Yes,sorry, what I meantby saying that isI think £180m could by far better options than those three around Europe this summer
Club Ownership | INEOS responsible for the football side
- Thread starter Solius
- Start date
Come on now, they really arent separate entitiesat all
Fair enough, I was a bit confused when your total proposed spend was also £180m
Ridiculous post.
Except legally they are and as I said it’s widely reported that 4 of them aren’t even interested, only Joel and Avi take any interest.
You might wanna clean the sticky stuff from under your spacebar
Agreed.
Not a WFH fan I take it?
I can’t understand comments like this.
we have one of the countries most successful people who has made his own way in life and build up a very successful business which has made it possible for him to purchase 30%(hopefully more in time)of his failing and poorly run boyhood club.
he is now bringing all that expertise into getting that said club back up to standard and he’s getting pelters for it.
if it wasn’t for him we’d have either been stuck with the Glazers or become an oil club.
Agree with 2 of them players you mentioned but I think we should go all out for Olise, he’s the type of player and character we should be signing. He’s very talented as we witnessed on Monday night. He’ll be easy to get aswell, he won’t be fussed if we’re in the CL or not as we’re obviously bigger than his current club. I do agree that we should be scouting around Europe though, there’s tons of quality young players around Europe that we could pick up. We need to be smart and do what we use to do, look for the gems and turn them into world beaters.
It’s not just cynical though is it.
If the club is overhired, bloated and inefficient - it is costing money that could be better spent on the football team.
Paying generous redundancy packages to fix the mistakes of those who went before, will take money that could be better spent on the football team.
Contrary to what Woodward and other spoofers would’ve had you believe, the long term success and viability of Manchester United (and by extension all the truly necessary jobs at the club) is dependent on what happens on the football pitch. Ratcliffe’s first responsibility lies there.
Surely people can see how an organisation which is happy to waste money at an administrative or IT or customer service level, is also an organisation that is happy to waste money on player recruitment and compensation. You don’t just pick and choose which areas to get more efficient and effective at - you aim to change the culture across the board.
I don’t give a shite where people work, personally. But if the company wants workers in the office then they should be in the office. I’d also argue they should be in Manchester not London, but that’s a separate issue I guess.
You can be a fan of WFH and still have the sense to accept there are times it isn’t the most suitable choice.
In a streamlined and well operated workplace, WFH can be every bit as productive and beneficial as traditional office working.
United hasn’t been that workplace for a long, long time.
Van Persie said we'd be back almost 10 years ago and he had insider scoop
They are though. That's part of the reason the deal got held up for so long. Joel and Avram are the only siblings who even want any level of involvement with the club - the other four would rather divest entirely and focus on their other ventures.
Get out of here with your nuanced views. You're either with people or against them. Yarr!!!
Companies of course are more than entitled to want them in the office, doesn't mean you don't get to question or criticise the reasoning and decision. We get to watch a waste of £90m nearly every week, our training facilities are out of date, we spend the most on scouting, yet our recruitment is fecking shite. Maybe fix those things before we start getting culture crusades among lower level workers.
But no one's got anything to say why WFH isn't suitable, just because we're not doing very well so that might be a reason to change something. There are far more obvious reasons why we aren't doing well as I mention above.
I’m sensing your company has you working from home so they don’t have to talk to you.
You haven’t read the reports given on the reviews into the club structure, so you can’t say “nobody has anything to say on why it’s unsuitable”.
And besides, we’re saying it isn’t suitable while they go about fixing the broken organisation. Nobody is saying it isn’t suitable forever.
There is also nobody blaming working from home for all the clubs problems - it is merely one of countless changes being brought in to try and get things back in line.
No, and neither is anyone I know. They couldn't wait to get out.
. Funnily enough the majority of my team is in India and my main client is in Newport beach, so whilst it's beneficial to be in the office for some collaborative purposes, right now it's not essential. When we start implementing with the clients in London, I will be in more, because I'm client facing. Being adaptable is far more beneficial than just a blanket no. You get a wider pool of talent to recruit from and it saves you money.I'm talking about in here. Everyone is just saying INEOS says it's the right thing to do, so it must be. Also talking in platitudes like get things back in line or we have to make changes to culture reset or whatever. I'm interested in what people think is so damaging about it as a policy? It's clearly being pointed as a contributing factor, as to that's how we fix a broken organisation by getting people back in the office.
Anyway, fair enough if you think it's what we need to get back on track. I think it so unbelievably far down the list of priorities when it comes to nearly every organization and tends to be used when people can't diagnose the real cause of bad culture.
There's no way some of you have even worked with productive office workers in your life.
Absolutely disagree.
Firstly with the hiring of Berrada, Ashworth, Wilcox and a recruitment expert we are addressing the issues you highlight. That is literally the first thing INEOS sorted out, and is currently on going.
Secondly it has already been reported just this week that Carrington is going to undergo a number of upgrades and changes this summer. That said I’d be surprised if it really is OOD.
Thirdly it’s also clear that INEOS are looking to clear out our poor previous signings and build a squad that is youthful, talented and hardworking. They will also address the playing style and work with their chosen head coach to inplement these changes.
Finally, speaking with experience of company management, you have to take the whole workforce with you when you embark on big changes. Implementing the high standards is just as important at the lowest levels as it is at the top of the hierarchy. It is about setting the tone moving forward and ensuring the whole enterprise is on the correct page. Ultimately it will be the rank and file workforce that carries out the changes, not the high profile execs. The required std must be enforced all the way through to deliver a consistent message - you undermine your targets if you have one rule for some and another rule for the rest. No harm
In starting out as we mean to continue.
Absolutely spot on. So many people are happy to be effectively treated as peasants by their billionaire feudal lords. Just outright pathetic stuff.
They'll cut 100s of people at the bottom whose whole annual salary is probably less than the weekly equivalent of a couple of Antonys in the squad.
By all means, if they're shit at the job, get rid but do it properly. Don't try some slimy tactic or forcing people who have a life set up hundreds of kilometers away from the office, so you can save some pennies. It's just pathetic.
I’d say a few are guilty of dialing it in at times
I am very happy at those appointments, but they all haven't even started their roles and yet to even make a decision yet that their performance can be judged on. Hiring them is a great start, but just hiring them isn't a silver bullet.
The bold bit is what I'm getting at. Are we implying from this being in the office is the only way you can set high standards? I would disagree massively on that and culture comes from senior leadership driving the standard of performance, regardless where you work from.
Having the workforce all in one building certainly helps to monitor standards and output.
This is Stone Age thinking. Makes no sense but I'm almost sure you must live in the UK because that's exactly the kind of 'strategic' thinking prevalent in the country and why it's being left in the dust in terms of economic growth.
The only people getting throwing tantrums about in office vs remote tend to be the fully remote people. Not the in office and hybrid ones.
I am a queen of the Stone Age.
No one knows!
I agree with what you are saying. And that might work for you and your job. But imo you are a rarity. Generally humans when unsupervised then to take liberties. It's starts slowly but thats all it takes for the slide to happen.
When you have standards top to bottom it resonates with everyone and creates a competitive environment where everyone is pushing each other to be better. We lost that when SAF left. Then the Glazer rot truly set in.
Working from home or not won't make any difference. That said, I don't mind them changing it either.
This is only news because the team is playing badly and it's United.
This is only news because the team is playing badly and it's United.
Maybe the coaches have been working from home this whole time. Would explain a lot.
That's certain;y true for some but generally I'm not so sure about that
In my company during the pandemic virtually everyone worked from home, when that ended they asked people what their preferences were going forward, the majority wanted fully WFH or Hybrid, so everyone was told they could choose, and so it remains that way, my local office has 213 employees associated with it, the average daily attendance is less than 30 and that is apparently reflected in other offices as well
According to the annual results both productivity and efficiency are up across the board, even compared to pre-pandemic levels, I work for a large multi-national company with around 35K employees in over 60 countries, pay and benefits are round about middle ranking, not the best and not the worst.
Just because he's better than the Glazers or an oil club doesn't mean he's not a prick himself or that he's exempt from criticism. Often the guys at the very top are the ones most responsible for making decisions which screw the normal workers. And by all reports, Ratcliffe is well known to be one that does that.
There's no problem with them getting rid of the lower performing members of the workforce at the club, as by all reports we are bloated. But a blanket ban on WFH will make it difficult for the good workers just as much as the bad.
It would explain a lot.I do and I know a lot about it. If you had your own company, there is no way you accept full remote work
That’s exactly what he is doing but some will say(as in your first paragraph)it’s screwing the normal workers.
This club has needed root and branch reform for over a decade and thankfully its finally happening(if he is of the opinion that WFH is not going to be allowed as part of his overall then so be it).
Our season is over now apart from a cup final. However it was perfectly salvageable when Ratcliff took over. The mindset of this club of never, ever acting until the point where it's too late, has never made sense to me.
Yeah it's all a bit odd.
Our model may as well be summarised as do the opposite of what Real Madrid would do