Club ownership | Senior management team talk

Apart from the uneccesary cuts and staff class system, I do have faith that this set of owners will manage us through a £2bn stadium rebuild.

We've bought young, promosing players that didn't cost the world, and it seems we'll continue to do that rather than spunking £60m+ on more flops. It means that we potentially will have a solid base when our finances really hit the fan mid-stadium construction.
 
Insanity said:
He owns two other football clubs and has made some boneheaded decisions here.

I am sorry but got to laugh that you think I was talking about his time here. :lol::lol:
Click to expand...

I don’t want to sound like I’m just making excuses for them but they were clear from day 1 with Nice, in terms of what they wanted to do. They weren’t going to pump money in, they wanted to make them self sufficient and slowly build to compete. But you’ve got to keep in mind who their competition is. If they can get us self sufficient once again then it’ll be different as we have the revenue to actually spend on a competitive team, unlike Nice.

I think deep down you know all this but you’re just being purposefully daft to ignore the clear differences and have a rant. He’s probably already invested more money into us than his other cubs combined. If 2 or 3 years down the line we’re still a shit show, then let’s talk. But I can’t see that being the case as there already making moves that some of us have been calling for (getting rid of overpaid players, new stadium, not being held to ransom over fees etc). I’m very confident we’ll be in better shape financially at least.
 
KStandBarmyArmy1993 said:
I really wish people would call out the "billion fans" nonsense.

It's a lie that has become truth very quickly.

Click to expand...


The number they gave was always 500 million. Somehow doubled in our worst period in decades.

Maybe they just add up all there social media impressions for a given period and decide that is the figure.
 
devilish said:
Stop being dramatic. Name me someone who would rather lose 3b-4b then sell
Click to expand...
I wasn't the one being dramatic, the poster claimed they'd rather the club went bankrupt...that's dramatic.

I'm being realistic amongst many many posts of people having made up their minds about SJR without listening.
 
Champ said:
I wasn't the one being dramatic, the poster claimed they'd rather the club went bankrupt...that's dramatic.

I'm being realistic amongst many many posts of people having made up their minds about SJR without listening.
Click to expand...

Just the usual amount of hyperbole. The ‘doris the tea lady’ thing is my favourite.

Tbh what business on the planet thats losing hundreds of millions is employing someone to make and hand out cups of tea? Like is the club seen as some sort of Hogwarts and shes like the trolley lady? Do we/did we even have a tea lady? I dont even remember the last time I worked anywhere that didn't just have a staff kitchen or welfare facility and you help yourself.

Its a weirder take that we should have one than that we shouldn't. Under any circumstance.

How can people complain about the debt then scream about any cost cutting measures taken? What do people want?
 
OverratedOpinion said:
The number they gave was always 500 million. Somehow doubled in our worst period in decades.

Maybe they just add up all there social media impressions for a given period and decide that is the figure.
Click to expand...
It's probably a fraction of 500 million tbh. I think 100 million (which is still an insane amount) reflects actual people who might be genuine fans of the club rather than just those who maybe watch a match on TV occasionally or bought a Beckham shirt in the early 2000s.
 
Champ said:
I wasn't the one being dramatic, the poster claimed they'd rather the club went bankrupt...that's dramatic.

I'm being realistic amongst many many posts of people having made up their minds about SJR without listening.
Click to expand...
Fair enough
 
Just watched the interview. I thought he came across okay, I appreciate his honesty and transparency. He didn't have to do the interview, it's more than we have got from the Yank leeches.
 
KStandBarmyArmy1993 said:
It's probably a fraction of 500 million tbh. I think 100 million (which is still an insane amount) reflects actual people who might be genuine fans of the club rather than just those who maybe watch a match on TV occasionally or bought a Beckham shirt in the early 2000s.
Click to expand...

I remember hearing that Asian fans follow players , not clubs. I can see this being more and more the case, especially when I think of Woodwards “never had more traffic to website until Pogba joined” comments. Even bringing twiter celebrity Ronaldo back for one last hurrah was probably net positive cost for the fans he brings alone.

Hearing about that charity match for the online fifa guys playing at Wembley was quite surprising but not surprising. I really feel like the way the sport is going , fans will have a very different relationship with clubs.

If the yanks had their way , united would already be out of the EPL , in the super league and probably looking to see what country/council will build a stadium for the club. It’s what they did with their American football team.
 
I'm not a big believer in Ineos as I think they've made some costly mistakes already.

However, I thought Ratcliffe's interview was fine — I didn't have much of an issue with any of his answers and it all seemed quite sensible. He clearly has the right sort of ambition for the club.

On the subject of cuts and redundancies, he said we're aiming for a total headcount of 700. That seems about right to me and in line with comparable clubs. Sadly, there's no way to cut down a bloated organisation without people losing their jobs and unnecessary spending being slashed. Hopefully it'll put us on a stable financial footing asap.

One thing's for sure, they can't afford any more expensive cock ups like Ashworth and Ten Hag. It looks like they've bet the house on Amorim — fingers crossed they're right.
 
MikeUpNorth said:
I'm not a big believer in Ineos as I think they've made some costly mistakes already.

However, I thought Ratcliffe's interview was fine — I didn't have much of an issue with any of his answers and it all seemed quite sensible. He clearly has the right sort of ambition for the club.

On the subject of cuts and redundancies, he said we're aiming for a total headcount of 700. That seems about right to me and in line with comparable clubs. Sadly, there's no way to cut down a bloated organisation without people losing their jobs and unnecessary spending being slashed. Hopefully it'll put us on a stable financial footing asap.

One thing's for sure, they can't afford any more expensive cock ups like Ashworth and Ten Hag. It looks like they've bet the house on Amorim — fingers crossed they're right.
Click to expand...

He's on a much shorter contract compared to previous managers to be fair
 
red_de_pologne said:
He's on a much shorter contract compared to previous managers to be fair
Click to expand...
You're right. I mostly meant in terms of building a squad suited to Amorim's style of play. In the interview, Ratcliffe acknowledged the players don't fit our new way of playing.
 
OverratedOpinion said:
The number they gave was always 500 million. Somehow doubled in our worst period in decades.

Maybe they just add up all there social media impressions for a given period and decide that is the figure.
Click to expand...
There are loads of people who follow various football social media groups who don't support the team. I have joined a Barcelona X site but I don't support Barca, I am just interested in some of their players.
 
MikeUpNorth said:
I'm not a big believer in Ineos as I think they've made some costly mistakes already.

However, I thought Ratcliffe's interview was fine — I didn't have much of an issue with any of his answers and it all seemed quite sensible. He clearly has the right sort of ambition for the club.

On the subject of cuts and redundancies, he said we're aiming for a total headcount of 700. That seems about right to me and in line with comparable clubs. Sadly, there's no way to cut down a bloated organisation without people losing their jobs and unnecessary spending being slashed. Hopefully it'll put us on a stable financial footing asap.

One thing's for sure, they can't afford any more expensive cock ups like Ashworth and Ten Hag. It looks like they've bet the house on Amorim — fingers crossed they're right.
Click to expand...
Pretty much spot on. Think someone pointed out that compared to similar stature clubs like Real etc. United are quite bloated on the off the pitch staffing side of things.
 
KStandBarmyArmy1993 said:
It's probably a fraction of 500 million tbh. I think 100 million (which is still an insane amount) reflects actual people who might be genuine fans of the club rather than just those who maybe watch a match on TV occasionally or bought a Beckham shirt in the early 2000s.
Click to expand...
Rounded up to the nearest billion. Nothing wrong with that.
 
Haven't had time to listen to this yet but from reading the transcript of the BBC interview I don't see why he had to start naming players that they are still paying for this summer. Or at least just use Sancho as the example given he's effectively been sold already. To bring up some of them and not others is stupid, Hojlund's confidence must be at rock bottom already so imagine how he feels being classed as 'someone we inherited whether we like it or not'.
 
Its clear in the interview SJR was throwing the blame on the Glazers, Woody, etc. but due to non-disparagement contracts he cant come right out and say it. But I'm glad Gary actually pushed him to acknowledge that the Glazers are the reason we are in this mess. While I think SJR is actually trying to do the right thing, he unfortunately doesnt have the cash needed to turn us around in any meaningful amount of time. We needed someone like the Qataris to come in and pay off the debt or at least a big chunk of it to get us net positive again. Even with all INEOS cost saving measures, I dont see how we can get whole anytime soon when we are still paying 35 mil a year in interest (which will increase in coming years), not making a dent in the overall debt, and still trying to invest in the squad/stadium/infrastructure. Its just not feasible without the Glazers putting money into the club and theres no way in hell that happens.
 
IRN-BRUno said:
Haven't had time to listen to this yet but from reading the transcript of the BBC interview I don't see why he had to start naming players that they are still paying for this summer. Or at least just use Sancho as the example given he's effectively been sold already. To bring up some of them and not others is stupid, Hojlund's confidence must be at rock bottom already so imagine how he feels being classed as 'someone we inherited whether we like it or not'.
Click to expand...

It's tough but it's life. Modern professionals need to be better adept at dealing with criticism. This newer generation can't handle any form of chastisement which produces weak willed character.

No one internally at the club has said anything outrageous about Rasmus, personal abuse and name calling is obviously exempt but this is from sentiment online not a professional embodiment.
 
Raoul said:
Casemiro, Hojlund, and Onana can’t be feeling very positive this morning.

Click to expand...


Casemiro was a relic. We fell into the same trap as with the likes of Matic and Sanchez. Onana is a £54m Taibi. I sympathise a bit with Hojlund - the pressure on him to be number one striker with his age and experience from the get go was too extreme as well as the fact he isnt £72m worth. How/why we pay these fees and wages for players is a question that underlines the last decade.

He’s only saying what everyone knows. The noises are that the players who are unwanted or are leaving already know so if those players are under that bracket it cant really upset them too much
 
Jezpeza said:
Just the usual amount of hyperbole. The ‘doris the tea lady’ thing is my favourite.

Tbh what business on the planet thats losing hundreds of millions is employing someone to make and hand out cups of tea? Like is the club seen as some sort of Hogwarts and shes like the trolley lady? Do we/did we even have a tea lady? I dont even remember the last time I worked anywhere that didn't just have a staff kitchen or welfare facility and you help yourself.

Its a weirder take that we should have one than that we shouldn't. Under any circumstance.

How can people complain about the debt then scream about any cost cutting measures taken? What do people want?
Click to expand...
What people want is their cake and to be able to eat it
 
JediSith said:
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.
Click to expand...

He's also capable of making the simple look difficult. His passing and striking is incredibly erratic, and too often under hit.
 
I give Jimmy credit for granting the interview. And he gets credit in the bank for his candor. Agave off a few points, however, for slagging active players. He still doesn’t come across as someone who inspires a lot of confidence in his ability to run, or co-run since the Glazers are still here, a massive football club. But we have to be hopeful that this dawn will not be a false dawn and that under his leadership we’ll be able to break into the top six once again. Any expectations beyond that would have rely on top clubs falling apart.
 
Red in STL said:
What people want is their cake and to be able to eat it
Click to expand...

Well yeah. I hate the Glazers. Their debt and dividends are killing us. I think its morally wrong to have taken dividends with no regard to the club, its fans, addressing the debt. To take dividends when you know it puts a load of people out of work on the other side of the fence.

The reality for Jim is that they are majority owners. He cant stop them doing it. They are entitled to do it, regardless of our or his opinions on it.

He can only solve the financial situation by touching things he can get his hands on.

They are selfish bastards, iam 99% certain they will only fully sell when the club is debt free. They aren't letting that £650m and overdraft dent their share of the sale price by even a penny. Jims mission is to get the club to that point to get them out. Until then, he has to work with them so he cant shoot them to bits in an interview.

All we ever were to them was a sports soccer franchise, a means to make money.
 
Yeah he’s very clearly talking about amortisation in the second clip with a very obvious edit inbetween

Though the part where he says “and that’s why we ended up signing a couple of…. Dutch players” was some great Office-esque comic timing, fair play.
 
Last edited:
lex talionis said:
I give Jimmy credit for granting the interview. And he gets credit in the bank for his candor. Agave off a few points, however, for slagging active players. He still doesn’t come across as someone who inspires a lot of confidence in his ability to run, or co-run since the Glazers are still here, a massive football club. But we have to be hopeful that this dawn will not be a false dawn and that under his leadership we’ll be able to break into the top six once again. Any expectations beyond that would have rely on top clubs falling apart.
Click to expand...


I think in regards of taking about players he is actually talking as a fan rather than an owner.

The bit about he meets with Amorim and tries to tell him what to do until Amorim tells him to feck off is him very much being a fan too
 
Only about six minutes into the overlap interview and a bit sickened by it already. Don't see how this will help things at all.
 
Matt851 said:
How can Ratcliffe honestly say he doesn't get free lunches
Click to expand...

Because he doesnt?
He may expense them or pay for them on a company charge card - from the money the business he owns makes.
Do you get free lunches at work?
 
diarm said:
The plan is putting guys like Barrada, Wilcox, Vivell etc in place and having a modern footballing structure finally.

The plan is developing a new, world class stadium with 30k extra seats.

The plan is finally redeveloping the training facilities to match our competitors.

And yes, the plan is to streamline the club and wipe out the bloat and inefficiencies. You may not think that is relevant to what happens on the field but anyone who has worked in a well structured big organisation as well as a poorly structured one knows the role cohesion and efficiency plays.

You claim cutting the work force and staff meals won’t make us competitive, but these are massive sums of money we are talking about. It’s not simply the wage and the price of a shepherds pie, although 450 people at 40k a year (it’ll be way more than that as loads of executive positions were cut), along with employers liabilities and associated staffing costs is around £25m a year.

I have first hand experience as to the cost of running a kitchen that can provide meals for 1200 people a day - it’s outrageous. Cutting those staff meals could easily save another £5m a year - up to double that if the facilities weren’t run efficiently which would surprise absolutely nobody.

I know far less about running executive cars between Manchester and London weekdays, and various other matchday locations, but I imagine it’s far from insignificant.

People need to take a step back and use their heads. Nobody likes to see people losing jobs or perks, but without a football club none of the jobs exist at all. Anybody suggesting we should be taking on more debt so we can maintain 500 more staff than our competitors and provide them with a free canteen as well needs to give their head a wobble.
Click to expand...
I never said it's not relevant. Nor did I say I disagree with it, or that it's not necessary. I said it's not sufficient. We can do all of that, and none of it will in itself make us a contending team again. So, I'd like to hear something from sir Jim that tells me he's got some idea of how that'll happen other than cutting costs and building a new stadium.
 
justsomebloke said:
I never said it's not relevant. Nor did I say I disagree with it, or that it's not necessary. I said it's not sufficient. We can do all of that, and none of it will in itself make us a contending team again. So, I'd like to hear something from sir Jim that tells me he's got some idea of how that'll happen other than cutting costs and building a new stadium.
Click to expand...

But you don't want to hear it.

Because they've changed the manager, the footballing structure, the training ground, some of the difficult personalities in the squad, the stadium and now today the head of sports medicine, and you're still acting like they're doing nothing.

Absolutely nobody has suggested that cost cutting is the only way to get the club back on track. There are a whole range of things that need to be improved but those improvements don't happen overnight. We can see the changes being implemented in real time.

If you want to bury your head in the sand and shout about Ratcliffe and the new regime not doing anything in spite of 6 months of evidence to the contrary, then I don't know what to say to you.
 
Raoul said:
Casemiro, Hojlund, and Onana can’t be feeling very positive this morning.

Click to expand...


This here should be illegal, stitching together two parts of an interview to rage bait is diabolical.

Fans no better though, they lap it up as gospel instead of watching the video.
 
SJR paid 1.25 Billions to Glazers as part of 25% stake, so I am baffled why not Glazers inject some that money into club? that way we could have good transfer kitty in this summer atleast?
 
Bobby_2024 said:
SJR paid 1.25 Billions to Glazers as part of 25% stake, so I am baffled why not Glazers inject some that money into club? that way we could have good transfer kitty in this summer atleast?
Click to expand...
Why on earth are you baffled by that? Their whole existence is to take what they can from the club
 
romufc said:
I dont know what you are saying in the first sentence... but ok.

Thats the thing, you are clearly not reading or listening to what is said, he has never said future greatness comes through cost cutting, he is saying these are necessary for the moment because we are losing so much money. There actually was a notion of the future plan, not over spend, being the most profitable club meaning more money to spend on players.

No, what he is doing is telling you, we are writing cheques worth up to £89m on players that aren't good enough, Sancho was example used, paying for a player that isnt playing for us... Antony... Casemiro who are not good enough. He was not trying to teach you amortisation, he is giving you an indication of how bad the recruitment has been.

It is wildy irresponsible... paying 90m for Antony is irresponsible... I mean if you cannot see that then fair enough. Paying 72m for a player we are now selling 3 years later for 25m.. yep you think its responsible mortgaging that...

Oh so paying 90m for Antony, 60m for Mount, 70m Hojlund 70 Casemiro etc... is not the reason we cant spent money, when 2 years on none of them are good enough.
Click to expand...

Sorry mate, but you seem to be the one who's neither listening or reading here.

First sentence: What I'm saying is, obviously, in response to your argument that he needs to say these things because most fans don't understand them. To which I'm pointing out that I'm pretty sure most fans are well up to speed regarding the quality shortcomings of the players, and the issues arising from the how the club has been run.

No, he's not saying that future greatness comes through cost-cutting. But nor does he talk about how else that is going to happen, not here and not elsewhere either. What he is doing is to talk almost exclusively about cost-cutting. If he's got further ideas, it'd be nice to hear them.

I've not written anything whatsoever that could, even with the wildest imagination, be construed as thinking anything other than that 90m for Antony was preposterous.

And if you could only read before replying, you'd already know that my point is the same one as you seem to be arguing, namely that the problem is not that we spent a load of money on players, but that we spent a load of money on shit players. Players who were so shit that we now need to move them on in order to improve. That doesn't mean it's a bad thing we're still paying for Sancho and Antony, compared to the alternative, which was to pay for them right away. Payment deferred is an advantage, but it's always possible to use that advantage to dig yourself a bigger hole. As indeed we have. Possibly Ratcliffes point was how bad recruitment has been, but if so that's an odd way to make it.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.