I'm actually paid by him soGo on, he will be proud of you defending him on a football forum.
But wait a minute, if he doesn't give a shit what people writes about him on a football forum, why are you?
Club ownership | Senior management team talk
- Thread starter golden_blunder
- Start date
-
In the latest episode of the United Hour Podcast, Nik (@Rood) and Jamie (@Vault Dweller) are here to celebrate rare back-to-back victories for Manchester United! They analyse the late win in the Europa League vs. Rangers and then try and find things to analyse in a pretty dour game vs. Fulham. They also chat about the latest Marcus Rashford news, and look at the latest transfer news.
But that is the reason... unless you think they want to profiteer.
We are not a slime evil corporate either. Cutting funding on old retired footballers who served the club is pure corporate evil that save no fecking money but express the true face of our new co-owners INEOS.
Without drastic measures we would have failed PSR in the summer and we will fail it this summer too.
If that is fine with you then cool. That is the reality.
I would take relegation to get rid of the leeches tbh. But you did not answer my question, how is saving few thousands paid to retired players of the club who are in need save the club financially? It does more damage than benefits. It says we are a soulless club.
It's not thousands though is it? It's millions.
This is the reason why we are failing, we are just too attached to the past. Football has moved on and we cannot afford to keep paying people £500k-£2m a year..
There comes a point you have to let go of the past for the better future.
No it doesn't...
See what I keep seing is people keep saying few thousand, but its not is it? SAF was over a million.. add to that all other retired pros.
We are not a charity, when they played for the club they got paid the money... its like asking your previous employer for money because you worked there once upon a time...
What damage does it do?
Exactly. And even if you want to do something for ex players you can always give them a real job. Coaching youth players or whatever is a realistic possibility and valuable to keep the club connected to it's past. Just dumping it doesn't make sense.
SAF was on like £4 Million a year, Gill was like £1-2 Million.
Nice for what they did for the club but needless excess.
Yeah many have no idea of just how bad it is, unfortunately we don't have the luxury of selling hotels and VIP boxes like some clubs. Instead we are having to sell any assets to PL rivals leaving us short of attacking options.
And what would have happened if the Glazers had stopped United from signing these players - they would receive a lot of stick from the fans anyway. Well they eventually gave INEOS the chance to fix it - and it has not gone in the right direction. You can blame the Glazers for a lot - but the rest of the club need to take a lot of responsibility as well
Yeah so like I say there has never been a genuine full sale option on the table ever
If anything you have to give Ratcliffe credit for actually seeing the state of the clubs finances first hand and deciding to invest and get involved still. For me that shows his desire to turn us around.
INEOS offered to but them out fully didn't they?
I don't think so
Could be wrong, but I was of the impression interest on debt is not a part of PSR calculations?
This might sound silly, but the club is still a money making behemoth, right?
Like we’ve offered crazy wages, made terrible signings and that, coupled with not winning much and missing out on Champions League regularly has left us in an awful state when it comes to PSR.
This may lead to decisions which are very un-United like, like selling talented up and coming players from the academy in order to balance the books and this is a horrible place to be as United fans and will no doubt lead to further pain.
However, long term, if we get our house in order, (big if, I know), this is recoverable, right?
For instance, while this would be wildly unpopular, but if we could shift Casemiro’s and Rashford’s salaries and if we sold Garnacho and Mainoo for pure profit and replaced them with adequate premier league proven players who fit our system, and we can amortise their fees over the lengths of their contracts, would this balance the books to the point where we could compete again.
What I mean is, if we acknowledge that we’re in a dark place financially, and make some horrible decisions like cashing in on academy products for pure profit, and accepted 3-5 years of mid table finishes, would we eventually be able to flex our financial muscle in the future to rebuild?
PSR means spending within your means, we still generate far more than the average team. If we take our medicine for the awful mis-management of the club over the last 15-20 years, PSR should be a thing that suits us as a club that generates a lot of money.
And yes, some years in the wilderness will affect our income, but we’ll still sell out OT every week and we’ll still sell more shirts then most and we’ll still have more eyeballs on us than most meaning we generate a lot of advertising revenue.
Like we’ve offered crazy wages, made terrible signings and that, coupled with not winning much and missing out on Champions League regularly has left us in an awful state when it comes to PSR.
This may lead to decisions which are very un-United like, like selling talented up and coming players from the academy in order to balance the books and this is a horrible place to be as United fans and will no doubt lead to further pain.
However, long term, if we get our house in order, (big if, I know), this is recoverable, right?
For instance, while this would be wildly unpopular, but if we could shift Casemiro’s and Rashford’s salaries and if we sold Garnacho and Mainoo for pure profit and replaced them with adequate premier league proven players who fit our system, and we can amortise their fees over the lengths of their contracts, would this balance the books to the point where we could compete again.
What I mean is, if we acknowledge that we’re in a dark place financially, and make some horrible decisions like cashing in on academy products for pure profit, and accepted 3-5 years of mid table finishes, would we eventually be able to flex our financial muscle in the future to rebuild?
PSR means spending within your means, we still generate far more than the average team. If we take our medicine for the awful mis-management of the club over the last 15-20 years, PSR should be a thing that suits us as a club that generates a lot of money.
And yes, some years in the wilderness will affect our income, but we’ll still sell out OT every week and we’ll still sell more shirts then most and we’ll still have more eyeballs on us than most meaning we generate a lot of advertising revenue.
I would think so yes. That is what Ratcliffe will be backing on.
How much have INEOS taken out of the club since Feb last year?
I’m very sure I heard that debt interest is accounted in PSR. Dividends are not. We’re yet to see if the associated costs of the takeover can be taken off the losses too.
I don’t think he knows what a leech is.
There’s an argument they have latched onto us to suck us dry when they eventually make a profit on their purchase and sell us in a few years time.
It was reported that the first round bid was for 100%. Second was for majority control and then when the shit hit the fan they basically accepted getting their foot in the door for now.
Yep, I think that's broadly the plan.
Sincerely hope we don't have to sell Mainoo and Garnacho though.
One would be painful.
Two would be a killer.
Oh agreed. It’s an awful scenario and there is no guarantee of success either way.
I’m just trying to be optimistic about the club long term.
Assuming that you are employed by a company, are you expecting to be paid by them after you retire? Good luck with that!
Technically yes, occupational pension is a thing. Considering united haven't paied the retired players that.
Btw is it me or we are not signing the crazy no. Of sponsorship deals these days that we used to under woodward?
Ratcliffe's focus seems to be on cutting expenditure than increasing revenue.
This arrangement actually seems worse than glazers even at the moment. Ratcliffe seems to be doing what glazers wanted to do but getting away with it without a backlash.
Ratcliffe's focus seems to be on cutting expenditure than increasing revenue.
This arrangement actually seems worse than glazers even at the moment. Ratcliffe seems to be doing what glazers wanted to do but getting away with it without a backlash.
Wasn't this all part of the orignal deal and price Ineos agreed to pay for their shares?
It wasn't a pension, United cut the payments they were making to a former United players charity, petty probably yes but that's what business people do
The revenue growth in football broadly and the PL more specifically has mostly been tapped out.
Wasn't that the prime motivation for the super league?
Exactly, and it's what the Glazers continue to bank on happening at some point
And im sure Ineos had known the situation before they got their shares. If they cannot afford to run this club they should have never purchased the stake in the club. If the Glazers were doing what Ineos are doing right now people would protest, but hey its a local lad trying to save the club so its ok.
Both the Glazers and Ineos will be gone in 3 years time.
I've been saying this for a while. At the time of the protests, it was put on the back burner to be heated up at a later date. It's coming back at some point.
What if we are not part of the super league? Then what?