ESPN - Why Manchester United are still a mess under INEOS ownership

You've been very angry lately. With Mount injured, all your hate is going to fellow fans. You could at least tag the people you're calling "bellends".
Not angry. Just calling a spade a spade. Further, I’ve never hid my disdain towards our current generation of fans; which is entirely justified in this thread by the fact that people are actually lapping up the bile printed by journalists on social media; and repeating it as if it holds some form of substance. Our fans, nowadays, are actually embarrassingly clueless. I mean, segue to the De Ligt thread, and some melt is blaming him for the goal - for leaving the pitch. If that doesn’t tell you the level of our current fans, I don’t know what to say.

Re; Mount. Again. My disagreement on the transfer is shared by many. I was just vocal from day dot as I could see it being a failure from a mile away.

Toodle on, kiddo.
 
Because making and reinvesting profits is not the same as not making a profit.

My point is : Don’t make a profit. Period.

Run the club well. Maximise revenues and generate as much cash as ethically/morally responsible.

Fund a stadium, training ground, playing staff, and all operational staff. Take on sensible debt levels for big ticket expenditure. Sign players to the value of headroom. And and and.

But no season should see a penny of profit. If you’re making one, you haven’t put enough effort into being a successful sports team.
 
Every single one of those tidbits is 100% conjecture.

The fact that all you bellends lap it up as gospel, just goes to justify the absolute shite that comes out of today's modern 'journalists'.

At least two of the quotes were backed up by The Athletic in past articles so it's unlikely they're baseless.

Andy Mitten's also one of most well connected journalists and time served United fans going and he referenced the article before it even came out, so again that lends a lot of credence.
 
Profit is what’s left after costs, which includes any reinvestment of funds.
Not necessarily - depends on whether you're referring to operating profit or net profit.

Also, some investments (i.e. capital investments such as player purchases) hit the balance sheet rather than the P&L, and only incur costs as they amortize.
 
Not angry. Just calling a spade a spade. Further, I’ve never hid my disdain towards our current generation of fans; which is entirely justified in this thread by the fact that people are actually lapping up the bile printed by journalists on social media; and repeating it as if it holds some form of substance. Our fans, nowadays, are actually embarrassingly clueless. I mean, segue to the De Ligt thread, and some melt is blaming him for the goal - for leaving the pitch. If that doesn’t tell you the level of our current fans, I don’t know what to say.

Re; Mount. Again. My disagreement on the transfer is shared by many. I was just vocal from day dot as I could see it being a failure from a mile away.

Toodle on, kiddo.
It is pretty discouraging, I agree. I mean, you'd think, that the supporters of a club would show a little less readiness to take such articles at face value but it seems more like they turn into front runners of that. Just shows how views and standpoints creep into perception and will always generate more things that support the view you already have. It would be so interesting to compare the current situation with an alternate universe, where ETH hasn't been such a hot topic among fans - I wonder if the mood around INEOS would be as sceptical as well.
My point is : Don’t make a profit. Period.

Run the club well. Maximise revenues and generate as much cash as ethically/morally responsible.

Fund a stadium, training ground, playing staff, and all operational staff. Take on sensible debt levels for big ticket expenditure. Sign players to the value of headroom. And and and.

But no season should see a penny of profit. If you’re making one, you haven’t put enough effort into being a successful sports team.
And what are you going to do when something like Covid hits and your revenues tank a lot? I mean, I get your point and obviously I would agree that football clubs shouldn't be seen as some cash cow for individuals but how would that look like in todays world? Sounds good in theory but I think that idea would get shredded in the real world.
 
Questioning some of their decisions or communication isn't jumping on their back.
I agree. And probably my conclusion that people were on their back already is a bit pushy as well but reading the tone of this thread and the readiness to see truth in any of those stories, when it is clear, that the intention of such articles is to make use of a tense fanbase due to recent issues and most likely uses a list of overexaggerations to create just that, I feel a bit justified at least.
Their previous endeavours with Nice have largely been a flop and Brailsfords weird behaviour isn't new either.
I have some faith in Wilcox, Ashworth and Berrada, not so much in Jimmy and Brailsford.
Don't know too much about them. But what I have noticed from them so far is alright and no obvious errors (considering we don't know why they sticked to ETH in the summer and therefor can't talk about obvious or not). Obviously not every single management decision will be popular, some will turn out as mistakes in the future but it is what it is - and I am pretty sure thats everywhere the same. Only thing articles like that are doing is creating a hostile environment for next to no reason. And thats not me saying that we can't or shouldn't criticize - just lets stick to what we know and take assumptions and rumors not as personal attacks.
 
It is pretty discouraging, I agree. I mean, you'd think, that the supporters of a club would show a little less readiness to take such articles at face value but it seems more like they turn into front runners of that. Just shows how views and standpoints creep into perception and will always generate more things that support the view you already have. It would be so interesting to compare the current situation with an alternate universe, where ETH hasn't been such a hot topic among fans - I wonder if the mood around INEOS would be as sceptical as well.
100%. All it takes is a little spark from any old random journalist/UnitedFan69 on Twitter, or some self-serving whopper on YouTube (Goldbridge) and our own 'fans' run with it; thus serving to justify these clowns baseless bull shit in their ambition for attention or (worse) revenue.

This doesn't help the team at all, as it fosters a toxic environment. Online social media abuse driven by false narratives shouldn't affect our players, but we're kidding ourselves if we do not think this doesn't. Our fans don't help by giving this absolute propaganda dogshit air time. We should be getting behind our players, not piling on top of the media's anti-United crusade.
 
9th (the season bicycle man was directly involved), 5th and currently 10th.
Yeah, the season they finished 5th happened to be the season following Brailsfords input, funny that. Almost like the changes he made were forward thinking and not immediate.
 
Yeah, the season they finished 5th happened to be the season following Brailsfords input, funny that. Almost like the changes he made were forward thinking and not immediate.

The man has no credit in the bank due to his affinity for pushing PEDs and having terrible fashion tastes
 
On profit; for my part I'd settle for an acceptance that the running of a major football club demands something more than a single-minded focus on financial short-term profit. Including for reasons that are essentially business reasons. Such as the need to satisfy your customers (who care about on-pitch success, and who do not and have no reason to think of what you're engaged in as essentially just another business venture), and to maintain and develop the value of the asset that the club is. In the minds of the people who are your customers, there is a real difference between selling football and selling dishwashers or bricklaying services. Which means that you can't really trot out the absolute primacy of profits reflexively as an argument to justify anything that cuts costs or increases revenue, on the premise that anything else is just a lack of realism. Football capitalism is not that simple. That said, I don't think total and continual reinvestment of all profits would be very prudent either. Or realistic, given that the club chose to go on the stock market and predictably ended up being bought by venture capitalists.
 
Yeah, the season they finished 5th happened to be the season following Brailsfords input, funny that. Almost like the changes he made were forward thinking and not immediate.

Actually that was the season before (22-23). He brought moody to the club and a horde of former EPL rejects including Barkley, schmeichel and Pepe. The manager didn't even know where Barkley played

Ps during 21-22 Nice were......5th

Seriously brailsford should stick to bicycles
 
100%. All it takes is a little spark from any old random journalist/UnitedFan69 on Twitter, or some self-serving whopper on YouTube (Goldbridge) and our own 'fans' run with it; thus serving to justify these clowns baseless bull shit in their ambition for attention or (worse) revenue.

This doesn't help the team at all, as it fosters a toxic environment. Online social media abuse driven by false narratives shouldn't affect our players, but we're kidding ourselves if we do not think this doesn't. Our fans don't help by giving this absolute propaganda dogshit air time. We should be getting behind our players, not piling on top of the media's anti-United crusade.

Anyone who follows goldfish know that there's more into it that meets the eye
 
Anyone who follows goldfish know that there's more into it that meets the eye
I agree. But the modern day social media driven impressionable fans buy into it, and before you know it, it’s taken as factual and posted/reposted/linked on forums etc. This isn’t exclusive to that clown, journalists aren’t any better nowadays in this click-bait world we live in. The media literally makes up pure lies just for engagement. Biggest problem is, is that it works. As evidenced on these very forums.
 
It was reported by more credible journalists that right after Brailsford spoke to the squad, rashford, Bruno and a few others sought him out for 1 on 1 meetings on a voluntary basis. So this whole idea that the team rolled their eyes at him when he said he chose to live in Manchester while eschewing a cozy life in Monte Carlo is punctured right there.
 
It was reported by more credible journalists that right after Brailsford spoke to the squad, rashford, Bruno and a few others sought him out for 1 on 1 meetings on a voluntary basis. So this whole idea that the team rolled their eyes at him when he said he chose to live in Manchester while eschewing a cozy life in Monte Carlo is punctured right there.
ESPN talking shit? Say it isn't so
 
And what are you going to do when something like Covid hits and your revenues tank a lot? I mean, I get your point and obviously I would agree that football clubs shouldn't be seen as some cash cow for individuals but how would that look like in today’s world? Sounds good in theory but I think that idea would get shredded in the real world.
Course it wouldn’t. It doesn’t. Most clubs are operating at a loss. Running at break even wouldn’t do any harm at all.

Your value as a Sports Team isn’t based on Profit. It’s based on success.

Capitalism has broken how sports fans look at their clubs. Why on earth would anyone want their football team to generate profit? What possible good is there in turning £100m in profit and ‘reinvesting it’? All that says is you haven’t spent £100m that year chasing performance. Be that on-field or off.

Football teams are not regular businesses and never should be. That’s not some mad naive view.
 
It was reported by more credible journalists that right after Brailsford spoke to the squad, rashford, Bruno and a few others sought him out for 1 on 1 meetings on a voluntary basis. So this whole idea that the team rolled their eyes at him when he said he chose to live in Manchester while eschewing a cozy life in Monte Carlo is punctured right there.

Or maybe Rashford and Bruno wanted to have a word with him about how to talk to the squad in future? More power to them, if so.

I’ve a horrible feeling this guy is a total bluffer. His track record to date is looking worse and worse over time.
 
Or maybe Rashford and Bruno wanted to have a word with him about how to talk to the squad in future? More power to them, if so.

I’ve a horrible feeling this guy is a total bluffer. His track record to date is looking worse and worse over time.
At least in Rashford’s case, it was reported that Brailsford stuck a chord with him and he’s looked energized since then.

That Monday at Carrington, Sir Dave Brailsford addressed the squad en masse for the first time to outline the INEOS strategy, particularly in terms of raising standards across the club. Brailsford’s introduction was planned rather than a reaction to Rashford’s indiscipline, but it appeared to strike a chord with the player.

As team-mates were filing out of the room, Rashford requested a one-on-one meeting with Brailsford. The pair spoke for 90 minutes and afterwards, Rashford appeared energised. Ten Hag, having turned down Rashford’s request to play at Newport, reinstated him to the team at Wolves that Thursday and Rashford scored the opening goal after five minutes of a 4-3 win.

https://www.nytimes.com/athletic/55...s-principles-play/?source=user_shared_article
 
It’s funny how either the “sources” and/or ESPN think they’ve done a brutal take down with these pieces, when they almost always make the sources themselves sound like complete dicks.

Who gives a shit what colour chinos Brailsford was wearing when he spoke to the team?

Travelling home by coach from London a hardship? feck off.

I suspect this is just some shit stirrer on the fringes who ESPN have access to rather than anyone of importance, at least I hope so.
 
I’m not saying don’t make money. I’m saying there’s no need to be profitable.

Also, sponsors, players and fans are not attracted to profit.
You have a very naive view of the world. Profit, is what pushes everything in business. Anyone who has run a business, owned a business or simply been a shareholder in a business, will tell you it only comes down to one thing...profit = money.

If you wind it back a bit, clean slate, ask yourself this: How did Sir Jim buy a stake in the club? The answer is, he did so because his other companies (mainly Ineos) makes a huge amount of money. It makes a huge amount of profit. Without that profit, he would never have been in a position to buy United.

You mentioned players are not attracted to profit. Of course they are, otherwise they would all be playing pub football, just for the love of the game. Take any player who plays professionally and you're looking at someone who is trying to maximise their profit. If said player had an option of either A: Playing for Leeds for £25k a week or playing for Real Madrid for £250k a week, do you think ANY player would turn down Madrid, based on your belief that no player does it for profit?

And lastly, sponsors. Are you suggesting that the likes of say, Nike or Adidas, sponsor a team like United for £20m a year, simply because they like having their logos on the shirt? They do it because they know they'll make more money (hence profit) from TV exposure, shirt sales etc. This in return, creates a bigger market share and more people spending money online and in their shops, not just on football kit, but everything else they produce, trainers, t-shirts etc

There's always a need to be profitable, its simply how the world runs, even a family home, with income, runs off of the basis of 'how much money have we got left this month' which is, in effect, profit.

What you're probably alluding to, is a moral compass. That you don't want the club to lose its soul and football perspective against the pursuit for money and thats a fair point and a worry for a lot of fans. There's always a tightrope to walk in football, especially at the top end where money, profit and success can often override the beauty of the game. But at United level, there's always going to be money, business and profit in the mix, if you don't like that side of it, you're probably better off moving down a few leagues and supporting a smaller club, where the focus is more on the football.
 
I'm not sure what the situation is with cutting staff, it does concern me that someone with 30 years experience was let go, but then again maybe he/she got a great redundancy package? We don't know the details.

On the pitch - it's going to take time. For now they're backing the manager, but we still have clear weaknesses in the quality of the team/squad. Our talisman are Rashford, Bruno and Casemiro. One is failing to live up to early promise, one is doing alright, one is in decline. Look around at those at the top, where we aim for. The difference in quality is day and night.

As for the manager - i think he's got to go. In his third year, no distinguishable style of football. Credit to him for clearing out some of the rubbish though.
 
At least in Rashford’s case, it was reported that Brailsford stuck a chord with him and he’s looked energized since then.



https://www.nytimes.com/athletic/55...s-principles-play/?source=user_shared_article

OK, well that's good. If he played even a tiny part in the shift Rashford put in yesterday then that's great.

I do need to keep reminding myself that the "Diary of a CEO" bullshit spouted by the likes of Arteta does seem to resonate with PL footballers.
 
You have a very naive view of the world. Profit, is what pushes everything in business. Anyone who has run a business, owned a business or simply been a shareholder in a business, will tell you it only comes down to one thing...profit = money.

If you wind it back a bit, clean slate, ask yourself this: How did Sir Jim buy a stake in the club? The answer is, he did so because his other companies (mainly Ineos) makes a huge amount of money. It makes a huge amount of profit. Without that profit, he would never have been in a position to buy United.

You mentioned players are not attracted to profit. Of course they are, otherwise they would all be playing pub football, just for the love of the game. Take any player who plays professionally and you're looking at someone who is trying to maximise their profit. If said player had an option of either A: Playing for Leeds for £25k a week or playing for Real Madrid for £250k a week, do you think ANY player would turn down Madrid, based on your belief that no player does it for profit?

And lastly, sponsors. Are you suggesting that the likes of say, Nike or Adidas, sponsor a team like United for £20m a year, simply because they like having their logos on the shirt? They do it because they know they'll make more money (hence profit) from TV exposure, shirt sales etc. This in return, creates a bigger market share and more people spending money online and in their shops, not just on football kit, but everything else they produce, trainers, t-shirts etc

There's always a need to be profitable, its simply how the world runs, even a family home, with income, runs off of the basis of 'how much money have we got left this month' which is, in effect, profit.

What you're probably alluding to, is a moral compass. That you don't want the club to lose its soul and football perspective against the pursuit for money and thats a fair point and a worry for a lot of fans. There's always a tightrope to walk in football, especially at the top end where money, profit and success can often override the beauty of the game. But at United level, there's always going to be money, business and profit in the mix, if you don't like that side of it, you're probably better off moving down a few leagues and supporting a smaller club, where the focus is more on the football.

This is all fundamentally wrong at its foundation. You’re conflating money with profit.

What is the goal of Manchester United Football Club? Is it;

-Win trophies (by all means add ‘while playing exciting football to entertain the fans)

Or

-Make a profit

Profit has zero to do with the functional purpose of the Football Team. Fans, players and sponsors are simply not looking at Manchester United and thinking ‘Look at all the money that’s left over after income versus expenditure’.
 
Or maybe Rashford and Bruno wanted to have a word with him about how to talk to the squad in future? More power to them, if so.

I’ve a horrible feeling this guy is a total bluffer. His track record to date is looking worse and worse over time.
My gut on Brailsford is that he was quite a revolutionary figure in sport around the early 2000s with his innovative marginal gains approach to Cycling. The best of what he implemented back then will have made its way into the top level of every professional sport and if he hasn’t spent the last two decades refining his approach, what he thinks he can bring to the table now will be concepts which have either been long adopted or long determined to be unsuitable for Football.
 
Course it wouldn’t. It doesn’t. Most clubs are operating at a loss. Running at break even wouldn’t do any harm at all.

Your value as a Sports Team isn’t based on Profit. It’s based on success.
Because success is creating profit. And more profit fuels more success. The only reason we still have the same status as we had 10 years ago is that our commercialization and brand remained as strong as it is. Otherwise the non-existence of success should make sure that big transfers wouldn't be a possibility for us.
Capitalism has broken how sports fans look at their clubs. Why on earth would anyone want their football team to generate profit? What possible good is there in turning £100m in profit and ‘reinvesting it’? All that says is you haven’t spent £100m that year chasing performance. Be that on-field or off.

Football teams are not regular businesses and never should be. That’s not some mad naive view.
Well I guess at this point, we have a different understanding of some of the terms. I guess you mean something very different than me when using the word profit. Also: Nobody said that the ultimate goal of a football club should be to "make profit", but without making any profit your success won't be sustainable.
You have a very naive view of the world. Profit, is what pushes everything in business. Anyone who has run a business, owned a business or simply been a shareholder in a business, will tell you it only comes down to one thing...profit = money.

If you wind it back a bit, clean slate, ask yourself this: How did Sir Jim buy a stake in the club? The answer is, he did so because his other companies (mainly Ineos) makes a huge amount of money. It makes a huge amount of profit. Without that profit, he would never have been in a position to buy United.

You mentioned players are not attracted to profit. Of course they are, otherwise they would all be playing pub football, just for the love of the game. Take any player who plays professionally and you're looking at someone who is trying to maximise their profit. If said player had an option of either A: Playing for Leeds for £25k a week or playing for Real Madrid for £250k a week, do you think ANY player would turn down Madrid, based on your belief that no player does it for profit?

And lastly, sponsors. Are you suggesting that the likes of say, Nike or Adidas, sponsor a team like United for £20m a year, simply because they like having their logos on the shirt? They do it because they know they'll make more money (hence profit) from TV exposure, shirt sales etc. This in return, creates a bigger market share and more people spending money online and in their shops, not just on football kit, but everything else they produce, trainers, t-shirts etc

There's always a need to be profitable, its simply how the world runs, even a family home, with income, runs off of the basis of 'how much money have we got left this month' which is, in effect, profit.

What you're probably alluding to, is a moral compass. That you don't want the club to lose its soul and football perspective against the pursuit for money and thats a fair point and a worry for a lot of fans. There's always a tightrope to walk in football, especially at the top end where money, profit and success can often override the beauty of the game. But at United level, there's always going to be money, business and profit in the mix, if you don't like that side of it, you're probably better off moving down a few leagues and supporting a smaller club, where the focus is more on the football.
You saved me some time not having to type those things. I agree with your points.
This is all fundamentally wrong at its foundation. You’re conflating money with profit.

What is the goal of Manchester United Football Club? Is it;

-Win trophies (by all means add ‘while playing exciting football to entertain the fans)

Or

-Make a profit
This is a strawman - nobody said that you have to choose option 2. But you have to bring those goals into a certain relation with each other.
Profit has zero to do with the functional purpose of the Football Team. Fans, players and sponsors are simply not looking at Manchester United and thinking ‘Look at all the money that’s left over after income versus expenditure’.
You talk about the brand, that is still strong for us despite not having any notable success in the last 10 years. This strength can be measured in commercial terms. I agree with your point: the ultimate goal certainly shouldn't be to make profit but you have to have a reasonable business model to have success on the pitch. There are so so many examples of that out there - City, Red Bull - they all forced their way into football success by having money. And you can't possibly think that RB is financing this as some sort of altruistic measure.
 
I agree. But the modern day social media driven impressionable fans buy into it, and before you know it, it’s taken as factual and posted/reposted/linked on forums etc. This isn’t exclusive to that clown, journalists aren’t any better nowadays in this click-bait world we live in. The media literally makes up pure lies just for engagement. Biggest problem is, is that it works. As evidenced on these very forums.

United's biggest issue remains politics and that spills even in the youtube channel. You see rival channels being able to tend to invite/be invited by certain people who would never dare cross the line on certain people (Ole, ETH etc) and would go overboard in trying to defend those people.
 
Not sure they have been at the club long enough to draw any conclusions
 
Pretty sure they had prepared the article for weeks then we won after they published it. Eat shit ESPN.
 
You have a very naive view of the world. Profit, is what pushes everything in business. Anyone who has run a business, owned a business or simply been a shareholder in a business, will tell you it only comes down to one thing...profit = money.

If you wind it back a bit, clean slate, ask yourself this: How did Sir Jim buy a stake in the club? The answer is, he did so because his other companies (mainly Ineos) makes a huge amount of money. It makes a huge amount of profit. Without that profit, he would never have been in a position to buy United.

You mentioned players are not attracted to profit. Of course they are, otherwise they would all be playing pub football, just for the love of the game. Take any player who plays professionally and you're looking at someone who is trying to maximise their profit. If said player had an option of either A: Playing for Leeds for £25k a week or playing for Real Madrid for £250k a week, do you think ANY player would turn down Madrid, based on your belief that no player does it for profit?

And lastly, sponsors. Are you suggesting that the likes of say, Nike or Adidas, sponsor a team like United for £20m a year, simply because they like having their logos on the shirt? They do it because they know they'll make more money (hence profit) from TV exposure, shirt sales etc. This in return, creates a bigger market share and more people spending money online and in their shops, not just on football kit, but everything else they produce, trainers, t-shirts etc

There's always a need to be profitable, its simply how the world runs, even a family home, with income, runs off of the basis of 'how much money have we got left this month' which is, in effect, profit.

What you're probably alluding to, is a moral compass. That you don't want the club to lose its soul and football perspective against the pursuit for money and thats a fair point and a worry for a lot of fans. There's always a tightrope to walk in football, especially at the top end where money, profit and success can often override the beauty of the game. But at United level, there's always going to be money, business and profit in the mix, if you don't like that side of it, you're probably better off moving down a few leagues and supporting a smaller club, where the focus is more on the football.
Did you deliberately conflate a player making profit for themselves versus the club they're playing for making a profit? Those two things are wildly and fundamentally different. The only reason a player will care if their club is profitable is if they care about the stability, viability and ability to be competitive. You can demonstrate all that whilst turning £0 profit.
 
Not necessarily - depends on whether you're referring to operating profit or net profit.

Also, some investments (i.e. capital investments such as player purchases) hit the balance sheet rather than the P&L, and only incur costs as they amortize.

Exactly. Profit and cash are 2 very different things, we should absolutely be making a profit (before tax) to enable future investment, in the stadium players etc. We're also a lot more attractive a brand if we're profitable from a commercial perspective which will help grow the club and its attractiveness to sponsors, thus allowing the club to reinvest further. WE've also lots of debt and (presumably) covenants to meet which will require the club to profitable.

The irony is we have been profitable in the past but its been ripped out in dividends, so profit but no cash!