The Ashworth hire and extension of Ten Hags contract, and subsequent, has not helped their case.
Plus, the underwhelming transfer window where we are still paying big wages.
Club ownership | Senior management team talk
- Thread starter golden_blunder
- Start date
The Ashworth hire and extension of Ten Hags contract, and subsequent, has not helped their case.
Plus, the underwhelming transfer window where we are still paying big wages.
Yeah right. So do you think Ineos doing a great job ?
Appart from sacking the staff ? What have they done since they are here ?
Lead us from 8th the 15th, hire the best in class sporting director then sack him 3 month later, have a dire transfer window, keep and prolonge ETH to sack him in november. Speak about cohesive style of football and hiring a manager who play 3-4-3 while not having the players and in the middle of the season.
They look like amateurs on the footballing side so far.
No one think that. But they are doing an amateur job since they are here. The sack of the director of football after all the hard work to get him was comedy gold. We don’t even know who is in charge.
Yes. Folks become too invested in their viewpoints. Confirmation bias kicks in, their views can only be "right", other viewpoints have to be "wrong".
Agree with the gist of this post but you forget that a redundant Margareth from canteen will try hard and find a simillar job for more or less the same (minimum) hours wage. Poor Luke Shaw in his current state would not find any other job close to his expected income.
Irony off, here is my radical solution for the rest of this season, with a chance to save anything from a couple hundred thousands up to dozen million quid for the rest of this campaign - while saving a bit of INEOS pride and getting the fans back onboard with them:
When Machester United have mathematically secured PL status for the next season (after beating Ipswich tonight it´ll take like next 2 or 3 games to confirm) - AND Man Utd are out of both cups with still a number of PL dead rubbers to play till the end of season:
1. Officiall club announcement asking the first team playing staff for 1/3 reduction of basic weekly salary. Citing individual underperformance, not hitting any sporting targets, thus significantly lovering the clubs projected income. With the goal to not go ahead with further redundancies of low-paid staff as the financial situation of the club is unsuistanable.
This move puts a big pressure on players from most or rather all the fanbase, club and maybe even the media. But Im not naive enough that this "stunt" would make a cue of united players lining up at MUTD headquarters dully signing up for their cut. Most players not even have a much say in it, their entourange would have non of it. Hell, them waggs would firmly and expertly put this feckin idea to bed on the very first night of asking.
2. Meanwhile, or rather before the start of this campain, sit down some of the fan favourites like Amad, Mainoo, Collyer, Dorgu and co. with their agents and a proviso: You announce agreement of 33% salary cut, while you are still gonna get your full (small/reasonable) wedge under the table by an expert on it Berrada, even bribing their agents to agree to this bluff if needed.
This second step puts even more heap on the squad by fans, especcialy on those underperforming, generally shite players or/and sick notes. Would they cave in at this stage? Im still not sure. In this scenario Id not expect a player here and there agreeing to reduction - rather than a dressing room meeting with all or none of them agreeing to this proposal.
3. Third step, as/if not much has changed. Just a couple young lads on board, with most of the older guard still sitting tight on their fat arses and long outrageous contracts.
The Club Annoucement: "As we could not reach an agreement with some of the playing staff in terms of reducing wages for the greater good of the Machester United Football Clubs future, these players will not be a part of match day squad anymore. We will fill up the team with talented Academy players for the rest of this season. With this move, the club will save on the appearence and performance bonuses in order to keep at least some of the low-paid staff planned to being let go. Further discussions with playing staff will take place right after the season."
4. Final blow to these wasters with Berrada and co. going in two footed: "As our former player Jadon Sancho exile at a dutch concentraiton camp rightly didnt lead to any legal case against Manchester United, we order the selected players to go to this same camp for a few weeks. We will also force Erik ten Hag who is still paid by Man United to conduct training sessions at this Holland camp." Thank you very much.
Punks jump up to get beat down.
Great way to put it. ABU media has a new bone to chew on.
There are literally idiots on here praising the Glazers and Woodward as some golden era for the club because INEOS is clearly the devil incarnate.
There are no ‘INEOS supporters’. Don’t be weird.
There are Manchester United supporters who can see this current financial situation is the fault of the majority owners, not the new minority guys who are trying to sort it out.
Obviously with hindsight this is correct. I don’t think you’ll find anyone who argues it isn’t. I completely agree this looks daft given the backdrop of financial crisis, but at the time keeping ETH and giving him time
to work with the new structure seemed entirely reasonable, especially given the cup win and the swell of support that came with it.
Likewise at the time Ashworth seemed a great hire, widely lauded by fans here.
It’s unfortunate that neither decision worked out, but the way it is being reframed as deliberate incompetence and used to beat INEOS down is just factually wrong and unnecessary. In one regard it’s commendable they realised their mistakes so quickly and rectified them accordingly.
It’s also unpalatable that the vitriol is towards sir Jim personally and INEOS, not the new hierarchy or the club itself. These aren’t decisions that will be taken unilaterally.
I have no problem with those who think ETH and Ashworth situations are a shambles or poor PR or whatever, but it gripes that there is an element of ‘I told you so’ from those who think Qatar was a silver bullet - especially when they never proved funds or indeed their existence and never actually made a bid that would have been legally acceptable by the glazers. I hate the twisting of narratives and mistruths.
Is that harder to understand than the lengths you’ll go to to defend a tax dodging billionaire?Nope, relish isn’t allowed anymore - only soup and sandwiches.
I don’t understand why some of you take these job cuts so personally? It isnt you that is being sacked - and these are redundancies by the way so the staff will be compensated accordingly. It’s a shitty situation for sure, but it’s not one of INEOS making - they are just taking the flack for sorting it out.
Loving the new narrative.
If you hate what INEOS are doing you love the Glazers and think pre INEOS was the golden era.
Maybe some of the Redcafe members are employed by SPINEOS!
If you hate what INEOS are doing you love the Glazers and think pre INEOS was the golden era.
Maybe some of the Redcafe members are employed by SPINEOS!
You know INEOS are the reason Ten Hag was still manager at that stage? You can’t be a real person.
And this was Ineos' decision to keep him, get him new assistants and then get rid of them altogether and then bring Amorim and his own coaching staff.
It’s not about money this one. Manchester United might be a power house in football, but revenue wise United is an insignificant asset up against Ineos and businesses they invest in.
I'm against INEOS. When the Glazer's said they would listen to offers and the INEOS bid came in we were all of the same thinking of "Full Sale Only". Ratcliffe essentially gave the Glazers a lifeline to stay on. Even if he cleans up their mess, it means the Glazers will stay on and get even richer after decades of leading us into this position we're in.
Make no mistake about it, the Glazers are the reason we're in this spot. Despite being terrible on the pitch for a good while, we're still the 4th highest revenue earners in world football (likely 3rd because City did City things). The debt that they saddled on the club and all the fallout from it (interest payments, refinancing, loans etc.) is the reason why we're in this spot. We can talk about bad transfers and contracts but ultimately the buck stops with them. Every club has made expensive mistakes in transfers and contracts but they're able to absorb it because they don't have club debt they need to pay off or they had competent owners who invested in the youth academy years ago and is able to sell on players.
Now after years of neglect, Ratcliffe came in and gave them a stay of execution. And this is no fault of Ratcliffe, but he has to steady the ship and to do that we've torn away everything that made this club good for money that we should've had to begin with if not for the debt the Glazers put on the club. We've had to cut local workers, contracts with club legends including fecking Sir Alex Ferguson and will likely sell some of our brightest youth talents again to compensate for the mistakes made by these leeches.
Make no mistake about it, the Glazers are the reason we're in this spot. Despite being terrible on the pitch for a good while, we're still the 4th highest revenue earners in world football (likely 3rd because City did City things). The debt that they saddled on the club and all the fallout from it (interest payments, refinancing, loans etc.) is the reason why we're in this spot. We can talk about bad transfers and contracts but ultimately the buck stops with them. Every club has made expensive mistakes in transfers and contracts but they're able to absorb it because they don't have club debt they need to pay off or they had competent owners who invested in the youth academy years ago and is able to sell on players.
Now after years of neglect, Ratcliffe came in and gave them a stay of execution. And this is no fault of Ratcliffe, but he has to steady the ship and to do that we've torn away everything that made this club good for money that we should've had to begin with if not for the debt the Glazers put on the club. We've had to cut local workers, contracts with club legends including fecking Sir Alex Ferguson and will likely sell some of our brightest youth talents again to compensate for the mistakes made by these leeches.
I plan to live forever. Or die trying.
Yet when I bring up fan ownership then you say that would ruin the club.
Perhaps you are waiting for the perfect saviour?
I put a caveat in because they cannot make decisions without the Glazers, that’s why it’s a minority deal, do you know how hard it would be for them to sell their share for someone to take minority ownership of a club?
My point is you think the ONLY reason they bought the club is to make a profit on it.
Firstly, Ahsley was a 14 year tenure, that’s not short term buy for profit. SJR is 73, he isn’t buying to make a profit in 15 years time.
Shinawatra made a massive £20m profit… https://www.theguardian.com/football/2008/oct/08/manchestercity.premierleague
If you look at the new guidelines, the Manutd style take over wont happen again, so your comment on that is redundant as the process and checks to buy a club now are far far far greater than in 2005.
Abramovic, he didn’t even want to sell the club, to actually think he bought the club to make a profit on is just plane ignorance to the situation, so its not really comparable is it? Go have a look, Abramovic didn’t even make it for profit, the reason the sale price was higher, he put in a clause to say, £1bn should be spent on the club and infrastructure, but yeah he bought the club for profit.
Hicks and Gillette bought the club for 413m and sold Liverpool for 300m. How much profit is that?
So you think that they bought the club based on unknowns of Super League, broadcasting revenue? The stadium cost is 2bn, the club value with a new stadium is not going to increase by 2bn when we are mid table.
What you are saying is true, there is long term profit if you buy certain clubs, not Manutd. All these names you are mentioning, all the lower league clubs, have all been bought for sub 500m. Manutd is valued at 5bn, do you know how different that is? The reason why Abu Dabhi bought City and Saudi Newcastle, not because they thought…. Oooo City and Newcastle have the highest profitability… it was because they were cheaper than other clubs.
Its actually deluded to think that you go buy one of the most expensive clubs and will make a profit on it. The bigger and dearer the club, the less the profit margin is.
I am glad you are giving me the Arsenal example, go check how much it was bought for… they own the entire club, so they have had this business model, there were protests and bids from buyers a few years ago, they didn’t want to sell. You know when someone doesn’t want to sell, it shows they didn’t buy the club just to profiteer in It after spending a decade and 1bn.
Okay, so you don’t make money having Woodward but would you say Glazers are there to make money? I would because they have taken money out of the club, only ones in the PL. Go have a look at every other PL owner in terms of money put in, you will see clearly which owner is in it for the money. I will give you a hint.. it will be the owner that doesn’t put their own money into the club and takes it out instead.
But you wouldn’t say its Glazers, because you don’t have people like Woodward in charge if you want to make money. So let me ask you, do you think the Glazers are keeping Manutd for just fun? A hobby? If its not to make money?
I am not saying its controversial, what I am saying is, it’s a bit silly to think that the only reason SJR bought United is to make profit.
What is the reason football clubs increase in value? Success on the pitch, shown by City, Chelsea, PSG for example. So you don’t buy the most expensive English club, not compete and make money.
For SJR to make a big profit on it, the club has to be successful on the pitch too, so if United are successful and INEOS make 1bn, I couldn’t care less as long as we are achieving success.
You are again emphasising my point, you buy a club that has potential to grow, not a club that is at its highest value.
It's like saying... I bought Bitcoin for $1 and I made $100k but not sold it... well you haven't made the money then have you?
Or if someone buys it for $1 and sells for $100,000, is not the same as buying it at $100,000 dollars is it?
If you want to make big profits, you dont go buy the most expensive club. You dont put in 5bn expecting to make 25bn.. its not going to happen.
There would probably be protests right now if INEOS hadn't come in and gave the Glazers a life line. There have been protests before with not much accomplished but still if there ever was a time for fans to mobilize and make their hatred of the parasites known, 100s of staff being let go would be that time.
United are a huge asset in INEOS portfolio, though.
Yes but a failing asset at the moment... my question is, how have clubs owners made money?
By winning... so if INEOS deliver success and get us PL title and then sell the club and make 1bn, who cares?
Regarding all the cuts, I've worked in two (much smaller organisations granted) that had financial problems. Both had to deliver cuts to the day to day workforce. Both had very different responses to what came next. One expected a smaller number of staff to improve on previous performance with less resource. They failed.
Another binned off a level of middle management to save money initially but then promoted some of the "ground floor staff" into slightly more senior positions. Gave them a small pay increase and gave them more responsibility. Directors who were previously over strategic stuff had to do more operational things (more day to day management of staff). The longer term strategy suffered for a while with a higher level of fire fighting but that sorted itself out. They are now doing better than they were at their peak pre financial problems.
Now, it's clear United need to do the second one but from what I've seen so far, it will almost certainly be the first one sadly. It's all well and good saving money and making cuts but how do you build back up again?
I do get the anger towards Ratcliffe and INEOS though. Ultimately, they seem to be awful at PR with fans. That £66 ticket decision is more ridiculous than anything the Glazers tried.
Another binned off a level of middle management to save money initially but then promoted some of the "ground floor staff" into slightly more senior positions. Gave them a small pay increase and gave them more responsibility. Directors who were previously over strategic stuff had to do more operational things (more day to day management of staff). The longer term strategy suffered for a while with a higher level of fire fighting but that sorted itself out. They are now doing better than they were at their peak pre financial problems.
Now, it's clear United need to do the second one but from what I've seen so far, it will almost certainly be the first one sadly. It's all well and good saving money and making cuts but how do you build back up again?
Yep. This is a decent post. The Ten Hag decision was understandable at the time. With Ashworth, the hiring of him at the time felt like a good move but getting rid when we did was also probably a good decision if it wasn't going well.
I do get the anger towards Ratcliffe and INEOS though. Ultimately, they seem to be awful at PR with fans. That £66 ticket decision is more ridiculous than anything the Glazers tried.
I don’t mean to be rude, I really don’t, but do you understand how wealth works and do you realise that people like Musk or Bezos don’t just have hundreds of billions sitting in their accounts? If you buy shares and those increase in value, you have become more wealthy. You don’t need to sell them for that to happen.
Your Bitcoin example however works out, as Bitcoin, unlike Manchester United, has no inherent value. Manchester United does.
Personally, I very much disagree on the keeping ETH part. If a single cup win outweighs years of mediocrity in such a huge way, than those in charge have completely lost their understanding of the bigger picture. The cup win should have never saved him.
And I also believe it’s unfair towards the fans to reduce the criticism to bad PR. It’s not the PR that’s bad. It’s the complete lack of any visible progress and success. They have, so far, absolutely nothing to show for other than quite a few dubious and some really bad moves they have made. I don’t think they have provided the fans with any reasons whatsoever to put trust into them.
Im going to disagree re ETH and im on the record in the days after the FA Cup win saying that for whatever reason ETH and this club/group of players was not a good fit and it was time to go, regardless of the FA Cup win and regardless of wether or not the club didn't think there were "better alternatives" whatever that means. Not at it matters what i think!
INEOS / Ashworth were looking at alternatives. That leaked. If the players were not with him at the end of the 23/24 season, they were never going to be coming into 24/25 once they knew United were looking at other managers. Giving him a new contract obviously didn't signal to the players that he was the man, long term.
The quotes from Varane recently told us that things were not harmonious.
I don't know what Ashworths roles and responsibilities were and whether he should have been the one to decide on keeping a manager or not. But it seems like he was given that decision. Plus, when Berrada started work officially (mid July i believe) the Ten Hag extension was done.
It feels like when Berrada came in, there was too much overlap in roles. Maybe between Ashworth and Wilcox, or others. These things happen when a new structure is built.
The Ashworth situation was embarrassing, but better to get rid than keep him around.
I do blame INEOS for this though because i feel Berrada was the man to come in and build the structure, given his City experience. Not for Jim and Brailsford to go hire who they though was "best in class" without knowing what Berrada wanted.
Agree. Jim really has been dealt a bad hand when buying his stake in United. The club are in a terrible financial situation all thanks to the Glazers.
Had he not injected cash then feck knows where we would be right now. And i think we can all agree the "football operations" side of United was not exactly ran well pre INEOS.
The sacking of back office staff would have happened without INEOS, im sure.
I am surprised that INEOS have been so involved on the business side of things though as the original plan seemed to be for INEOS to just control football operations. The Glazers seem to have passed over all control, and with it, the blame.
Agree. I think unless anyone can prove otherwise, the Qatar bid was nothing but a PR stunt.
No I am no financial expert but I also know something... Musk and Bezoz dont go buying the biggest companies to make profit...
Do you think Musk bought Twitter for profit?
You seem to know alot about wealth so let me put the scenario to you.
As you think INEOS and SJR bought the club to make profit... so answer me this:
You have been given 5 examples, City, Chelsea, Liverpool and others in the championship, where you buy a club sub 500m, invest in it and in 10 years it doubles or triples in value, good plan right?
You get excited seeing these doubling and tripling so you decide to go buy the biggest club in England, paying over market value for 27% of the share, but you dont want to invest, as you are only there for profit...
What is the better option.. spend £1.5bn for 27% or go buy a sub 500m, spend 500m in investment and double the value?
I think it wont take a financial expert to tell me what the better deal is.
Yes he’s definitely not some red knight saviour but he’s also not some vulture here to asset strip and turn some imaginary quick profit.
You’ve hit the nail on the head essentially which is that at the price he has invested he needs to club to be successful in order to be breaking even let alone making a profit. How/if he gets there is of course another point but I do think a lot of this cost cutting is to ensure we can invest in the team still, again whether people agree with how it’s being done is a choice fans have to make.
I would hope if he does turn it round at least some of the perks and benefits will return for employees as cost cutting becomes less important but I won’t be holding my breath.
Short term bias at it again. They have nothing to show ? Really?
I can remember almost everyone on here 3/4 years ago talking about how we need a modern structure at this football club. They have put a football structure or at least trying to.. but you ofcourse wont see that, doesn't suit your agenda.
We as fans also said, we need to stop overpaying and stop buying mercenaries, we had a better transfer policy.
We said.. we need to improve infrastructure... what has happened? We investing in Carrington and looking at a new stadium.
But ofcourse they sacked a manager so it means they have done nothing.
It's difficult to respond since you disprove your own argument in the same post and what you are arguing doesn't really make sense to me.
You asked for owners who sold a club for more than they bought it for. I provided examples. You provided context to each example to try and explain them as if that somehow makes them not true.
Then you say that you can't make profit on a club as big as Man Utd despite the earlier examples including Liverpool and Chelsea, and also the fact that more or less every big club in Europe has increased in value over the past decade.
You bring up profit margin and claim that big clubs have lower profit margins (says who?) and that means 'it's deluded to think you will make a profit on an expensive club'. But straight after you mention Arsenal, a 'big club' that was bought for £1b which is now worth more than double.
You keep claiming that Ratcliffe is a unique billionaire who doesn't care about making money and that Man Utd won't make money anyway. Your argument seems to be that we shouldn't criticise Ratcliffe or Ineos because they were duped into buying an expensive club and they clearly won't be able to make a profit out of it, so we should instead sympathise with them and conclude that everything they do, they are doing because they love the club and want to win trophies?
The part about a club being a community asset is so true, it needs to be protected at all costs.
And fan ownership would do exactly that, ruin any club of a decent size never mind United, the forums here are proof that you could never get anyone to agree on anything
Agree, think people confuse fans being members of the club and having a say who is the president of their club, or fans being percentage owners of a club. I definitely wouldn't fancy a club our size being entirely owned by fans. They would never as you say agree on anything.
In prestige terms yes, in investment/revenue/profit terms nope
The Green Bay Packers are one of the most successful teams in US-sports and function exactly the way you don’t want to.
So why do you think it is at its highest value? Aren't we on-the-brink, about to collapse, near bankruptcy, needing to jettison 40% of the workforce just to survive?
I started a long ass post about the clubs financial situation and how the layoffs will hurt the club in the long run, not help stabilize it. But then I deleted the 750+ words I had previously typed and will just conclude with this: The soul of Manchester has left Old Trafford.