I watched the interview in full and he absolutely was trying to do that. Neville started by saying why have the Glazers not put anything from their own pocket then you don't need to fire all these people to which Jim replied: that's not the way to do it, you need to make more than you spend.
Club ownership | Senior management team talk
- Thread starter golden_blunder
- Start date
-
In the latest episode of the United Hour Podcast, Nik (@Rood) and Imran (@Annihilate Now!) are here to discuss three 1-1 draws.
The first got us knocked out of the FA Cup, the next puts us in a good position in our Round of 16 Europa League game, and the latest was an actual decent performance against Arsenal at Old Trafford.
All hopes for the season now rest on the Europa League - does Amorim have the squad to win it?
yeah. Both things can be true. I suppose part of football is identifying potential
Or maybe you should stop imagining arguments that haven't been made? Where did I write that he's done nothing? Where did I write that I expect change to happen overnight?
What I'm saying is that when he's talking about the future of the club, it'd be good if that included something besides things haven't been done well in the past, the players aren't good enough, costs need to come down and we want a big new stadium. As important and true as those things are, they hardly amount to a vision of how Man Utd fixes its problems.
Yes you're right and I know, but it just seemed rather too much to go into the distinction. Amortisation is strictly speaking how you write off value and affects mainly PSR, while payment may or may not be deferred into instalments and affects cashflow. But the same logic applies - paying in three years is better than paying now.
Has got to be a WUM
But you have made those arguments, even if you don't understand them. The same way you don't understand the difference between amortisation (the representation of depreciation of an asset on our own books) and payment in instalments (the breaking up of a transfer fee to be paid to another club in smaller parts over a number of years).
You want him to tell you about some new magic fix while ignoring all the things he has told you since Ineos bought into the club:
- They clearly told us that the footballing structure of the club was wrong and have clearly recruited, restructured and repositioned the footballing side of operations to address this.
- They told us that the training ground wasn't fit for purpose. They then spent significant money on a plan to redevelop Carrington to address this - a plan which is well on the way to completion.
- They told us recruitment has been reckless and poorly valued. They have since gone out and targeted younger talents at far more reasonable fees and wages.
- They told us the club was bloated, inefficient, overstaffed and losing money. They have addressed this at executive level, recruitment and yes - line level employment and facilities in order to arrest the financial decay. They are doing this so they can be less reliant on borrowing money and work towards bringing down the debt.
The plan is what you see happening - to stop losing money, to make better footballing focused decisions, to buy better players at better prices, to provide the players with better facilities and direction to do their jobs and to invest in the facilities and future of the football club.
What else exactly is it that you want to hear? What other clubs or organisations are providing fans with a detailed itinerary of what each department is doing on a specific day to day basis to meet their goals? What explicitly would you like to hear from a minority owner, that would paint you a clearer picture of how they plan to improve fortunes at Manchester United?
What annoyed me about this interview is not Jim’s excuses, Jim protection of the glazers, it’s listening to bloody Gary Neville saying “in this moment in time” 
He cant force the glazers to invest. He has to get the club working financially through the areas he can actually touch. Theyve identified they are overstaffed. Theyve identified we have shite players on best in the world wages. They've identified we were paying money out on perks that were just not befitting of a company losing money to the tune of triple figure millions eg 100% club subsidised lunches, executive drivers.
Do people believe we run on some magic money tree? Does no one understand that a business losing enormous amounts of money has to get back into profit or die?
Sorry for asking this as I'm sure it has been asked before.
Is Jim's end game to be the sole owner with time or is his plan to keep the Glazers as the majority owners?
Because if it is the latter he shouldn't have bought us in the first place.
Is Jim's end game to be the sole owner with time or is his plan to keep the Glazers as the majority owners?
Because if it is the latter he shouldn't have bought us in the first place.
Jesus Christ, surely it has to be possible to have a discussion without having to write acres simply because people don't read or think, and just assume that if you say F, then you also mean S and W and fecking B. Excuse me, "I have made those arguments, even if I don't understand them" ? Mate, I know what I think and don't think. Point out to me where I made those arguments. I didn't, because that's not what I think. So if you really want so badly to argue against those views, go find someone who holds them.
What do I want to hear? Oh, a lot of things immediately come to mind. I want to hear something that gives me reason to believe we are actually going to "buy better players at better prices". Not because I'm convinced we won't, but because just saying "we're going to do more with less" and "we've hired some new people" isn't much, to say the least. Such as, what's been wrong with how we've been doing recruitment? How will that change? Are we investing in better and more analytics? Or a different decision-making process maybe? Do we now have a football department and manager who are closely aligned on needs, methods and process when it comes to recruitment? If we do, it'd be nice to hear it. It would give us some actual cause to believe that we might actually be able to buy better players at better prices, rather than just hope, wait and see. Building a new stadium and cutting costs isn't going to do that. Or, what's the thinking on the balance between ambition and sustainability? Are we now committed to securing the bottom line first and ensuring financial sustainability, and only then start thinking about building towards dominance? Or are we aiming to return to prominence while simultaneously paring down costs? It's not self-evident that the latter is actually achievable, nor what the weight of priorities are, or the sequencing of it. That raises all sorts of questions, and if you want to have a credibility as someone who's likely to pull this off, then you need some semblance of having answers to them. Which to me makes it a bit baffling that we're not hearing anything about this side of the challenge. If he has the answers, he'd come across better if he shared them.
Do I think this means Ratcliffe is an incompetent fraud? No. Do I think that this means we can just assume he's got a great plan and knows exactly what he's doing? Also no. The former would be wildly premature, the latter would be wildly gullible. It's not the case that if you don't think one of those things, that means you think the opposite. As long as you don't have good reason to think one or the other, the right place to be is on the fence.
In my opinion - the Glazers now wont leave until the debts are gone. I think the endgame is to clear the debt in order to buy them out. I dont think they will lose a single penny of their sale income to satisfy the debt. Its all become very insular - the Glazers have little to do with the management team that INEOS have assmbled. They’ll just sit until someone else has cleared up all their mess and they get optimum sale price. He cant force them out unless the situation reaches a point where they are happy to sell, which I think personally is that
Fair enough.
I think Ratcliffe is the last person we should be aiming our guns on, no matter the mistakes he makes.
The guy has put his own millions to the club. Something we have not seen in decades.
For that alone, he can mistakes. Because he has proven that when it matters he is there to help the club, so his misstep is not from point on not caring.
Glazers are the worst, till now they haven't said a word about the new stadium. Imagine.
Ratcliffe is even dreaming of a new stadium. He is not perfect but he has earned his flowers for now.
I think our biggest concern now, is how we main team plays.
Sure. Hoping for the best, I guess.
So do you think the Glazers are going to magically start investing? You think he can force them? You think he can say they're ass while being billions invested into their business?
Like the job cuts suck ass, but you have to be real. He also can't pour more money into the club without any change in share, that's just dumb.
It's not new information that United overstaffed, and it's not new information that poor first team management has bled us dry. INEOS are tackling both. Staff cuts make major headlines, but they are actively trying to get the squad balanced as well.
None of it is pretty, none of it is fair, but it is our reality right now.
They're making mistakes, but clearly trying to do things right for the long term of the club. There's no football store that they can buy structure off the shelf, it will take time for the good and the bad to shape up.
I'm going to insert some spacing and paragraphs because that's an offensive lump of text. Then I'll try to address each point in the hope you might take a step back and recognise how ridiculous you're being.
You thought installed payments were the same thing as amortisation. Knowing what you think doesn't make you right.
He has literally addressed all of those questions, either last night or in previous interviews, statements or appointments.
First and foremost, we have actually, physically bought better players at better prices since Ineos came in. If you can't see the deals done and wages given to players we've signed in the past year, in comparison to what went on before, then I don't really know what to say to you. Guys like Yoro, Heaven, Chido, Dorgu, Ugarte, De Ligt and Mazraoui are objectively better pieces of recruitment than the likes of Mount, Antony, Onana, Casemiro, Sancho et al were, both in terms of suitability and in terms of value. Of course there will be outliers and mistakes, but the general trend is clearly far better.
He spoke last night to Neville about investing in data analytics and how it didn't exist at the club before. It's not the first time that has been addressed.
When appointing Berrada, Wilcox, Ashworth and Vivell - the club spoke about how the footballing structure had not been aligned and how the new team would be better streamlined with a football first focus.
He literally spoke to Neville last night about how much more closely aligned Amorim is on a daily basis to Wilcox and Berrada and touched on how Ten Hag was more isolated by comparison. He touched on the decision making process when it comes to recruitment, and who has a voice in that process.
On one hand you're saying building a new stadium and cutting costs isn't going to do that, and then on the other you are complaining about now being told about plans for sustainability or ambition.
Cutting costs is the plan to be sustainable. A business needs to spend less money than it earns.
Building a new stadium is the plan for ambition. By increasing revenues we can spend more.
We are currently spending £100m a year more than we earn. Until we reverse that, it is very difficult to be ambitious. Losing money on operations impacts our ability to improve the team and perpetuates a cycle whereby our earnings fall.
A new stadium with more seats, better corporate facilities, better non football income generating facilities and everything else that goes with it, will allow us to generate better profits and work on bringing down the debt.
None of this is rocket science.
You thought installed payments were the same thing as amortisation. Knowing what you think doesn't make you right.
He has literally addressed all of those questions, either last night or in previous interviews, statements or appointments.
First and foremost, we have actually, physically bought better players at better prices since Ineos came in. If you can't see the deals done and wages given to players we've signed in the past year, in comparison to what went on before, then I don't really know what to say to you. Guys like Yoro, Heaven, Chido, Dorgu, Ugarte, De Ligt and Mazraoui are objectively better pieces of recruitment than the likes of Mount, Antony, Onana, Casemiro, Sancho et al were, both in terms of suitability and in terms of value. Of course there will be outliers and mistakes, but the general trend is clearly far better.
He spoke last night to Neville about investing in data analytics and how it didn't exist at the club before. It's not the first time that has been addressed.
When appointing Berrada, Wilcox, Ashworth and Vivell - the club spoke about how the footballing structure had not been aligned and how the new team would be better streamlined with a football first focus.
He literally spoke to Neville last night about how much more closely aligned Amorim is on a daily basis to Wilcox and Berrada and touched on how Ten Hag was more isolated by comparison. He touched on the decision making process when it comes to recruitment, and who has a voice in that process.
On one hand you're saying building a new stadium and cutting costs isn't going to do that, and then on the other you are complaining about now being told about plans for sustainability or ambition.
Cutting costs is the plan to be sustainable. A business needs to spend less money than it earns.
Building a new stadium is the plan for ambition. By increasing revenues we can spend more.
We are currently spending £100m a year more than we earn. Until we reverse that, it is very difficult to be ambitious. Losing money on operations impacts our ability to improve the team and perpetuates a cycle whereby our earnings fall.
A new stadium with more seats, better corporate facilities, better non football income generating facilities and everything else that goes with it, will allow us to generate better profits and work on bringing down the debt.
None of this is rocket science.
Pre arrange questions set by SJR's people. Both interviews very similar.
A football club is not your regular business. I don't know how often it needs to be said.
The issue I have with the job cuts is that they are droplets in a sea of mistakes which were done by Ineos themselves. So if they are making large capital mistakes, they should inject some more of their own funds, at least to cover the day to day costs which the job / perk cuts were addressing.
Farcical. So you are losing £100m a year but you just keep doing it and borrowing money and building more debt to keep spending money on everyday operations? Is the system of money and credit different for football clubs then? Special ‘not your regular business’ deals where they just gift us money etc? Doesnt matter how often its said, its bullshit
Sir Jim making it clear that we still owe money for Casemiro, sancho, Antony etc. this an indication that we won’t be busy signing in the summer?
Personally I see us signing more Dorgu type players and some Bosmans if there are any worthwhile ones.
I think he was more intimating how costly and for how long these extremely expensive failed transfers are, but it has to be factored in (dont know the numbers) but say a £15m instalment this summer on all 3 theres 45 mil down the pipe on players who likely wont be here come next seasons start
I have done. You're forcing yourself to believe his every word, do you really think the club was about to go bust before INEOS took over? Ha.
Ratcliffe is heavily twisting the clubs financial situation to justify all of these cuts. It's what he does. He buys a business and strips it back to the bare bones. To date, that has never worked in football, it's far more complex than a generic business - surely you've realised this by now.
Our club generates huge sums of money, the fact Ratcliffe is trying to hoodwink the fans into thinking we're broke is just hilarious really - especially when people believe it. Yes there has been mismanagement, but don't kid yourself into thinking we're going under without all of these cuts. That's what Ratcliffe wants.
Not borrow from the bank, owner infusion. Money you'll never get back , because well that's part of the price you pay for owning Manchester United. Like it is in a lot of other clubs.
Jim has ‘infused’ money. The Glazers never have, never will. His money paid off an overdraft facility to allow us to use that credit to do transfer business and is currently doing up Carrington so its not a millenium timewarp. He wont see that money back.
Owners/directors of normal businesses make ‘infusions’, investments whatever you want to call them all the time.
Our club is commercially successful enough to support itself. How it ever got here is like a masterclass in business mismanagement.
If by ‘infusion’ you mean being an oil states playtoy, where a blank check book throws endless money into it through all sorts of dodgy means, theres a blue team across town facing ejection from the professional football leagues on the back of it.
You need to calm down. Wipe that foam out of your mouth.
I think you need to go and support Man City
Quick question, how much were our operating cost vs total revenue year by year since 2020?
I'll wait.
To be honest mate, cant we just borrow £400m a season so we can just keep operating the same way we are and spend 300 mil a summer on transfers?
Why the feck would he want to keep the Glazers as a majority? Why would that be his plan? How would it benefit him when he’s spending billions?
You think we'd have been bust by Christmas then as he said? I think you've been drinking the INEOS kool aid my friend.
Bust at xmas or out of cash capital? I trust you know theres a difference?
Is that what he said? He deliberately made it sound as bad as possible to justify his cuts.
It's interesting, the likes of Liverpool and Real Madrid operate with 1000+ staff, yet apparently that's outrageous and out of the question for Man Utd... hmmm.
Our cash reserves were running dangerously low though.
Do you think you can lose 100s of millions of pounds and not do anything about it?
What's the solution? Borrow more money?
I don't disagree things were bad, it's just that there are no quick fixes in this situation. Slashing money from every possible budget is quite an extreme reaction when the bulk of the cost is purely down to transfers and wages.
I was quite shocked when Neville suggested some sort of charity event to raise that £40k for the ex players, and Ratcliffe looked all shocked like nobody had even suggested that. It just seems crazy to me, I really don't think he cares.
Still, I hope whatever he's doing ends up working in the long run.
A lot of people took that from the interview to be fair.
Basically, if we ran out of cash at Xmas, like he said, we have to go and get credit from somewhere to finance the clubs day to day operations for the rest of the season. That adds to the £650m of debt and the overdraft we have. A billion quid has gone out the club because of that debt, we have to get the club Profitable and get rid of that debt. So step one is getting rid of the £100m blackhole between revenue and expenditure we have. We wouldnt have gone bust, we’d have just had a situation where INEOS do exactly what the Glazers did, borrow, increase the debts.
On the staff it depends what the staff are doing, what they're paid. Tbh, I've said in previous posts - he has to create a financial turnaround in the stuff he can get his hands on. Thats the bottom line, the morals are a different topic. The Glazers aren't going to input anything, aren’t going to lift a finger.
Cant stand Ratcliffe and INEOs. Said it from day one needed a full takeover. These guys are not going to bring us back to the top.
He said we would have run out of money, because we would have run out of money. It’s called being honest.
He isn’t justifying anything. He is cutting because it’s necessary - so that we don’t run out of cash.
Should the Government be involved in paying for this? I'd say no.
Glazers have fecked us, and now Jim is also helping to feck us...no way that tax payers should now help this happen - which helps make these leach cnuts more money.
Glazers have fecked us, and now Jim is also helping to feck us...no way that tax payers should now help this happen - which helps make these leach cnuts more money.
The government have already announced a large funding programme for the regeneration of South Manchester. He says in the interview we will be able to self fund the stadium. The government dont need to pay for our stadium