Club ownership | Senior management team talk
- Thread starter golden_blunder
- Start date
One that the public don’t get to hear about?
I hated Ratcliffe’s offer. The way he kept changing to accommodate the glazers didn’t fill me with confidence. But since the takeover I’m impressed and confident with what I’ve seen. Hopefully over time it leads to full ownership by INEOS, or at least a majority stake.
I believe Jassim offer was real and on paper was better. But if even with more money he and his team lacked the strategy to take the club and beat Ratcliffe you have to think it’s likely they’d have made a mess of running United.
My only concern is Ratcliffe’s age tbh and the succession plan.
It would be a nice touch for the players to pool some money to get the staff something or pay for a good party
At the risk of sounding callous, is a £100 bonus reducing to a £40 voucher really a big deal? I don't get any bonus and neither do most people. We don't have a Christmas party at my work but have some other perks here and there. Many of us would give our right arms to work for Manchester United, even as the bog cleaner! I understand that it feels a loss if something good is taken away but it's not like these bonuses are going to materially affect their chances of surviving economically.
Also, there's aspects of the club that have been massively underperforming away from the pitch. MUTV is pretty shocking, in my view. The club's website and social media stuff has been well behind other clubs for years, though it seems to have turned a corner in the last year or two.
Two things can be correct at the same time. Yes, many of our players are overpaid and are not delivering. One of their salaries could keep many 'lower level' workers in a job. But, at the same time, it's unlikely that Bob the admin guy is getting death threats weekly on social media and definitely doesn't draw in as much money commercially as, say, Marcus Rashford. Also, it's clear under INEOS that expensive duds on the footballing side will be canned with similar ruthlessness. That's already starting to happen. We need to be more streamlined and less of a pushover all across the board.
This being said, I'm sure that there's some very talented, good people losing their jobs in a clean sweep of cost cutting analysis that doesn't take into account how individuals fit into a flawed structure. This happens. Some eggs need to be broken to make an omelet.
For what it's worth, I also believe that a successful company should reasonably invest in the intangibles that don't affect the corporate KPIs but enhance employee morale. For all we know, they invest in lots of perks and workplace benefits that the media ignore but again, it's fecking Man United. To work for this club is a privilege and looks amazing on the CV. Everyone being made to work from the office? Maybe this is because I'm also forced to in my job (as I'm a first aider, mental health supporter and am in Operations so responsible for the building), despite a 2 hour daily commute, but I kind of think people have become so entitled about this post-lockdown. I'm all for hybrid work arrangements, especially relating to childcare. I'm also sure that some people are more productive from home and technology can make communication more simple than in times gone by. But this is a minority. Let's be honest - most people are more effective in the office where they can't just go and watch Homes Under The Hammer, most people cut corners and it's way easier to talk to your colleague if they're next to you as opposed to if you have to Zoom them after spending 5 minutes scheduling it. On the converse, you get people who work from home who end up doing way more than their paid hours and it's easier to control that bad working habit when you can turn to them and say 'it's 5pm, go home' as opposed to 'why are you sending an email at 3am?'.
If INEOS feel this working dynamic is most effective, people can leave if it's not for them. My guess is that there's more nuance and flexibility than the papers report. I bet it's akin to 'we all expect you to work from the office but reasonable adjustments can be made on request with HR/your line manager'.
I bet they're also doing stuff like cutting inefficient heating or logistic costs but this won't get reported on because it's not rage bait.
Also, there's aspects of the club that have been massively underperforming away from the pitch. MUTV is pretty shocking, in my view. The club's website and social media stuff has been well behind other clubs for years, though it seems to have turned a corner in the last year or two.
Two things can be correct at the same time. Yes, many of our players are overpaid and are not delivering. One of their salaries could keep many 'lower level' workers in a job. But, at the same time, it's unlikely that Bob the admin guy is getting death threats weekly on social media and definitely doesn't draw in as much money commercially as, say, Marcus Rashford. Also, it's clear under INEOS that expensive duds on the footballing side will be canned with similar ruthlessness. That's already starting to happen. We need to be more streamlined and less of a pushover all across the board.
This being said, I'm sure that there's some very talented, good people losing their jobs in a clean sweep of cost cutting analysis that doesn't take into account how individuals fit into a flawed structure. This happens. Some eggs need to be broken to make an omelet.
For what it's worth, I also believe that a successful company should reasonably invest in the intangibles that don't affect the corporate KPIs but enhance employee morale. For all we know, they invest in lots of perks and workplace benefits that the media ignore but again, it's fecking Man United. To work for this club is a privilege and looks amazing on the CV. Everyone being made to work from the office? Maybe this is because I'm also forced to in my job (as I'm a first aider, mental health supporter and am in Operations so responsible for the building), despite a 2 hour daily commute, but I kind of think people have become so entitled about this post-lockdown. I'm all for hybrid work arrangements, especially relating to childcare. I'm also sure that some people are more productive from home and technology can make communication more simple than in times gone by. But this is a minority. Let's be honest - most people are more effective in the office where they can't just go and watch Homes Under The Hammer, most people cut corners and it's way easier to talk to your colleague if they're next to you as opposed to if you have to Zoom them after spending 5 minutes scheduling it. On the converse, you get people who work from home who end up doing way more than their paid hours and it's easier to control that bad working habit when you can turn to them and say 'it's 5pm, go home' as opposed to 'why are you sending an email at 3am?'.
If INEOS feel this working dynamic is most effective, people can leave if it's not for them. My guess is that there's more nuance and flexibility than the papers report. I bet it's akin to 'we all expect you to work from the office but reasonable adjustments can be made on request with HR/your line manager'.
I bet they're also doing stuff like cutting inefficient heating or logistic costs but this won't get reported on because it's not rage bait.
We had 1140 staff as of June this year. Not sure where we're at now, but that's 114K if they were to give them a 100 quid bonus. That's relatively easy for the players as a group, but quite steep for a single player.
No it’s not! It’s less than a weeks wage for most of our players. I’m not saying they should or shouldn’t do this, but it’s a relatively insignificant amount in the grand scheme. These players are multimillionaires in their 20’s.
Interesting that the stake got transferred to INEOS. Maybe they figured there was no benefit after all to having a separate ownership structure (it didn't help us circumvent multi-club transfer restrictions last summer, for instance).
Not all of them. Casemiro, Mount, Bruno, Rashford all earn an exorbitant amount. Maguire close by, and Eriksen. But the new boys are allegedly on much lower wages and the youngsters.
2.5k each out of their monthly salary would give 50k for a fantastic party. I’m sure some of them would give more
Aye. Hope it happens. Needs someone to make the first move. Who motivates the motivator?
Glad we finally have some proper football people in charge of that side, but SJR and Brailsford are corporate ghouls of the highest order.
Don't think Brailsford will be involved in the corporate side, INEOS has it's own team of corporate slash and burners. It's been their business model a couple of decades.
You are more than welcome to leave that job and join up united for pennies, do let us know how it goes for you when a billionaire cuts your wages which basically pennies in terms of the club's costs and blames you for some young millionaires refusing to work hard.
Sir Jim's actions wont go down well on this website with it being quite socialist leaning. But the fact of the matter is, United are fairly skint and its within SJR's remit to trim the fat. This club owes nobody a living. Its not a charity.
I agree ticket prices are a contentious issue. But the club has been underperforming for years, all these bonuses, parties, bloated headcount, underperforming and over paid players need cutting. This is for the good of the club and will make us competitive on and off the pitch.
I'm impressed. This is exactly what is needed. If they are aggressive enough to cut a £50 quid bonus. Imagine what is coming Rashford's way and all the other players who are not giving value for money. Everyone has been calling for this kind of no shits given management. Now its being implemented, people don't like it.
I agree ticket prices are a contentious issue. But the club has been underperforming for years, all these bonuses, parties, bloated headcount, underperforming and over paid players need cutting. This is for the good of the club and will make us competitive on and off the pitch.
I'm impressed. This is exactly what is needed. If they are aggressive enough to cut a £50 quid bonus. Imagine what is coming Rashford's way and all the other players who are not giving value for money. Everyone has been calling for this kind of no shits given management. Now its being implemented, people don't like it.
Last edited:
That is a completely naive understanding of both socialism or capitalism for that matter.
On a sidenote, they should lock up the toilets. Too much maintenance. Will save a few thousand pounds too. Let people bring their own diapers if they want.
Bet SJR is the one leaking the lineups for a few quid.
This is pretty much how I feel also, as someone who is half as well off as them with a £20 M&S voucher for Christmas
What do you think is "coming Rashford's way" exactly?
Unlike staff on low wages, Rashford has a contract which is protected by a union who will aggressively make sure he gets paid. United owe him anywhere up to £13m over the next 3 and a half years and unless he agrees not to take it and accept an offer somewhere else then United are giving him that money.
I'm not sure "no shits given" has applied to EtH or Ashworth either, the former of who got an extra years ages just to be sacked after 3 months.
You're impressed by a saving of around £2,500 a year?
I almost admire the commitment to the cuntary.
I assume nothing remotely similar has happened at Chelsea after the Abramovich sale?
Which the billionaire could donate and pay for, instead of the club.
Get out of here with your socialism!!!
Cost cutting is understandable given our financial concerns.
Spreadsheet-brained penny pinching that has little material impact on the bottom line though? Not so much IMO.
Spreadsheet-brained penny pinching that has little material impact on the bottom line though? Not so much IMO.
Yes, we dislike penny-pinching over 2500 quid and fecking over some of the lowest-paid employees at the club because we're all a bunch of dirty socialists. I feel like I don't live on the same planet as some people.
By the way I'd love to know what you anticipate is coming Rashford's way. He gets 300K a week guaranteed and unless he voluntarily agrees to leave with a pay cut, we will continue paying him an exorbitant amount of money. But good thing Sir Jim is being ruthless I say!
Just kicking the little man at Christmas. Big Jim could afford to pay the Xmas party and bonus out of his feckin pocket and not even notice.
Why would you assume that?
Chelsea probably don't give any M and S vouchers in the first place.
I'm not really a close follower of the trials and tribulations of Chelsea. I just haven't come across a story where Clearlake cancelled Christmas or banned the pensioners from turning up. I wonder if this is just SJR or have other new owners done similar.
Removed the subsidisation on the coach travel for away games. £10 if I remember correctly.
I would put a lot of money on our cnuts being just as cnuty as your cnut.
All staff get an annual bonus of up to 10% of our annual salary depending on our performance, the old scheme was a bonus if the first team won a trophy, Reguarding the £100 bonus, yes its peanuts but when you are working along side players that are earning £300+ a week you can see why some staff are annoyed.
They'll probably take that money when you were not looking.
That's depressing.
I just hope this penny pinching doesn’t result in us being less ambitious getting top players/ world class facilities in.
Probably a common thing when a new owner starts somewhere that's made record losses. Won't interest the media though if it isn't Manchester United
I'm beginning to think that this proud guardian of Brexit (who buggered off to Monaco to avoid paying billions in UK taxes) might not actually be a very nice man...
This stuff is just ideological now. Nothing to do with cost cutting, they're just horrible wankers.