Probably not but he's already bought a chunk of United that's worth way less than what was actually paid for it - for Ratcliffe ,and thus INEOS, it's a personal vanity project not a real investment
Club ownership | Senior management team talk
- Thread starter golden_blunder
- Start date
I’m not sure where the redundancies, cancelling Christmas etc comes in if it’s not a real investment. It won’t make a jot of difference to performances on the pitch. I’m glad for you that you can believe that.
If he really wanted to make money, then buying United was a terrible idea. There are far easier and less risky ways to make money than buying a club like United at an overvalued price.
He's still a ruthless business man, that's what he knows and how he operates, sure it's a bit petty but anyone else bar Qatar or another state would have done the same sort of things
Turning United round financially and fixing/replacing OT is probably a 10+ year project and a big chunk of more money, as solely an investment it doesn't make sense, especially for a 72 year old who quite possibly would never see it
Where do you think the money saved is going to go? Are you expecting him to take dividends from the club? How else would he personally benefit financially from making such decisions?
The biggest and most effective thing that can be done to streamline costs is to make better financial decisions regarding football i.e buying and selling players as well as contracts.
Cutting the Christmas party and taking 50pounds from a steward will have barely any effect on the finances in the macro level. All that does is lower morale, reward the highly paid consultancy firm and continue INEOS record of making companies trimmer. But a football club is not a regular business. It is not an oil rig or coal mine that they're used to. It's a service/entertainment business. You can't just use the same methods. Doesn't make sense.
Also, the amount of people who care if you fire Sir Alex Ferguson is higher than those who would if you union bust a tiny company like they're used to. Absolutely horrid PR and they've squandered the goodwill granted to them by the customer base with no rewards given to them yet.
Cutting the Christmas party and taking 50pounds from a steward will have barely any effect on the finances in the macro level. All that does is lower morale, reward the highly paid consultancy firm and continue INEOS record of making companies trimmer. But a football club is not a regular business. It is not an oil rig or coal mine that they're used to. It's a service/entertainment business. You can't just use the same methods. Doesn't make sense.
Also, the amount of people who care if you fire Sir Alex Ferguson is higher than those who would if you union bust a tiny company like they're used to. Absolutely horrid PR and they've squandered the goodwill granted to them by the customer base with no rewards given to them yet.
Exactly this. Word for word I agree.
The Ashworth hiring and firing is a massive red flag. They literally did no due diligence or whatever they did was worthless. Wasted time on him when we could have hired someone able to start much sooner that fit the personality/skills they wanted and be a more dominant voice re: ETH going. What the hell were they doing? You'd think it was the first time they ran a football club but then you remember that they have 2 other clubs that have not been doing well, relatively.
Right. We've had people on here mention that the club expected people to accept the lower wages just because they're fans of the club. The only people who were overpaid were players and some management.
Training facilities are being upgraded. I'll give them that.
Part of a little furore early in summer 2024 because the women's team was being forced out of their newly built facilities (I think construction started before INEOS were confirmed) and into temporary ones because the men's team would be using them for this season while we upgraded Carrington.
Increasing the value of the asset. Or he’s a cnut who hates giving some of his money to others. Probably both. Where do you think the money saved will go? A weeks wages for a player?
I’m sorry but him putting his money on the line for United to be successful potentially after he’s dead just doesn’t jibe with a man putting people on the dole just because.
hmmm I think I’ll leave this here
You’re leaving it there because you know the answer doesn’t lead to improvement on the pitch. Continue to twerk for your billionaire.
I’m leaving it there because you have a really aggressive approach to discussing things
You can’t answer a simple question so I appreciate you leaving it there.
SJR didn’t buy United to make money. Nobody buys football clubs to do that. There are very few clubs anywhere that actually make money and most owners buy them as trophy’s or play things.
I’ve a friend who works for clubs and he helps them prep when looking for perspective buyers. Some of the models he has on football clubs are unreal but his summary is that nobody buys an EPL club to make money. They are effectively money pits.
SJR didn’t buy United to make a profit. He probably won’t see any profit in his lifetime, even if they turn things round quickly and you could argue the yanks will probably profit more on his back. Billionaires don’t regularly get into these sort of sharing deals (where it feels like the glazers really can’t lose) which strongly suggests SJr wanted the reigns of the club at any cost or concessions.
Most things point to the club being a personal project of SJR, not primarily about him making money and the things he’s doing are actually just how he runs his business.
I’ve a friend who works for clubs and he helps them prep when looking for perspective buyers. Some of the models he has on football clubs are unreal but his summary is that nobody buys an EPL club to make money. They are effectively money pits.
SJR didn’t buy United to make a profit. He probably won’t see any profit in his lifetime, even if they turn things round quickly and you could argue the yanks will probably profit more on his back. Billionaires don’t regularly get into these sort of sharing deals (where it feels like the glazers really can’t lose) which strongly suggests SJr wanted the reigns of the club at any cost or concessions.
Most things point to the club being a personal project of SJR, not primarily about him making money and the things he’s doing are actually just how he runs his business.
Last edited:
Careful. You might get called a twerker.
Is that the Lingard dance ?
Yes he literally is, and yes he literally can. There are 3 shareholders - Ratcliffe has 2/3, his 2 partners have the other 1/3 between them. The three men are very aligned. He calls the shots, they back him up.
INEOS aren’t going to waste money, it’s not there MO but if Sir Jim wants to spend it he will.
You don’t know what the word literally means.
Honest question. If United were able to handle TV rights to our games, would that make a difference? Also, my understanding is the putative super league was a potential money-spinner, hence the Glazers drooling over the prospect.
From what I understand, United would make more on that model but the product (EPL) would suffer. Look at La liga , all money still mostly goes to two clubs and the league suffers for it.
Super league was a power move by super clubs looking to hoover up more profits and I think United handling their own tv rights would be a similar kind of play.
That's what I thought. Thanks.
All those Americans investing in the Premier League are doing it for the love of the sport? Tell the Glazers there’s no money to be made.
It’s not for the love of the sport, it’s for prestige , like every single NFL owner (one of which the glazers are).
Whatever about buying a club 20 years ago, you simply don’t buy an EPL club to make money. On practically every barometer it’s a bad investment and disproportionately risky.
What’s it, 2 EPL clubs made a profit last year ? The costs involved to actually grow an asset are astronomical. Liverpool owners are the exception, not the rule. Glazers were really really lucky , didn’t put a penny into the club and had one of the greatest managers of all time preventing us from being a Leeds.
Their leverage buyout (which wouldn’t be allowed now) of the club out all the risk on the club and the EPLs unbelievable inflation of profits and being able to market the hell out of SAF greatness worked out for them.
But these are rare instances. Most clubs , even in lower leagues , lose money for owners. Soft power and prestige is the main reason rich people buy these clubs. Play things for the rich.
How many Premier League clubs are worth less than they were when their current owners bought them? It’s not just about the annual profit.
Why the cost cutting if it’s not about money?
Clubs are worth what people are willing to pay for them, there are a lot of seriously rich people around who can, and do, use them as play things, take Musk, he paid $40 billion for Twitter which lost $222 million the year before he bought it, he doesn't care about it making money
Rich people tend not to operate on sentiment, cost cutting is often the way they became rich in the first place, so they just carry on even when it might not be needed
There's such a thing as club atmosphere. Just like any workplace, a football club can be mired in negativity and apathy, and that can absolutely impact results. United were infamous for being the last club to start paying its staff a living wage, for instance, and for having poor working conditions in general. These kinds of things influence the atmosphere that surrounds players on a daily basis, and it can contribute to a general lack of enthusiasm across the board, including performances on the pitch. Most of us have tried working at a place where the atmosphere sucked, and while a football club isn't exactly the same as an ordinary workplace, it's not as if there are no similarities whatsoever.
On a fundamental human level, these players get up in the morning and go to work. It isn't the same kind of work as most people, but it is still what they do for a living. If there's a negative vibe where they work - and especially if some of the staff aren't doing their best work due to lack of enthusiasm - that has an influence, psychologically. Maybe even a tangible influence--for how many consecutive years have we been ravaged by injuries? The club known for bad working conditions for its employees - medical staff included - is perpetually plagued by injuries. Hmm.
Remember when some players made a fuss about Moyes banning the tradition of sharing a plate of chips before games? It wasn't because it isn't possible to play well without having had some chips first, it was because that tradition was part of the team's culture, something that helped to foster positive spirit. It's clear beyond a shadow of a doubt that there have been problems with the overall club spirit in the last decade, everything from discord in the dressing room to people leaking information to the press.
While I can't sit here and say I know for a fact that years of running the club purely like a business is the sole and exact cause of this, I'd say it's rather likely to have played a part. Cancelling the Christmas party, and whatever else they've done in their cost-cutting crusade, makes it a little less desirable to be part of the club. A little less likely to greet players with a smile in the morning, a little less likely to do your very best in whatever job it is you have, etc. Enough of these things and suddenly you can have very real, very significant problems.
On a fundamental human level, these players get up in the morning and go to work. It isn't the same kind of work as most people, but it is still what they do for a living. If there's a negative vibe where they work - and especially if some of the staff aren't doing their best work due to lack of enthusiasm - that has an influence, psychologically. Maybe even a tangible influence--for how many consecutive years have we been ravaged by injuries? The club known for bad working conditions for its employees - medical staff included - is perpetually plagued by injuries. Hmm.
Remember when some players made a fuss about Moyes banning the tradition of sharing a plate of chips before games? It wasn't because it isn't possible to play well without having had some chips first, it was because that tradition was part of the team's culture, something that helped to foster positive spirit. It's clear beyond a shadow of a doubt that there have been problems with the overall club spirit in the last decade, everything from discord in the dressing room to people leaking information to the press.
While I can't sit here and say I know for a fact that years of running the club purely like a business is the sole and exact cause of this, I'd say it's rather likely to have played a part. Cancelling the Christmas party, and whatever else they've done in their cost-cutting crusade, makes it a little less desirable to be part of the club. A little less likely to greet players with a smile in the morning, a little less likely to do your very best in whatever job it is you have, etc. Enough of these things and suddenly you can have very real, very significant problems.
Last edited:
If there’s one thing I know about rich people, it’s always about their money.
Among many other things, we have a new stadium to build , the amount of money that needs to be spent to take United back up to scratch is enormous.
United no longer has the financial advantage it had when we could throw stupid money agent Woodward got accustomed to and if we don’t sort out squad management out, we are in massive trouble.
United is not an investment asset for a 72 year old to buy with his own money (unlike leveraged glazer purchase), , especially in its current state. It’s a very risky asset which many think is at saturation point. EPL tv deal is less (per game) then previous one.
I’d see SJR cutbacks simply his MO. Glazers didn’t care about wastage , look at our squad. SJR is simply a different owner, who , unlike the glazers, is putting his own money into the club so he values what’s spent.
The cuts we’re talking about will have zero impact on the ability to finance a new stadium. A new stadium will only add to the value of the asset don’t forget.
Sure, it looks bad optics. But it might be good in the long run to get rid of a few useless hangers on, and possibly get the killer instinct back at the club.
No doubt we have a few who are just doing the bare minimum (see the playing squad), so a round of layoffs might seem brutal, but could actually work from a business/morale standpoint.
Doubt it but we'll see. It'll likely be Amorim working some kind of magic and/or getting lucky with a very good transfer window.
Some of the cuts have been ridiculous, I won’t argue with that but the return on the investment required for the new stadium still requires them to get the football right and will optimistically take a decade before that starts yielding a return of any sort.
A billionaire buying a soccer club and doing things differently (cutting costs) does not mean they are trying to make money. Again, look at how much the glazers put in and took out of the club. That’s an owner only interested in making money at a club and Ratcliffe is doing the exact opposite at a much riskier time then when the Glazers took over.
There is a potential for profit , but it’s really a poor investment if your primary goal is profit. Here’s an example of even just a championship team supported by their owner:
Unreal figures and it’s just a championship club. United’s brand is obviously stronger but so are costs and the cost to retain a high position has never been higher. Sovereign wealth funds and other billionaires have gotten in on the fun , which means United can’t easily buy their way back to the top.
United now is as vulnerable as it’s ever been and it’s part of the reason no billionaire jumped in and bought it, it’s simply not been good value. You know the glazers would sell up if the price was right.
It’s ok to think that Ratcliffe may be good for the football club, (I don’t think he is) without the need to defend all his cost cutting like some are. It’s not part of a masterplan to make us more successful on the pitch.
What he has invested is not a sunk cost. He’s acquired an asset that only adds to his net worth. Making the business ‘leaner’ only adds to the value of the club. The idea he no longer cares about making money because of his age makes no sense to me. If he didn’t care about making more money he’d sell his businesses and stop living in a tax haven.
He may well want the prestige that comes with owning United, I’m sure he does, he always wants to continue making money too.
I’ll ask you the question again, how many Premier League clubs have decreased in value since they were bought?
I don’t think the Glazers ever wanted a full sale. They see the value of the club rising and expect it to continue.
Can’t both things be true?
Im not defending the cost cutting , im simply saying billionaires don’t usually buy soccer clubs to make money directly out of those clubs. And even less so are billionaires pumping hundreds of millions into an asset they don’t fully own.
You can’t just say “look at the increase in EPL clubs value” because that’s only part of the story. How much have the owners put into those clubs before they started making a profit ? Outside of Pool and Glazers you will struggle to find data that proves that these clubs are great profit investments.
If the middlesboro owner is pumping in hundreds of millions to keep a championship club going; how much do you think the owners of the average EPL clubs have to do ?
United’s net losses since 2021 are reportedly over £250m. That’s £75m loss per year. United’s value has to substantially increase and their net losses need to entirely turn around to make this a prudent investment. Now look at most EPL clubs annual losses (all but 2 are losing money).
Im not sure if you are arguing a different point, im not arguing about the cost cutting or defending SJR like he’s a nice Philanthropist pumping money into the club out of the goodness of his heart. Im simply stating that I don’t believe SJRs primary goal with United was making money , moreso that he’s simply running the club the same way he runs his companies. And the fact he’s actually putting his own money into the club , is part of the focusing his mind on wastage.
Im not saying he wants to lose money on this, im saying as an investment, it’s a very risky one, a very illiquid investment (only limited people can buy these clubs and it takes time) and not something you’d expect somebody whose primary goal is growth on investment, would do.
Last edited:
I'm so sick of it all, 11 years we see the same shit every transfer window. Same old shit just differently phrased.
My point with the value of the club is that you don’t need to make an annual profit for it to be a wise investment. I suspect you know that so I’m not sure why you fixate on the profits. It may not be the safest investment but there’s a reason why so many Americans have been invested in the Premier League and it’s because they believe there’s growth in it.
Investing in United has two benefits to Ratcliffe. Prestige and asset growth. Cutting costs to be make money is actually more defendable than doing it just because that’s how he does business. I’m not suggesting you are defending the cuts by the way but many here are and it’s pathetic.