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.
