Club ownership | Senior management team talk

Jacob said:
When are we replacing Ashworth?
Click to expand...

This is the thing that pisses me off -- they have made some substantial financial losses due to poor decision-making. 1) Keeping ETH, signing a contract extension, and only then having to pay him off massively 14 weeks later. 2) Waiting for Ashworth, paying the fee to get him from Newcastle and then another contract payoff in the millions to see him off prematurely, only after 5 feckin months. All these were C-suite decisions, and yet there has been no accountability based on their decisions.

Yet they have eliminated tokens of appreciation/bonuses to long-time employees; Christmas parties; and now the 40k to ex-players retirement fund.

It seems that no executives were accountable but just the poorer working masses—all who had nothing to do with those two decisions that had cost the club 20-30million quid.

Tone-deaf or just the ruthlessness of a billionaire?
 
Skills said:
And this is why I will have zero sympathy for our fans when they'll hike the ticket prices.

If we're really commuting to a clear out, let's go all the way down to the fans.
Click to expand...
Every big transfer thread over the last 10 years: "just pay them what they want, it's not my money"
 
sglowrider said:
This is the thing that pisses me off -- they have made some substantial financial losses due to poor decision-making. 1) Keeping ETH, signing a contract extension, and only then having to pay him off massively 14 weeks later. 2) Waiting for Ashworth, paying the fee to get him from Newcastle and then another contract payoff in the millions to see him off prematurely, only after 5 feckin months. All these were C-suite decisions, and yet there has been no accountability based on their decisions.

Yet they have eliminated tokens of appreciation/bonuses to long-time employees; Christmas parties; and now the 40k to ex-players retirement fund.

It seems that no executives were accountable but just the poorer working masses—all who had nothing to do with those two decisions that had cost the club 20-30million quid.

Tone-deaf or just the ruthlessness of a billionaire?
Click to expand...
Thought everyone already knew no one became a billionaire by being a nice guy?
 
Sir Erik ten Hag said:
Thought everyone already knew no one became a billionaire by being a nice guy?
Click to expand...

But... but ... he's a local lad. He won't care about the money; he's so rich after all!!! He wants this to be his legacy.

Trust me, I said the same thing you said a couple of years ago. There aren't any benevolent billionaires... the closest is Bill Gates. But even he spends more on his electricity bill in one of his many homes than what the club contributes to the ex-player's retirement fund.

My suspicion all along; was that Ratcliffe promised the Glazers multiple times what the Qatari offered. He had promised them that he will get the club into tip-top condition—both on and off the field—and he will find another buyer to take up the Glazers' stake or even Ratcliffe's. Just last week, he paid nearly 80 million quid for 1% of the club. So now the club's perceived to be worth 8 billion quid.

That's now the perceived value. (Forget all those valuation models; the clubs actual value has passed all that pseudo-science math/financial valuation models.) Ironically Sir Jim's net worth has dropped by $4.4 billion in the past few months.

That's now the base price, so there just arent many suitors out there—either the top 5 richest men in the world or 5-10 sovereign funds.

I have a feeling that this was his 5-year plan all along and one that was pitched to the Glazers, who once again do feck-all and reap all the benefit.

And this local lad duped every romantic out there.
 
Last edited:
Disgraceful from the United board.

Keep spending money on absolutely shit players and then balk at supporting charities and cut the jobs of people.

INEOS should give their collective heads a wobble.
 
TsuWave said:
Wasn’t reported that the Qatar/Jassim thing wasn’t a real thing - as in - no proof of funds was ever provided or something? I remember seeing articles about that. Although I’m also not too sure how a “bid” gets that far/late stage without it being legit, seems weird all around.

Edit - just googled and found this:

https://www.skysports.com/amp/footb...vide-proof-of-funds-when-he-tried-to-buy-club
Click to expand...

He made 3 or 4 bids. It’s preposterous to believe he doesn’t exist or the funds were not there. You don’t get to that stage without the selling party knowing you can back up your bid.
 
Let's be honest: A year in under INEOS it looks bad.

Under the likes of Woodward we were critical of sudden, unexpected changes of direction. Going from one extreme to the other without any view of how it was supposed to work.

How has that improved?

We have built a squad to try and pull off a 4-1-4-1 and, pretty much out of nowhere, decided we are now going to play 3-4-3?

How is that any different to what we saw under Woodward? We have put ourselves back in the position of having to tear up our squad and totally rebuild.

What happened to all the talk of a 'game model' that INEOS was going to install right the way from kids to the first team? What happened to the football staff making sure there would be continuity and that the academy etc was going to be a conveyor belt to the first team?

Not saying this will happen but say Amorim doesn't work out after you recruit a bunch of wing backs, sell your wingers and stock up on #10s. Then what? Where's the long term plan?

I don't see any real change. In fact the penny pinching and bad PR moves actually make me wonder if we've gone backwards. Backwards from the Bristol University mafia!? Give me strength.

I thought we were getting FSG. Right now it looks like f'n Venkys.
 
FlawlessThaw said:
It’s a bit like with Brexit, didn’t really think too much about the impact of the club of the alternative even if it wasn’t a perfect solution.
Click to expand...

Possibly the dumbest take in the CAF's history.


Fridge chutney said:
Don't pretend you care about people suffering if you promote being owned by Qatar.
Click to expand...

Bang on.

The Mitcher said:
Imagine saying this country does worse things than Qatar?
Click to expand...

Even if this was true, the UK isn't buying Man United.

The 'yeah, but the west' whataboutery usually is the preserve of deluded city and newcastle types.

Sad to see it pollute minds on a United forum.
JediSith said:
He made 3 or 4 bids. It’s preposterous to believe he doesn’t exist or the funds were not there. You don’t get to that stage without the selling party knowing you can back up your bid.
Click to expand...

This is true, but the fact a state bid was outmanoeuvred by the supposedly idiotic Glazer sprogs and 'Brexit Jim' really should be ample proof Qatar ain't all that.

Amongst other, more pertinent, reasons.

People want Qatar because they represent money, and lots of it. Their record on human rights, especially those building stadia for the controversial 2022 WC is infinitely worse than laying staff off with redundancy packages.

It's a taste of things to come with sportswashing. The ultimate anti-intellectual grift.
 
Lyng said:
Oh so now that the media are not singing Jimmys praises they are trying to play us?
Click to expand...
Are you asking me that question or telling me?

Anyway. It seems most now fail to acknowledge that the Glazers still own United. INEOS run sporting operations but the owners are still the same.
 
#07 said:
How is that any different to what we saw under Woodward?
Click to expand...

It's a matter of inheritance.

Ineos have inherited Woodward/Arnold's shitshow.

Woodward inherited a Premier League winning squad, average age 28, who'd finished third or higher every season for twenty-one years and a Champions League mainstay.

There's the difference.

I agree Ineos first year has been hit and miss, more the latter, but it's pretty much gone as I expected.

Just as Keir Starmer cannot 'make Britain great again' in five months, Ineos have a decade plus of chronic mismanagement to deal with.
 
I didn't know much about Ratcliffe before he bought his stake in United but even I'm shocked by how much of a mean, miserable bastard he's turned out to be.

Scrapping a £40k fund for former players as part of "cost cutting" when he's singlehandedly cost the club millions with the Ten Hag and Ashworth fiascos! What a f**king cnut.

All of these penny pinching decisions are decimating morale and creating a cloud of negativity that's hanging over the club. I firmly believe negative energy like this permeates right through a club, even down to the coaching and playing staff, and we're seeing the results of it on the pitch.
 
Personally I these penny pinching decisions are borne out of frustration.SJR getting annoyed with the football side of things, but can't be seen to be a "meddling chairman", especially after appointing "top football people" to handle the on pitch strategy/philosophy.

So where does he vent his anger?!
On non football related matters, ie not the club but the Plc.
In his eyes these cutbacks affecting all employees not related to the dressing room are justified as they make sense from a business point of view.
After all who's going to argue about financial decisions with a self made billionaire!?

Although the Ashworth departure seems to show that he can still affect football matters directly if he wants to.

I can see boardroom discussions getting heated as Sir Jim demanded more on the pitch . Looking for answers, probably pointed his accusing finger a bit too forcefully in Dan's direction, who took exception to being blamed and so meeting ended with him DA walking away.

Regarding the compensation payouts, he'll probably argue that, that's out of his pocket anyway.
Does he even care or is aware of how these miserly actions coupled with the hypocrisy are making him look!?

Hopefully as Amorim gets more positive results on the pitch, (we hope and pray), SJR can go back to spending more time and energy being cnut to other super yacht owners in Monaco, rather than to United employees in Manchester.

But even with Sir Jim acting as big as a cnut as he is, I still wouldn't want Qatari ownership or the Glazers solely running the football operations.

WTFAMU...!!
Keep the Faith!
 
Whilst all these cuts are being made, INEOS continue to sponsor Spurs. Seen one estimate of that being worth £10-15m a year.
 
sglowrider said:
But... but ... he's a local lad. He won't care about the money; he's so rich after all!!! He wants this to be his legacy.
Click to expand...
This is a pretty silly post. The money that he is caring about is PSR compliance and club sustainability/efficiency moving forward. He isn’t pocketing the £40k saved by not making the donation himself is he?

The whole reason he is here is because the Glazers ran such a sloppy inefficient organisation that they had run out of money and needed outside help. It’s only natural that any outside organisation would look at spending and trim the excess. If he wasn’t doing this the club would be in exactly the same situation as it was before last February. Things have to change, and whether we like it or not some of those changes will have a negative impact on individuals for the good of the club. The optics are terrible I agree, but it seems a case of needs must at this point.
IRN-BRUno said:
Whilst all these cuts are being made, INEOS continue to sponsor Spurs. Seen one estimate of that being worth £10-15m a year.
Click to expand...
*facepalm* It’s not INEOS who are trying to save money or in financial hardship, and it’s not Manchester United who sponsor Spurs. The two things are entirely separate.
Crostien said:
Just as Keir Starmer cannot 'make Britain great again' in five months, Ineos have a decade plus of chronic mismanagement to deal with.
Click to expand...
I’m glad somebody else can see past the headlines and apply logic. This thread has lost its damn mind, and the clamour for ‘see I told you so’ and some magic Qatari golden bullet is nauseating.
 
Crostien said:
It's a matter of inheritance.

Ineos have inherited Woodward/Arnold's shitshow.

Woodward inherited a Premier League winning squad, average age 28, who'd finished third or higher every season for twenty-one years and a Champions League mainstay.

There's the difference.

I agree Ineos first year has been hit and miss, more the latter, but it's pretty much gone as I expected.

Just as Keir Starmer cannot 'make Britain great again' in five months, Ineos have a decade plus of chronic mismanagement to deal with.
Click to expand...
Agreed, it’s difficult for a new government or ownership group to make a country or club great again in the timeframe they have had to date. However, some of the measures that they have been taken create the wrong perception. For example, cost cutting measures like stopping 40k going to charity. It gives the impression that they are cold hearted because 40k is a drop in the ocean to a club like Man Utd, or stopping staff eating at the canteen with the players (something that SAF encouraged during his successful spell!). Basically, they have targeted the wrong areas. They need to address the wasted money on transfer fees, high wages, high paid executives who haven’t done the job they were hired to do (etc). Target and sort that first, then perhaps look at the general staff structure and costing. Their current approach has simply caused discontent and damaged morale.
 
holdsteady said:
Now looks like the Foundation is being cut
Click to expand...

Sky News has learnt that the Premier League club plans to inform the Manchester United Foundation that it intends to curb the benefits it provides - which totalled close to £1m last year - from 2025 onwards.


Sources close to the situation said a substantial element of the support given to the Foundation by the club would be axed, although Old Trafford insiders insisted on Sunday that it would still provide "significant" support to the charitable wing
Click to expand...

The McSauce
 
This is beyond a pisstake now, no wonder morale is so low at the moment, and that festers throughout all aspects of the club too
 
Oscar Bonavena said:
I didn't know much about Ratcliffe before he bought his stake in United but even I'm shocked by how much of a mean, miserable bastard he's turned out to be.

Scrapping a £40k fund for former players as part of "cost cutting" when he's singlehandedly cost the club millions with the Ten Hag and Ashworth fiascos! What a f**king cnut.

All of these penny pinching decisions are decimating morale and creating a cloud of negativity that's hanging over the club. I firmly believe negative energy like this permeates right through a club, even down to the coaching and playing staff, and we're seeing the results of it on the pitch.
Click to expand...
This 100% The Glazers found the perfect partner, just as horrible as them.
 
JediSith said:
Did he ever go to OT and watch any matches in the years leading up to his takeover ?


With a worth of 18 to 25b he’s really not as skint as people are making out. He could invest 1-2b into the stadium. Thats my opinion anyways.
Click to expand...
He is on record as going to OT as a boy growing up in the area, and he was also in the away end of the Nou Camp in 99 to see Ole win us the CL.

As for the stadium he probably could fund it himself, of course he could but it isn’t as simple as handing over a cheque. There are processes and regulations to comply with. Same with PSR/FFP and the squad. He could put a few hundred million in and buy a new squad but we’d be docked points like Everton and Forest for not following the rules. Let’s see how 115fc are dealt with for all their shady owner-funding before we consider ‘bending the rules’ ourself!! (Or not)
 
Never forget this prick's the reason the Glazers are still at the club. He's handed them a lifeline when they were on their knees, looking like they were on their way out.

But he's a local lad (who lives in Monaco), real United fan (with Chelsea season ticket), etc etc.

Oh well at least he's not Qatar, so we can enjoy the moral high ground while he lays off tons of staff and cuts charitable donations.
 
Kaos said:
Never forget this prick's the reason the Glazers are still at the club. He's handed them a lifeline when they were on their knees, looking like they were on their way out.

But he's a local lad (who lives in Monaco), real United fan (with Chelsea season ticket), etc etc.

Oh well at least he's not Qatar, so we can enjoy the moral high ground while he lays off tons of staff and cuts charitable donations.
Click to expand...
Do you think the great Jassim and the Qatar sovereign wealth fund wouldn’t have cut spending and streamlined operations?

Are you advocating for the status quo of the last ten miserable years?
 
clarkydaz said:
He's doing things they wouldnt dare do, and they sit back and reap the benefits. Mental
Click to expand...
It's not that they wouldn't dare do them, it's just that these things had no impact on the Glazers receiving their cut from United.

That's why they've been happy to pay Ferguson, charities, ex-players, etc. It hasn't affected their slice of the cake whatsoever and so have been happy to continue.

They're all the same.
 
#07 said:
Let's be honest: A year in under INEOS it looks bad.

Under the likes of Woodward we were critical of sudden, unexpected changes of direction. Going from one extreme to the other without any view of how it was supposed to work.

How has that improved?

We have built a squad to try and pull off a 4-1-4-1 and, pretty much out of nowhere, decided we are now going to play 3-4-3?

How is that any different to what we saw under Woodward? We have put ourselves back in the position of having to tear up our squad and totally rebuild.

What happened to all the talk of a 'game model' that INEOS was going to install right the way from kids to the first team? What happened to the football staff making sure there would be continuity and that the academy etc was going to be a conveyor belt to the first team?

Not saying this will happen but say Amorim doesn't work out after you recruit a bunch of wing backs, sell your wingers and stock up on #10s. Then what? Where's the long term plan?

I don't see any real change. In fact the penny pinching and bad PR moves actually make me wonder if we've gone backwards. Backwards from the Bristol University mafia!? Give me strength.

I thought we were getting FSG. Right now it looks like f'n Venkys.
Click to expand...

This squad has to be torn up anyway and ETH was playing bizarre tactics that no manager would have wanted to pick up from. We can’t really blame INEOS for wanting to change direction or the shit show of a squad we have and it’s going to take years to rid ourselves of a lot of these transfer fees and wages.

The penny pinching is going too far but on and off the pitch it is going to take years to sort this mess out, the club had been neglected and badly run for nearly two decades. They may well be more Venky’s than FSG but it took the latter time to sort out Liverpool.
 
Last edited:
Plant0x84 said:
Do you think the great Jassim and the Qatar sovereign wealth fund wouldn’t have cut spending and streamlined operations?

Are you advocating for the status quo of the last ten miserable years?
Click to expand...
There's no knowing what they would have done for certain, but I'd wager they wouldn't be looking to save pennies by taking away benefits from lowlee employees or cutting charitable foundations. Did the Qataris at PSG or the Emiratis at City do anything of the sort? One thing we do know for sure is there would be no Glazers and likely no more debt we'd be forced to consolidate, courtesy of the Tampa parasites. In fact all of Brexit Jimbo's manoeuvrings shouldn't come as a surprise considering the track record he's had with his various companies over the years and the sort of person he is.

And no I'm not advocating for the a continuation of the status quo, its why I wanted the Glazers gone. Unfortunately an INEOS part ownership was the lifeline that has allowed it to persist. It seems we now have two sets of Glazers for the price of one, except this new one is homegrown which is supposed to somehow make it more palatable.
 
strandty said:


Click to expand...

Each time just when you think these bastards can't possibly stoop any lower...they prove you wrong

These are the sort of things that mark a clubs legacy beyond the pitch but Mr Burns is gutting all that and won't receive half the push back that he would if he were a foreigner
 
Plant0x84 said:
Do you think the great Jassim and the Qatar sovereign wealth fund wouldn’t have cut spending and streamlined operations?

Are you advocating for the status quo of the last ten miserable years?
Click to expand...
Would have completely wiped out the entire debt of our club on day two. And Glazers would be gone forever too.
 
Last edited:
This is a bit pathetic to be honest. Cutting something so important to what, save less than we pay Antony in a month? Football clubs move further away from what they are actually supposed to be every week.
 
It does mention in that Sky report that "significant support for the Foundation will continue", but all this cost cutting whilst spending millions on Ten Hag and Dan Ashworth
 
DavidDeSchmikes said:
It does mention in that Sky report that "significant support for the Foundation will continue", but all this cost cutting whilst spending millions on Ten Hag and Dan Ashworth
Click to expand...
So because of their own hiring mistakes (extending ETH and hiring Ashworth), its the charities and the ordinary club staff that have to take the flak? Hardly a consolation.
 
Oscar Bonavena said:
I didn't know much about Ratcliffe before he bought his stake in United but even I'm shocked by how much of a mean, miserable bastard he's turned out to be.

Scrapping a £40k fund for former players as part of "cost cutting" when he's singlehandedly cost the club millions with the Ten Hag and Ashworth fiascos! What a f**king cnut.

All of these penny pinching decisions are decimating morale and creating a cloud of negativity that's hanging over the club. I firmly believe negative energy like this permeates right through a club, even down to the coaching and playing staff, and we're seeing the results of it on the pitch.
Click to expand...
It's also important to state clearly that the AFMUP fund was to support primarily academy lads who never quite made it or former players who didn't earn millions during their playing career and had fallen on hard times. Just the "former players" part somewhat makes it sound like Cronaldo or Beckham could dip into it if they fancy a haircut.

As for the negativity even making it down to the players, it was reported by The Athletic just recently that Bruno Fernandes was so upset about the decision to scrap free travel and accomodation for staff for the FA Cup final that he offered to pay for it out of his own pocket - only for the club to reject the offer (presumably because they thought it'd make them look bad). I know there's not much sympathy going around for the playing squad right now (and rightfully so in most cases), but all this penny-pinching and lack of regard for the club's non-playing staff must seem grim to them too. It sure doesn't fit the image of playing for supposedly one of the biggest clubs in the world.
 
JediSith said:
With a worth of 18 to 25b he’s really not as skint as people are making out. He could invest 1-2b into the stadium. Thats my opinion anyways.
Click to expand...
He owns 29% of the club.
JediSith said:
I see INEOS as no different to being owned by a competent US investment fund. Purely business but they know on the pitch success will drive profits.
Click to expand...
What profits? They massively overpaid for the amount of shares they already have, already burned through hundreds of millions they are never going to get back and football clubs are very rarely profitable at all. If that is his business strategy to get more money, it's beyond braindead.
 
Is their like some ' How much can I be a cnut' game that the ownership have been playing amongst themselves.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.