Club ownership | Senior management team talk

HackeyC said:
From experience these consultants are a waste of money. If they knew so much about how to run a successful football club they would be running a successful club...
Click to expand...
I've previously worked for one of the top global consulting firms and had the chance to work on several of these cost transformation projects, some as a result of an M&A deal and some as part of a turnaround, so I've been up close and seen how the sausage is made.

For the most part, I'd say you're correct. The view from the other poster that the consultancy is "pouring over every aspect of how the club is run" is probably far from the truth.

In reality, there's usually a repeatable playbook and benchmarking done to determine where and how many cuts should be made. Decisions on the actual running of the business are left to the business, and to the extent that the consultancy weighs in, it's to rubber stamp a decision the business leaders have already made and provide air cover in case something goes wrong ("don't blame me, McKinsey/BCG/Bain told me to do this!").

The cost savings estimates that are put out are also usually pie-in-the-sky numbers using the most generous assumptions that will never be achieved, but will create good headlines and temporarily pump the stock price.
 
Last edited:
Insanity said:
Warren and Charlie think EBITDA is a meaningful metric when evaluating any business. However, I only wanted to point out that it's not operating and salary expenses that has got us here, but I & A that are a real problem due to the debt and the amortization costs due to bad purchases. The solution they have come up with though is to neglect those and target other expenses which are well within limits.

Mind you, I am not suggesting that despite being within limits all those are justified. I simply mean that we are going after the low hanging fruit and creating news.
Click to expand...
Do they? I thought their thing was ignoring most financial metrics and ratios and looking solely at free cash flow.

Regardless, evaluating a business as an investment vs diagnosing its financial health are two different things.

I do agree with your overall conclusion though - they seem to be aggressively targeting overhead while the enormous elephant in the room continues to grow.
 
romufc said:
Firstly, no one is arguing that our revenue is up there with the best in the world. So you can keep on bringing EBIDTA all you like but the bottom line figure is all that matters. If I earn 100k a week and spend 200k a week, it makes me broke.

We all know and agree the finance cost of 63m a year is killing us.

The Glazers putting the legal fees for new investor on United, again another reason why they are hated.

You are incorrect, we made 113m loss in 2024, 28m in 2023, 115m in 2022 and 92m in 2021. So its only in the last year.

Now you say they have wasted a lot of money because they fired a manager, so would you say they are competent if they did not sack Ten Hag? Because that is the ONLY way, we would have not spent the money to sack him?

Go have a look, when was the last time we made 100m in sales? They got that last season.

I have had a look at City and Liverpool, two clubs who have been more successful than us in the last 10 years, have much lower staff than we do.

Liverpool have 701 non footballing staff, City have 381 and Arsenal have 625, guess who has the highest? Manutd at 811. The worst performing club has the most employees and most successful in recent times has more than 50% less staff.

Obviously, being narrowminded you think that the reason they are cutting costs is because they spent 14m to sack Ten Hag / Ashworth, when in reality its to get the club efficient. Its got nothing to do with that but the business asi a whole.
Click to expand...

Yes, both the direct cost and indirect cost would have been lower if they sacked ETH in the summer without extending his contract and didn't buy another 200m worth of players, half of them Dutch/Ajax players.

What %age of the revenue are those clubs spending on salary/benefits and other operational expenses? Simply counting numbers doesn't mean anything.

No, I don't think they are cutting costs just to cover costs for the blunders they have committed on the football side. I think that is Jimmy's business model. He is a vulture capitalist and a mediocre football operator, and that is what we are seeing here.
 
Lebowski said:
Fair enough, you never wanted them but you have a higher tolerance for some of the penny pinching because you see it as part of an overall improvement and modernisation.

I agree that we should look at their minority ownership holistically, and I also agree that new management will always tend to want to do a review, and often that will involve looking to reduce overheads and increase efficiency.

I just currently can't help thinking that their ownership looks more likely to strip the last few 'United' things from Man Utd than get us back to a club that supporters can be proud of.
Click to expand...

It has been obvious for years that we are playing with fire, it was going to catch up to us sooner or later right? You cannot keep paying high transfer fees and wages without success, its going to catch up to you in the end.

Its all good to enjoy the good times and hire staff, have employee benefits but when times are hard, the decisions are not going to be easy.
 
Big Ben Foster said:
Do they? I thought their thing was ignoring most financial metrics and ratios and looking solely at free cash flow.

Regardless, evaluating a business as an investment vs diagnosing its financial health are two different things.

I do agree with your overall conclusion though - they seem to be aggressively targeting overhead while the enormous elephant in the room continues to grow.
Click to expand...
Well, diagnosing the financial health of a business is the most important of the evaluation for an investment.

Anyway, we are digressing.

You are correct, they are ignoring the elephant in the room and going after petty expenses.
 
Last edited:
Insanity said:
Yes, both the direct cost and indirect cost would have been lower if they sacked ETH in the summer without extending his contract and didn't buy another 200m worth of players, half of them Dutch/Ajax players.

What %age of the revenue are those clubs spending on salary/benefits and other operational expenses? Simply counting numbers doesn't mean anything.

No, I don't think they are cutting costs just to cover costs for the blunders they have committed on the football side. I think that is Jimmy's business model. He is a vulture capitalist and a mediocre football operator, and that is what we are seeing here.
Click to expand...

Right, have you got any evidence that the direct and indirect costs would be lower? or are you assuming? You know that Amorim was in a job in the summer too, unless you wanted Southgate or Tuchel.

Right, so if you say it doesn't matter how many staff we have, it makes more sense to get rid of staff? Because in the coming years, without CL, lower revenue for finishing 15th, lower commercial value because of 2 seasons without CL, our revenue to wage ratio is going to go up... so you would back getting rid so we can maintain the 55% wage to revenue? So you agree with the cost cutting on staff.

Yeah Jimmy wants to make money of United, how long do you think it will take for him to see a profit on his 1.5bn investment?
 
What would happen if we got relegated, all the income that comes from playing in the PL and Europe gone. Our income would more or less cover debt and player salaries. We would need to sell of the whole team for peanuts. Lets say we go bankrupt and into administration. Would the Glazers then be forced to pay the debt themself, or does all the debts just go away cause the club goes bankrupt and cease to exists in the current form?

How is it possible for them to actually loose something? Cause at the moment staff and fans are the one suffering. From time to time I actually think of different scenarions were I actually would prefer that outcome, just to get rid of those horrendous non human goblins.
 
Lebowski said:
You are taking a lot on pure faith:

"Ineos wouldn't be making cuts if United were successful" - says who? The Glazers increased ticket prices, cut costs and failed to invest when we are very successful on the pitch. Necessity is always the excuse used for cuts and price hikes. The choice to cut, and then what to cut, is always there.
"They are only doing it because we have no money left" - Ratcliffe's entire business model has been to buy failing businesses at a low price, cut costs and increase profit. It's hardly implausible that his intention is to do the same with United and use the 'we have no choice, it's the Glazer's previous mismanagement and profligacy' as cover.
"These cuts will make us successful in the future" - given Ineos' record in football and their decisions so far, can you see why most fans have less faith than you? Especially when modern football isn't exactly rich with tales of clubs who scrimped, saved and cut their way to the Champions League.

In terms of what fans want as the alternative, I'm sure that differs for each fan. Some would rather we spend a few million less on players in the summer so that more staff could keep their jobs, some are angry that Ineos gave the Glazer family a life raft, some are in favour of 50+1, some want a rich Sheik etc. Ultimately it doesn't matter - you can criticise without having an immediately actionable counter-proposal. Ineos and the Glazers clearly don't care what fans want besides assigning it a monetary value in relation to their asset. We're giving our opinions on their decisions on an internet forum for a bit of catharsis / stave off boredom, or to recruit other users into an elaborate ponzi scheme, in my case.
Click to expand...

Fair enough, neither of us know what Ineos would have done if United were rich & successful. If you think they'd have done the same thing if we were, that's up to you.

United's accounts & financial difficulties are a matter of public record. This is pretty much the one thing that isn't open to debate. The exact extent of risk is hard to know, but £370M of losses in 5 years is dire.

"These cuts will make us successful in the future". Never said that. Its not that simple. The success (or indeed failure) of strategic plans like this is measured over years, not months, and that's the timeframe I think Ineos should be judged over. The cuts they're making will save money while also lowering short term productivity and morale. That makes the "now" worse, but gives them more flexibility and control in the future. If they can utilise that flexibility well, it opens the door to a level of success that they didn't have, in which case the cuts are net positive. But if they spunk it all on crap, then we're probably worse off than before. Since we have no idea what they're going to do with that added capacity, we can't really say whether "it will make us more successful in the future". It opens the door to success, but time will tell if they can push through.
 
romufc said:
Right, have you got any evidence that the direct and indirect costs would be lower? or are you assuming? You know that Amorim was in a job in the summer too, unless you wanted Southgate or Tuchel.

Right, so if you say it doesn't matter how many staff we have, it makes more sense to get rid of staff? Because in the coming years, without CL, lower revenue for finishing 15th, lower commercial value because of 2 seasons without CL, our revenue to wage ratio is going to go up... so you would back getting rid so we can maintain the 55% wage to revenue? So you agree with the cost cutting on staff.

Yeah Jimmy wants to make money of United, how long do you think it will take for him to see a profit on his 1.5bn investment?
Click to expand...
Have you got any evidence that the cost of releasing ETH and his staff was the same with 20 months remaining on their contracts as it would have been with only 12 months remaining?

Who knows if we would have hired Amorim in summer? May be we would have got someone else. As per reports, Jim was chasing Tuchel and he was not under contract with anyone else.

I don't know what your second paragraph means.

Usually PE firms have a 5-7 years horizon for X-xing their investment.
 
Last edited:
golden_blunder said:
You’re right in that the only way to solve this is to tackle the debt. Otherwise they are shuffling the deck chairs.
SJR as a minority owner is obviously not going to pay down such a huge debt on behalf of the Glazers. Who’s to say they don’t stay and load it up again? He needs to put pressure on them to pay it down. Otherwise stand aside and open for full sale
Click to expand...
He doesn’t need to pay it down himself. He puts in a directors loan to clear it and then the club repay him over time either interest free or at a much more favourable rate.

As for loading the club with debt again, that’s a possibility now. I suppose it depends on what’s in the shareholders agreement.
 
acnumber9 said:
He doesn’t need to pay it down himself. He puts in a directors loan to clear it and then the club repay him over time either interest free or at a much more favourable rate.

As for loading the club with debt again, that’s a possibility now. I suppose it depends on what’s in the shareholders agreement.
Click to expand...
He'd still effectively be giving the Glazers a free ride, which is why he's unlikely to do it
 
romufc said:
You are incorrect, we made 113m loss in 2024, 28m in 2023, 115m in 2022 and 92m in 2021. So its only in the last year.
Click to expand...
Just so you don't accuse me of being selective: The losses in those two years were because:

- 2022: Again the loss was due to an increase in cost to finance the debt and hiring/firing.
- 2021: Was due to COVID and drop in match-day revenue, which was an extenuating circumstance.
 
The Glazers have had United as the lobster in a boiling pot for years now.
But this latest round is still very hard to take. Feeling pretty sick to my stomach about the club now.
 
Insanity said:
Have you got any evidence that the cost of releasing ETH and his staff was the same with 20 months remaining on their contracts as it would have been with only 12 months remaining?

Who knows if we would have hired Amorim in summer? May be we would have got someone else. As per reports, Jim was chasing Tuchel and he was not under contract with anyone else.

I don't know what your second paragraph means.

Usually PE firms have a 5-7 years horizon for X-xing their investment.
Click to expand...

Im not the one who said it as a fact that the direct and indirect costs would be more, so if you cant show me those costs or where you are getting those assumptions for, I would take it as you dont know.

Right, so you moan that SJR makes bad decisions but are here talking about Tuchel. Makes alot of sense.

The paragraph means, you only care about % of revenue that contributes to staff wages.

So in theory if 100m revenue, 55% wages = its good.
If our revenue dropped by say 20% to 80m = then you wouldn't mind us sacking people as long as the % ratio is 55%?

Insanity said:
Just so you don't accuse me of being selective: The losses in those two years were because:

- 2022: Again the loss was due to an increase in cost to finance the debt and hiring/firing.
- 2021: Was due to COVID and drop in match-day revenue, which was extenuating circumstance
Click to expand...

In 2021 and 2022 our revenue was actually almost 50-80m lower, so it wasn't just cost of finance.
In 2022, our employee benefit expense was higher than in the last 5 years @ 384,141m

Also, in 2022 you are saying our increase was because of hiring /firing which was 24m... that doesnt make up the rest of the 80m.
 
acnumber9 said:
He doesn’t need to pay it down himself. He puts in a directors loan to clear it and then the club repay him over time either interest free or at a much more favourable rate.

As for loading the club with debt again, that’s a possibility now. I suppose it depends on what’s in the shareholders agreement.
Click to expand...
Unfortunately the latest PSR/prem rules prevent owners from loaning money to their clubs at a rate which is more favourable than market rates, it might still be more favourable than the rates we will otherwise be on, but it will not be a freebie, however if SJR took on the debt it would give him huge bargaining strength with the Glazer's over any further acquisition of shares, which is why I suspect that the Glazers would block any move by SJR to do this, far more likely they pay down a a percentage of the debt say £200m or whatever to clear the worst debts in order to obtain better financing for the remaining balance, they have done this before and then taken out further debts a few months later
 
Insanity said:
You know what caused the 100m loss despite being EBIDTA positive?

We'll circle back to it.

First, our salary/benefit costs were 55% of the our overall revenue. Which doesn't suggest we have this "bloated" workforce that keeps getting mentioned on here. In general practice our club has always tried to keep the salary costs below 50%; however 55% is not that huge a departure from that 50% number that we needed to cut the workforce by 40% or stop lunch provided as a benefit to the employees. If you knew how to read financial statements then this wouldn't be the line item that would get the alarm bells ringing.

Our operating expenses actually reduced by ~9% to balance out the ~10% increase in salary costs due to our CL participation.

Those two combined were well within limits and I am sure better than what most clubs are spending on those two expenses in a financial year.

Our problem start below that, what killed us is:

- A very high amortization cost
- Finance cost due to the Glazers debt (~63m)
- An exceptional expense to get a new investor (~47m)

Thing to note, the loss of >100m was only in the last financial year due to this "exceptional expense". The loss the season before was ~28m. This season's books will look automatically better as we are not in the process of getting another Jimmy.

Now you'd expect Jimmy to come in and work on improving the football aspects of the club, which has been the real issue. Instead, they extended and fired a manager, hired and fired a Dof, spent money on more duds, paid money to release a manager from their club. Without wasting money on those things our finances for this financial year would have automatically looked better. Now to compensate for their incompetency, they are going after ordinary folks jobs, sandwiches and scotch tapes. Cannot believe it is being justified and getting applauded.

It's is so fecking infuriating and embarrassing.
Click to expand...
Good post. Its not so much the Amortization as the net player trading position that hurts us (Amortization less profit on player sales). The gap is too big. And a poor net trading position in the P&L is the equivalent of having a high net spend in cash flow. Our net spend in the last 10 years (to 2024) was 1.2+b. Average net spend was 120m a year. That accords with a net trading position in the P&L of 120m a year. If your EBITDA is not higher then you are making a loss even before finance costs are considered.
Finance costs are not equivalent to the actual interest paid, their are 2 big notional non cash pay items in finance costs that are immaterial. Outgo in cash terms was around 37m last year.
If your net spend is higher than earnings (net spend was about 105% of EBITDA for the last 5 years) then you are going to make foreseeable losses. And you are going to have foreseeable cash flow problems.
Quite a few of us on here were speaking about this for a few years now.
You really need to reduce net spend to a sustainable level. Liverpool have managed their way through the transfer market with a net spend of roughly 500m during the last 10 years. They spend big but critically they also sold well.
So having a net spend of 170m in the current year under INEOS is exactly what we didn't need. They had an opportunity to tackle the principal problem head on and cut our net spend but they did not. 100m of that should have been retained in treasury and used to pay down our preexisting transfer debt as it falls due. Indeed the Carrington project should have been delayed and the cash committed likewise. Halving the transfer debt eases the pressure om future earnings and creates free cash flow for future net spend. Instead we remain in a cash bind with the free cash flow only coming through from redundancies and other cost cutting.
The Carrington project is a good thing, but it's the sort of development you pursue in better times when recovery is well advanced. Spending so much on that now is extravagant and unnecessary.
 
People losing their jobs is terrible.

Forgetting the football side for a moment, how do we know that the back office staff wasn't bloated under Arnold ?

Even though the savings from the cuts are minor in comparison to firing Ten Hag and Ashworth, it doesn't mean they are not needed.
 
Big Ben Foster said:
He'd still effectively be giving the Glazers a free ride, which is why he's unlikely to do it
Click to expand...
No more than he already has. They’re not paying the debt, the club is. This way the club would be paying it to Ratcliffe/INEOS instead of banks at extortionate interest rates. Ratcliffe then benefits from the asset increasing in value because it’s no longer laden with unmanageable debt.
 
romufc said:
Right, so they done a review and decided ETH is their man, so they backed him in the window, remember we sold to buy… he wasn’t given a blank chequebook like every other manager under the Glazers.

So you are here championing for Ashworth, but you need to stop only saying things that suit your agenda, they tried to allow the head of footballing department Ashworth, he wanted Ten Hag to stay, so he was grossly negligent too right? So why would you trust in him for next manager when he wanted managers like Southgate? INEOS lost trust in him and sacked him. They told him now or never because they wanted a permanent manager now, I am not sure what is wrong with that?

You talk about the squad being ill fitted to the system of Amorim, do you think another manager would be getting us top 4 with the same squad? It seems that way, when in fact we all agree that the squad isn’t good enough, so which one is it? Is it the squad isn’t good enough for Manutd or not good enough for the system?


Blah, blah, blah
Click to expand...
No, that was Brailsford, Ashworth wanted Frank of Howe if available, if not an interim such as Ruud or Potter.

Why are you still repeating this myth about Southgate? That was also Brailsford from what I remember.

If you can't get even these basics right, why should we take any notice of your nreams of blah, blah defending Jimbo?
 
Zed 101 said:
Unfortunately the latest PSR/prem rules prevent owners from loaning money to their clubs at a rate which is more favourable than market rates, it might still be more favourable than the rates we will otherwise be on, but it will not be a freebie, however if SJR took on the debt it would give him huge bargaining strength with the Glazer's over any further acquisition of shares, which is why I suspect that the Glazers would block any move by SJR to do this, far more likely they pay down a a percentage of the debt say £200m or whatever to clear the worst debts in order to obtain better financing for the remaining balance, they have done this before and then taken out further debts a few months later
Click to expand...
I don’t think that’s quite right. To change that rule 14 clubs need to agree to it. Regardless of whether that becomes the case, there is no rule to say it can’t be done. Just that it doesn’t instantly allow us to spend more on transfers. What we’re being sold at the minute is this story that the club will go bust if they don’t make redundancies. If that were true, which it isn’t, this would stop that.

I’m not sure why the Glazers would object to this. It saves them money and increases the value of their asset. It is win win for everybody. Ratcliffe just doesn’t want to do it.
 
Last edited:
LawCharltonBest said:
Their 4 year plan being in the europa league seems at odds with the idea that they want to win the league in 2028
Click to expand...
It’s normal to forecast for best and worst case scenarios, surely? They can plan to win the league in X years, but building a financial model around that objective would be folly.
 
This talk apparently coming from SJR about the prospect of United going bust that it seems has infiltered the worries of some on here... there isn't an absolutely single hope in hell of that happening. Ridiculous scare-mongering.
 
LawCharltonBest said:
Their 4 year plan being in the europa league seems at odds with the idea that they want to win the league in 2028
Click to expand...
Not really - it’s a plan for the worst hope for the best scenario. It’s a financial outlook so working within the minimum expectations means we will be safe, and any extra from CL qualification etc is a bonus on top.
 
gaffs said:
People losing their jobs is terrible.

Forgetting the football side for a moment, how do we know that the back office staff wasn't bloated under Arnold ?

Even though the savings from the cuts are minor in comparison to firing Ten Hag and Ashworth, it doesn't mean they are not needed.
Click to expand...

It may be a bit more, but Arnold and co arent stupid. Theyre CEO. I doubt they handed jobs like santa claus. Those 250 employee must be doing something even if it's only customer service, foreign correspondence, or even tea lady. You dont expect to cut 250 employee and dont feel any kickback either directly or indirectly. Employees are human, most of them would be disgruntled being treated like this.

Im all up for efficiency, but cutting lunch to save 1m is very petty. If we're up to that stage where 1m is the difference between surviving or going bankrupt we might as well go bankrupt.

Those 1M is peanuts when you think that staff can get lunch on working days. Having to buy your own lunch means their Take Home Pay would be much less. We're all working, we know how much it cost to BYO lunch.

I have no problem if they force Mason Mount and Casemiro to go, put them on reserve for all i care. But this is too much. We're supposed to be the biggest club in the world, we dont have to resort to this surely. I'd even pay the lunch cost to save face. This is humiliating. 1m per year for feck sake, not even per month

feck Ineos. I started to think they want to drive United to the ground so they can buy us cheap.

How on earth can they get football control while eyeing to buy the club. That's conflict of interest
 
acnumber9 said:
I don’t think that’s quite right. To change that rule 14 clubs need to agree to it. Regardless of whether that becomes the case, there is no rule to say it can’t be done. Just that it doesn’t instantly allow us to spend more on transfers. What we’re being sold at the minute is this story that the club will go bust if they don’t make redundancies. If that were true, which it isn’t, this would stop that.

I’m not sure why the Glazers would object to this. It saves them money and increases the value of their asset. It is win win for everybody. Ratcliffe just doesn’t want to do it.
Click to expand...

Shareholder Loans​

- The new rules seek to ensure that there is appropriate parity between the treatment of shareholder loans and other APTs going forward, with transitional rules clarifying the treatment of existing shareholder loans within that framework.
- Shareholder loans entered into after 22 November 2024 will be required to be submitted as an APT and subject to an FMV assessment. If the Premier League Board determines the loan to evidently not be at FMV, the club in question shall be required to terminate or vary the loan to reflect FMV and pay any identified shortfall in interest.
- Any Shareholder loan that was entered into before 22 November 2024 and which is replaced with other forms of financing (e.g. by way of conversion to equity or repayment) within 50 days (i.e. by 11 January 2025) will not be required to be submitted as an APT or assessed for FMV.
- Any Shareholder loan that was entered into after 14 December 2021 but before 22 November 2024 and remaining in effect on 11 January 2025 must be submitted as an APT. If the Premier League Board determines the loan is evidently not at FMV,  the club is permitted to retain the Shareholder loan on its existing terms, though adjustments must be made to its Annual Accounts for 2024/25 onwards as if, from 22 November 2024, the loan was at FMV.
- Any Shareholder loan that was entered into prior to 14 December 2021 and remaining in effect on 11 January 2025 must be submitted as an APT and be subject to an FMV Assessment upon any drawdown taking place after the 22 November 2024. If the Premier League Board determines the loan is evidently not at FMV,  the club is permitted to retain the Shareholder loan on its existing terms, though adjustments must be made to its Annual Accounts for 2024/25 onwards as if any drawdowns made after 22 November 2024 were at FMV.
https://www.premierleague.com/news/4172030#:~:text=Shareholder Loans,-- The new rules&text=If the Premier League Board,any identified shortfall in interest.

The club will not go bust, we owe £1bn ish but the club is worth multiples of that, before we got close to going bust the Glazer's/SJR would invest to protect their asset or would sell at several times the debt, bankruptcy is not a concern, how we continue to operate is, and we have not been told we will go bankrupt without the cuts, just that the redundancies form part of a sustainability plan, lets face the club has been poorly ran for years and probably were employing too many staff, staffing and cost saving in line with the business needs is not only necessary it is common sense.

As for the Glazer's objecting, should they consider selling at a future date the debt is an issue, which is owned by SJR would give him bargaining power, the debt if taken on by SJR would be at least 71% owed by the Glazers, SJR could choose to vary the terms of the debt or call it in early if there is any breach (we currently have bad debt!!!) which again could force the Glazers' hand in a sale
 
Last edited:
romufc said:
So you are implying INEOS are in it for the money, if that is the case, why did they invest 250m in the club?

Why would a 73 yr old spend 1.5bn to buy a club if the main aim was to make profit? How is he going to make profit on it?

Why would he spend time drafting a redevelopment plan that will take 7 years?

If the aim was to make money, how is this going to make him any money?
Click to expand...

The cash injection was in the form of shares from the club as a parent company. He did not put money into the club for free, he got for it shares in the club.

I do not know what his aims is, but it is not to put back Manchester in united by asking the fans to stop thinking about our glory years (because they get irritated hearing about our former glory) . I think he wants to make the club financially stable (not necessarily successful in football) so he can sell within few years again for a profit.
 
quadrant said:
That view is understandable, but just because something is understandable doesn't make it right. What people really need is for the Glazers not to have near bankrupted our club, but here we are. That doesn't change where the club is.
Click to expand...
It isn't "our club" and hasn't been in any of our lifetimes
 
Sky1981 said:
Im all up for efficiency, but cutting lunch to save 1m is very petty. If we're up to that stage where 1m is the difference between surviving or going bankrupt we might as well go bankrupt.
Click to expand...

I dont think you are understanding. They have not said £1m is the difference between surviving or going bankrupt... the overall losses are.

Let me ask you, how many businesses that are making 100m losses are providing free lunches? Most people in work either take packed lunch or buy their own lunches, its not something new.

£1m in this sector, along with all other sectors in the business they are saving money, adds up.
 
DeGea said:
Interest (usury) is bad for the financial system. United’s situation is a perfect example of this. How is it fair that after borrowing 600 million 19 years ago, the debt has gone up to 700 million? All those payments made have all gone to service interest.

The world and the banking system is evil.
Click to expand...
I'm guessing you've never owned or have ambition to own a house, or had a loan to buy anything such as a car??
 
romufc said:
It has been obvious for years that we are playing with fire, it was going to catch up to us sooner or later right? You cannot keep paying high transfer fees and wages without success, its going to catch up to you in the end.

Its all good to enjoy the good times and hire staff, have employee benefits but when times are hard, the decisions are not going to be easy.
Click to expand...
I think the 'playing with fire' most people refer to is the making of bad football decisions though, not 'Charlie from the ticket office taking the piss with his free lunch order'.

Out of interest, would you still be supporting cutting staff and making these hard decisions in the short term if it was the Glazers in charge, or is your tolerance of them / view they are necessary pain dependent on the fact that it's someone new (and hopefully competent) leading them?
 
Giggsyking said:
The cash injection was in the form of shares from the club as a parent company. He did not put money into the club for free, he got for it shares in the club.

I do not know what his aims is, but it is not to put back Manchester in united by asking the fans to stop thinking about our glory years (because they get irritated hearing about our former glory) . I think he wants to make the club financially stable (not necessarily successful in football) so he can sell within few years again for a profit.
Click to expand...

No football owner buys a football club to then sell it for profit in a few years. There is no chance of that happening. He has already bought it for over market value.

Someone who has all different business ventures, you think is buying Manutd, a minority share of it, put money in, develop a stadium and training facilities, just to sell it off for profit? What profit will he make?

This isn't some auction house he has bought for cheap, put a lick of paint and sell it off.
 
Plant0x84 said:
The fans would kill the club faster than a sport washing oil regime. Too much petty squabbling and infighting - like calling each other ‘Joel’ for example.
Click to expand...
You can't honestly believe that can you? The Fans would appoint a board, not all vote on everything themselves.

I was only having a light joke. Tell Avram that he looks like a rat.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.