No need to apologise for that and apologies if that came across wrong, I was just frustrated as I had not anywhere said I thought they should have sacked Ten Hag in the summer but this kept being a part of your replies.
I don't agree that the cost-cutting measures they are undergoing are an effective way of dealing with the losses. The reason United are losing £100m every year is because of poor and excessive player recruitment (and bad deals) and interest payments. And yes most of those aren't INEOS fault as it is before their time, but they are taking what I consider to be a number of minor actions that aren't going to move the needle financially but great a more toxic culture and a bigger divide between the club and the fans.
I see this thing often about United having more staff than any PL club which people seem to instantly conflate as meaning they have excess staff. They are listed on the NYSE for one unlike any other PL club which results in the need of bigger finance and compliance teams, they have a bigger media department because of MUTV, they have the biggest stadium in the country which means more staff to maintain and run on matchdays, and they are simply the biggest club (business) in the country which is going to mean more administrative staff.
United's finances aren't in a great spot but they aren't so bad that they need to save £70k in bonuses for the admin staff in a cost-of-living crisis and take away the jobs of 450 of these people either. There has to be more to the way they run the club than simply looking at the numbers and treating fans and staff are expendable commodities rather than custodians of the football club. It's clear they just don't understand the impact of maintaining relationships in football between the club and the local community and it will come back to haunt them I feel.
I think every fan on here can agree that the main reason we are losing money is because of the poor recruitment and interest payments. Whilst you may think its not a needle mover, I agree that one action isn't however; when you do save in multiple areas, it is a needle mover. Saving 450 employees at average of 30k saves £13m a year, add to that the other canteen costs, £1m, SAF wage £1m, other ex players, not sure the amount, say £1m. So, that is approx £15m saving. They have also looking to save on wages of players, which is why Rashford and Antony are on loan for 6 months without replacing. Its harder to get rid of players than it is staff. Rashford and Antony wage saving could total £10m saving this season. So we could be going into the summer having saved £25m. Which is 25% of the losses we are making. It is now crucial that they also get rid of Shaw, Mount, Casemiro, Lindelof, Eriksen which in turn will probably save around £1m a week just on wages, so £52m a year. Whilst we wont save all of that as we still have to buy new players, we may get some transfer fees for them.
Whilst I agree, we are a big club but what you are also getting confused is permanent staff v temporary, where we actually have over 2800 further temporary staff we call upon during matchdays for the items you have listed.
Whilst it sucks to see people lose their jobs, businesses also need to ensure their long term sustainability, making the company more efficient is natural. We have seen plenty of businesses reduce number of staff for various reasons. The rise in technology and AI, means some low level admin jobs can be reduced in favour of that. We have seen this as we in the last quarter of 2024, we have invested heavily into a new e-commerce model, a cost of £6m.
I understand you feel that they do not care about the community, yet they could have easily just opted for the new stadium approach, instead they are looking at a regeneration scheme, which in turn will bring more jobs to the local community right? As per as profit for them ofcourse. In the short term is doesn’t look good, I agree.
