Actually dead.Not dead but be won't be competitive or relevant again for about 20 years. And we'll have to sign a bunch of shit journeymen players, but hey is that much different to our current squad?
All irrelevant as we're obviously not getting relegated.
Palace might conceivably go above us, but I don’t see Wolves or Everton having enough to over take us. Ipswich and Southampton are basically already done.If we don't sign a striker, this side won't score enough goals to improve on the first half of the season.
That means relying on the 3 promoted teams to be shite, because if one or two of them manage a run of results, we are right in the mix.
We are just 7 points above the zone.
This is what worries me. They backed ETH that had one style of play and now they’ve brought Amorim in who plays a completely different system.So what was the plan when hiring Amorim? Try 3421 for 15 games and switch back to 4231 if not succesful? Or persist with 3421 even if it means relegation? Amorim seems adamant that he only has one way of playing. What a mess we are in. Change playing style in the middle of the season.
I'm fearing there never was a plan.So what was the plan when hiring Amorim? Try 3421 for 15 games and switch back to 4231 if not succesful? Or persist with 3421 even if it means relegation? Amorim seems adamant that he only has one way of playing. What a mess we are in. Change playing style in the middle of the season.
Translation: Relegation = dead club
You’ve made a really strong argument here, and I agree with your perspective. INEOS does appear to be strategically cutting costs and increasing efficiency to prepare the club for something significant. By making the club leaner, they’re signaling to potential investors that they’re serious about maximizing value. Given the magnitude of the deal that it's going to take to buy the majority of shares from the Glazers, it’s clear someone in that ultra-high-net-worth bracket is going to probably need to come on board with INEOS.I doubt it. He doesn't have that cash for that price for the rest of United. Feckin' Elon had to get financing to buy Twitter.
All these petty cost cutting is a PR activity -- window dressing of sorts for the next round of serious capital injection. External source.
He is showing potential new partners (top 5 richest men in the world or more likely sovereign funds) that he is ruthlessly trimming away the fat within the Club -- to make it more attractive for the next round.. he paid 80million quid for 1% of the club. So we are playing in that 8billion valuation league. There aren't many folks lift in that bracket.
I think he, like Woodward believes that United is a money machine regardless of its on field performance. Both existing revenue streams/model and unlocking future new business models. And reaching the potential 400-600 million GLOBAL United fans. That's his pitch to the uber-billionaires and sovereign funds.
You’ve made a really strong argument here, and I agree with your perspective. INEOS does appear to be strategically cutting costs and increasing efficiency to prepare the club for something significant. By making the club leaner, they’re signaling to potential investors that they’re serious about maximizing value. Given the magnitude of the deal that it's going to take to buy the majority of shares from the Glazers, it’s clear someone in that ultra-high-net-worth bracket is going to probably need to come on board with INEOS.
Looking for a partner to help buy the remaining shares has probably been the plan for a while now in truth. Assuming a Sovereign Wealth Fund or the like does invest, you're probably looking at us then following the Chelsea under Boehly blueprint to turn our fortunes around.
The majority of good players can play in numerous different formations. It's not like 3421 requires specialised players all over the field as the spine is largely the same. A top striker in 3421 will be fine in other formations. The two #10's at Sporting were apparently one recognised #10 and one inverted winger. The two central midfielders are largely the same. The central defender won't have too much difference, and the wider central defenders will generally be fine either as a central defender or a well-balanced fullback (think Shaw or Mazraoui) in a 4 at the back system. And obviously a keeper is a keeper.This is what worries me. They backed ETH that had one style of play and now they’ve brought Amorim in who plays a completely different system.
If we sack Amorim, do we appoint a 433 manager? Where is the consistency that this new managerial structure is supposed to provide? Where’s the structure that means that the clubs vision stays the same regardless of who the manager is?
If we back Amorim and he brings specialist players in for his system does that mean that going forward that’s the clubs vision? Or do these new players become deadwood when a future manager players a different system?
It’s a complete mess.
They couldn’t even provide proof of funds at the bidding stage, the rest is just a pipe dream.
Bingo, it's not rocket science or trying to convert a diesel car into an electric one. The thing many overlook is that our players failed even the formation or style they claim the team was built for, why did we sack Ole and why did we sack Ten Hag just two months into the season? These players sank them.The majority of good players can play in numerous different formations. It's not like 3421 requires specialised players all over the field as the spine is largely the same. A top striker in 3421 will be fine in other formations. The two #10's at Sporting were apparently one recognised #10 and one inverted winger. The two central midfielders are largely the same. The central defender won't have too much difference, and the wider central defenders will generally be fine either as a central defender or a well-balanced fullback (think Shaw or Mazraoui) in a 4 at the back system. And obviously a keeper is a keeper.
It's really only the wider areas where it becomes a bit more specialised. A top wingback may not be good enough defensively to play at fullback or good enough offensively to play at winger at the top level. And on the flip-side, it's only the inverted goal-scoring winger that arguably may not have a spot in 3421. Perhaps one, but not two.
So yes, if we completely build our squad for 3421 and then later want to change to a 433 or 4231 system then we may need to make a few changes to the squad. But it won't be a complete rebuild, and generally any new manager joining a club will make a few changes to suit the specifics of what he wants anyway.
The more important aspect of having consistency between managers is style of play, not formation. High defensive line or low? Dominate possession or counter-attack? Hard pressing from the front or look to win the ball more in midfield? Build up with lots of short fast passing or spread the play by long balls out wide? Etc. They won't all be exactly the same, but that's where the consistency needs to be. Most players who suit doing those things in one formation will still suit doing them in another.
The takeover process was weird to say the least.
A- United were massively overpriced which is the reason why barely anyone showed up.
B- no one should have reached the end of the process without proof of funds. We're not talking of a couple of dollars here.
C- The process dragged so long that SJR had to threaten of pulling the plug out of the deal
D- There's rumors that SJR was shocked of the financial mess United were in which is worse then what was portrayed during the takeover process. That in itself is sketchy as hell cause a potential owner whose pumping billions into an investment should have a good idea in what he's heading into
I can't help but thinking that we would be better off if SJR simply pulled out rather then bend over backwards to each and every Glazers demands. The Glazers would have been forced to reopen the process again in a couple of months time while lowering their demands or rely on the likes of Elliott whose got way more experience in running a successful club then SJR does. We are saddled with a man whose running United to the ground while expecting everyone (British taxpayer, local fans etc) to pay for his and his business partner's mistakes.
It’s funny because, for years, our fans have rightly said that we don’t need a sugar daddy owner. We turnover enough money to be pretty much self sufficient. Which is true, we do. We are just hamstrung by the debt. But I don’t think you can say SJR is running us into the ground when he’s taking extremely unfavourable decisions to stop us haemorrhaging money. They estimate that the cost cutting exercise will be worth £40m per year, which is obviously an incredible amount.
For me personally I’d rather we sorted our affairs out in a sustainable way, rather than be propped up by an oil state which essentially paper over the cracks of a poorly run football club. In the long run, it is better for the club to be self sufficient once again and not at the mercy as the play thing for some rich owner. Look at Newcastle, already their owners are reportedly having to reign in their expenditure and their aspirations. And they’re the richest of the lot.
['Adidas have the power under terms of their kit deal with #MUFC to terminate the £900m agreement at one full season’s notice if club relegated from PL Also have the option to reduce payments for a year by 50pc (to £45m) if United dropped out of PL
Green and Gold and the club being sold?
My Newcastle supporting mate has said that what we are going through now with Ineos reminds him of what they went through with Mike Ashley.
Considering the debt that Glazers-SJR refuse to pay, the infrastructure that is basically not up for scratch (OT, Carrington etc) which will further increase that debt, a squad that need to be rebuilt from scratch + United registering losses year in year out then its becoming increasingly obvious that we do need a sugar daddy.
Adidas' kits are terrible. They seem obsessed with blue away kits and the 1992 light blue away kit design in particular. Home kits have been underwhelming, to say the least.
Depends on who to.
I'm going for broke, here.
Your Newcastle supporting mate despised Ashley, though now adores the Saudi regime?
There's no guarantee your sugar daddy would be a success, only a guarantee they'd be infinitely harder to remove.
The Qataris failed to negotiate against the Glazers and Ineos. Woodward levels of abject failure, but many still cling to them as though they'd solve every problem with more and more money.
Adidas' kits are terrible. They seem obsessed with blue away kits and the 1992 light blue away kit design in particular. Home kits have been underwhelming, to say the least.
Depends on who to.
I'm going for broke, here.
Your Newcastle supporting mate despised Ashley, but not the Saudi regime?
There's no guarantee your sugar daddy would be a success, only a guarantee they'd be infinitely harder to remove.
The Qataris failed to negotiate against the Glazers and Ineos. Woodward levels of abject failure, but many still cling to them as though they'd solve every problem with more and more money.
I don't want state ownership. But they could hardly have done much worse than our current owners. Glazers brought us to the brink and Jimmy is doing his best to push us over...
Sell it to Emma Mattresses so at least it'll still be the theatre of dreamsWith our hands be tied financially in January. Would fans be angry if Ineos sold naming right s to Old Trafford to fund transfers?
Tbf I said something like this minus the marginal cost (-cutting) approach of Ratcliffe a couple of years ago. I always said that he didnt have enough funds to buy out the club. But the consensus here said that he was the richest man in the UK, worth 18billion.... how can he not afford it? Meanwhile, Musk had to borrow to buy up Twitter when Musk is multitudes richer than Ratcliffe (who apparently had since lost 4.something billion in the last few months.)
At the 6 billion quid range, its out of the opportunity for only a handful of people. It made no financial sense. Jassim (and partners) had a low-ball numbers-crunched valuation and didn't see value beyond that. He sent a team of number crunchers to United first and not some PR visit as the first meeting.)
And those who think he doesnt exist, then you are deluded. He clearly was the face of a consortium of private folks. You dont send the CEO of PSG (the head of the European club association) to meet the United people if he was some AI-generated figure. They dont play that game at this level. Plus his dad, a former Prime Minister even talked about it in an interview.
But regardless, Sir Jim made an offer to the greedy cnuts that their Club shares would be worth double (the Jassim offer) using his complicated business model approach. But just wait 24-36 months.
He read the room better than Jassim who probably took things at face value.
My expectations are --- that we wait for another 2 years and we will see most likely a sovereign fund or PE buying up the club. And this journey of hope and purity of mind was all a mirage or a clever/cunning scheme. And that we would have landed up in the same place, but only 3-4 years earlier. But without the anger and disillusionment, post-Ratcliffe.
Not sure.
Qatar have ultimately failed with their psg franchise and ruined the league. Being outwitted by the Glazers and Ineos during the negotiation is ample proof of their acumen.
Furthermore, is it really 'Jimmy' who is pushing us over, or just the decade-plus mismanagement of the Glazers reaching its culmination?
The allure of state ownership is the wanton belief of instant results. Clear the debt and we can do what we want, again.
However, if throwing money around was really the solution to all our ills, the billion-plus wasted in the last decade would have surely translated into success.
I'd argue PSG are better off than Nice.
Yup. I was led to believe that the club was to decide on a long-term style and then hiring a manager who plays that style. That is why Liverpool didn't hire Amorim.This is what worries me. They backed ETH that had one style of play and now they’ve brought Amorim in who plays a completely different system.
If we sack Amorim, do we appoint a 433 manager? Where is the consistency that this new managerial structure is supposed to provide? Where’s the structure that means that the clubs vision stays the same regardless of who the manager is?
If we back Amorim and he brings specialist players in for his system does that mean that going forward that’s the clubs vision? Or do these new players become deadwood when a future manager players a different system?
It’s a complete mess.
This is what worries me. They backed ETH that had one style of play and now they’ve brought Amorim in who plays a completely different system.
If we sack Amorim, do we appoint a 433 manager? Where is the consistency that this new managerial structure is supposed to provide? Where’s the structure that means that the clubs vision stays the same regardless of who the manager is?
If we back Amorim and he brings specialist players in for his system does that mean that going forward that’s the clubs vision? Or do these new players become deadwood when a future manager players a different system?
It’s a complete mess.
I'd argue similarly, however, whenever psg can afford to blow 200 million on the likes of Neymar, well, you get the point.
Did not want Ineos or state ownership, either. I'll take Ineos over state ownership, of any state, but only belatedly and certainly without permanence.
Anyone who counters with 'you're being moral', yes, you're right. Morals are the primary reason why I'd take Ineos over Qatar (belatedly). They're as good a reason as any.
From footballing perspective, I think state ownership simply dilutes competition. Franchising (like red bull or Ineos) needs a heave, too. Clubs ought to be independent with strict financial regulations whereas in other news I should be the King of Humanity and...
It sounds like United will end up to this "sovereign funds" that could afford an 8 billion valuation, that I'm optimistic they're a strong human rights proponent, just to the relief of United fans.
It kinda said sounds like an oxymoron. A wealth fund is inherently capitalist, hard to see how one could be on a good moral standpointWhich sovereign fund/s would meet that criteria?
It kinda said sounds like an oxymoron. A wealth fund is inherently capitalist, hard to see how one could be on a good moral standpoint
Precisely. Any govt in the world will have some blood on their hands at some point in their history. From colonial abuses to slave trading to opium trading. Labour abuse in the scheme of things won't be in the same planet as those mentioned.
Lets see if the top five richest guys want to buy up the club after Sir Jim decides to check out: Elon, Bezos?
At this next price point, £8+ billion there are only a handful of potential buyers in this world. None of them are any good, never mind free of some serious human rights violation
To not make things worse.What did people expect from the new board and owners after 11 years of mismanagement
And they did not make anything worse. We were shit and are just reaping the rewards of that. We are not 14th because of their decision to sign ugarte de ligt or yoro. Yes they made a mistake not sacking Eth. But overall the squad We have was assembled by the previous regime.To not make things worse.
We’re 14th because of their indecision in keeping a lame duck manager. We’ve wasted yet more money on players not up to the required standard. They chased a Director of football for months before sacking him a few months later. They’ve cut jobs, put ticket prices up. It’s demonstrably worse than it was before.And they did not make anything worse. We were shit and are just reaping the rewards of that. We are not 14th because of their decision to sign ugarte de ligt or yoro. Yes they made a mistake not sacking Eth. But overall the squad We have was assembled by the previous regime.
This is what worries me. They backed ETH that had one style of play and now they’ve brought Amorim in who plays a completely different system.
If we sack Amorim, do we appoint a 433 manager? Where is the consistency that this new managerial structure is supposed to provide? Where’s the structure that means that the clubs vision stays the same regardless of who the manager is?
If we back Amorim and he brings specialist players in for his system does that mean that going forward that’s the clubs vision? Or do these new players become deadwood when a future manager players a different system?
It’s a complete mess.
Not sacking eth was a stupid decision and I have already pointed that out. One more mistake like that and knives will be fully out.We’re 14th because of their indecision in keeping a lame duck manager. We’ve wasted yet more money on players not up to the required standard. They chased a Director of football for months before sacking him a few months later. They’ve cut jobs, put ticket prices up. It’s demonstrably worse than it was before.
