Feck the players.
The job losses are sad but look at the size of the workforce compared to other clubs. We were bloated.
Do you have any statistics that support that?
Do other clubs not need a kitman or regularly sack staff that have been employed for 30 years just to save a few pennies? Is this what makes them successful football clubs?
The concern I have is everyone on here pushed so hard against the Saudi investment that they saw INEOS as a good thing when in reality it was an absolutely terrible idea/set up from the get go. We have multiple owners who all want different things and the only thing they have in common is a track record of being greedy. None of them are going to invest the money in the club for it to be successful because their prime interest is profit/self service, n having loads of them is definitely not a better idea than having one.
I don't subscribe to this "its only been 9 months"...Radcliffe was involved and planning this long before that, and 9 months in football is actually a pretty long time. Not long enough to expect to be winning titles or seeing the team transformed completely, but long enough to have some idea of what the positive changes are. The only real changes have been to sack lots of people to save our owners some money, which anyone who knew anything about Radcliffe shouldn't be at all surprised by. I'm also sure many of us have worked at places where this sort of thing has happened and know that it rarely has a positive impact on anything other than the owner's pockets.
There have also been some things I have found even more alarming than expected. For example, Sir Jim revealing part of his master plan was to sign a random player from Nice, to United, because him and some guy who used to manage a cycling team thought it'd be a good idea. Then moaning because apparently neither of them knew enough about running a football club to know this was against the rules. I have no idea how to run a football club, and I knew this was against the rules.
Freezing out Sir Alex. Another thing that was largely dismissed on here. I doubt SAF left because he suddenly didn't like Man Utd anymore, and he may not be as in touch with things as 10 years ago, but I strongly suspect he knows more about how to run a successful premier league team than anyone at INEOS does. Now that knowledge well is gone.
Embarrassingly disinterested/belittling comments from Radcliffe about the women's team, and again, people will be dismissive of it, but the club is an entity. And this goes hand in hand with all the cost cutting stuff. You can't beat down on one part of the football club and expect to be able to lift another part of it up. You affect morale across the board and send a message to everyone outside the club that its not a good place to come and work. Which includes managers and players who you might want.
Also, my personal favourite, announcing to the press that all our players are for sale, effectively lowering both the value and confidence/motivation of every single one, which, unsurprisingly, has been reflected in how they've performed on the pitch.
IMHO INEOS so far have mostly demonstrated that a) none of them really have a clue what they're doing, and b) Sir Jim is a bit of a tosser.
