Club Sale | It’s done!

Status
Not open for further replies.
Licha-Vidic said:



  • Jim Ratcliffe could cut 300 jobs at Manchester United in streamlining
  • Ineos will instruct external auditor to assess club’s structure
  • Ratcliffe believes staff of 1,000 can be reduced by 25-30%.
  • Sir Jim Ratcliffe is expected to ask an external auditor to assess Manchester United’s structure and expenditure with a view to executing a major streamlining exercise, meaning as many as 300 jobs are potentially under threat.
  • Executives from Ineos have been in discussions with United over the past weeks regarding Ratcliffe’s plans ahead of his 25% purchase of the club becoming official on Christmas Eve, with the club’s management already having been reminded to curb rising costs to ensure maximum funds for transfers within the strictures of financial fair play.
Click to expand...

Very inhumane for that to come out in the press like that. Especially now.
 
Wumminator said:
Went about a month ago. One is a young, a
Single girl (bridesmaid at my mates wedding) and was gutted. Another is a lad I play footy with and expected it.
Click to expand...
Sorry it has nothing to do with this thread but I find it hilarious the amount of details added about that girl for absolutely no reason!
 
UpWithRivers said:
I can't believe everyone falls for this sht. Everyone is acting as Sir Jim now owns United. No. It's still the Glazers. All they have done is say Sir Jim you run this sht show and get all the blame while we take a back seat. If it works it was the Glazers that put him there! 300mill or anything else he invests will not be Charity. It's just a pot if cash put aside for fixing the stadium etc which he will get back in shares. And it's still not enough. Not by a long shot. We are still fkd.
Click to expand...

I am not falling for anything,more a case of trying to see us taking positive steps to improve structure. I am seriously concerned about the lack of a route to majority ownership. Also hope Ratcliffe is willing to clear up some matters once he actually gets verification from Premier League
 
sglowrider said:
Really? I think you are confusing football performance and financial/commercial performance. The Glazers have increased our topline revenues many times over.
Click to expand...
That may sound good in isolation, but then you compare us to other top teams and pretty much all of them increased their revenues by more than we did. Teams that we used to comfortably beat financially have now passed us or closed in on us.

We've lost out on hundreds of millions of pounds in prizemoney and the lack of European qualification (or not getting into the later stages), as good as our sponsorship deals have been they would have been even better if we were competing for the PL and CL titles, and we wasted hundreds of millions in transfer fees and wages. Considering our position and fame the club should be worth even more than what it currently is.

Daddy Glazer was the businessman who originally made all the money and bought the club. The kids basically haven't done anything but run us poorly and ultimately cost themselves money. They'll still make a lot of money of course, but not as much as they would have if they'd run us efficiently.
 
Giggsyking said:
Well, If you think he is helping the local community by firing 300 is helping them. Then of course you think it's a stupid post. It requires critical thinking.
Click to expand...
What makes you think these jobs are necessarily going to local people? We have offices all over the shop as far as I know.

But anyway, you can't have it both ways, either we need to be run correctly or we carry on as a charity, it sucks but this is business and happens everywhere.
 
bond19821982 said:
Cutting down 300 jobs/Cost cutting to fund the transfer? Either the math is completely wrong here on something is being reported inaccurately.

300 jobs will merely fetch you couple of millions
Click to expand...
I mean, the reason isn't really just to get more money for transfers. It's much more down to just streamlining and getting clearer roles & responsibilities, less bloat, club makes more money overall but also operates more smoothly and focuses their operations.
 
Giggsyking said:
Well, If you think he is helping the local community by firing 300 is helping them. Then of course you think it's a stupid post. It requires critical thinking.
Click to expand...

I get the sentiment, but let’s be real, this club isn’t going to be turned around into something successful without a fair few casualties along the way.
 
MadDogg said:
That may sound good in isolation, but then you compare us to other top teams and pretty much all of them increased their revenues by more than we did. Teams that we used to comfortably beat financially have now passed us or closed in on us.

We've lost out on hundreds of millions of pounds in prizemoney and the lack of European qualification (or not getting into the later stages), as good as our sponsorship deals have been they would have been even better if we were competing for the PL and CL titles, and we wasted hundreds of millions in transfer fees and wages. Considering our position and fame the club should be worth even more than what it currently is.

Daddy Glazer was the businessman who originally made all the money and bought the club. The kids basically haven't done anything but run us poorly and ultimately cost themselves money. They'll still make a lot of money of course, but not as much as they would have if they'd run us efficiently.
Click to expand...
This. The Glazers benefited from a rising tide that impacted all of European football (and English football in particular). Our revenues have grown in spite of them, not because of them.
 
GDaly95 said:
Very inhumane for that to come out in the press like that. Especially now.
Click to expand...

It strikes me as piggybacking on Gary Neville's criticism of the timing of the announcement of Christmas Eve.
 
Red in STL said:
Do we, they have never actually said that to my knowledge
Click to expand...
I’ve never said I want to feck Margot Robbie either (until now), but it doesn’t mean I don’t :lol:

Seriously though, no one publicly announces they want to either sell the club or look at “strategic investment”, go through several rounds of offers, including a full sale, without a desire to sell. They just fecking sold 25% of the club. Every pound invested dilutes them further… So, yeah, they do want to sell. Their valuation was not met. The goblins have looked at it and realized that in order to keep up with City, Spurs, Liverpool and Arsenal, they’ll need to pony up a shitload of money. Since not all of the siblings are interested in the club as a project, the most logical exit is to sell…
 
tjb said:
Due to the club's size, I don't believe a full sale was ever actually viable. Because there aren't many single entities willing or able to entirely buyout United, this was always going to be the solution. Because our club is already listed on the stock exchange, the sale would have always been based on gaining majority ownership rather than just purchasing the club and delisting it. Given that the Glazers have been largely passive owners looking to profit from the club, a joint Glazer minority interest was always going to be the best choice, given their initial profit-driven motivations. Fans may not like it, but it's business; fan rage would never drive them to leave billions of dollars behind, but sound business that suited their goals would. I believe that this transaction provides a potential entry point for this, especially given that United is a PLC.

So for me, I'm very happy with Ratcliffe and Ineos coming in, as it spells a change in what our actual issues have been; the Glazer's being passive owners.

Passive owners can be good when an organization is already functioning properly.Under Fergie and Gill, this relationship worked really well because their lack of involvement allowed knowledgable footballing minds ( Fergie and Gill) have a complete hold of football operations with very little disturbance outside of availability of funds. However, when both left, and we needed active planning, strategy and activity from the Glazers, they weren't able and were unwilling to step out of that role. We hired a CEO who was as limited in football knowledge as the Glazers were, whilst also being quite passive, so we weren't able to sustain our good work in football operations. Woodward hired managers who didn't have a big picture mindset that Fergie had. Managers who were either self-serving or didn't have the knowledge or skillset to actually support him in the way Fergie did with Gill. Active owners would have spotted these issues and made immediate adjustments. A knowledgable CEO would have seen the tactical irregularities that were constantly apparent on the pitch and put pressure on these managers.

For example, LVG was able to waste six months failing tactically with the 352 and selling off half our squad in his first season. He had the complete trust and support of Woodward and never faced pressure to correct these issues, given that our on-field performances were not great. Where a manager at Real/Barca/Bayern would have been under pressure immediately when the experimental system wasn't working, LVG got the complete freedom to test this out all the way to December, with very little challenge. It's not surprising then that he didn't succeed, as he had not shown signs that he would succeed outside of a 4-week period in March 2015. More active owners and CEO's would have addressed these issues earlier and would not have entrusted him with the type of finances they did in the summer of 2015, particularly if they could spot the gaps in our tactics. We allowed him to get rid of decent players despite having little proof that he could succeed on the pitch, which left us with the weakest squad we've ever had by the end of the 2015/2016 season.

My argument here is that the Glazers' and our CEOs' passivity has given managers and players far too much leeway. This is because no one above them has the authority or football knowledge to effectively supervise proceedings They have been given free rein to do anything they want and are only restrained when their situations become utterly untenable and the team's season is in disarray. Both players and managers have lacked accountability since 2013, and this has resulted in consistently falling standards.

We have given managers much too much time at the start of their tenures, with no pressure from within the club. As a club seeking to return to the top, we must guarantee that our manager and players are driving us in that direction. For a team that hasn't had a manager do this in a long time, and given our size and financial standing, we should be more active in monitoring and checking in with managers without giving them 100% support until they prove their worth, rather than closing our eyes and giving the manager a full season automatically. Fans have the right to be forgiving and hopeful, but the club should always be meticulous in this regard, and unfortunately, that's something that has obviously not been the case in the last 10 years.

The manager at United has been determining when patterns should emerge, when a player isn't working out, and directing the resources they require to succeed. These statements are made by the manager both publicly and privately. These talks are then used by the club and the supporters to evaluate our progress as a team. With public and private briefings, interviews, and conversations, the manager is essentially authoring his own appraisal. As a result, the club has constantly echoed the manager's thoughts.When it should be the club that evaluates the team and the manager. As a result, there are no playing pattern timelines, poor squad management, and inconsistent/illogical transfer requests.

With Ratcliffe and his team taking a stake that provides them with complete control over football operations, this changes all of this. We may have a more active football operations department, with our manager in particular having people to answer to. This may not result in changes to preseason schedules or changes in branding/media, but it could lead to better squad management and on-pitch performances. Which, despite all the anger fans have displayed, is what all the anger is actually about. Fans are upset because the team has put out poor performances and results over the last ten years. Ratcliffe has essentially bought the division of the club putting out those poor performances and results and has taken full control with a promise to bring a new team and structure. This is exactly what people want.
Click to expand...
Most fans look at club ownership models in a very simplistic way. In fact, most corporations have multiple significant shareholders. Many sports teams are set up in a General Partner / Limited Partner model. This is not unusual. Limited partners are shareholders only and have no actual decision making power. Liverpool, Spurs, Chelsea, and a lot of clubs use this model as far as I know. Most of the NFL and NBA teams use this. The General partner manages the club and reports financial results and other operational details.

As far as how United is managed, it’s like taking 6 equals (siblings) and putting them in a room together to make decisions. Most people love their siblings but wouldn’t want to run a company with them. The Glazers have been horrible stewards… some of this is normal dynamics between siblings, but also managing by consensus which is incredibly slow and time consuming.

We don’t know whether Sir Jim is going to do a better job than the Glazers… time will tell. But giving him operational control is a huge positive when compared to how the club was run before he bought in.
 
GDaly95 said:
Very inhumane for that to come out in the press like that. Especially now.
Click to expand...
The club is a mess and needs sorting out but it's hard not to feel for some of the employees there at the moment who will understandably be concerned about their futures. These are people with families.
 
Acquire Me said:
They will probably cut some departments and do them inside Ineos Sports. So basically cut internally and do them externally instead. Since they already got more than one football club and other sports, it make sense.

Someone with more knowledge about City Group can enlighten me, but I think they do it like that and are well under 1000 employees at Man City.
Click to expand...
You may very well be right, it would make sense to streamline some functional areas this way, but can they do this with INEOS if it is Ratcliffe and not his company that has ownership of our club?
 
Utd heap said:
Woke up this morning and realised a Qatar state backed bid din't manage to takeover my football club. Fantastic stuff.

Leave the ground alone though.
Click to expand...

It’s been left alone for long enough wouldn’t you say?

Take a look a what Real Madrid have just done with the Bernanbeu and you’ll get an idea of what we should be aiming for. Turn the stadium into a multi-event space that can be used for more than just football matches, bring in extra revenue for the club and be a joy to visit.
 
Toblerone92 said:
It’s been left alone for long enough wouldn’t you say?

Take a look a what Real Madrid have just done with the Bernanbeu and you’ll get an idea of what we should be aiming for. Turn the stadium into a multi-event space that can be used for more than just football matches, bring in extra revenue for the club and be a joy to visit.
Click to expand...

It's a joy to visit now.

Invest a few quid in the concourse and the roof, that's what we need.

I don't want a 'great facilities' soulless bowl. I've seen Arsenals ground, even Spurs. Don't even mention West Ham.
 
Licha-Vidic said:



  • Jim Ratcliffe could cut 300 jobs at Manchester United in streamlining
  • Ineos will instruct external auditor to assess club’s structure
  • Ratcliffe believes staff of 1,000 can be reduced by 25-30%.
  • Sir Jim Ratcliffe is expected to ask an external auditor to assess Manchester United’s structure and expenditure with a view to executing a major streamlining exercise, meaning as many as 300 jobs are potentially under threat.
  • Executives from Ineos have been in discussions with United over the past weeks regarding Ratcliffe’s plans ahead of his 25% purchase of the club becoming official on Christmas Eve, with the club’s management already having been reminded to curb rising costs to ensure maximum funds for transfers within the strictures of financial fair play.
Click to expand...


Starting with Kath on reception.
 
Utd heap said:
It's a joy to visit now.

Invest a few quid in the concourse and the roof, that's what we need.

I don't want a 'great facilities' soulless bowl. I've seen Arsenals ground, even Spurs. Don't even mention West Ham.
Click to expand...
Being modernised doesn't automatically make a place soulless. That's just another cliche spat out by football fans who struggle to embrace change
 
Licha-Vidic said:



  • Jim Ratcliffe could cut 300 jobs at Manchester United in streamlining
  • Ineos will instruct external auditor to assess club’s structure
  • Ratcliffe believes staff of 1,000 can be reduced by 25-30%.
  • Sir Jim Ratcliffe is expected to ask an external auditor to assess Manchester United’s structure and expenditure with a view to executing a major streamlining exercise, meaning as many as 300 jobs are potentially under threat.
  • Executives from Ineos have been in discussions with United over the past weeks regarding Ratcliffe’s plans ahead of his 25% purchase of the club becoming official on Christmas Eve, with the club’s management already having been reminded to curb rising costs to ensure maximum funds for transfers within the strictures of financial fair play.
Click to expand...

I like this. Already looking to cut waste and streamline operations. Obviously sucks for those affected but it shows a certain ruthlessness we have been lacking.
 
Fridge chutney said:
You may very well be right, it would make sense to streamline some functional areas this way, but can they do this with INEOS if it is Ratcliffe and not his company that has ownership of our club?
Click to expand...

Ineos got the assignment to work with the sporting side of the business, so my guess would be that the company owning the United shares does so only because of technical reasons. One important reason will be because Ineos got one club who will play CL.

Well, we will find out soon enough how they will structure the club.
 
So Sir Jim got 25% for just over £1 bil. So the Glazers never had any interest in selling or Qatar was lieing considering they apparently offered £1 billion more than Jim valuation..
 
Don't know if posted already but Sir Jim Ratcliffe has written an open letter to MUST:

https://www.imust.org.uk/Blog/Entry/open-letter-to-must-from-sir-jim-ratcliffe

Dear MUST,

I wanted to write to you at this time given the critical role of the fans to the future of Manchester United as we recognise our responsibility as custodians of the Club on your behalf.

I believe we can bring sporting success on the pitch to complement the undoubted commercial success that the club has enjoyed. It will require time and patience alongside rigour and the highest level of professional management.

You are ambitious for Manchester United and so are we. There are no guarantees in sport, and change can inevitably take time but we are in it for the long term and together we want to help take Manchester United back to where the club belongs, at the very top of English, European and World Football. I take that responsibility very seriously.

Please note that, as with any deal, it is subject to the usual regulatory sign-off process and therefore we do not expect to speak publicly about Club matters until after the deal has completed.

Sir Jim Ratcliffe

Chairman of INEOS
 
Status
Not open for further replies.