Club ownership | Senior management team talk

Poor results feed the debacle perspective but really INEOS tenure isn't better or worse now than how it was immediately after FA Cup win over Arsenal last week.

United's best bet to change its fate was a full sale in order to get rid of the Glazers and getting rid of the debt in the process. When the minority sale (with a path to a majority, of course, just like any other minority sale on the market) materialized it was pretty much game over.

INEOS could be similar, better or worse managing the football aspect of the club (IMO they look very middle of the road, not as terrible as the Glazers but nothing special either), but they were handled a situation unbelievably worse than the one the Glazers got, when (thanks to SAF and a lot of other competent people that came before them) they were able to feck around for about 20 years without finding out.

Plus, even if they manage to perform extremely well, at best they will still be A) systematically hindered by servicing the debt, which puts United at a disadvantage compared to other top clubs; and B) unable to remove the Glazers and the debt, since the better they do the higher the buyout price will be. So the impact they are able to bring into the club is fundamentally limited.
 
Is this what he meant by putting the 'Manchester' back in Manchester United?

He neglected to mention he'd be cutting the 'United' bit
 
Smores said:
Odd claim as the few good players in the squad to me are the only ones performing right now, Ugarte, Amad, Bruno.

Garnacho and Mainoo were playing terrible football prior to the manager coming in so trying to pin their lack of performance on him is ridiculous. Over time you'd expect him to make use of them but he's not going to instantly turn their form around.
Click to expand...
Do you not think players like Mazraoui or Garnacho are good? They definitely weren’t playing terrible football before Amorim. Garnacho had a decent start to the season and Mainoo if I recall was injured for a while, I don’t know if he even featured for Ruud. I don’t think it’s ridiculous to suggest that the system doesn’t suit either player, it’s simply what I - and many others - think.
 
I'm gonna wait and see what happens before I jump on the INEOS are shits bandwagon.

The cost cutting has been going on for a while and the stories are drip fed which makes it worse. If you get it in your head that SJR is cost cutting, and nobody is safe, then there is no more surprises. If they want to cut back on non essential spending, I dont care. As long as the money saved gets put to better use.

In principle I'm all for it. United has been a gravy train on and off the field for a long time. If Luke Shaw and Mason Mount are on ridiculous contracts, chances are the ambassadors and everyone else is too. Its a monumental mess and will take time to sort out.
 
It's not a good look again but I sort of like that they don't care how it makes them look with this difficult decision.

All resources need to go towards improving the football team. Period.
 
Krakenzero said:
Poor results feed the debacle perspective but really INEOS tenure isn't better or worse now than how it was immediately after FA Cup win over Arsenal last week.

United's best bet to change its fate was a full sale in order to get rid of the Glazers and getting rid of the debt in the process. When the minority sale (with a path to a majority, of course, just like any other minority sale on the market) materialized it was pretty much game over.

INEOS could be similar, better or worse managing the football aspect of the club (IMO they look very middle of the road, not as terrible as the Glazers but nothing special either), but they were handled a situation unbelievably worse than the one the Glazers got, when (thanks to SAF and a lot of other competent people that came before them) they were able to feck around for about 20 years without finding out.

Plus, even if they manage to perform extremely well, at best they will still be A) systematically hindered by servicing the debt, which puts United at a disadvantage compared to other top clubs; and B) unable to remove the Glazers and the debt, since the better they do the higher the buyout price will be. So the impact they are able to bring into the club is fundamentally limited.
Click to expand...

Superb post which sums it up perfectly
 
When we see all these decisions by INEOS being made, they look awful and more so when the team is performing poorly. They are ruthless, which can be good and bad. To me, it's a question whether they are ruthless in the right areas.

I don't want to judge them after a year or however long it is. If the results were going well and United were playing well I think everybody's tone would be softer.
 
Garnacho Libre said:
When we see all these decisions by INEOS being made, they look awful and more so when the team is performing poorly. They are ruthless, which can be good and bad. To me, it's a question whether they are ruthless in the right areas.

I don't want to judge them after a year or however long it is. If the results were going well and United were playing well I think everybody's tone would be softer.
Click to expand...

They started to lose me when keeping Ten Hag last summer, they completely did when they hiked up ticket prices along with the other stuff
 
croadyman said:
They started to lose me when keeping Ten Hag last summer, they completely did when they hiked up ticket prices along with the other stuff
Click to expand...
With Ten Hag they should have made the decision to keep him for entirety of this season after spending so much money on players he wanted. Or sacked him early and let the new manager do his thing.

I'm only at one or two games every season but I can image the ticket prices going up and the team playing bad and the players earning so much money must be infuriating. But yeah, getting more money out of the regular fans and the worst team United have had in I don't know how long is a bad move.
 
Garnacho Libre said:
With Ten Hag they should have made the decision to keep him for entirety of this season after spending so much money on players he wanted. Or sacked him early and let the new manager do his thing.

I'm only at one or two games every season but I can image the ticket prices going up and the team playing bad and the players earning so much money must be infuriating. But yeah, getting more money out of the regular fans and the worst team United have had in I don't know how long is a bad move.
Click to expand...

Yeah along with taking money from club ambassadors who never earnt much in playing days
 
croadyman said:
Yeah along with taking money from club ambassadors who never earnt much in playing days
Click to expand...
I agree that is wrong and not justifiable. My point is if the club was on the right track on the pitch then all these decisions would lead to something. Instead it goes to players on massive wages/contracts and there are problems selling said players.

At the end of the day does the couple million saved on costs on the lower end of these expenses really make any much of a difference. On top of that with not getting results on the pitch makes the decisions just look inhuman.
 
To be fair I'm not against slashing this lots money. No other clubs have "Ambassador roles" like this one. Complete waste
 
LordSpud said:
To be fair I'm not against slashing this lots money. No other clubs have "Ambassador roles" like this one. Complete waste
Click to expand...
Some do. I am aware of Giovane Elber and Claudio Pizarro as Bayern's club ambassadors for example.
 
How they've worked in the market so far - over three weeks of nothing - looks pretty grim. I wonder if they actually used the autumn to plan things (including sorting out outgoings).
 
roseguy64 said:
Once they axed Sir Alex then this was always coming.
Click to expand...

Cutting links to the past maybe. I agree that the club doesn't owe old players a living, but it's a good thing to have some old boys around to meet and greet fans and to appear at functions. It's not about the money, it's about continuity. If they do that to our greatest manager and the greatest captain of the modern era, what does that tell you about where their heads are at?
 
croadyman said:
Superb post which sums it up perfectly
Click to expand...
I disagree. I think there is a lot of upside from good performances when we finally get them. Revenue, ie matchday income and sponsorships have largely been the same for 10 years as the club has fallen behind. The club has rolled over existing deals with no uplift due to shitty on field results and minimal success.

If SJR can turn it around and get United competitive again and get the money rolling in, United will be in the top 2 richest clubs in the world with Real Madrid. Every team has some debt these days. Its not the debt that is hamstringing the club. Its stupid signings and contracts from the previous regime.
 
Vault Dweller said:
God I can't stand them.
Click to expand...

Me neither. Feels like they are slowly but surely changing the club into something entirely different then what I fell in love with. When you remove the people who helped create the clubs history it ends up as a shell.
All the talk is about money now.
 
Lyng said:
Me neither. Feels like they are slowly but surely changing the club into something entirely different then what I fell in love with. When you remove the people who helped create the clubs history it ends up as a shell.
All the talk is about money now.
Click to expand...
Grow a pair mate. What exactly have they changed? Theyve been here 5 mins.
 
PlasticRed said:
Grow a pair mate. What exactly have they changed? Theyve been here 5 mins.
Click to expand...

Theyve been here 5 minutes indeed. Lets look at the changes:

Hired Ashworth. Paid to get him in. Fire him shortly after.
Let Ten Hag ruin this season before getting rid and getting a manager in that plays a completely different system, instead of doing it in the summer.
Raise prices for tickets, while the stadium is falling apart and the football is at its worst.
Getting rid of ambassadors.
Cutting staff, which makes decent sense, given the bloat.
Cost cutting on charities.
etc etc etc

Like @stefan92 mentioned, a club like Bayern have ambassadors. We have always had it and its part of a big club with a rich history. Those kinds of people are important for brand and fans.
Jimmy the Rat only understands business. Clearly not United.
 
PlasticRed said:
I disagree. I think there is a lot of upside from good performances when we finally get them. Revenue, ie matchday income and sponsorships have largely been the same for 10 years as the club has fallen behind. The club has rolled over existing deals with no uplift due to shitty on field results and minimal success.

If SJR can turn it around and get United competitive again and get the money rolling in, United will be in the top 2 richest clubs in the world with Real Madrid. Every team has some debt these days. Its not the debt that is hamstringing the club. Its stupid signings and contracts from the previous regime.
Click to expand...

Regarding revenue, United is already selling out all season tickets. And they're increasing the price. Where else could they increase their matchday income? They are already at least top 2 in sponsorship income in the league, which is the richest and most valuable league in the sport. There's not that much room to grow unless they get to negotiate their TV rights individually like Real Madrid (which won't be approved by the other clubs as it damages the EPL) or the Super League becomes a reality (which is now dead in the water). There's no big difference to make here through results on the field.

The natural answer to the income issue is to refurbish Old Trafford, which could halt increasing maintenance and repair expenses and generate more revenue in both matchday income and sponsorships. But to do that you need to invest a lot of money, and that money could come from either the owners or debt. So about that:

-The owners aren't a possibility since the majority owners are unable/unwilling to do that (which in itself is a byproduct of the leveraged buyout) and, unless INEOS is willing to give money away, the minority owners can't do that on their own unless they convince the majority owners to dilute their share and stop being in control of the club.

-The debt is more realistic but it's also more expensive because the interest rates are higher than before and United is hindered by the debt it already has and is still paying.

And that's before considering that profits from refurbishing would come 2 or 3 seasons after the main investment, which would also hinder the club's economy and competitiveness on the field in the meantime (like what happened with Arsenal).

Debt in itself isn't bad and as you said most clubs have it in some way. Thing is, you usually get into debt by acquiring something that generate long term benefits for you in the process, like buying a house or getting top education for a person; or getting a new stadium or a stellar player/squad that increases your revenues if you're a football club.

The uniqueness of United's debt is that it was in order to achieve something that actually harms the club: the privilege of being owned and very poorly managed (but generously rewarded through dividends) by the Glazers. The damage of acquiring that debt (and the fact that 20 years later is not only still there but is also bigger than before) is crippling United both in finances and on the field limiting every decision concerning every fiscal year, football season or transfer window. Not in one or two seasons like a stupid signing or in three or four like a poor wage policy. You can get rid of both fairly easily without paying a permanent price. The leveraged buyout debt, on the other hand, will be there forever unless you clear it for good.
 
Lyng said:
Theyve been here 5 minutes indeed. Lets look at the changes:

Hired Ashworth. Paid to get him in. Fire him shortly after.
Let Ten Hag ruin this season before getting rid and getting a manager in that plays a completely different system, instead of doing it in the summer.
Raise prices for tickets, while the stadium is falling apart and the football is at its worst.
Getting rid of ambassadors.
Cutting staff, which makes decent sense, given the bloat.
Cost cutting on charities.
etc etc etc

Like @stefan92 mentioned, a club like Bayern have ambassadors. We have always had it and its part of a big club with a rich history. Those kinds of people are important for brand and fans.
Jimmy the Rat only understands business. Clearly not United.
Click to expand...

The Ashworth decision I disagree with.
I have sympathy for fans and ticket prices, but in SJR defence, they were cheaper than the clubs we compete with and we are losing money
The stadium is old and outdated, thats why they want to build a new one
What do the ambassadors do? What are the paid? Maybe they were overpaid and didnt do alot.
Ten Hag was 50/50 decision. He won FA cup, would have been harsh to get rid. We have a brand new top rated manager who is doing worse than Ten Hag at the moment. If Ten Hag is shit, what is Amorim? Doesnt suit your narrative though does it?

Im afraid most fans on here dont get football. Simply put, United buy better players that can score goals. The reason they havnt got em, is because the squad is full of over paid dross that nobody wants to take of our hands. Thats not SJRs fault. The very people that were whinging about lack of FFP are now whinging we have to sell home grown players to fund incoming deals. PSR is also not SJRs fault.

You cant really Judge SJR until 3 years time.
 
PlasticRed said:
The Ashworth decision I disagree with.
I have sympathy for fans and ticket prices, but in SJR defence, they were cheaper than the clubs we compete with and we are losing money
The stadium is old and outdated, thats why they want to build a new one
What do the ambassadors do? What are the paid? Maybe they were overpaid and didnt do alot.
Ten Hag was 50/50 decision. He won FA cup, would have been harsh to get rid. We have a brand new top rated manager who is doing worse than Ten Hag at the moment. If Ten Hag is shit, what is Amorim? Doesnt suit your narrative though does it?

Im afraid most fans on here dont get football. Simply put, United need more goals. The reason they havnt got em, is because the squad is full of over paid dross that nobody wants to take of our hands. Thats not SJRs fault.
Click to expand...

You disagree it was a bad move or you disagree with my critique of the situation?
My issue is that raising ticket prices while we are delivering and all time low shower of shit every week is an issue, and also his comparisson with Fulham shows he is completely out of touch with Manchester as a city.
The ambassadors do a slew of things, mostly PR and fan related. Its quite important for a club.
Ten Hag had a terrible season and a FA cup win doesnt change that. On top of that they where clearly interviewing other managers. It was a complete shit show.

How the heck is cutting charity going to result in more goals?
 
Krakenzero said:
Regarding revenue, United is already selling out all season tickets. And they're increasing the price. Where else could they increase their matchday income? They are already at least top 2 in sponsorship income in the league, which is the richest and most valuable league in the sport. There's not that much room to grow unless they get to negotiate their TV rights individually like Real Madrid (which won't be approved by the other clubs as it damages the EPL) or the Super League becomes a reality (which is now dead in the water). There's no big difference to make here through results on the field.

The natural answer to the income issue is to refurbish Old Trafford, which could halt increasing maintenance and repair expenses and generate more revenue in both matchday income and sponsorships. But to do that you need to invest a lot of money, and that money could come from either the owners or debt. So about that:

-The owners aren't a possibility since the majority owners are unable/unwilling to do that (which in itself is a byproduct of the leveraged buyout) and, unless INEOS is willing to give money away, the minority owners can't do that on their own unless they convince the majority owners to dilute their share and stop being in control of the club.

-The debt is more realistic but it's also more expensive because the interest rates are higher than before and United is hindered by the debt it already has and is still paying.

And that's before considering that profits from refurbishing would come 2 or 3 seasons after the main investment, which would also hinder the club's economy and competitiveness on the field in the meantime (like what happened with Arsenal).

Debt in itself isn't bad and as you said most clubs have it in some way. Thing is, you usually get into debt by acquiring something that generate long term benefits for you in the process, like buying a house or getting top education for a person; or getting a new stadium or a stellar player/squad that increases your revenues if you're a football club.

The uniqueness of United's debt is that it was in order to achieve something that actually harms the club: the privilege of being owned and very poorly managed (but generously rewarded through dividends) by the Glazers. The damage of acquiring that debt (and the fact that 20 years later is not only still there but is also bigger than before) is crippling United both in finances and on the field limiting every decision concerning every fiscal year, football season or transfer window. Not in one or two seasons like a stupid signing or in three or four like a poor wage policy. You can get rid of both fairly easily without paying a permanent price. The leveraged buyout debt, on the other hand, will be there forever unless you clear it for good.
Click to expand...

They have put up prices quite a bit. That will bring in more cash. The new stadium will probably increase match day by 50 to 100 percent depending on how many non football events it hosts.
The sponsorship deals may be big compared to other clubs, but they used to be miles ahead. That lead has been eroded and could be restored with success.

I dont like the amount of debt this club has to service. But its bad management that has been the driver for Uniteds downfall, not debt.
 
Krakenzero said:
Plus, even if they manage to perform extremely well, at best they will still be A) systematically hindered by servicing the debt, which puts United at a disadvantage compared to other top clubs
Click to expand...

United have been hindered with debt pre-Ineos and spent over a precious billion on rubbish.

The reality is the debt will be serviceable if the club gets its recruitment correct, and results follow.

Qatar's rule would likely see them sack the flailing manager, hire the next best thing with top brass (like Berrada) to run the show. No guarantee of improvement where it matters most.

PlasticRed said:
You cant really Judge SJR until 3 years time.
Click to expand...

Ineos, really, but yes. It's like Starmer's Labour. Expected to sort it all out in five minutes, as though the decade-plus of mismanagement can be batted aside because so exceptional are we.


Lyng said:
Feels like they are slowly but surely changing the club into something entirely different then what I fell in love with. When you remove the people who helped create the clubs history it ends up as a shell.
Click to expand...

Sorry, but when were United this benevolent love whose heart ruled its head? It took four decades to get a Munich testimonial. Dodgy chairmen. Saudi telecom deals. AIG. Sweat-shop merch. You name it.

We've always been a steel-hearted business only the trophies rolled in. The reality is now being laid bare and testing our entitlement.

Furthermore, we have a fanbase a majority of which would be a-okay with state ownership if it meant more more more more. In absolutely no position to moralise.
 
MaxZorin said:
Sorry, but when were United this benevolent love whose heart ruled its head? It took four decades to get a Munich testimonial. Dodgy chairmen. Saudi telecom deals. AIG. Sweat-shop merch. You name it.

We've always been a steel-hearted business only the trophies rolled in. The reality is now being laid bare and testing our entitlement.

Furthermore, we have a fanbase a majority of which would be a-okay with state ownership if it meant more more more more. In absolutely no position to moralise.
Click to expand...

United always took care of its own. Beckham when he was hated by the rest of the nation for instance. Rest of it is whataboutism at its best.

A lot of us didnt and still dont want state ownership. Didnt and still dont want Ineos either.
 
Lyng said:
United always took care of its own.
Click to expand...

Forty years for a Munich testimonial, just one example, pointedly says otherwise.

LvG may also disagree. But who is 'our own' anyway?

Nietzsche: What is the purpose of society but to get a few good men, and then, to get round them?

Lyng said:
Rest of it is whataboutism at its best.
Click to expand...

Your Beckham example is itself guilty of 'whataboutism', isn't it? We can proceed all day on that score (which is the device's purpose).

Cutting senior wages of already-loaded ambassadors is a popcorn fart in comparison to some of our worst excesses.

It's also somewhat consistent with other layoffs occurring throughout the company.

PlasticRed said:
I dont like the amount of debt this club has to service. But its bad management that has been the driver for Uniteds downfall, not debt.
Click to expand...

Absolutely correct.
 
Last edited:
MaxZorin said:
Forty years for a Munich testimonial, just one example, pointedly says otherwise.

LvG may also disagree. But who is 'our own' anyway?

Nietzsche: What is the purpose of society but to get a few good men, and then, to get round them?



Your Beckham example is itself guilty of 'whataboutism', isn't it? We can proceed all day on that score (which is the device's purpose).

Cutting senior wages of already-loaded ambassadors is a popcorn fart in comparison to some of our worst excesses.

It's also somewhat consistent with other layoffs occurring throughout the company.



Absolutely correct.
Click to expand...

The layoffs where most likely due to a bloated organization. They fulfill very different roles. If you have 17 accountants doing the work of 7 its not the same as having former legends doing PR and fan work for the club. Equating the two is exactly the issue with Ineos blanket cost cutting. It reeks of having no fecking clue what a football club is. Which they have proven with Nice and Lausanne in the past.

Calling it a popcorn fart is funny because that is also exactly how much it helps on our debt.....
 
From takes on here and the outcry on X, I am not surprised we are in this position.. the fans are a big problem for us.

Anyone who thinks mismanagement of 10 years can be undone in 1 year is completely clueless and deluded.

People saying... back the manager again are ignorant to what is happening because they haven't got a shiny new toy.

Lets break it down.

1. FFP - reports over numerous years that we are struggling with FFP, yet every year we spend money, when you keep loading onto the credit card, it will catch up sooner or later, it has caught up to us.

2. Back the manager - fans think spending 100m on players is the only way to back the manager. Well incorrect, they are backing him, Rashford, is for sale, Antony is out the door, Garnacho, on his way out, Casemiro the same.
Now, who's fault is it that we paid 72m for Antony, 70m for Casemiro, 72m for Hojlund, 50m Mount? Who gave Rashford 300k wages? was it INEOS? No. They are trying to undo the mistakes, this is not a quick process.

Do people realise that Antony, Rashford, Casemiro on their own are 800k a week on wages, which totals to £42m a year in wages, on players who are not good enough.

The outcry of selling Garnacho, he doesn''t fit the system. Why cant fans back the manager? If he thinks Garnacho is expendable, why are fans crying?
 
If we talk about identity, United use to play a counterattacking style, overlapping winders and full backs, deliver quick ball into the box to forwards who could slip the lines. We had a one sit and one go central midfield, could defend robustly, and build momentum to sustain attacks.

Ironically this team is almost custom made for that approach bar a reliable left back. I don't see why we are overcomplicating things and if I am being honest, this was effectively what Ruud was doing against the tougher opposition. This approach means your bench is full of people who can slot straight into the role. At present we don't have even a single left sided wing back let alone a backup who understands the ask. We are making Amad track back relentlessly when he is one of our best attackers!

I like Amorim, I agree with his honesty, but at some point you have to work with the tools available to you, like it or not. Kobe and Garnacho I believe can and have performed in that type of team, but struggle in a wing back system it seems. Why on earth would you sell highly capable players to gamble on new buys to fit a system that as of yet has delivered sod all? It makes zero sense.
 
HackeyC said:
If we talk about identity, United use to play a counterattacking style, overlapping winders and full backs, deliver quick ball into the box to forwards who could slip the lines. We had a one sit and one go central midfield, could defend robustly, and build momentum to sustain attacks.

Ironically this team is almost custom made for that approach bar a reliable left back. I don't see why we are overcomplicating things and if I am being honest, this was effectively what Ruud was doing against the tougher opposition. This approach means your bench is full of people who can slot straight into the role. At present we don't have even a single left sided wing back let alone a backup who understands the ask. We are making Amad track back relentlessly when he is one of our best attackers!

I like Amorim, I agree with his honesty, but at some point you have to work with the tools available to you, like it or not. Kobe and Garnacho I believe can and have performed in that type of team, but struggle in a wing back system it seems. Why on earth would you sell highly capable players to gamble on new buys to fit a system that as of yet has delivered sod all? It makes zero sense.
Click to expand...

The problem is you are stuck in the past.. those tactics that worked in 2008 dont work anymore, other teams have employed better managers and have better squads.

You talk about something that makes zero sense but what you have said makes no sense either... you talk about players that have performed in that team? Pre 3 at the back, we were 13th and finished 8th last season with a counter attacking system, so clearly it didn't work.

Garnacho is a player that is probably at his highest price for us, 50-60m is a very good price for him... why keep players that are incapable of playing or adapting to a different system?

You talk about making Amad track back, that is a principle of a top team, working hard for the team, you cant just say to attackers, dont track back, its fine.
 
I don't see it as being stuck in the past, I see it as a response to the mess that we are seeing now. Since when have we become a team that would even consider selling our talent? We usually had our arms firmly twisted behind our back before we would let anyone with quality leave. Now we have two of the more talented young players in the world and we are happy to bin them? Because clearly we would make excellent buying decisions in using those funds based on recent history. We miss more often than we succeed, and until that changes I don't see why we think letting players go is the answer. And look at the players that have left, they are for the most part performing.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.