Club ownership | Senior management team talk

[Stinkypete]

He says Amorim is doing a good job but i disagree with him.
This Team finished 8th and won the FA cup so I really don’t understand what he means there.
The whole world can see that this team has underachieved under Amorim this season.
This season has been a right off but hopefully they get it right next season.

He puts it into context during the interview. If you adjust wages for players actually available to Ruben we are nowhere near Liverpool. He's saying considering current circumstances. Perfectly reasonable outlook knowing that the team will have to be invested in.

 

[gaffs]

Edit: This post needs to be edited because I didn't see there was a longer interview, and I don't want to spend more time doing it.

That's a very insightful interview. Gary Neville couldn't ask some key questions for obvious reasons - tougher questions would not have been cleared before the interview, and the interview would not have probably been aired if Neville had deviated real-time (besides the fact that it would be career suicide at Sky). But SJR's answers to the questions he did ask were insightful nonetheless.

1) SJR and co are far more sensitive to press coverage and fan protests than the Glazers were. This does not necessarily mean that they act on it, or change course because of it (the gutting of personnel at the club as clear evidence) but the timing of the interview, the mention of the 'daily report card', and the fact that Gary Neville was allowed to bring up the fan protests indicate that upper management is feeling the heat - at the very least, they're not as apathetic to the state of affairs as the Glazers were, whose only means of appeasing/acknowledging discontent was to throw more money at misguided transfers (while plunging the club deeper into debt). Protests will be heard, boos at the stadium will be heard, and while it may not lead to immediate change, it leaves an impression as opposed to screaming into the void.

A positive thing that we at least have a (part) owner who is willing to speak to fans via the media.

2) We don't know his assessment of the Glazers. When Gary asks him if he understood why the fans were unhappy, SJR mentioned only the results. He avoided mentioning the club's financial state, or his own brutal firing of club staff, or the debt, or the financial state of needing to sell to buy. Neville clearly didn't push back, but this is telling. There is no way he didn't see the 'Glazers Out' banner or social media hashtags for someone who is so attuned to the state of the club - so you wonder why he wouldn't even acknowledge the criticism of the Glazers. Is it simpy because it is unwise to antagonize a business relationship if you can avoid it, or - the more sinister possibility - is it because he sympathizes with the Glazers and believes this is necessary collateral in business decisions that non-billionaire fans would never understand? In other words, is he just like the Glazers himself with only the added caveat of caring about footballing structure? He claims to be a fan, but is he one of us, or is he one of them? If you can't tell, you know the answer.

We are not going to get his assessment either. Not while they are the majority owners.

I dont think there is any sympathy for the Glazers. There was no indication of that.

3) He provides no reasoning for the 'tough' calls. "If you didn't like how United have been since Sir Alex retired, you have to accept there has to be a period of change otherwise things will continue to be the same - and change is uncomfortable." He doesn't offer much to defend why his course of change is the 'right' one - why was it necessary to fire the staff you did? Why was it necessary to consider selling youth talents to raise funds? Why is it necessary to stop the meals at Carrington? Why did Amorim have to come in at such a tough moment? Why was Ashworth let go? Why was he given no loanee support during this window when the top earners as you put it were sent out or unavailable? Perhaps too much to include in such a small interview, but you wonder if he's just another deluded billionaire who is blindly backing difficult decisions (DOGE-decision making, like someone mentioned in this thread) or if he is actually taking the effort to make sure he's making the right footballing calls.

He said that the club would run out of money in December if cuts were not made.

From the Guardian...
"Ratcliffe emphasised the necessity of these cuts, saying the club would have gone bust by this coming Christmas without them. The Guardian first revealed Ratcliffe’s fears over United running out of money in February.

“Manchester United would have run out of cash by the end of this year – by the end of 2025 – after having me put $300m [£232.72m] in and if we buy no new players in the summer,” he said. “We are in the process of change and it’s an uncomfortable period and disruptive and I do feel sympathy with the fans. The simple answer is the club runs out of money at Christmas if we don’t do those things.

“The club had got bloated so we reduced that and will finish it with a lean and efficient organisation. That’s how we will address the costs. The player decisions will all be focused on how we are going to improve performance. That’s all.”"

4) SJR seems attuned to the footballing side of things - with two concerning caveats (next point). The way he talked about the difficulty of assessing ETH's performances as a function of the manager vs a function of the club's footballing structure is encouraging. The way he contextualizes Amorim's challenges in terms of basic footballing concepts like injuries, squad composition, mid-season adaptability in the PL, bedding-in-time for his new signings (the Zirkzee example was illuminating) is an improvement over his predecessors. Of course he has to back his man right now, so the support itself was unsurprising - I'm only saying that the reasons were heartening. All of this would have been very promising if not for:

4a) Caveat 1: "Erik had a voice, which is why there were one or two Dutch players." What the feck? How on earth do you talk about all the right things so far, and then revert back to 'we signed Dutch players because of the Dutch manager'? Why is that a qualifier? How does that make players manager-agnostic? What does that say about your 'footballing structure' and its relationship with the scouting system? How are you any different from your predecessor? Does this mean we're signing Quenda because of the manager and not because he's a good fit? Will we have to get rid of 'Amorim's signings' if we change managers? This was alarming.

I see what you mean. But it equally could have been quite innocent and just a way to illustrate the point that ETH was a part of the decision making process.

Amorim will be too.

We are not at the stage to be "manager agnostic". Especially nowe we have a manager who players a unique system, therefore is more qualified to know the profile better than any suit.

Do you really think Jason Wilcox, or even a team of data analysts (which we dont have) know better than Amorim at this stage?

Like it or now, the manager will have a say, but not the only say.

4b) Caveat 2: He is wrong about the 'available players' salary bill' math.



This already reduces Rashford/Antony wages to the loan-adjusted amount, and we're still 3rd in the list.



Removing the wages for the loaned out / generally unavailable players (Mount, Sancho, Shaw, Rashford) entirely still puts us at 135M/annum - which is 5th above Liverpool.
Let's say we also remove available but no longer first XI players as well (Casemiro, Lindelof, Evans) - we're still at 8th highest with 108.3M/annum.
If we also remove the long term injuries in the squad right now (Licha, Amad) - we're still at 9th highest with over 96M/annum.

So this talk of available players' wages to defend the manager is bullshit - I hope these fine margins are not lost on a man who is not above firing the tea lady to save a couple of bucks. At best, he is generalizing for the sake of it, at worst he is unaware.

Bayindir

Maguire Evans Martinez

Dorgu Maninoo Ugarte Shaw

Diallo Rashford Mount

Now, this may not add up to the number Ratcliffe talked about, but it is a significant number of players who could arguably beat the 11 we put out yesterday.

5) SJR provides non-answers for the ETH fiasco. He claims they had very little time to make a call given how people were just coming in. That's a lie and a half-answer - you had time even before the season ended, and time till the next season began, and you talked to other managers as well. You caused this delay in the first place - no mention of the delay to get Ashworth and no mention of what his input was or why he was so expensively let go. There was enough time, and by your own admission you got it wrong - why? Why wouldn't you provide a clean answer?

There's half an hour of my life I won't get back, I don't know why I keep doing this to myself.

I disagree here. I think it may have been to early to asses if the issue was down to ETH, down to the lack of structure or even down to the player.
Put it another way, do we for sure know the answer why today? Can anyone say for certain ETH was the issue?
I would suggest perhaps not given that we have not seen the new manager bouch, which normally indicates the players were underperforming under a prior manager.

Plus, he has to be careful not to throw mud at either ETH or Ashworth. He took the blame and said we got it wrong. I have not heard many of the 75+ % of United fans who wanted ETH to stay post the FA cup say they also got it wrong?[/QUOTE]

 

[Jezpeza]

Interested in the stadium bit, he said we are £650m plus an overdraft in debt.

I assume we look for investments and loans to finance a stadium - mooted at £2-3bn. Considering we are at present a mid table side and already heavily in debt, how attractive a proposition is that to lenders/investors? Will brand power overcome that?

 

[Jezpeza]

Just listening to the interview while at work.

The one thing that has struck me out of all of this is that we now have an owner who cares. SJR cares enough to front up and do this interview - the Glazer rats never did anything like this.

He cares enough to recognise the state of the club and is trying to put it right, which means making hard decisions along the way. He also owned up to his feck up of keeping Ten Hag on in the summer.

He didn't make this mess (well, most of it) but he's doing what he can to clean up the catastrophic mess the Glazer rats left behind.

I say let him do what he needs to do. Maybe I'm just being hopelessly optimistic. But at least he is caring enough to do something. The rats would have just kept mismanaging us until we went bankrupt.

I think he’s very sensible. He’s not the sort of owner who's going to treat it like a toy. The playing squad has had money thrown at it to no end with no real results.

A key takeaway is I kind of get the impression that the financial situation probably takes 5 years to sort out. I think the days of mega money signings are done tbh.

 

[Stinkypete]

Did Ashworth want another type of manager?

I feel it was the lack of ambition that got Ashworth the sack in the end honestly. Ashworth was a part of building this Ten Hag FC. His choice to give him more time during the first emergency meeting. He cost them time, European qualification and his choices for manager were unambitious to say the least Thomas Frank. Insane.

I think Ashworth believed they needed a lot more time than this project demands.

I think Berrada said hold up, I'll deliver.

 

[Stinkypete]

Wait!!…he just said we don’t have data analysis. Wtf

Find that astonishing

He literally said when he first took over how far behind the times United are behind the scenes on things like that. This is not a surprise at all.

 

[Stinkypete]

Edit: This post needs to be edited because I didn't see there was a longer interview, and I don't want to spend more time doing it.

That's a very insightful interview. Gary Neville couldn't ask some key questions for obvious reasons - tougher questions would not have been cleared before the interview, and the interview would not have probably been aired if Neville had deviated real-time (besides the fact that it would be career suicide at Sky). But SJR's answers to the questions he did ask were insightful nonetheless.

1) SJR and co are far more sensitive to press coverage and fan protests than the Glazers were. This does not necessarily mean that they act on it, or change course because of it (the gutting of personnel at the club as clear evidence) but the timing of the interview, the mention of the 'daily report card', and the fact that Gary Neville was allowed to bring up the fan protests indicate that upper management is feeling the heat - at the very least, they're not as apathetic to the state of affairs as the Glazers were, whose only means of appeasing/acknowledging discontent was to throw more money at misguided transfers (while plunging the club deeper into debt). Protests will be heard, boos at the stadium will be heard, and while it may not lead to immediate change, it leaves an impression as opposed to screaming into the void.

2) We don't know his assessment of the Glazers. When Gary asks him if he understood why the fans were unhappy, SJR mentioned only the results. He avoided mentioning the club's financial state, or his own brutal firing of club staff, or the debt, or the financial state of needing to sell to buy. Neville clearly didn't push back, but this is telling. There is no way he didn't see the 'Glazers Out' banner or social media hashtags for someone who is so attuned to the state of the club - so you wonder why he wouldn't even acknowledge the criticism of the Glazers. Is it simpy because it is unwise to antagonize a business relationship if you can avoid it, or - the more sinister possibility - is it because he sympathizes with the Glazers and believes this is necessary collateral in business decisions that non-billionaire fans would never understand? In other words, is he just like the Glazers himself with only the added caveat of caring about footballing structure? He claims to be a fan, but is he one of us, or is he one of them? If you can't tell, you know the answer.

3) He provides no reasoning for the 'tough' calls. "If you didn't like how United have been since Sir Alex retired, you have to accept there has to be a period of change otherwise things will continue to be the same - and change is uncomfortable." He doesn't offer much to defend why his course of change is the 'right' one - why was it necessary to fire the staff you did? Why was it necessary to consider selling youth talents to raise funds? Why is it necessary to stop the meals at Carrington? Why did Amorim have to come in at such a tough moment? Why was Ashworth let go? Why was he given no loanee support during this window when the top earners as you put it were sent out or unavailable? Perhaps too much to include in such a small interview, but you wonder if he's just another deluded billionaire who is blindly backing difficult decisions (DOGE-decision making, like someone mentioned in this thread) or if he is actually taking the effort to make sure he's making the right footballing calls.

4) SJR seems attuned to the footballing side of things - with two concerning caveats (next point). The way he talked about the difficulty of assessing ETH's performances as a function of the manager vs a function of the club's footballing structure is encouraging. The way he contextualizes Amorim's challenges in terms of basic footballing concepts like injuries, squad composition, mid-season adaptability in the PL, bedding-in-time for his new signings (the Zirkzee example was illuminating) is an improvement over his predecessors. Of course he has to back his man right now, so the support itself was unsurprising - I'm only saying that the reasons were heartening. All of this would have been very promising if not for:

4a) Caveat 1: "Erik had a voice, which is why there were one or two Dutch players." What the feck? How on earth do you talk about all the right things so far, and then revert back to 'we signed Dutch players because of the Dutch manager'? Why is that a qualifier? How does that make players manager-agnostic? What does that say about your 'footballing structure' and its relationship with the scouting system? How are you any different from your predecessor? Does this mean we're signing Quenda because of the manager and not because he's a good fit? Will we have to get rid of 'Amorim's signings' if we change managers? This was alarming.

4b) Caveat 2: He is wrong about the 'available players' salary bill' math.



This already reduces Rashford/Antony wages to the loan-adjusted amount, and we're still 3rd in the list.



Removing the wages for the loaned out / generally unavailable players (Mount, Sancho, Shaw, Rashford) entirely still puts us at 135M/annum - which is 5th above Liverpool.
Let's say we also remove available but no longer first XI players as well (Casemiro, Lindelof, Evans) - we're still at 8th highest with 108.3M/annum.
If we also remove the long term injuries in the squad right now (Licha, Amad) - we're still at 9th highest with over 96M/annum.

So this talk of available players' wages to defend the manager is bullshit - I hope these fine margins are not lost on a man who is not above firing the tea lady to save a couple of bucks. At best, he is generalizing for the sake of it, at worst he is unaware.

5) SJR provides non-answers for the ETH fiasco. He claims they had very little time to make a call given how people were just coming in. That's a lie and a half-answer - you had time even before the season ended, and time till the next season began, and you talked to other managers as well. You caused this delay in the first place - no mention of the delay to get Ashworth and no mention of what his input was or why he was so expensively let go. There was enough time, and by your own admission you got it wrong - why? Why wouldn't you provide a clean answer?

There's half an hour of my life I won't get back, I don't know why I keep doing this to myself.

Didn't he say more or less the financial were closer to Nottingham Forest than Liverpool?

 

[DarkLord1984]

Fair play to Gary for asking such honest and blunt questions.

 

[hobbers]

Straight from the horses mouth - ETH had a say in transfers last summer 'and that's why there were 1 or 2 Dutch signings'

So not only can he take the blame for Antony, Mount, Onana and Hojlund. He can also take some blame for Zirkzee.

His humming and hawing over the ETH decision fiasco is weak as piss. But then that's what happens why you employ clowns like Brailsford as your fixers.

 

[JediSith]

He kind of admitted he didnt realise how bad the club finances were until he was in the thick of it

That’s thinking everyone is an idiot who will believe him and think “ohhhh poor Jim didn’t know what he was getting into”

 

[JediSith]

Straight from the horses mouth - ETH had a say in transfers last summer 'and that's why there were 1 or 2 Dutch signings'

So not only can he take the blame for Antony, Mount, Onana and Hojlund. He can also take some blame for Zirkzee.

Zirkzee is is showing signs of being one of our most skilful players. I’ve been saying it for months, but I’d have thought in recent matches more people would have started to realise.

 

[RedDevil@84]

At least the "Amorim is just a few signings away from awesomeness" gang can shut up.
We are broke. So Amorim maybe a few years away, if he survives.

Hopefully this results in clubs not asking for a Man Utd tax on player transfers. We are broke.

 

[hobbers]

Zirkzee is is showing signs of being one of our most skilful players. I’ve been saying it for months, but I’d have thought in recent matches more people would have started to realise.

He's not particularly skilful for a striker. Compared to the strikers past and present at the level we're supposed to be getting back to, he's a joke. Regardless of skill, he's never going to be fast enough or fit enough for this league anyway.

 

[Big Ben Foster]

I feel it was the lack of ambition that got Ashworth the sack in the end honestly. Ashworth was a part of building this Ten Hag FC. His choice to give him more time during the first emergency meeting. He cost them time, European qualification and his choices for manager were unambitious to say the least Thomas Frank. Insane.

I think Ashworth believed they needed a lot more time than this project demands.

I think Berrada said hold up, I'll deliver.

I don't think any of this is true

 

[imonkmc]

Odd timings for interview specially for parts about team ahead of crucial match. Media ofcourse will make up sensational headlines and stories

 

[sglowrider]

He kind of admitted he didnt realise how bad the club finances were until he was in the thick of it

Not suprising. Its clear that due diligence ain' his strongest suit, financially or otherwise. It was clear to any United fan or even outside financial experts that it was bad. Maybe thats why he overpaid for United versus what Jassim's consortim was willing to pay.

He also fecked it up with Ashworth too. And keeping/extending the contract of ETH only to sack him 10 weeks later.

He makes decisions based on gut reaction/instincts then?

 

[Redjazz]

I have always wanted to ask and maybe I should start a thread about this but…Why do so many United fans put more emphasis on Glazer taking out dividends Vs bad general management?

I personally think the biggest impact into our finances has been the Glazers letting Ed Woodward and those that followed after him to make so many bad financial decisions when it came to football. Ed Woodward went almost a decade making signings.

Just looking at the current squad…Antony, Sancho and Hojlunds fees minus any wages = more money than the Glazers have taken out in dividends. THIS is what has killed us financially!

You are right.
I suppose the reason is that it easier to put a price on dividends, and interest on the debt. We can get that info from the accounts. It's difficult to put a price on a failed football operation.
If I were ranking the Glazer cost over just the last 10 years, then, in order of significance, it would be
1) Dividends (about 200m)
2) Debt interest (about 250m)
3) Failure of the football operation (at least 500m)

As for 3:

We spent 1.2b (net spend) over the last 10 years on players -highest net spend in world football- and failed to make CL 5 times out of 10. And through a series of expensive iterations (sacking managers) the club has somehow managed to compile a team that is probably no better than its current placement in the PL table. Piss poor and panicked recruitment leads to high Amortization and poor profits on player sales in the P&L account and high net spend in the cash flow statement. Liverpool have managed the last 10 years with a net spend of around 500m. Proper recruitment costs less- player turnover is less and profit from player sales is better.
Broad strokes though it may be, the excess player costs conceivably are in the order of 300m (ignoring salaries). Factor in the exceptional costs (mostly managerial sackings), and that pushes that out to around 400m.

Failure to make CL continuously over the last 10 years hit Matchday and Broadcasting revenues by around 150m to 250m. Europa ball is a poor second place. Broadcasting revenue is high margin money as is commercial income and the failure to be a regular contender in CL has seen commercial growth lag well behind other members of the "big six" clubs. Had we managed the average growth of the others over the last 10 years, then cumulative commercial income would be 150m to 250m higher. Now revenue isn't cash, so the total revenue drop off doesn't translate to a loss of cash profits in that amount. 200m to 300m would be a reasonably conservative estimate.

So yeah, the 500m estimate is probably too conservative, but you get the picture.

I should add for some context, that most of the heavy lifting as far as debt costs are concerned was done while Fergie was at the helm. About 66% of the cash profits we made during that time were consumed by debt\glazer costs ( interest on debt, debt repayments, management charges, derivative costs, and so on). Only a 1/3 of the profits were reinvested in players and facilities. Fergie was some manager.
In the last 10 years, Dividends and debt interest swallowed about 28% of the club's profits. Well over 80% was reinvested in players (overwhelmingly) and facilities. It adds up to more than 100% because we used cash-in-hand, and a bit of debt to make ends meet. When we had no debt, back in the day before the Glazers even set sail, the club typically reinvested about 66% of its cash profits in players and facilities. The bad stuff- dividends and tax- took away about a 1/3 of the clubs profits.

In many ways, Fergie left the club in a position where the debt and the dividends shouldn't have mattered, but somehow the Glazers managed to bollox all that up.

 

[Freak]

It's a really good interview with Neville.

 

[JediSith]

He's not particularly skilful for a striker. Compared to the strikers past and present at the level we're supposed to be getting back to, he's a joke. Regardless of skill, he's never going to be fast enough or fit enough for this league anyway.

I don’t really consider him a striker. I think he’d be best as one of the 10s with either Amad or Garnacho. He’s ability is really is in his flicks and link up play, he has and effortlessly ability to make difficult things look easy, reminds me a bit of Berbatov. So when things are going wrong his style of play will look lazy and fans won’t like it. But when we’re playing well and he’s doing the types of passes that he does or scores the types of goals he can score than I think fans will appreciate him.

 

[AndySmith1990]

You have to wonder why Ratcliffe bothers really.

He's not going to make any money from the club. It's already been milked dry. And now he's the one having to fix the mess, he's also the one receiving all the criticism whilst the Glazers continue to hide in America. You can only infer that he does actually care about the club, because otherwise there is feck all point in taking over this shitshow. We're a shambles and it's going to get worse before it gets better, and he's the man in the firing line for fan anger.

 

[Freak]

I really don't see the whole free lunch thing as a massive issue in reality. Radcliffe is right, too- not a lot of people get or entitled to a free lunch just because you are an employee. It's a perk if you do.

I was more surprised when I read that there were still free lunches by an organisation in this day and age. It’s amazing that there was such a big Hoo haa about it when they made the decision to stop it.

 

[Insanity]

A snake oil salesman if I have seen one.

- Didn't know there would be so much scrutiny.
- Was shocked to the see finances. What about the forensics you did before buying the stake?
- The answer to the 40k for the player fund was "Someone should have suggested those ideas to raise funds".
- He didn't want to go to the bank to provide for "free lunches" but is more than happy to go to the bank to pay for ETH, Ashworth, interest payments etc. etc.
- Skirted on the question of repaying the debt through equity by the Glazers, who so far haven't invested little in the club and extracted a lot.
- Tried to shift all the blame to Woorward, Murtogh and Arnold giving the leeches a clean chit.
- Wants the tax payer to fund the redevelopment project.
- Jimmy's MUGA project is on full swing.

I wish he didn't come in and the club had gone bust last November. At least that way we would have permanently got rid of the Glazers and didn't have a new vulture capitalist here doing their bidding.

 

[AndySmith1990]

I was more surprised when I read that there were still free lunches by an organisation in this day and age. It’s amazing that there was such a big Hoo haa about it when they made the decision to stop it.

The company I work for (~30 staff) get free lunches on the two days we're in the office per week. But in the 8 years I've been there it's only been a thing for a couple years. We see it as a perk, not an entitlement, and if the company were in financial trouble we'd not kick up a fuss if it were taken away. I mean you don't have to be a business genius to understand that's an obvious decision

 

[lostcauz]

Can’t help but feel like he’s setting the club up to be sold again.
Sorting the finances out (with the idea to start paying back debt), planning for a new stadium with government backing for the surrounding areas, having a proper footballing structure in place and developing the training ground among other things.

He’s made the shit decisions that someone else won’t have to make and let’s see what happens in the next 12-24 months once his option to buy the rest of the club expires. I can’t see how he has the money to buy the rest of the shares and pile more debt on the club through building a new stadium. He’s making it all a more attractive proposition for someone else.
Pr move may come into play, “we couldn’t agree on the fee” or “it’s a more expensive task than we anticipated” He’s a business man at the end of the day and I don’t believe he wants to spend all his money on the club.

Wouldn’t be surprised if he and the glazers are scooping up class A shares from the stock market to convert back to class B to sell alongside their current shares to a new owner.

 

[Longshanks]

You have to wonder why Ratcliffe bothers really.

He's not going to make any money from the club. It's already been milked dry. And now he's the one having to fix the mess, he's also the one receiving all the criticism whilst the Glazers continue to hide in America. You can only infer that he does actually care about the club, because otherwise there is feck all point in taking over this shitshow. We're a shambles and it's going to get worse before it gets better, and he's the man in the firing line for fan anger.

Think you have answered your own question there. He cares about the club and believes he has the resources and knowhow to fix it.

I highly doubt he thought it would be a bed of roses and was very much aware that he would have to make difficult decisions that would get him flak.

 

[devilish]

Would have been gone? How?

They would either have sold on lower terms or they would have getting in bed with hedge funds who would, in the end, stole their club under their noses like Elliott Grp did at Milan. The latter always win.

 

[devilish]

SJR said that every expense is paid by the fand and he made fans choose between giving free lunches to employees and signing new players. Here's the compromise. What about we do both and we stop paying the interest on Glazers debt instead? Its their investment and they should pay for their debt's interest after all. I believe every fan would agree with that

 

[devilish]

Wait!!…he just said we don’t have data analysis. Wtf

Find that astonishing

I got pelted when I used to criticize Murtough for being useless. It was back in the day when the PR propaganda was that Murtough was hiring armies of data analysts and fitness people. Yet lo and behold nothing changed because of such 'changes'. We still bought the manager's pets on silly money/salary and we still had waves upon waves of injuries.

 

[Freak]

SJR said that every expense is paid by the fand and he made fans choose between giving free lunches to employees and signing new players. Here's the compromise. What about we do both and we stop paying the interest on Glazers debt instead? Its their investment and they should pay for their debt's interest after all. I believe every fan would agree with that

And what happens if the Glazers refuse to pay the debt? It falls on the club and the club and fans suffer again. People need to get over this whole free lunch fiasco. The majority of employees in the current world do not get free lunches, especially not from an organisation which is suffering financially.

 

[andersj]

4b) Caveat 2: He is wrong about the 'available players' salary bill' math.

Looking at the fiscal data and your numbers in the screenshot is very likely wrong.

 

[Lyng]

Wait!!…he just said we don’t have data analysis. Wtf

Find that astonishing

Well we did when Ineos arrived....

https://archive.trainingground.guru...f-data-science-leaves-man-utd-after-two-years

 

[gajender]

Looking at the fiscal data and your numbers in the screenshot is very likely wrong.

Its quite amusing while making a point about wages most posters prefer to use any thing but the actual published information by the Clubs.

 

[Remember the geese]

They would either have sold on lower terms or they would have getting in bed with hedge funds who would, in the end, stole their club under their noses like Elliott Grp did at Milan. The latter always win.

Ratcliffe was prepared to buy the club outright and the Glazers rejected, so not sure where the 'lower terms' come from. Hedge funds taking a small slice was the only alternative. Even if they had the intention of acquiring more of the club long term, that's no different to Ratcliffe's stance, so no better an option at all.

 

[kunal18]

Gary: What part do you say he Amorim has done a good job.
I think this sums up Ratcliffe, he's clueless

 

[MrBest]

FFP is irrelevant to how bad our financial situation is. Selling a youth player had the same financial impact long before it even existed.

Correct, the accounting is the same as it has always been. The difference in the last few years, clubs are now under even more pressure to sell youth players to balance books and to avoid points deductions. 10 years ago, if we had 5 talented players on our books, we would have had the time to let them grow and develop. Now we cannot afford to do that. Why do you think city sold palmer, delay etc? Yes they wanted more playing time but city had to take the offer to balance there books and there bargaining position to player became weaker.

 

[IncyWincySpider]

It's going to have to be a hell of a summer for Jim if he has any hope of improving things. I hope his people are actually working on a strategy because it doesn't really feel like it.

 

[DevilsOwn]

SJR said that every expense is paid by the fand and he made fans choose between giving free lunches to employees and signing new players. Here's the compromise. What about we do both and we stop paying the interest on Glazers debt instead? Its their investment and they should pay for their debt's interest after all. I believe every fan would agree with that

If only there was a way to make the Glazers pay. There isnt. Not legally. As much as we may hate it, or it being not allowed now; Glazers used a perfectly legal method at that time to buy our club with the club's own money. And we will continue to bleed money if we don't stem the outflow of money. (Losses)

You think SJR, or anyone, would happily have to involve people in decision (and/or keep happy) making who havent put any skin in the game. Especially, as he is the only person to have put any of his money into the club over the last 2decades plus?

Atleast, he has got them to not take out any dividends from the club.

 

[Terrific Tangerine]

Expenses come out of the money the company he owns makes, so he's actually paying for it himself

Oh look an American who likes Billionaires.

He doesn't own the entirety of Man Utd so no he's not.

Secondly are you honestly in agreement with him saying he doesn't benefit from free food?

Anyone 5 minutes in business knows thats not true. He's clearly misleading in the interview, suggesting there's a moral reason for stopping feeding staff as well as an economic one.

Its also obvious to anyone giving it a moments thought he will wine and dine and be wined and dined often.

Its a lie

 

[Champ]

It's going to have to be a hell of a summer for Jim if he has any hope of improving things. I hope his people are actually working on a strategy because it doesn't really feel like it.

Looks like there's a strategy already in place and already working to me.

An overhaul of the club from the ground up is taking place, the strategy has been put in place already.

 

[Leftback99]

Correct, the accounting is the same as it has always been. The difference in the last few years, clubs are now under even more pressure to sell youth players to balance books and to avoid points deductions. 10 years ago, if we had 5 talented players on our books, we would have had the time to let them grow and develop. Now we cannot afford to do that. Why do you think city sold palmer, delay etc? Yes they wanted more playing time but city had to take the offer to balance there books and there bargaining position to player became weaker.

So be run sustainably rather than run at a huge loss.