Club ownership | Senior management team talk

romufc said:
I see that you are one of those that thinks mistakes cannot be made?

You do realise that sacking Ten Hag in the summer came at a cost as well, or do you think that it was going to cost £0?

Instead of keeping Ashworth on his millions salary, they got rid before his 6 month probation = no sacking fee.

INEOS obviously made mistakes but fans like you acting like previous regime didn't make more mistakes... paying £85m and 200k wage for Antony.. Hojlund, Casemiro... whilst also paying high salaries to everyone.

You cannot undo 10 years of mismanagement in 6 months, they went to get the best in class and realised that Ashworth wasn't a good fit, it happens. However; instead of keeping it and saving face, they realised it and got rid.
Click to expand...

Fans like you.....so fans of the club instead of fans of Ineos you mean?

The glazers are the reason we are in this mess to begin with.
But some of us have had worries about Ineos due to heir previous massive failures at Nice and Lausanne. And so far the only really positive thing is Amorim.

You really believe they managed to get rid of Ashworth for nothing? We also only have the clubs briefs to know whether he was an issue or not. What we do know is Jimmy and Brailsworth have repeatedly not managed to live up to their lofty promises whenever they have gotten involved with a club.

So yes mistakes will be made and are absolutely okay, but it is extremely naive to just believe Ineos will magically come good for us, when so far there is nothing that points in that direction.

And before you accuse me of it, No I never wanted Qatar.
 
AneRu said:
Not only PSR but I think our situation financially is much worse than just funds for transfers otherwise Ineos wouldn't be taking such drastic measures to make the club leaner. There will be pain along the way but until we clear the toxic contracts and avoid adding more we are in for a period of pain.

Now the issue is that people see the situation we are in, know what needs to be done but scream when every tough measure is taken. Now the fact that we are going to need refinancing and fresh funds, for the debt and stadium respectively, the books will need to be painting a substantially different picture then to what they are now for the club to get loans on any reasonable terms.

I wouldn't be shocked if Ineos, having seen the scale of the disaster, are just now content to wait for the lapsing of their exclusive period, whilst cleaning up the books, so that they sell along with the Glazers for a tidy profit.

The problem with United is we have become too big for our own good and there really is no financial middle ground for us. To service the debt whilst concurrently building a new stadium we need to be permanent fixtures in the CL but to do that you need to be spending around £500m in transfers and wages per year, given where we are, meaning that you need your revenues to be touching a billion. Tough ask in the PL.
Click to expand...

I don’t think there is a tidy profit though, cleaning up the books doesn’t tackle the fundamental problems of negotiating a huge sale. INEOS paid over the odds for their shares, there weren’t and aren’t people queuing up to buy Utd. There is also still the issue of the debt and huge investment in infrastructure required.

I think they know what they’ve bought into it’s just not a quick fix on or off the pitch.
 
Lyng said:
The staffs salaries are dwarfed by the millions we have to pay out due to the massive blunders on the parts of Ineos, ie keeping Ten Hag over the summer and the Ashworth farce.
Click to expand...
Ineos will make mistakes, the mob over at Etihad also made a few when they were starting out, the important thing is their strategic alignment and how they rectify some of the missteps along the way.

What we paid Ten Hag and the cost of hiring and firing Ashworth, nevermind the merits and demerits of both decisions (was it right to hire or fire him so soon), is dwarfed by the mistakes made on contracts and signings. That they have recognized this and are trying to solve it is more important than paying Ten Hag an extra £6m.

Antony alone costs us how much per year? £15m, £20m? Recognising this, taking action to clean it up and bringing people who can help ensure it never happens is crucial.
 
AneRu said:
Ineos will make mistakes, the mob over at Etihad also made a few when they were starting out, the important thing is their strategic alignment and how they rectify some of the missteps along the way.

What we paid Ten Hag and the cost of hiring and firing Ashworth, nevermind the merits and demerits of both decisions (was it right to hire or fire him so soon), is dwarfed by the mistakes made on contracts and signings. That they have recognized this and are trying to solve it is more important than paying Ten Hag an extra £6m.

Antony alone costs us how much per year? £15m, £20m? Recognising this, taking action to clean it up and bringing people who can help ensure it never happens is crucial.
Click to expand...

They will and thats okay. My issue is with some of the "celebration" of actions like price hikes and charity cuts when in reality these things dont move the needle much.

Like I have said several times, I dont want state ownership. And I hope Ineos turn it around, but so far nothing points in that direction. And I would give them more leeway if it wasnt for their past failures, which a lot of posters here claimed they would have learned from.
 
Roboc7 said:
I don’t think there is a tidy profit though, cleaning up the books doesn’t tackle the fundamental problems of negotiating a huge sale. INEOS paid over the odds for their shares, there weren’t and aren’t people queuing up to buy Utd. There is also still the issue of the debt and huge investment in infrastructure required.

I think they know what they’ve bought into it’s just not a quick fix on or off the pitch.
Click to expand...
Yeah that's the problem, SJR got too eager to beat Qatar and has put himself in a corner with the Glazers. Whatever success he gets here will only make it more expensive to buy out the Glazers and it's clear he has no intention of buying them out completely within the stipulated period they agreed.

Maybe he will buyout the wantaway siblings and emerge as majority shareholder, which was his initial intention.
Lyng said:
They will and thats okay. My issue is with some of the "celebration" of actions like price hikes and charity cuts when in reality these things dont move the needle much.

Like I have said several times, I dont want state ownership. And I hope Ineos turn it around, but so far nothing points in that direction. And I would give them more leeway if it wasnt for their past failures, which a lot of posters here claimed they would have learned from.
Click to expand...
I don't think the owners' competency or desire is too influential on whether a club succeeds. It's the strategic direction and ability to bring in people who can achieve it that's more important imo.

Let me explain it this way, we were winning titles under the Glazers, with all their faults, because we had a competent management in Gill and SAF. Now INEOS have come in and look like they succeeded with Berrada. The jury is still out on Amorim but if he works out and then Wilcox and Vivel prove not to be complete idiots, why should they fail if they invest on a similar level, with a similar hit rate (4/5), to the summer window?

Its not space age technology where the senior management has to be that brilliant. If we get the 3 thirds of the triumvirate right - the coach, the CEO and the DOF - we will get it at the end. If, next season, we add four good players to this side in the positions we need, how do we fail to rise when we are going toe to toe with City and Liverpool in this state?
 
AneRu said:
Yeah that's the problem, SJR got too eager to beat Qatar and has put himself in a corner with the Glazers. Whatever success he gets here will only make it more expensive to buy out the Glazers and it's clear he has no intention of buying them out completely within the stipulated period they agreed.

Maybe he will buyout the wantaway siblings and emerge as majority shareholder, which was his initial intention.

I don't think the owners' competency or desire is too influential on whether a club succeeds. It's the strategic direction and ability to bring in people who can achieve it that's more important imo.

Let me explain it this way, we were winning titles under the Glazers, with all their faults, because we had a competent management in Gill and SAF. Now INEOS have come in and look like they succeeded with Berrada. The jury is still out on Amorim but if he works out and then Wilcox and Vivel prove not to be complete idiots, why should they fail if they invest on a similar level, with a similar hit rate (4/5), to the summer window?

Its not space age technology where the senior management has to be that brilliant. If we get the 3 thirds of the triumvirate right - the coach, the CEO and the DOF - we will get it at the end. If, next season, we add four good players to this side in the positions we need, how do we fail to rise when we are going toe to toe with City and Liverpool in this state?
Click to expand...

I don’t think he has put himself in a corner as he’d have known he was overpaying and he’d have bought more if he could. It’s just the issue of trying to buy from the Glazers, they want to be compensated for what the club might be worth rather than its actual value. That issue isn’t going away whilst they own shares.

It’s too early to decide if he will be buy more shares, I think it’s extremely unlikely he doesn’t want to buy more, I’d imagine it’s also very unlikely the Glazers don’t want to sell off more chunks. We’re almost now in an ongoing negotiation about when it will happen and what the price of the shares will be.

All the leveraged debt has to be refinanced over next 4 years and it will come at big cost and much higher interest rates. The previous Glazer tactic of refinancing and just servicing the debt is going to be very difficult.
 
Last edited:
AneRu said:
I don't think the owners' competency or desire is too influential on whether a club succeeds. It's the strategic direction and ability to bring in people who can achieve it that's more important imo.

Let me explain it this way, we were winning titles under the Glazers, with all their faults, because we had a competent management in Gill and SAF. Now INEOS have come in and look like they succeeded with Berrada. The jury is still out on Amorim but if he works out and then Wilcox and Vivel prove not to be complete idiots, why should they fail if they invest on a similar level, with a similar hit rate (4/5), to the summer window?

Its not space age technology where the senior management has to be that brilliant. If we get the 3 thirds of the triumvirate right - the coach, the CEO and the DOF - we will get it at the end. If, next season, we add four good players to this side in the positions we need, how do we fail to rise when we are going toe to toe with City and Liverpool in this state?
Click to expand...

I agree. But they do need to create an optimal enviroment for those factors to happen. What I mean is they need to let the football people work, structure and facilities need to be as good as possible. Our success on the field is, in no small part, determined by the culture and how the enviroment for our players and manager are.
There is a reason we where so successful under Ferguson, and a large part of that was the culture and enviroment he helped build. Nowadays, given Amorim is a coach more than a manager, that falls under the people above to do, and it falls on our owners to make sure they have the tools available.
Currently, or at least before the Liverpool match, we where at an all time low, with players completely shut for confidence. Removing staff, cutting out charity etc just adds to fan frustration and the fuels a doom and gloom narrative around the club and that will have a negative effect on the pitch.

What Jim needs to realise, and fast, is that a football club doesnt work like his usual business.
 
United in it's current state needs to fully vested in youth academy. We need to ensure focus on attracting talents globally and developing these talents. I think it is the only way back. Talents can be sold with a buy back clause and it helps with overall balance sheet(5-10 millions per year from sales):

1. No more signings like Casemiro, "old" Ronaldo, Varane, Cavani, Eriksen and etc.
2. Know when to sell players e.g. Lingard, De Gea and other. We should be selling when they are almost at their end of their peak instead of renewing their contract or walking away on free. Bruno, Maguire should be consider for sale if there is a good offer.
 
Lyng said:
Fans like you.....so fans of the club instead of fans of Ineos you mean?

The glazers are the reason we are in this mess to begin with.
But some of us have had worries about Ineos due to heir previous massive failures at Nice and Lausanne. And so far the only really positive thing is Amorim.

You really believe they managed to get rid of Ashworth for nothing? We also only have the clubs briefs to know whether he was an issue or not. What we do know is Jimmy and Brailsworth have repeatedly not managed to live up to their lofty promises whenever they have gotten involved with a club.

So yes mistakes will be made and are absolutely okay, but it is extremely naive to just believe Ineos will magically come good for us, when so far there is nothing that points in that direction.

And before you accuse me of it, No I never wanted Qatar.
Click to expand...

I actually didn't want INEOS so, can't really accuse me of being a INEOS fan, I am just in check with reality.

100% the Glazers are to blame for the lack of care and the way they treated the club.

If you think Amorim is the only positive then that is on you but I can see more.
Hiring a CEO from a club that is well run, hiring technical directors and staff who have been successful at previous clubs.

What lofty promises have Jimmy and Brailsford given ? please also link it.

No one is naive to think it will magically come good, you are putting words, where I have clearly said on numerous occasions its not a light switch flick and you have to rectify the problems first before building. If you chose to ignore the positives, thats not my problem.

Signing younger players generally on a lower wage
Signing youth players that hopefully can go into the first team

Those are all signs that we are pushing in the right direction.

Add to that adding a manager with a style of play and backing him.
 
Roboc7 said:
I don’t think he has put himself in a corner as he’d have known he was overpaying and he’d have bought more if he could. It’s just the issue of trying to buy from the Glazers, they want to be compensated for what the club might be worth rather than its actual value. That issue isn’t going away whilst they own shares.

It’s too early to decide if he will be buy more shares, I think it’s extremely unlikely he doesn’t want to buy more, I’d imagine it’s also very unlikely the Glazers don’t want to sell off more chunks. We’re almost now in an ongoing negotiation about when it will happen and what the price of the shares will be.
Click to expand...
Iirc they have a pre-agreed fee and set period during which SJR will have the exclusive right to purchase the remainder of the shares or match any bid. I think, seeing how no-one will pay £8bn for this club, SJR will let this period lapse and then look to renegotiate terms.
Lyng said:
I agree. But they do need to create an optimal enviroment for those factors to happen. What I mean is they need to let the football people work, structure and facilities need to be as good as possible. Our success on the field is, in no small part, determined by the culture and how the enviroment for our players and manager are.
There is a reason we where so successful under Ferguson, and a large part of that was the culture and enviroment he helped build. Nowadays, given Amorim is a coach more than a manager, that falls under the people above to do, and it falls on our owners to make sure they have the tools available.
Currently, or at least before the Liverpool match, we where at an all time low, with players completely shut for confidence. Removing staff, cutting out charity etc just adds to fan frustration and the fuels a doom and gloom narrative around the club and that will have a negative effect on the pitch.

What Jim needs to realise, and fast, is that a football club doesnt work like his usual business.
Click to expand...
There is something that Amorim said at Liverpool, 'everyone is just too comfortable here', that's the culture aspect he is alluding to. SJR gutting the charities and bonuses is just deplorable and as you say it doesn't move the needle but I guess it's all designed, in addition to putting up everyone for sale, to create a picture of a struggling business that's in no position to overpay on fees and wages. It was always going to take some doing to change the image Woodward built for us.
 
Lyng said:
Removing staff, cutting out charity etc just adds to fan frustration and the fuels a doom and gloom narrative around the club and that will have a negative effect on the pitch.

What Jim needs to realise, and fast, is that a football club doesnt work like his usual business.
Click to expand...

This is saying that there is only 1 way to run a football club, in fact a football club is just another business behind the scenes.

You keep talking about removing staff, cutting charity etc will have a negative effect on the pitch, so where was the positive effect on the pitch when there were no cut backs and loads of money was spent?
 
r0663664 said:
United in it's current state needs to fully vested in youth academy. We need to ensure focus on attracting talents globally and developing these talents. I think it is the only way back. Talents can be sold with a buy back clause and it helps with overall balance sheet(5-10 millions per year from sales):

1. No more signings like Casemiro, "old" Ronaldo, Varane, Cavani, Eriksen and etc.
2. Know when to sell players e.g. Lingard, De Gea and other. We should be selling when they are almost at their end of their peak instead of renewing their contract or walking away on free. Bruno, Maguire should be consider for sale if there is a good offer.
Click to expand...
I think its fair to say Ineos are proving they agree with 1 already and 2 looks promising (Really the only major salary issues left are Rashford and Casemiro, Bruno is the other mega earner but he at least plays and he can be an important player for us). Sancho is effectively guaranteed to be leaving for £25m now right?

I will also argue Eriksen was a shrewd signing, we should not turn our noses up at older players on frees. He's also not on a big salary. Cavani I agree with though as we had to pay such a big sign on/agent fee + salary it was an expensive mistake.
 
AneRu said:
Iirc they have a pre-agreed fee and set period during which SJR will have the exclusive right to purchase the remainder of the shares or match any bid. I think, seeing how no-one will pay £8bn for this club, SJR will let this period lapse and then look to renegotiate terms.

There is something that Amorim said at Liverpool, 'everyone is just too comfortable here', that's the culture aspect he is alluding to. SJR gutting the charities and bonuses is just deplorable and as you say it doesn't move the needle but I guess it's all designed, in addition to putting up everyone for sale, to create a picture of a struggling business that's in no position to overpay on fees and wages. It was always going to take some doing to change the image Woodward built for us.
Click to expand...

He has first option to buy more shares if the Glazers wanted to sell more within 12 months which is obviously expiring soon. Or if the Glazers find a buyer for a full sale within the first 18 months he has to sell his shares for a set price which again will surely expire. That was there just as a fall back for the Glazers.

In terms of SJR buying the rest it doesn’t make a lot of difference as was always unlikely Glazers found another buyer and he wouldn’t have been expecting to buy anymore within first 12-18 months.
 
Last edited:
gulli_G said:
No I wanted a full sale, also this is not 100% on them. Their dad was a chancer, buying stocks here and there. Fergie at the time, was encouraging his Coolmoore friends to buy stocks, probably with a goal to run United with them, they had around 20% or so. And then he got greedy over a horse that was gifted to him, stud rights. Fergie didn't back down and if I remember correctly took them to court. The Coolmoore's to put pressure on Fergie started buying more shares.

Some moronic United fans took Fergie's side and turned up at the homes of the Coolmoore's who were very private people. They got unsettled and approached fellow shareholders and Malcolm who had never intended to buy could not believe his luck and explored and executed a leveraged purchase which the board opposed but could not stop.

So if we are talking 100% blame.for greed it is Fergie's. The unfortunate irony, is the Glazers were just the parasites that came as a result and almost ruined everything Fergie help build.

Ratcliffe is another chancer who probably is only worried about fracking rights around OT.
Click to expand...
Malcom Glazer was a lot of things, chancer isn't one of them, you don't get to be the owner of an NFL franchise and one of the biggest football clubs in the world being a chancer.

His sons have been running United since 2006, it absolutely is 100% on them
 
tomaldinho1 said:
I will also argue Eriksen was a shrewd signing, we should not turn our noses up at older players on frees. He's also not on a big salary.
Click to expand...

Agreed, its unfair to lump him in as a flop. He was brought in as a free transfer squad player and probably has played more that anyone expected, nobody was under any illusion that he was going to be our main legs in midfield a few years ago, let alone now.
 
Roboc7 said:
He has first option to buy more shares if the Glazers wanted to sell more within 12 months which is obviously expiring soon. Or if the Glazers find a buyer for a full sale within the first 18 months he has to sell his shares for a set price which again will surely expire. That was there just as a fall back for the Glazers.

In terms of SJR buying the rest it doesn’t make a lot of difference as was always unlikely Glazers found another buyer.
Click to expand...
Well no. The mechanism by which he can buy B shares from the Glazers isn't time restricted. And it's 2 way, as in they have the same rights to purchase from JR. There is no pre agreed set price.
The Glazers can not force a full sale in year one. If they do within 3 years JR gets at least his money back ($33 per share) or the price in a full sale if greater.
It should be mentioned that when we talk about a full sale of the club, it does not necessarily mean a Glazerless United in the future. The Glazers, could seek shares in the new entity in a share for share deal as opposed to just a cash for share deal. That might discourage some buyers but the lower acquisition costs might interest other players.
 
Red in STL said:
Malcom Glazer was a lot of things, chancer isn't one of them, you don't get to be the owner of an NFL franchise and one of the biggest football clubs in the world being a chancer.

His sons have been running United since 2006, it absolutely is 100% on them
Click to expand...
Maybe chancer wasn't the best word, I meant he was spreading buying shares here and there, he wasn't in to buy it until it came into his lap.
 
gulli_G said:
Maybe chancer wasn't the best word, I meant he was spreading buying shares here and there, he wasn't in to buy it until it came into his lap.
Click to expand...
The club practically begged Glazer to buy the shares at the time due to the tensions between Ferguson, McManus and Magnier.
 
gulli_G said:
Maybe chancer wasn't the best word, I meant he was spreading buying shares here and there, he wasn't in to buy it until it came into his lap.
Click to expand...
He was buying up shares for 2 years before the takeover, I think he knew exactly what he was/wanted to do
 
gulli_G said:
It was incremental nothing on the scale of magnier and co.
Click to expand...
Of course not, but he would have been aware of the tensions, he owned 15% before he bought Magnier and McManus's 28% - due to the rules he had to make a bid for the whole thing, I'm pretty sure he knew and planned it

​

 
Red in STL said:
Of course not, but he would have been aware of the tensions, he owned 15% before he bought Magnier and McManus's 28% - due to the rules he had to make a bid for the whole thing, I'm pretty sure he knew and planned it

​

Click to expand...
Woodward's scheme wasn't it? I still shake my head that the British authorities allowed a leveraged buyout, something Glazer couldn't have done in the USA. The government had already put the kibosh on the Murdoch bid (a bid that would have left the club solvent I believe), but allowed a bloody carpetbagger to load United with such an incredible amount of debt that could have sunk am historic football club. But you have to go further back that Cubic. Martin Edwards' greed paved the way.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.