Club ownership | Senior management team talk

diarm said:
When you see how wilfully and pigheadedly people insist on misinterpreting things he’s said, you can understand why owners don’t bother their arses engaging with fans.

He’s a minority owner but you have people seriously suggesting he refuses to pay the interest payments of debt structured by the majority owners.

Pretty much every financial expert who has looked into the clubs finances has said we are cash poor. Yet when he spells out the reality of those cash shortfalls - people go on about payments made to coaches (as per contracts he had nothing to do with) or deals given to players who arrived years before him.

He’s definitely made mistakes - the Ashworth one being the biggest, but Neville comments on a fundraiser for former players made the club look pretty pathetic as well. I personally don’t see the Ten Hag decision in May as such a big mistake - as I said at the time, with the management team not properly in place at that time, I think we were as likely as not to compound errors with another bad, rushed appointment if we’d pulled the trigger after the cup final. Ten Hag was the wrong man, clearly, but the timing was just unfortunate. I don’t hold that against them to the same level of the Ashworth fiasco.

But they’ve also done good work and started us down a road out of the bloated, inefficient financial disaster we are in the midst of. It’s simple and easy to say “sack the players and stop payments to coaches instead of stopping canteen meals or making redundant positions redundant”, but what does that look like in reality? The only way to avoid the Ten Hag payoff was to not sack him - are people advocating for that? Are people suggesting we should sack high wage players without paying them what they’re contractually owed?

They can’t do that. What they can do is commit to being better at safeguarding the finances of the club moving forward. They can’t put better recruitment and negotiating systems in place and enforce limits on fees and salaries we are prepared to pay. And they can’t streamline and cut inefficiencies in all areas of the club.

We’re a football club first and foremost - the team is the focus point and entire reason of being for the organisation. It’s not Ratcliffe fault that we have hundreds of staff more than our competitors and I empathise with him looking the scum bag while he attempts to clean up someone else’s mess.
Click to expand...
Well said. The most annoying thing I keep reading here is about Ratcliffe firing tea ladies while Casemiro is on £350k a week, as if we havn't been actively trying to sell our highest earners too, and having sent 3 of them off on loan leaving the squad threadbare
 
justsomebloke said:
What, the majority of fans think our players are better than they are, and that the club was well run until sir Jim took over?

I just don't think he's got a convincing narrative. Where's the plan? Future greatness through cost-cutting? Maybe we have been paying too little attention to costs and need to do some cutting, fine. But then what? Laying off 400 people and dropping lunch isn't in itself going to make us a contender, even if it's necessary. Is there some notion of how this is going to happen?

And the "We're paying 17 million for Sancho again this summer" thing. No shit, Sherlock. That's what's known as "amortisation". And amortisation also means that if you buy a 100m player this coming summer, you only have to spend 20m next season. Everyone does that, because it's an advantage. Ratcliffe talks about it like it's some sort of wildly irresponsible mortgaging that he now has to pick up the pieces from.

We're not in this mess because we've overspent, but because we've spent badly. Literally none of the things Ratcliffe is talking about - cost-cutting, past mistakes (some of which are his), new shiny stadiums - has any bearing on how that is going to be fixed. Let's hear you talk about that, Jim. It's what matters, and what you'll be judged on.
Click to expand...

The plan is putting guys like Barrada, Wilcox, Vivell etc in place and having a modern footballing structure finally.

The plan is developing a new, world class stadium with 30k extra seats.

The plan is finally redeveloping the training facilities to match our competitors.

And yes, the plan is to streamline the club and wipe out the bloat and inefficiencies. You may not think that is relevant to what happens on the field but anyone who has worked in a well structured big organisation as well as a poorly structured one knows the role cohesion and efficiency plays.

You claim cutting the work force and staff meals won’t make us competitive, but these are massive sums of money we are talking about. It’s not simply the wage and the price of a shepherds pie, although 450 people at 40k a year (it’ll be way more than that as loads of executive positions were cut), along with employers liabilities and associated staffing costs is around £25m a year.

I have first hand experience as to the cost of running a kitchen that can provide meals for 1200 people a day - it’s outrageous. Cutting those staff meals could easily save another £5m a year - up to double that if the facilities weren’t run efficiently which would surprise absolutely nobody.

I know far less about running executive cars between Manchester and London weekdays, and various other matchday locations, but I imagine it’s far from insignificant.

People need to take a step back and use their heads. Nobody likes to see people losing jobs or perks, but without a football club none of the jobs exist at all. Anybody suggesting we should be taking on more debt so we can maintain 500 more staff than our competitors and provide them with a free canteen as well needs to give their head a wobble.
 
I get where he's coming from with some of it but also he's wriggled out of the harder questions about the Glazers, 40k to ex-players, etc.. just changed the subject back to the bigger picture.
 
justsomebloke said:
Cost-cutting might be a necessary condition for turning the club around, but it's not a sufficient one.
Click to expand...

Of course not - who is saying otherwise?

People are acting like they aren’t redeveloping the training ground, or upending the footballing structure of the club, or looking to build a new stadium, or backing a new coach with a more modern style of play.

Those things take time. People are acting like we shouldn’t undertake any cost cutting until everything else is done, ignoring the fact that the club is haemorrhaging cash and spiralling further and further into debt.
 
He is a very successful business man, and wether we like it or not we are a business.Gone are the days when people bought clubs and pumped money into for fun.If you have a business that is not making money or at least breaking even something has to be done.We have several over paid toxic assets that need weeding out, this will not be easy and will take at least another 18 months or so.We have lots of overheads that he is in the process of reducing, we need to be lean and mean from top to bottom, I believe both he and Ineos will be successful.Patience is the word,
 
justsomebloke said:
What, the majority of fans think our players are better than they are, and that the club was well run until sir Jim took over?

I just don't think he's got a convincing narrative. Where's the plan? Future greatness through cost-cutting? Maybe we have been paying too little attention to costs and need to do some cutting, fine. But then what? Laying off 400 people and dropping lunch isn't in itself going to make us a contender, even if it's necessary. Is there some notion of how this is going to happen?

And the "We're paying 17 million for Sancho again this summer" thing. No shit, Sherlock. That's what's known as "amortisation". And amortisation also means that if you buy a 100m player this coming summer, you only have to spend 20m next season. Everyone does that, because it's an advantage. Ratcliffe talks about it like it's some sort of wildly irresponsible mortgaging.

We're not in this mess because we've overspent, but because we've spent badly. Literally none of the things Ratcliffe is talking about - cost-cutting, past mistakes (some of which are his), new shiny stadiums - has any bearing on how that is going to be fixed. Let's hear you talking about that, Jim. It's what matters, and what you'll be judged on.
Click to expand...

I dont know what you are saying in the first sentence... but ok.

Thats the thing, you are clearly not reading or listening to what is said, he has never said future greatness comes through cost cutting, he is saying these are necessary for the moment because we are losing so much money. There actually was a notion of the future plan, not over spend, being the most profitable club meaning more money to spend on players.

No, what he is doing is telling you, we are writing cheques worth up to £89m on players that aren't good enough, Sancho was example used, paying for a player that isnt playing for us... Antony... Casemiro who are not good enough. He was not trying to teach you amortisation, he is giving you an indication of how bad the recruitment has been.

It is wildy irresponsible... paying 90m for Antony is irresponsible... I mean if you cannot see that then fair enough. Paying 72m for a player we are now selling 3 years later for 25m.. yep you think its responsible mortgaging that...

Oh so paying 90m for Antony, 60m for Mount, 70m Hojlund 70 Casemiro etc... is not the reason we cant spent money, when 2 years on none of them are good enough.
 
diarm said:
When you see how wilfully and pigheadedly people insist on misinterpreting things he’s said, you can understand why owners don’t bother their arses engaging with fans.

He’s a minority owner but you have people seriously suggesting he refuses to pay the interest payments of debt structured by the majority owners.

Pretty much every financial expert who has looked into the clubs finances has said we are cash poor. Yet when he spells out the reality of those cash shortfalls - people go on about payments made to coaches (as per contracts he had nothing to do with) or deals given to players who arrived years before him.

He’s definitely made mistakes - the Ashworth one being the biggest, but Neville comments on a fundraiser for former players made the club look pretty pathetic as well. I personally don’t see the Ten Hag decision in May as such a big mistake - as I said at the time, with the management team not properly in place at that time, I think we were as likely as not to compound errors with another bad, rushed appointment if we’d pulled the trigger after the cup final. Ten Hag was the wrong man, clearly, but the timing was just unfortunate. I don’t hold that against them to the same level of the Ashworth fiasco.

But they’ve also done good work and started us down a road out of the bloated, inefficient financial disaster we are in the midst of. It’s simple and easy to say “sack the players and stop payments to coaches instead of stopping canteen meals or making redundant positions redundant”, but what does that look like in reality? The only way to avoid the Ten Hag payoff was to not sack him - are people advocating for that? Are people suggesting we should sack high wage players without paying them what they’re contractually owed?

They can’t do that. What they can do is commit to being better at safeguarding the finances of the club moving forward. They can’t put better recruitment and negotiating systems in place and enforce limits on fees and salaries we are prepared to pay. And they can’t streamline and cut inefficiencies in all areas of the club.

We’re a football club first and foremost - the team is the focus point and entire reason of being for the organisation. It’s not Ratcliffe fault that we have hundreds of staff more than our competitors and I empathise with him looking the scum bag while he attempts to clean up someone else’s mess.
Click to expand...

Why are the footballing staff not allowed free lunches because, as he said, 95% of people don't get free lunches, but the players are?

Would he have made the same cost cutting measures had they not wasted money hiring, and then paying out, Ashworth and Ten Hag (extend and then fire)?

That's what it always comes down to, poorer people suffering for the mistakes of the rich people while rich people (Ashworth and Ten Hag, and other senior management in this example) get no hit.
 
Last edited:
diarm said:
The plan is putting guys like Barrada, Wilcox, Vivell etc in place and having a modern footballing structure finally.

The plan is developing a new, world class stadium with 30k extra seats.

The plan is finally redeveloping the training facilities to match our competitors.

And yes, the plan is to streamline the club and wipe out the bloat and inefficiencies. You may not think that is relevant to what happens on the field but anyone who has worked in a well structured big organisation as well as a poorly structured one knows the role cohesion and efficiency plays.

You claim cutting the work force and staff meals won’t make us competitive, but these are massive sums of money we are talking about. It’s not simply the wage and the price of a shepherds pie, although 450 people at 40k a year (it’ll be way more than that as loads of executive positions were cut), along with employers liabilities and associated staffing costs is around £25m a year.

I have first hand experience as to the cost of running a kitchen that can provide meals for 1200 people a day - it’s outrageous. Cutting those staff meals could easily save another £5m a year - up to double that if the facilities weren’t run efficiently which would surprise absolutely nobody.

I know far less about running executive cars between Manchester and London weekdays, and various other matchday locations, but I imagine it’s far from insignificant.

People need to take a step back and use their heads. Nobody likes to see people losing jobs or perks, but without a football club none of the jobs exist at all. Anybody suggesting we should be taking on more debt so we can maintain 500 more staff than our competitors and provide them with a free canteen as well needs to give their head a wobble.
Click to expand...
Big Jim also needs to use his head. These billionaires are egomaniacs and use to getting their own way and micro managing. It was widely reported (and noone has contradicted) that he was leading interviews over the summer with prospective managers, which is lunacy. He should be nowhere near that. he now admits it was a mistake to keep ETH but anyone other than the top red fan boys could see he was a lost cause. Then we hear we put a football structure in place and then that leads everything, only for him to upend that, sack Ashworth and ingore his advice, and allow the CEO to choose the next manager. Woodward all over again. At this point I have little faith in him. But ultimately it all comes back to the parasites that own the club.
 
Solius said:
I get where he's coming from with some of it but also he's wriggled out of the harder questions about the Glazers, 40k to ex-players, etc.. just changed the subject back to the bigger picture.
Click to expand...

Neville made the club look horrendous with his suggestion for the fundraiser. Jim doesn’t help himself with his reaction either - he could have replied “that’s a great idea - we’re going to look into that immediately”. Instead he meekly says “nobody suggested that” which just paints a picture of a club that doesn’t give a shit and feeds into the narrative of out of touch billionaires.

The Glazers thing I have more sympathy for him on. I was so impressed with how Nev pushed on it, especially on the point of them injecting some of their own money for once after how much they’ve taken out - it left them looking horrendous. But the reality is that they don’t give a shit and expecting Ratcliffe to admit that is unrealistic. He’s in the position he is and has to play the cards he’s been dealt.
 
UnsungHero said:
I have some respect for Ratcliffe doing these interviews, but the reality is he just wants the fans to get off his back so he can make all of these cuts unabated.

He didn't really answer any of the questions in any detail, and just glossed over the majority of important points.

I don't get a good vibe from him at all, but we'll see. I don't believe he cares about the club and I don't really think he's a fan either...
Click to expand...
Nah, that's just your reality. If you actually ever ran a business or a household and listen to what he's saying it tallies up well with the actual finances of the club.

I respect the interview and the honesty from him. You don't need to like him but for 20 years we've heard nothing and now we've had someone come across very frank and honest. I'll take it.
 
diarm said:
Neville made the club look horrendous with his suggestion for the fundraiser. Jim doesn’t help himself with his reaction either - he could have replied “that’s a great idea - we’re going to look into that immediately”. Instead he meekly says “nobody suggested that” which just paints a picture of a club that doesn’t give a shit and feeds into the narrative of out of touch billionaires.

The Glazers thing I have more sympathy for him on. I was so impressed with how Nev pushed on it, especially on the point of them injecting some of their own money for once after how much they’ve taken out - it left them looking horrendous. But the reality is that they don’t give a shit and expecting Ratcliffe to admit that is unrealistic. He’s in the position he is and has to play the cards he’s been dealt.
Click to expand...
Yeah like Gary said, it's alarming that nobody even suggested that to him. Makes me think he's not got people around him who are in touch with the fanbase.

I was hoping he'd push even further on the Glazers. Bring up the fact that they used a leveraged buy out which is no longer something you're allowed to do.
 
Redjazz said:
Reverting to type, I see. It's pretty clear from the Sec material that they were open to selling. Indeed, a full sale was their preferred route. Yet, you continue to perpetuate the myth that JR had no choice, the Glazers didn't want to sell. Crazy stuff. If a legally acceptable offer is the definition of a serious offer, then the other "bidder" was a way more serious as he made many more legally acceptable offers than JR.

Neville should really have asked:
1) You had an opportunity to buy out the club, why didn't you take it? Why go in to partnership with the Glazers?
2) What does the ownership look like in a few years?
3) Not all the debt will come down by becoming more profitable, a decision has to be made wrt to the legacy LBO debt, how do you intend to deal with that while planning for a new stadium?

Overall, I though Radcliffe did ok. A few slip ups- the "nobody suggested that" to Neville's suggest fix for the 40,000 cut, his definition of a faithful fan went a bit wayward, his bit about the club being more generous in the future should the good times rolls. He also inadvertently gave away some privileged information relating to the club's operational costs. No harm done.

He may have been a little reluctant to be critical of the Glazers, but his attempt to absolve them from blame by pinning it on Woodward and Arnold was both unnecessary and disingenuous.
Click to expand...
I don't think it's that there was no desire to fully buy out the club but more so that the Glazers very much put a "feck off" price on the club.
 
hasanejaz88 said:
Why are the footballing staff not allowed free lunches because, as he said, 95% of people don't get free lunches, but the players are?

Would he have made the same cost cutting measures had they not wasted money hiring, and then paying out, Ashworth and Ten Hag (extend and then fire)?

That's what it always comes down to, poorer people suffering for the mistakes of the rich people while rich people (Ashworth and Ten Hag, and other senior management in this example) get no hit.
Click to expand...

The footballers get food because its part of the job, I would say 100% of the top clubs, PL, give players food because they monitor their diets. As staff of the club, you dont get free food its a perk, when things are going well.

What I dont get is why do so many fans just focus on Ashworth and Ten Hag, as if to say, they should have still been in the job, to save costs. This is a football club first and foremost and footballing things will be a first priority.
 
hasanejaz88 said:
Why are the footballing staff not allowed free lunches because, as he said, 95% of people don't get free lunches, but the players are?

Would he have made the same cost cutting measures had they not wasted money hiring, and then paying out, Ashworth and Ten Hag?

That's what it always comes down to, poorer people suffering for the mistakes of the rich people while rich people (Ashworth and Ten Hag, and other senior management in this example) get no hit.
Click to expand...

Do we know that footballing staff aren’t allowed meals?

The Ashworth mistake was a howler - there’s no doubt about it. I’ve said that plenty and he said it himself.

Ten Hag would’ve had to be paid out whether he was sacked in May or when he was. It may have been a little more expensive this way, but making another bad hire in May because we didn’t have the senior management team in place in time to go through the process properly, would’ve cost us more in the long run.

We have been losing money season on season for almost a decade. Suggesting these calls were only made because of a couple of recent decisions is disingenuous. The reality is that we have almost double the number of employees that Real Madrid have and make less revenue than them every year.

There is no fairytale scenario where every footballing decision gets made perfectly and the club can carry hundreds more staff than it needs out of some sense of decency. The bad guys are the Glazers and the Glazers alone - that’s not going to change and there’s little we can do about it, so shitting on the guys trying to make the best of an awful situation just seems ridiculous to me.
 
The good thing about an interview like the ones yesterday are that the owners get the attention and scrutiny. For weeks Amorim has been answering questions on canteen redundancies, something he had literally no control over.

I'm happy Sir Jim will get most of the flack this week!

I would only hope (which will never happen) that the press officer tells the scum only questions about Real Sociedad allowed! in the next Amorim Presser.
 
Red in STL said:
You think United don't spend money??
Click to expand...
Ill put it this way. Say Apple make some bad moves. Make some serious fk ups. For the sake of argument at their peak they revenue was 10 billion and their costs were 5 billion. But after the fk ups they are only earning 4.5 billion. They are loosing money fast. So its bought out. Now Sir Jims plan is reduce costs. So slashes the shit out of everything. So now costs are 2.5 billion. Good. And maybe they increase revenue to 6 billion. Also good. Now they went from loss of 500 million to earnings of 3.5 billion. Great. But you are no longer the flagship phone. You are not the Apple of old that leads the mobile market with innovation and status and your brand is now a mid level phone and the top boys are way out ahead with everything they do.

What I am saying is that its not the right business plan. Slash costs OK but be careful what you slash because you still need to maintain the brand. If you start putting out shitty budget ads or make your stores look like Poundland you may have saved money but you are losing your brand value. Then if you do not invest and try on regain the top spot you are no longer the Apple of old you are just a mid range company. You have lost who you essentially are and it will be near impossible to return.

When I say they need to spend money. I mean they need to slash costs - ok. But not so deep you affect your brand. So lets say 1 billion in this example. But then you need to pump money in as well to R&D, marketing, hardware etc . Say 2 billion. So yes you are losing money but you need that investment to return to the top and are earning 10 billion again and the value is not only in the earnings but the brand.

Sir Jims plan is to do A - slash costs. Ok. But where is the massive investment. Money needs to be pumped in to return us to the top. Except Leicester every clubs spends a lot of cash to get to the top. That's how it works. No one does it by slashing costs only.
 
romufc said:
Why do we have so many fans that act as if Manutd is a charity? Comparing players and staff on food is also a joke, the reason Manutd exists is because of football, like in every other football club in the PL, players get food, does every staff in the PL get free food? I doubt it.

Majority of the fans are not happy with the job cuts, which means they are not happy with the language expert being sacked.
Click to expand...

Yeah there’s a lot of this around atm, lots of people desperate to jump straight to shock and outrage, when I’d put money on the fact that they had no idea anyone even got a free lunch
 
big_jeffstar said:
Yeah there’s a lot of this around atm, lots of people desperate to jump straight to shock and outrage, when I’d put money on the fact that they had no idea anyone even got a free lunch
Click to expand...

Yep like the fact when everyone was up in arms about the job losses and redundancies. I bet you no one knew that we had a body language expert being paid 175k a year.

I was told on here that most of the redundancies were a max of 40k a year wage...
 
It’s a shame Gary didn’t ask Ratcliffe what the future will be of his shares in United. If and how he can or will increase his shares, maybe to a potential full ownership. Gary was probably instructed not to talk about that because it seems such an obvious question.
 
romufc said:
The footballers get food because its part of the job, I would say 100% of the top clubs, PL, give players food because they monitor their diets. As staff of the club, you dont get free food its a perk, when things are going well.

What I dont get is why do so many fans just focus on Ashworth and Ten Hag, as if to say, they should have still been in the job, to save costs. This is a football club first and foremost and footballing things will be a first priority.
Click to expand...

Fine, just have the players pay for the food we provide them then, cut it from their salary. They can afford and it will help with the clubs revenue won't it?

My issue is that the club wasted money on Ashworth and Ten Hag yet the people who cost the club millions still continue to keep their job and lofty salary while the lower people have to suffer for it. The disparity in punishment is what is the issue here and generally has been the issue with capitalism.
 
hasanejaz88 said:
Fine, just have the players pay for the food we provide them then, cut it from their salary. They can afford and it will help with the clubs revenue won't it?

My issue is that the club wasted money on Ashworth and Ten Hag yet the people who cost the club millions still continue to keep their job and lofty salary while the lower people have to suffer for it. The disparity in punishment is what is the issue here and generally has been the issue with capitalism.
Click to expand...

Why? These are people working, meaning they are paid a salary.

The people who cost the club... Ed Woodward, Richard Arnold, John Murthough...they are all gone, so I am not sure who is there?
 
To me Ineos just represent the continuing ownership of the Glazers. Ratcliffe is the one that made them an offer so they could still hold on to the majority of the club and keep milking it, he´s just doing their dirty work. I continue to hear that this or that has to be done and that is probably the case but I just hate the idea that this is all being done for the Glazers, to keep them in control. I want them all gone. I really don't care what Ratcliffe has to say.
 
dubplate warrior said:
I don't think it's that there was no desire to fully buy out the club but more so that the Glazers very much put a "feck off" price on the club.
Click to expand...

From memory, it was only certainly siblings that wanted to exit. I think Joel Glazer in particular was fully committed. If you think global football rights are still undervalued (or Utd can do a La Liga or Super League and take a bigger cut) then you can see why financially they'd probably rather sell further down the line.
 
mustaine said:
To me Ineos just represent the continuing ownership of the Glazers. Ratcliffe is the one that made them an offer so they could still hold on to the majority of the club and keep milking it, he´s just doing their dirty work. I continue to hear that this or that has to be done and that is probably the case but I just hate the idea that this is all being done for the Glazers, to keep them in control. I want them all gone. I really don't care what Ratcliffe has to say.
Click to expand...

So instead, you would have preferred Glazers to stay and carry on how things were going?

Its so obvious that the Glazers were never selling, they just needed some money.

I just dont get why fans would have preferred Glazers over someone who is actually trying to make changes.
 
Imagine if Murtough, Woodward, and the other previous executives were still running the club in its current financial state.

I think this interview is a good move. Hopefully, it will relieve Ruben of the pressure of answering journalists' questions about the club's situation.
 
diarm said:
Neville made the club look horrendous with his suggestion for the fundraiser. Jim doesn’t help himself with his reaction either - he could have replied “that’s a great idea - we’re going to look into that immediately”. Instead he meekly says “nobody suggested that” which just paints a picture of a club that doesn’t give a shit and feeds into the narrative of out of touch billionaires.

The Glazers thing I have more sympathy for him on. I was so impressed with how Nev pushed on it, especially on the point of them injecting some of their own money for once after how much they’ve taken out - it left them looking horrendous. But the reality is that they don’t give a shit and expecting Ratcliffe to admit that is unrealistic. He’s in the position he is and has to play the cards he’s been dealt.
Click to expand...
The management team definitely would have thought of it if it were an option. It is something that shows Neville's age a little, as I feel that kind of thing i.e. galas, charity dinners etc. as a fundraising method for the club in general just is not part of modern football. I think we have the annual dinner for our charities (which raises just over £200k usually, a bit sad when you think we have players earning that a week) but I imagine players contracts now basically mean they get paid if they are made to do events meaning it might actually lose the club money.

I think it's more sad players haven't just pooled together and donated themselves, most of these guys have £10m+ in the bank (some much much more), just each give like 10% of their wages for a month or so as a gesture.
 
With the announcement today about the new stadium, the cost cutting rationale seems more clear. If this seemingly confirmed 100K stadium (that will be filled!) gets built, it absolutely bulldozes any doubt I personally had about INEOS project. It's been needed for a long, long time.

I realise a lot of people are unhappy but I am coming around to respect Jim for at least getting in front of the cameras and taking shit from the fans. If performances on the pitch change too, ALL of this drama is soon going to be forgotten.
 
romufc said:
So instead, you would have preferred Glazers to stay and carry on how things were going?

Its so obvious that the Glazers were never selling, they just needed some money.

I just dont get why fans would have preferred Glazers over someone who is actually trying to make changes.
Click to expand...
They obviously have to sell without the Ineos cash - they’re not putting their own money in.
 
So people wanted him to slag off the Glazers who are still the majority owners of the club which he I assume hopefully wants to completely own in the future. I do wonder about some of you.
 
Surely at some point Jimmy and Ineos are planning to become majority owners at some point because they are doing a lot for something they don't even own
 
tomaldinho1 said:
The management team definitely would have thought of it if it were an option. It is something that shows Neville's age a little, as I feel that kind of thing i.e. galas, charity dinners etc. as a fundraising method for the club in general just is not part of modern football. I think we have the annual dinner for our charities (which raises just over £200k usually, a bit sad when you think we have players earning that a week) but I imagine players contracts now basically mean they get paid if they are made to do events meaning it might actually lose the club money.

I think it's more sad players haven't just pooled together and donated themselves, most of these guys have £10m+ in the bank (some much much more), just each give like 10% of their wages for a month or so as a gesture.
Click to expand...

That’s pretty depressing if true.

Hopefully Neville suggesting it so publicly might put some pressure on them to step up a bit more.
 
diarm said:
That’s pretty depressing if true.

Hopefully Neville suggesting it so publicly might put some pressure on them to step up a bit more.
Click to expand...
Yeah I am all for more accountability from the players - I think the only story we ever got was Bruno offering to pay for accommodation re the FA cup final which I think was then disproved (as that can all be expensed). Just shows how little the modern players really care I guess, unless they are doing things that don't get picked up by the media.
 
hasanejaz88 said:
Fine, just have the players pay for the food we provide them then, cut it from their salary. They can afford and it will help with the clubs revenue won't it?

My issue is that the club wasted money on Ashworth and Ten Hag yet the people who cost the club millions still continue to keep their job and lofty salary while the lower people have to suffer for it. The disparity in punishment is what is the issue here and generally has been the issue with capitalism.
Click to expand...

Because it's not possible to sign premier league footballers or managers on a contract that says we can terminate this contract at any time without much warning. Premier league players have fixed contracts and guaranteed money, the vast majority of people do not. Ratcliffe does not have the option to cut those players and he has to deal with reality as it is and fulfill the contractual obligations of these players most of whom were signed before he arrived.

Why don't you ask the players to go take a paycut and see how far that gets you?
 
FlawlessVictory88 said:
Because it's not possible to sign premier league footballers or managers on a contract that says we can terminate this contract at any time without much warning. Premier league players have fixed contracts and guaranteed money, the vast majority of people do not. Ratcliffe does not have the option to cut those players and he has to deal with reality as it is and fulfill the contractual obligations of these players most of whom were signed before he arrived.

Why don't you ask the players to go take a paycut and see how far that gets you?
Click to expand...

The amount of fans that become financial experts, giving football manager ideas, with no clue to reality.

It is so clear and obvious that INEOS want to reduce the wage bill, which is why Sancho is on loan and sold... Rashford is out, Antony. They want to get rid of Casemiro for that reason. SJR has mentioned Mount, Shaw, being injured and is discounting them, which is a clear indication that he wants to get rid of all those high wage players.

Unfortunately, player contracts are not the same as staff contracts where, you can sack staff, make them redundant, players you can't, there are 3 options. Pay them out their contract... does no good, sell them (preferred) or let them see out their contract.

There is no other alternative. To get rid of all the mistakes, it wont happen overnight.
 
Insanity said:
No, I would have preferred not giving him an extension & then getting him the players he desired, as hinted by Jim.
I would have preferred not chasing, hiring and firing Ashworth.
I would have preferred Jim negotiating a deal whereby the Glazers reduce some or all of the debt and reduce interest payments.

Also, it's not just about 'Lunches'. It's shafting the little guy because of the big guy's excesses. It's morally and principally opposing something inherently cruel when there were better ways of doing things.
Click to expand...

I too would have prefered us to do things differently. But sacking ETH would have cost some money even if it was done in the summer. and certainly not all players were his selections.

Mistakes were made, and I think anyone with some sense knew that INEOS would make some mistakes. In a normal situation, we'd just brush those mistakes off and move on. But due to the situation the club finds itself at because of the Glazers, we have far less room to maneuver. That's not in INEOS, no matter what deal you would have prefered them to agree with the Glazers.

Ultimately, we're a football club. And football is where the money is supposed to be spent - including on correcting mistakes.
 
Amir said:
I too would have prefered us to do things differently. But sacking ETH would have cost some money even if it was done in the summer. and certainly not all players were his selections.

Mistakes were made, and I think anyone with some sense knew that INEOS would make some mistakes. In a normal situation, we'd just brush those mistakes off and move on. But due to the situation the club finds itself at because of the Glazers, we have far less room to maneuver. That's not in INEOS, no matter what deal you would have prefered them to agree with the Glazers.

Ultimately, we're a football club. And football is where the money is supposed to be spent - including on correcting mistakes.
Click to expand...
Also re keeping on ETH, people now have a bit of a yardstick to see how awful it might have been for the new manager coming in. Do we really think if we'd got Amorim in for the first game of the season and we were in 17th or 16th place in March he wouldn't have been sacked? There's every possibility we'd be on the next manager by now or an interim.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.