Go have a look yourself... they have put money into the club.
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.
Go have a look yourself... they have put money into the club.
I believe both are of high stock too, slight concern with Berrada as he has never been a CEO - At City he was CFO which is very little to do with Operations and is in charge of solely finances and while most CEO's are formerly CFO's - It's a big step up.
He was COO, not CFO at City
https://www.bbc.co.uk/sport/football/68044768
Says he was COO but moved on to be the CFO (Which I naively assumed was Chief Financial Officer but was actually Chief Football Operations), I just knew it was CFO but I did admittedly think it was the financial one.
They’ve made a pig’s ear out of their first year in charge. They might be better but they’re still fecking AWFUL.
It is but he's a smart guy from what I have seen and no one is ever born a CEO
This kind of thread should just be locked mid season and opened at the end, they are trying to make meaningful change and we're in their first full season and about what like 12 games in with their first managerial pick?
ETH was their first managerial pick in a certain way
I think it's a stretch when it seems pretty concrete they tried to get Tuchel to come + then essentially had to apologise to ETH. Amorim is their first hand picked manager is maybe a better way to think of it.
In other words they fecked up their first try of a manager appointment completely.
Why do you trust them?
Seems a bit like criticising for the sake of criticising. If Tuchel turned us down, it's not because Ineos in their few days in charge changed anything, it is the state of the club from pre Ineos that he based his opinion on. Last summer and, to a point, this coming summer they are very much battling aginast the past, as is evident with how PSR is clearly very tight. After that I will hammer them for anything but we can't really judge any of their signings properly yet and it's early days for Amorim.
Amorim has shown that he is a brilliant coach before and Berrada, at least from the interviews, has the right values and mindset. Totally different to our previous CEO's
I think it's fair for many to be objective in their assessments but I can't see INEOS being a success given the resources around their respective ownership model and their approaches to resolve issues essentially exposing their own limitations.
The situation with the Glazers is such a unique instance that Manchester United's demise under their occupation is so bad it reflects poorly on the premier league for having such a poor sustainability criteria that newer rules to 'protect' clubs only happened after the Americans intervention.
Subsequently, that's only looking at the facilitated debt and omission of infrastructure development but then when you observe Woodwards / Murtough's ineptitude, it further compounds that issue with the money owed to clubs and the crippling finances which is the concurrent circumstance of the clubs efficiency today.
All in all it has created this extraordinary situation and provisionally the only ownership model that would resemble rectifying everything with the least amount of friction from an operational standpoint is middle eastern ownership or a very nuanced consortium.
INEOS simply don't have the resources to resolve these issues. The analogy that comes to mind is someone who earns 7 figures a year but is shopping around for a Koenigsegg. That salary despite being economically high is still not conducive to the market in obtaining that car assessing cost and expenses. The situation the Glazers have created has put United into a very exclusive market that the average owner can't rectify.
The situation with the Glazers is such a unique instance that Manchester United's demise under their occupation is so bad it reflects poorly on the premier league for having such a poor sustainability criteria that newer rules to 'protect' clubs only happened after the Americans intervention.
Subsequently, that's only looking at the facilitated debt and omission of infrastructure development but then when you observe Woodwards / Murtough's ineptitude, it further compounds that issue with the money owed to clubs and the crippling finances which is the concurrent circumstance of the clubs efficiency today.
All in all it has created this extraordinary situation and provisionally the only ownership model that would resemble rectifying everything with the least amount of friction from an operational standpoint is middle eastern ownership or a very nuanced consortium.
INEOS simply don't have the resources to resolve these issues. The analogy that comes to mind is someone who earns 7 figures a year but is shopping around for a Koenigsegg. That salary despite being economically high is still not conducive to the market in obtaining that car assessing cost and expenses. The situation the Glazers have created has put United into a very exclusive market that the average owner can't rectify.
I respect your opinion but I still believe INEOS were not prepared well for that summer which I blame on them (to be clear that doesn't include Berrada/Ashworth as they arrived too late)
Had to look that up. Nice looking wheels. I can afford the Dinky version.
Erm... INEOS are not an average owner.
In the past United have spent money to resolve issues, which is the problem, throwing money at the problem is not a solution, which you are trying to infer saying average owner.
I will give you a better analogy... If you live in a house that is really old but was the best 60 years ago, but you have roof leaks, mould, holes in the floor, leaky windows.. what the Glazers have done is buy expensive paint, furniture that is overpaid for and a expensive cleaner, does not solve the issues, it causes more.
INEOS instead of replacing the furniture, are stripping it all down, down from the root cause of the issues.
This does not happen overnight, it takes time and I cant see how you can judge INEOS based on 1 year in charge.
INEOS are an improvement on the leeches I won't deny that, however keeping Ten Hag, hiking prices and laying off loyal staff doesn't sit well. I appreciate we will not hear anything about the debt until they get majority ownership.
Do INEOS have full control over Nice? They currently sit 4th in the French league so having a decent season. Yet Ratcliffe and co are already getting bad chants from our fans.
That's fair, I feel like there has to be some allowance for how United were perceived pre Ineos and post. We will see how this summer looks re transfers which I think will be most telling.
Fair for Amorim. Don't really get that for Berrada but okay.
INEOS should get praise when they deserve it and critiscm when they deserve it. They could have gone for Amorim but they didn't. They chose to stay with Ten Hag, extend the contract and invest in his style of play. Only to do a complete U turn. Its fair to criticize them for that and to be dubious about their decision making ability when they messed up that and Ashworth. Regarding PSR, they further complicated things by making those decisions, virtually undoing their own cost cutting.
I agree they should be judged over a longer period, however, if there was a review of them based on the sample size we've seen so far they would be pretty poor.
This doesn't really make sense, as the other poster said Berrada wasn't in and Amorim was his pick. Would be a very harsh criticism to say Berrada should have tapped him up whilst on garden leave? They could definitely have sacked ETH and gone with someone else in summer but I do buy into them doing the 'audit' of the club and not wanting to pay off ETH, hire someone they aren't 100% behind and then maybe have to sack them as well. ETH forced their hand with his form but if we'd been trundling along in 6th-7th ish, I reckon ETH would still be here and Amorim would be signed up for the summer.
I agree re Ashworth and the payoff, although it does seem quite natural i.e. they built an entire structure and went for well known people in the important roles and then let them thrash it out and Ashworth is the one who loses out as people's roles firm up and Berrada realises he wants to be hands on. it all depends if this is a random thing that happens in their tenure or if senior people quitting/getting sacked becomes something we see again.
He put a plan out there, with a proper structure and making smart decisions based on data. Inlike what we have seen before. Time will tell though
Jury's still out on both IMO. No reason to distrust them either, but it's too early to properly evaluate how they're doing.
Your Amazon example proves my point. Even in the early days, Amazon had investor confidence because investors could see the value of their investment grow, because the machine Bezos was building reliably turned investment into revenue/customers. So they were willing to keep putting money in, even if Amazon in the early days lost money.
The opposite is the case with United.
We have invested Champs League money into a team that can barely deliver Europa League results, and we have done this consistently. We do not know how to invest money on players anymore. We are not able to generate the footballing return on our investment that our outlay demands, and that is why we are in the shit.
It is not penny pinching, it is not a "small club mentality". We are a listed business which could easily go bankrupt, like any business, if we don't manage our costs in line with our revenues.
What is the point of fantasising about financial solutions that nobody is offering? If we had a different owner, where money was no object, then that would be wonderful and we could do whatever we liked. But we don't. United has always funded its team from its footballing and commercial operations. We've just forgotten how.
Its not fantasizing its stating facts. The product of United is being a big club with big players. Its an entertainment business. You cannot just forgo the foundation of your asset. Sure we are paying big money for Champions league football and delivering Europa league standard but the answer is not to start paying Europa league standard and increasing prices and cancelling Christmas. It illogical. Its like the Louvre selling off The Mona Lisa and other great works if art to save money because they cost too much. Or the Sydney Opera House only putting on amateur shows. Its madness.
You can save a high street coffee chain like that but not the likes of Manchester United. INEOS knew about the debt when they signed the papers.
My basis is that the business plan should have been pay off the debt and make the team great again as point 1. But it doesnt seem to be. Point 1 is cut costs and finance the debt. Stupid. We are a huge club because of our history and our support base. How many years of us being sht do you think we can take living on our past. What percentage of kids now look at United and want to support them. Yes it will take years. We are still a huge club but we are degrading year by year. If you think lets penny pinch and take another 5 plus years with no guarantee is the way to go then ok. But not me. I think you devalue the quality of the football at your peril. Real and Barca understand this.
Give them five minutes. They walked into a mess of epic proportions in respect of the team, stadium, finances, corporate structure etc. I have no idea what people were expecting to happen in such a short space of time.
Then why are Barcelona penny pinching?
That playing area is our history. From Georgie Best and Sir Bobby Charlton to Robson and Cantona. Rooney’s overhead kick and that Van Persie volley. Being bombed and rebuilt after the war and lifting our record breaking 19th league title.
Old Trafford is our home and engrained in our history. To knock it down and build a new stadium in one of the car parks close by would be soul destroying. The ground needs work. So did the Nou Camp and so did the Bernabau. But they weren’t knocked down either they were renovated.
You do realise a new shiny 100,000 seater stadium wouldn’t make Onana capable of saving a shot? Or Zirkzee turning into a lethal finisher?
Jim wants a new stadium because he’d be able to charge the world for season tickets and letting American pop stars hire it to perform in. He’s profiting off our club’s name and history when he’s had zero input to any of it? And to think that’s okay because ‘there’s not enough leg room’ (you haven’t said that but others have) is ridiculous
We had two prior stadiums to this and you don't seem to care that what is left of Bank Street is now just a bunch of rusting goalposts, that was where we won our first titles. Not Old Trafford. What do you want? Do you want a modern stadium that is worthy of the club and the fans? Because regardless whether Sir Jim repairs the stadium or builds a new one, the ticket prices are going up.
Apart from Steven Bartlett
I'd imagine they'd allow 'pop stars' of any nationality play at OT. Need to stop using 'American' as a pejorative, especially from the safety of your iphone.
Anyway, I do agree with the gist of your post, but new memories and heroes will follow suit. If other clubs allow pop-stars and NFL we are just losing money not doing the same.
As for OT, I love the old girl, despite her being cramped and rough. Would love to see her spruced up than a hollow corporate bowl in her stead, but, whatever it is, we all follow United.
I do understand the point you are making, I am just saying that the business plan you advocate isn’t available. You’d need someone willing to put $1billion + into the club to clear the Glazer debt and buy out the player contracts. You can do that by issuing new shares, but that would dilute the Glazers so they aren’t going to go for that. Or someone like INEOS could clear the debt, but i can’t see why Ratcliffe would do that if he wasn’t going to get more ownership out of it.
At the end of the day, I am saying the bind we are in, is short term. We do generate big revenues. We do have scope to grow further. If we can clear up our finances, clean up the squad, invest in youth etc we will be in a very strong position to compete in the transfer market again at the top level. But it might take a couple of years.
(Idea stolen)
Which is why I say INEOS fkd us. They made an already broken business plan of the Glazers and made it worse. Now you have 2 owners. One with the majority of shares that wont act and one with a minority that wont act but even if they wanted to they cant because they hold the minority of shares. You say it might take a couple of years. But what is this based on? Lets say we got an oil owner (not advocating for one). Even with unlimited money how long would it take for us to start winning the league? Look at Newcastle. They have unlimited wealth and we are a worse team than them at the moment. Its not that easy. Its not impossible either. Maybe being lucky with signings etc we can get there in a short period. But even with unlimited wealth it will be a miracle if we mounting a serious title challenge in 3/4/5 years. Now if we start penny pinching and not spending on players then how long
We know that it was Ratcliffe that spoke to Tuchel himself. Thats the feck up.
This is the thing, alot of fans focus on only one thing... wealth and how much we spend on transfers.
There are a number of wealthy clubs in the PL, look at the money Spurs have spent over the last 3/4 years. Chelsea have spent loads of money, are they closer to winning the league now than before they spent this money? No.
Liverpool are challenging for the league without spending more than 20m in the summer.
Lets not act as if its money, it comes down to scouting, anyone can buy Caceido for 100m when they have money, its about signing the next big player and getting them to work for our club.
To me it seems clear that INEOS are currently acting like some sort of Property Management Company on behalf of the Glazer spawn. The Glazers are clearly like the worst type of absentee landlord, skimming off the money, not reducing the debt load and not caring about the fabric of the building.
I'm losing faith in INEOS to bring about real structural change to benefit the club. Sure they can hire better people to run the day to day things but those people will surely tire of having their hands tied by the debt burden placed on the club by the Tampa Bay Fucca-neers.
I just want those with a deep understanding of the financial situation to let me know if there is any faint glimmer of hope that a real positive change is possible and we can get them out of the club. I never thought I would long for the day of the club returning to PLC status but I worry that we will never be rid of the leeches and I'm grasping at straws to see if there are any positive long term options rather than mediocrity.
So Are INEOS ever going to be in a position to buy out the remaining Glazers?
Will the "stadium rebuild / new stadium" just prolong the agony and give the Glazers a chance to restructure the club transfer spending debt and their fathers debt burden from buying the club?
Now that the "Superleague" is less likely to happen and Media rights payments potentially will have plateaued... are the Glazers just looking to hold out for an eccentric billionaire for a final payday.
Are we in the realm of "Help us Obi-Bezos...you're our only hope!"
I'm losing faith in INEOS to bring about real structural change to benefit the club. Sure they can hire better people to run the day to day things but those people will surely tire of having their hands tied by the debt burden placed on the club by the Tampa Bay Fucca-neers.
I just want those with a deep understanding of the financial situation to let me know if there is any faint glimmer of hope that a real positive change is possible and we can get them out of the club. I never thought I would long for the day of the club returning to PLC status but I worry that we will never be rid of the leeches and I'm grasping at straws to see if there are any positive long term options rather than mediocrity.
So Are INEOS ever going to be in a position to buy out the remaining Glazers?
Will the "stadium rebuild / new stadium" just prolong the agony and give the Glazers a chance to restructure the club transfer spending debt and their fathers debt burden from buying the club?
Now that the "Superleague" is less likely to happen and Media rights payments potentially will have plateaued... are the Glazers just looking to hold out for an eccentric billionaire for a final payday.
Are we in the realm of "Help us Obi-Bezos...you're our only hope!"
I believe this is the direction of travel, and INEOS will buy as soon as the Glazers are ready to sell. Sir Jim hasn’t bought into the club for shits and giggles. He wants the whole lot.