

[Devil_forever]

I put few things on Glazers like -->70M loan amounts & 70M dividends per annum (> 2Billions in total), Leaking roof, leaking press conference room, dead mice in the stadium, no proper football structure.

But INEOES are taking this to next level--> 450 staff redundancies, cutting off ambassadors like SAF, Reducing 40K disabled fans support funds to 20K, cutting off X-Mas lunch, reducing 100£ staff X-Mas voucher to 40£, Sending back cello tapes, cutting down lunches, List goes on.

These guys are disgrace be honest, only positive of all is if they are saving every penny I hope they do the same with players extensions and new signings rather giving bloated contracts. Having said being a die hard fan dont like to see UTD is discussed in this way and also it's sad to see so many staff on low wages who gives everything every day has to leave because of top management mistakes over the years.

This is my biggest gripe with them. I would rather we dealt with the players first before we ever got down to low paid staff. The truth is, if we dealt with the players first, there would be no need to let go of the staff.

 

[Roboc7]

United paying ETH on his contract upon firing him would obviously have been double seeing as they paid him out on two years rather than one year, in what world would ETH have got the same payout on a year on his contract as he did with two years on his contract ? Can you show that his contract payout was the same for a year as it was two years ? Seeing as that’s unheard of and one of the things the club briefed about when Ashworth left as they put the extension on him.

At what point have I or for that fact anyone on here said that the Glazer’s were better ? The fact that I refer to them as “the parasites” pretty much every single time I mention them should make my feelings on them known but then I’m only talking about the decisions under Ineos who run the football side of the business, the parasitic cnuts that have bled the club dry for 20 years is a different discussion.

How is it hypocritical to say they backed ETH and wasted £180 million then brought Amorim in and didn’t back him ? I think you’re clearly missing the actual point again which is that Ineos should have got rid of ETH after the cup final rather than their ridiculous internal review where they publicly spoke to other coaches then stuck with ETH and gave him £180 million just to fire him weeks later.

Not backing Amorim was just as bad seeing as his whole tactical set up is so far removed from ETH it’s untrue but again that comes down to gross mismanagement in allowing Berrada who is CEO to choose the coach in Amorim rather than Ashworth who was head of footballing department and was against bringing Amorim in due to him being an ill fit with the squad we had, Amorim himself has said he didn’t want to come in mid season but was told by Ineos it was now or never and then after bringing him in left him with a squad that is ill fitted to him and that he is ill fitted to as well.

Backing a coach you clearly you don’t have faith in (ETH) so you go out and publicly speak to others to then keep him and throw millions away bringing more players in to play a way that simply didn’t work and extending his contract then firing him weeks later to bring in a coach who doesn’t want to come yet and plays completely differently to the point your head of football says not to bring in yet still do and then you don’t back him is gross mismanagement.

Where did I say that the reason the club is a financial shambles was down to Ineos ? I remember very clearly who put us in the position we’re in financially very well and seeing as I’m old enough to remember where we were in the 80’s I don’t suffer with a recency bias but again I’m not talking about anything other then Ineos decision making as everything on the parasitic cnuts has been done to death, clearly you’re a big Ineos supporter so overlook their piss poor decision making since coming in or shall we attribute that to the parasites too seeing Ratcliffe is a local lad and United fan ?

As far as the footballing side of things since the summer which Ineos are in charge of it’s been a fecking shambles with no real direction other than sack everyone and try to save money, do you remember the things Ratcliffe said when trying to come in or once he had come in ? What Ratcliffe comes across as is practically the same as the leader of the opposition in politics where he says what people want to hear so they can get in then once there it’s more of the same.

Ratcliffe had full access to the clubs accounts nearly a year before coming in so knew everything financially and had 6 months from coming in to plan for the summer and this season to put everything in place yet dithered all through the summer and allowed a cycling coach and a sponsorship/commercial expert to make footballing decisions rather than the guy we publicly chased and paid compensation for to run the footballing department then ignored his decisions and has been winging it ever since.

The cost to fire ETH and his staff was 10.5m, he was reportedly on 9m a year so it doesn’t seem like he was paid his salary until then end of his contract and neither were his assistants.

We have no idea what the terms of sacking him were but it does seem likely that if it was the worst case scenario people keep repeating the cost would have been significantly higher.

 

[Denis' cuff]

So the payout was not double because you dont know the insides of the contract.

Right, so can you show me non speculation to show that Ten Hag and his staff would have cost £5m to get rid of in the summer? Most reports said it was around £15m to get rid in the summer too.

Right these are 2 different topics we are talking about here, 1 is the money, 2 is the appointment.

You are not happy with the Amorim appointment, that is a different discussion.

You are talking about gross mismanagement like the Glazers and the previous regime were so good... they have done worse, Jose and Ole were giving NEW contracts in summer and sacked 3 months later.

No football club gets 100% football decisions right.

The funny thing is, you are here being hypocritical in your post when you first say... they backed Ten Hag and wasted money on him... then moaning about the complete opposite of hiring Amorim and not backing him.

So either way... you would have moaned about it anyway. They keep a manager, back him - you have an issue.

They hire new manager, dont give him 100m in January, you have a problem.

Its also interesting you talk about no defending on the financial shambles but fail to realise that this financial shambles is down to Glazers mismanagement over the last decade... INEOS were in charge when we were losing 100m a year right?

It was INEOS who put the debt in the club?

Like so many fans on here... you are just clouded by recency bias and not understanding that the real cause for this is the Glazers.

Online goldfish

 

[Amir]

If he was asked then he had to answer. It is sure to keep his job he would had to give them some compliment.

I'm pretty sure he could have afforded to have been a little more conservative with his answer rather than all this:

"I am comfortable with the Glazer situation. They have been great," he said. "They have always backed me whenever I have asked them. I have never faced any opposition.

"They have always been as sensible as they can be in terms of financing the club. They have to invest in the team to maintain the value of their asset.

"I think there are a whole lot of factions at United that think they own the club. They will always be contentious about whoever owns the club, and that's the way it's always been.

"When the Glazers took over here there was dissatisfaction, so there have always been pockets of supporters who have their views. But I think the majority of real fans will look at it realistically and say it's not affecting the team. We've won four championships since they've been there, one European Cup."
--

Also, he was no longer the manager when he said this. But oh wait, he was still an employee - doing that ambassdorial role, so he had to praise them!

https://www.eurosport.com/football/...-been-great-for-united_sto3948161/story.shtml

 

[KiD MoYeS]

So big onus on the hierarchy to evolve a relegation fighting side into a Europa qualifying side in the summer transfer window, can that be done?

Also, does the mean Amorim is a goner if we don't win one of the cups this season? Because it's very unlikely we will.

 

[KStandBarmyArmy1993]

I wonder if this c*nt ever considers lowering his own salary/bonus or the other higher ups to save costs. Ofcourse he won't, he's an absolute d*ck who wants to sacrifice poorer people rather than himself. I'm surprised people thought he would be any different, billionaires get to be billionaires by being c*nts (or though inheritence).



I'm sorry but no, you think they fill up Old Trafford with just tourists? No way, if there is an organized fan boycott then it will definitely hit them hard and make them reconsider. I don't know why fans feel as if they have a duty to support the team at the stadium no matter what, principles should come above that. It's a lesson we should learn from German clubs, no way their fans would ever tolerate what INEOS (or other owners in the Prem) have been getting away with.

We've done more and gone further than most other clubs when it comes to protests. We've had fans working together to get games called off and a protest club set up by people who were sick of modern modern football. When they were on the verge of taking over, fans were storming board meetings/FA meetings/UEFA meetings to try and stop it.

Even the green and gold campaign was a fairly noble idea.

 

[Banana Republic]

This is my biggest gripe with them. I would rather we dealt with the players first before we ever got down to low paid staff. The truth is, if we dealt with the players first, there would be no need to let go of the staff.

That doesn’t necessarily follow.
Even if we were being successful on the pitch, were in profit and had got a grip on excessive player contracts, there’s always the possibility that the club is being run badly and inefficiently behind the scenes.
Over or inefficient manning has to be dealt with and non of us know what the true situation has been at the club.

A specialist consultancy firm (Interpath Advisory) have been pouring over every aspect of how the club is run, since the new management took effective control last summer.
The Man Utd management team under Berrada, are now acting upon their findings.
If they can run an effective operation with a few hundred fewer staff, with little or no consequences, then there was little justification for those people being employed in the first place.
Harsh for those losing their jobs, but a cold fact of life.

If you don’t think it’s worth making relatively small savings here, or over there, or elsewhere, you’ll never make any savings or inroads into cost control.
Addressing player wages will be somewhere in the pipeline.


.

 

[quadrant]

Its a shame how people are now treating Ineos like they're a tory government implementing austerity. Its hard to know from the outside how bad the financial situation is, but what we do know is that United have been close to the biggest spenders in world football for a decade on salaries and transfer fees, despite only being in the CL every other season or so, and not once going deep in that competition. If they say we're running out of cash, I can believe it. I think fans are so used to United being this cash rich gravy train, that its hard to believe that those days have gone.

Most of the complaints just seem to be that what they're doing isn't very nice, but that isn't really engaging with the problem. Again, we can't really be sure about whether the scale of the problem is as big as is being made out, but simply wishing things were different isn't really a reason to disagree with what they're up to.