ESPN - Why Manchester United are still a mess under INEOS ownership
- Thread starter Martial'sEmergingSmile
- Start date
Not really.
I've seen it in articles and I've heard it on podcasts. It also aligns with how badly I view the club to be managed from the point Gill and SAF stepped down. Also this "jobs for the boys" mindset was a tad visible and even though I know this doesn't necessarily mean it applies to all of staff, it paints a certain picture. Just to be sure - I'd be all up for "hard hand" handling this even if there wasn't talk about being bloated but simply because it seems we aren't as functional as other teams. To be more precise, our opponents are way more functional than us which shouldn't be the case.
I am happy to read sources that show that this bloat thing is untrue. I am aware it might just be some very negative spin on a rather normal thing. But you have to bring something to the table.
Very much so. If we're both speculating about the financial impact of Ashworth's sacking, the speculation that "suits" is obviously yours. It's funny that you wouldn't have the self-awareness to get this. My take doesn't "suit" at all, but I'm afraid it is realistic and common-sensical.
For the purposes of this thread by the way, that doesn't mean we are somehow "still a mess" in general. Sacking Ashworth might for all we know be solving a organizational/operational mess in the long term (impossible to judge right now), but in terms of short term impact of compensation and payoff it certainly will have been messy, and also self-inflicted.
Similar to the 'No Deal' crowd re: brexit.
The rhetorical uniformity of these right-wing narratives betray their 'I can think for myself' schtick.
Sadly, they're supposed to get angrier with those showing them their errors. So...
Mainly because he could blow his billions in a pre-PSR wonderland.
By mainly I of course mean absolutely.
The Glazers used other people's money to buy up shares and used our profits to pay off their debt. Different thing entirely.
Furthermore, a brace of objectionable owners (or more) is insufficient for equivalence. They can (and in this case, are) objectionable for a variety of separate reasons.
We hear the 'yeah, but they're all the same' attitude from the state ownership crowd, amongst others. They really are not.
Logic doesn’t appear to be your strong point.
The 6 month period is common place therefore I’m basing this view, along with reports, as being likely.
Your view, which simply suits and isn’t based on anything other than opinion, is less likely. Unless there’s been a specific report to suggest otherwise I’m unsure why you’d choose to believe the exception rather than the norm.
The top level football employment market is an exception to the norm, is the simple and obvious point you refuse to take into account. And I'd frankly appreciate less of the personal insults.
Is that in your opinion or factual?
Says the poster telling me I lack self awareness. Patronising.
Practice what you preach.. don’t throw stones if you live in a glass house.. etc etc
It can't be factual since neither me nor you know the actual contract, but that the hiring of a PL DoF would involve different type of contract clauses than the hiring of a supermarket cashier seems quite, again, common-sensical.
In my opinion.
No one compared Ashworth to a supermarket cashier. Silly strawman. To go with your manic green smileys which opened our exchange up.
Employment law and contracts differ but the 6 month break type clause, or probationary periods, are pretty common. Of course Ashworth will get a pay out but it’s highly likely it will be reduced given it is within this period (based on employment law). This would also reflect on the wording of the announcement that they mutually agreed to part company.
You can believe that’s impossible because he’s a PL DoF and that’s fine but my argument is based on logic and actual business yours in simply in your head.
But from all we know in the context of football, it is not "highly likely" at all that it would be lower. The closest example we can draw from being managerial contracts, where it will be more expensive to terminate the contract early instead of at a point when certain objectives have not been met. Which is why Moyes etc were sacked later, and not sooner within some '6 months probationary period', in order to save payout money.
I don't have the feeling you are interested in taking these arguments into account though, so let's leave it at that.
If David Moyes at United is the example you are trying to use then yes. I’m not interested as it’s irrelevant.
There's a bit of an overreliance on "who's the owner" in this discussion. Football clubs that aren't owned by fans are typically owned by arsehole billionaires with shady ties to corrupt regimes and blood money in one way or the other. That's really not the place where a difference could have been made, unless fans manage to buy 51% of the club.
The important or strategical issues for the club were, IIRC:
1. To clear the crippling debt the club holds for having the privilege of getting bought by (and paying off dividends to) the Glazers leadership.
2. To refurbish the club infrastructure, starting with Old Trafford and Carrington's training ground.
3. To improve the football squad in order to be a permanent presence in the CL and compete for the big titles again.
So considering that we can say the club is moving forward in one issue, struggling to progress (to say the least) in another, and totally forgot about the other one.
The important or strategical issues for the club were, IIRC:
1. To clear the crippling debt the club holds for having the privilege of getting bought by (and paying off dividends to) the Glazers leadership.
2. To refurbish the club infrastructure, starting with Old Trafford and Carrington's training ground.
3. To improve the football squad in order to be a permanent presence in the CL and compete for the big titles again.
So considering that we can say the club is moving forward in one issue, struggling to progress (to say the least) in another, and totally forgot about the other one.
Are there actual reports of him having a 6 month probationary period, or is this just speculation?
And if it's the latter, are there example of other DOFs being reported to have that 6 month probationary period? It's not something I've heard applied in a football context previously.
And if it's the latter, are there example of other DOFs being reported to have that 6 month probationary period? It's not something I've heard applied in a football context previously.
Ignore him mate. Don't rise to it
Yeah Berrada seems promising so far.
Feels like we tried to rebuild the entire football structure in a rush and over-hired. Wilcox will just take over Ashworth's role and work with Fletcher, which seems like a good partnership.
The criticism of Ineos is way over-blown I think.
Yeah mate, I don't want to argue any further. I gave and explained my opinion, can I be 100% sure I am not wrong and you are not right? I can't so there you go
And in fact it would be brilliant for the club to have saved money, I just really don't think so but it is not very gratifying to keep fighting this argument from my standpoint.
Let's just say in closing, had Ashworth indeed allowed there to be termination provisions in his contract which the club could easily trigger to his financial detriment after four months, it's just fair that they sacked him. In fact he should have been sacked five minutes after the signature as he'd obviously be appalling at negotiating
Agreed. Don’t want to argue either. Hopefully we get a good result today and all the rest is tomorrows chip paper!Yeah mate, I don't want to argue any further. I gave and explained my opinion, can I be 100% sure I am not wrong and you are not right? I can't so there you go
And in fact it would be brilliant for the club to have saved money, I just really don't think so but it is not very gratifying to keep fighting this argument from my standpoint.
Let's just say in closing, had Ashworth indeed allowed there to be termination provisions in his contract which the club could easily trigger to his financial detriment after four months, it's just fair that they sacked him. In fact he should have been sacked five minutes after the signature as he'd obviously be appalling at negotiating
Yep. Not just because City have been shit, anything can happen in one game, but to me the confidence about where we're headed under Ruben feels fundamental.
Meanwhile journos continue to be smug and lazy in telling us what's wrong with the club.
I feel confident in the longer term. I’m just hoping we can shift the mood that’s lingering currently.
A good performance today will help, irrespective of result.
So you are guessing...
I'm just going by the INEOS playbook of cutting jobs when they invest in a new company. It's their standard thing to do. No one complained of bloat until they came in. Every other problem of the club was mentioned except that and it's something that lines up with what their consultants would have been paid to produce. That's all.
It's not like there were huge complaints, but it's been noted for years that we've had a significantly larger amount of staff than anyone else. Over the years I've also seen rumours pop up a few times saying that some staff members would get jobs due to family or friends and then due to a lack of oversight would just stay there despite being quite lazy and bad at those jobs. From memory this was back in Woodward's days though, so I have no idea if it improved under Arnold and Murtough. Of course, those rumours could also have been talking complete shit so don't take it as gospel. But I don't think it's accurate to say that the amount of staff we had was never mentioned.
As I've said multiple times though, the fact INEOS went straight for the work-from-home staff was classic 'working class have to be kept under the thumb and treated like shit' billionaire attitude, that probably does the exact opposite of improving the quality of the staff. The best workers we had who were working from home will be much more likely to move on and find other employment offering that, while the lazy poor-quality staff will stick around.
You forgot Vivell. Who was only on a short term contract but now stays permanently. So yes, United over-hired, but on purpose. The surprise change isn't that someone had to leave, but that it isn't Vivell (who was originally intented to leave after the first transfer window) but Ashworth. And I think it's highly likely that he will have important input about recruiting players where it appears Ashworth lacked.
I see your point. It certainly wasn't one of the things that was repeated ad nauseum like other things. But it popped up every once in a while. I remember it in context of publishing the annual business reports where it was often mentioned, that United not only had one of the highest wage bills for players but also a rather large number of other employees compared to other clubs.
But again - you can take the "bloated" part away and still sit in front of an organisation that didn't seem flourish - from medical records to leaking stadiums to seemingly bad recruiting and problematic set pieces. Granted - I am certainly not trying to push some poor staff guy into the limelight here as responsable because responsable is only the figure at the top of the chain but I think it is fair to say that we strayed away from the pack a little too long and a little too far so something had to be done. I also feel it hit the wrong group harder than necessary but it is what it is.
About 2nd paragraph: I had the same feeling, some decision maker feel like such measures project certain capabilities and who know, maybe they do, but I am with you, doesn't seem like it fits in todays world.
Interesting post.
Also worth noting that Chelsea's previous owner being linked with the Russian state (not even actually being the state itself) caused the club to almost go bankrupt when his assets were frozen.
Most (if not all) of these owners are massive c**ts but there's very different levels at play.
Making mistakes while trying to fix a decade worth of systematic mediocrity is inevitable, it would be a miracle if they made no mistakes.
I've been delighted with the majority of decisions made by INEOS so far and their willingness to make big calls rather than carry on and refuse to admit a mistake. As with most successful people in business Sir Jim Ratcliffe understands sunk cost fallacy and won't allow that to hurt the team.
I've been delighted with the majority of decisions made by INEOS so far and their willingness to make big calls rather than carry on and refuse to admit a mistake. As with most successful people in business Sir Jim Ratcliffe understands sunk cost fallacy and won't allow that to hurt the team.
Imo opinion this article will go down like Oliver Holt’s “Saf has lost his touch and needs to retire, Vidic & Evra are not top four quality players” article.
Jim Ratcliffe Increases Stake In Premier League Side Manchester United To Around 29 Per Cent
Some 250 members of staff have left, while former United manager Alex Ferguson is being stripped of his ambassadorial role at the club.
Meanwhile, the mid-season decision to increase prices of remaining home tickets to £66 per match, without any concessions for children or pensioners, sparked anger and protests among United fans.
But Ratcliffe, 72, recently told the United We Stand fanzine the club “need to sweat every pound" if they are to return to former glories
https://www.news18.com/football/jim...ter-united-to-around-29-per-cent-9162192.html
Some 250 members of staff have left, while former United manager Alex Ferguson is being stripped of his ambassadorial role at the club.
Meanwhile, the mid-season decision to increase prices of remaining home tickets to £66 per match, without any concessions for children or pensioners, sparked anger and protests among United fans.
But Ratcliffe, 72, recently told the United We Stand fanzine the club “need to sweat every pound" if they are to return to former glories
https://www.news18.com/football/jim...ter-united-to-around-29-per-cent-9162192.html