It’s this kind of blind loyalty and naivety that made United ripe for the plucky.
The money Ratcliffe and his business partners the Glazers are looking to make is from the regeneration of Old Trafford.
Club ownership | Senior management team talk
- Thread starter golden_blunder
- Start date
The money Ratcliffe and his business partners the Glazers are looking to make is from the regeneration of Old Trafford.
Are they a deer in the headlights not making a decision or are they making a decision you don't like? Keeping Amorim in the job is a decision, attributing it to ego or delusion is obviously a false choice since there's many reasons they could have. Nice finished in champions league places last season.
Where they really on the right track with Ashworth? He was fired because when Ratcliffe went to him asking for a plan regarding players or potential new manager Ashworth was referring them to various 3rd party data companies for information, Ratcliffe (correctly in my opinion) concluded that it didn't make any sense to pay someone millions per year to perform the role of pointing him in the direction of 3rd parties when he could simply contact them all himself. The recruitment team at Liverpool/Brighton/Brentford has both proprietary data and individuals with a deep personal knowledge of how to interpret data from private companies that sell it, Ashworth has neither. SJR has made it clear this is an area which needs a complete overhaul and quickly concluded that Ashworth was the wrong guy to do it. If Ashworth was the right guy to turn United around then why haven't any of the top teams around Europe hired him?
I believe that the main reason for our current state is largely down to the transfer policy of only permitting 3 transfers per year which was put in place by the glazers.
On the surface it might seem reasonable to limit major signings to three per year but the practical reality was catastrophic because it constantly put managers in a position where after they'd make 3 signings they had 4 or 5 current squad members asking for new contracts. This meant that managers had to make a decision, either give a new contract to an average player who doesn't really deserve it or lose this player and get no replacement because you've already made 3 signings. Obviously every manager would rather have the player than not even if he wasn't elite.
This transfer policy is the reason Lindelöf played for United longer than Vidic, why Phil Jones was eligible for a testimonial and why by the end of his contract in 2027 Luke Shaw will have been at Manchester United for longer than Roy keane. It's a policy which rewarded mediocre players with new deals because managers were actively prevented from replacing them, Rangnick joined and within no time said United needed open heart surgery I.E 9 or 10 new players and was promptly shown the door. Both the Glazers and all the dross he was referring to within the squad now had every incentive to get rid of him. The Glazers wanted him gone because what he recommended would cost them a lot of money. Average squad players being paid 3x more at United than they'd get anywhere else in the world wanted rid of him for the same reason.
Ratcliffe and INEOS are of course not above criticism and I agree with a number of them but every decision they've made has to be viewed with a clear mind on what they inherited and what was possible rather than a vacuum or some idealistic version of the past. Almost no poster that I've seen would have disagreed that the squad needed a massive overhaul to the degree that Rangnick suggested which INEOS have under taken. One of the best things I've read since they came in was Ratcliffe publicly saying that every member of the first team squad was for sale and making it clear they intended to gut the mediocrity, this has been a complete 180 from the Glazer policy that got us here.
What they've inherited is a squad filled with very average and overpaid players, evidenced by the fact almost no other team in world football is prepared to pay close to what we've paid in transfer fee or wages. These players are in no rush to leave and if they do want United to subsidise any drop in wages. Combined with record levels of debt placed on the club from the Glazers and the current spending rules they're simply limited in how much they can change in a short space of time, by this point everyone and their grandmother know we want to sign Baleba but simply didn't have the finances to do it.
I want to be clear that Ratcliffe and INEOS have made a number of mistakes which they're solely responsible for. Ratcliffe should have had a much better idea on the skillset Ashworth had and what areas he was simply unqualified in, with data and recruitment being such a priority he should never have been hired. I also share a number of concerns about Wilcox and what exactly qualifies him to act as DOF or head of recruitment or technical director or whatever job title they've given him.
I think the transfer record so far has been average. I like Cunha/Mbeumo/Yoro/Dorgu/De Ligt/Mazraoui- I'm undecided on Sesko/Zirkzee and think Ugarte would be a good player in a 3 man midfield where he can just press/tackle then make simple passes to better technical CMs. I imagine he was signed with the plan to pair him alongside Mainoo/Casemiro and Bruno. He looks like a fish out of water being asked to play as an all round CM rather than a ball winning specialist. While I like Cunha and Mbeumo I also agree with the criticism that these were signings anyone could have made and not indicative of a recruitment team identifying undervalued gems. I also think Ratcliffe could be criticised for (at least not yet) using his ownership of Nice as a way to make these signings. It's understandable that he doesn't want to put more money into United without getting back the equivalent equity but he could use his own money to make these signings at Nice then move the players to United.
My suspicion RE Berrada and Amorim is that Amorim was very high on the list of managers that City had drawn up to potentially replace Pep, especially since they hired the Sporting Lisbon DOF to replace Txiki Begiristain. Berrada would almost certainly have been aware of this from his time at City so when everything started falling apart under ETH they decided to effectively just hire the guy who City executives really liked. This is obviously speculation on my part but I don't think it's making too many assumptions given what we know.
Some very valid and exceptional made points here
If you genuinely believe the Daily Mail aren't asking 'obvious questions' for 'any purpose', I really don't know what can be done with you.
Real Madrid are owned by their members, so if their fans kick off, their governance need to placate them or face electoral oblivion.
When we kick off, the Glazers/Ratcliffe
laugh and up the price.
If you think the hypothetical 'Saudi-style saviours' you were previously suggesting will give the first hoot about us, well, prepare yourself for more disappointment.
We should rehire Ashworth, implement his philosophy, then go spare when it too fails!
If this was any other club in the league including the promoted sides the fans would be baying. I don’t understand why we need to accept that results take a year to come, whilst other managers make an instant impact at other clubs.
This has been our worst appointment by far out of all the managers since Fergie. And if the rumours are true about them looking at Southgate then it just shows how INEOS are out of their depth because no other premier league side would have a look at him because he’s not proven he’s a good club manager.
I agree the owners seem to think about fan sentiment too much. It's strange that is the case under Ratcliffe given he projects an image of being a tough businessman. It should really be the job of our dog and ceo to make strategic decisions which aren't based on fans views. I don't get the impression there is much of a strategy behind wilcoxs work though
Our fans and owners need to accept its not the 90s anymore and the average lifespan for coaches is 2 seasons or less and coaches that don't show some signs of progress in the first 6 months rarely turn things around. I think the weakness at Director of football is the big problem here, we never developed a club game model so hiring a new coach could mean a completely new way of playing and we seen to recruit for the coach rather than the club. This all means it feels a really big deal to change the coach, more so than for better run clubs
I agree. I was always hooing for a too DoF to bring and create a team and then find the ideal manager. It was a mistake to not replace Ashworth
It was a critical error not to listen to him and then fire him.
The senior leadership at this club is comical and 90% of the reason we are in this shit to start with.
Mancini won't be considered as long as Berrada is CEO
So you want to demote Berrada to the role he was doing at City on a CEO salary.
Ashworth got sacked because he didn't want to downsize his footballing department, in-line with Radcliffe's cost cutting across the board. There isn't much more than to it. He wasn't even in the job to do anything of note.
Offer him a suitable salary or part ways and find someone else
Not necessarily. Looking at teams in Germany many have a board consisting of the CEO, a chief sports officer and a CFO (sometimes more for specific roles). So effectively the "DoF" is part of the board there (Eberl at Bayern, Krösche in Frankfurt to name examples). Keep the CEO but add real sports knowledge to the C-level.
I think people misunderstand the role of CEO. Its his job to get the best people in their roles and then let them do their jobs. He would get things put to him and if convinced then he and at times the board sign them off. It would be nice if he had more direct football knowledge but its not a perquisite and he should have more than enough experience in football generally to do the job well. What seems to be going wrong at United, and this I suspect in part is due to Ratcliffe interfering too much and not let anyone do their jobs properly, is that people are straying outside their roles and trying to please the owner. Its been widely reported that Berrada pitched Amorim to Ratcliffe as the next Pep and a much more exciting option than Ashworth's far more sensible 2-3 year rebuild. So Jim went for it (don't forget he's not getting any older and in a hurry), and Ashworth was toast. You see these interfering owners churning a lot of senior appointments. The problem now is its about people and their feelings, fear for jobs, desire to maintain face etc. When Amorim goes, which is inevitable, Berrada and even Ratcliffe will look pretty silly, especially after the mess of ETH. I personally don't see how Berrada keeps his job after that.
He wouldn't accept a lower salary and parting ways would involve another big pay off package.
Football wise, Ratcliffe is doing more damage to this club in the last 18 months,than than Glazera have done in 18 years.
Have they gotten a single decision correct since they came in?
Have they gotten a single decision correct since they came in?
Excellent summary. I very much agree with you with regard to Amorin's appointment and the link with the City job. As a side issue, I reckon he would have done ok with City, because they could just go and buy him 5 or 6 new players to fit his system.
United were ripe for the picking for the Glazers, but certainly not Ratcliffe.
Even if Ratcliffe is in for the money then, to acheive a big profit he is going to need to build the new stadium, and get the regeneration of the surrounding area paid for by the government, this is also going to really have to go hand in hand with bringing success back to the team as it will also ramp up our turnover considerably which will allow us borrow more money if we need to, and increase the value of the club. So If all of this is true then it's surely no bad thing for the club.
I personally don't see why Ratcliffe would agree to do all this though, whilst taking all the flak for everything that goes wrong along the way, and also invest his own money, if at the end of it he hands over the majority share of the profit to the Glazers when a full sale happens. Also Ratcliffe will be well into his 80's by the time this is likely all done, whilst the Glazers will unlikely have been able to take any dividends over this time period also.
I see it as far more likely that Ratcliffe was willing to pay more than anyone else for the club, but wanted a staged purchase of the club at this price, and that is why the Glazers wanted this 'drag along' clause put into the deal in case he didn't come good on it, which is why I'm now expecting something to happen either way fairly soon.
Just seen a crazy stat.
Since the day Ineos took over, United have now played 55 league games "winning" 62 points.
Of all the teams [17] who have also played 55 games in this time, only wolves have less points (54).
The previous 55 games? 4th in league with 104 points, only Liverpool, city and arsenal with more points.
These absolute parasites have destroyed our club and a very high portion of our fanbase refuse to see the toxic mess they have caused.
How are the getting away with literal football murder?
Since the day Ineos took over, United have now played 55 league games "winning" 62 points.
Of all the teams [17] who have also played 55 games in this time, only wolves have less points (54).
The previous 55 games? 4th in league with 104 points, only Liverpool, city and arsenal with more points.
These absolute parasites have destroyed our club and a very high portion of our fanbase refuse to see the toxic mess they have caused.
How are the getting away with literal football murder?
Wow... I know it was bad but this really makes it extremely obvious.
I never said demote Berrada and clearly said to make use of his strengths whilst not letting him anywhere near footballing decisions, his job as CEO is to make sure everyone is doing their job to the best of their ability and the best for United and NOT to use his power to make footballing decisions he has no experience in.
This is bang on as Berrada’s position is essentially the top boss who oversees all and the one that reports to the owners like in any other business and much like in any other business the CEO has people running specific departments of the business.
Ashworth was brought in to head up the footballing department but had his decision making power taken away from him in favour of Brailsford and Berrada which wouldn’t happen in any other business so it simply came down to Berrada pulling rank to get what he wanted and Ineos thinking Berrada being ex City knew Ashworth’s job as well as Ashworth did, Ineos let Berrada effectively take on half of Ashworth’s responsibilities and Wilcox was promoted to take on the other half despite Wilcox only having a years experience in a similar role which was at Southampton in The Championship.
As you said all the credible reports said that it all came down to Berrada convincing Ineos that Amorim was the second of Pep and identified as Pep’s successor at City so they’d be one upping City and fast tracking success by bringing in Amorim in now very much against Ashworth’s advice and apparently as reported a lot lately also against Wilcox’s advice too.
Ashworth had a 2-3 year plan he wanted to implement and out source the data department until it was up to scratch whilst bringing in a steady PL proven coach whilst the foundations were being laid but it wasn’t as glamorous as Berrada’s pitch or glamorous enough for Ratcliffe who wanted to make an immediate statement and now we’re suffering from Ineos wanting a short cut and Berrada not knowing anything in football decision making.
I think you’re spot on. Amorim isn’t a concern, he’ll be gone soon enough. But Ratcliffe & his autocratic rule will do real long term damage. He surrounds himself with Yes Men and there is no real football structure at the club.
Have a look at most leagues and you will see the badly run clubs down at the bottom. West Ham & Wolves along with us in PL for example.
The worry is I don’t know what the solution is.
All of this is down to ETH getting that new contract and Amorim’s reign. A competent manager and that stat drastically changes.
I think even a decent keeper drastically changes it. If Tom Heaton had been in goal the last three years I think things would be quite different from that alone.
That and stop using the lads who are braindead(Dalot and Shaw).
It can't all be put down to INEOS though. That stat about points under them is a bit misleading. They took over a sinking ship, we were trending downwards when they came in.
A lot of damage was obviously done before they took over but has impacted the results on their watch.
But obviously that downward trend now has to start reversing immediately.
I urge anybody going to the game this weekend to start showing some fight and start to force a decision on the manager and hold Ineos accountable for what They are doing to this club.
It's not too late to turn this season around but we are only maybe 3 games away from that point. And if we pass that point, nobody will be able to turn it around and we face a season in the relegation fights.
This manager. This Board. And this goalkeeper. They will all relegate us unless we stand up and fight for our club
It's not too late to turn this season around but we are only maybe 3 games away from that point. And if we pass that point, nobody will be able to turn it around and we face a season in the relegation fights.
This manager. This Board. And this goalkeeper. They will all relegate us unless we stand up and fight for our club
You won't get many people out trying to openly chant for our manager being sacked, if that's what you're suggesting.
Yeah he is rightly laughing at us now, he clearly knew that Frank was the right appointment for now
It's this defence of ineos that has us sleep walking into trouble. Things were bad, but 7th or 8th in league bad. They've spend £400m and gotten rid of 20 players. They kept ten Hag 8 months too long.
They've destroyed everything good about this club..making 200+ redundant has destroyed the moral of what made this the best football club in the world.
Players have been ruined and we now are, a bottom 6 team. Tell me ,this is what you expected in January 2024 when they took over?
Accepted that years ago, we haven't got the ruthless nature of a Barcelona/Madrid fanbase to do it
Until we do, our club is going nowhere. We have the best fans in the world but this naivity is sleepwalking us into a complete disaster.
If this was any other top club in the world, the fans would have driven Amorim out last March
But why should the greatest football club in the world, accept absolute drivel off a manager.
We are a walkover!
When you look at recent sliding doors moments, failing to keep to the Ralf Rangnick consultant role has fecked us, he didnt work as a manager but everythings tructually he said was correct and has turned out correct, even the future players he highlighted should be coming to united.
So much better than Qatar isn't it, nope
Maybe Dan Ashworth was right?..
The regeneration is something the Glazers have wanted since 2012. There’s evidence of this. New stadium is not bad and would of course benefit the club. But Ratcliffe isn’t some knight.
I dont think we should ever do that. One thing that's always drawn me to our club is that we tend to be above that, and always go out to support our team and the manager on game day. I know the sentiment is far from that in general but I don't find it culturally appropriate to our values to hound and dig out our manager in our own stadium. It goes against support in my books.
His form will get him sacked before long, but I don't want us to expedite it by just a couple of games in a manner that's not befitting of our match day audience. I'm glad we hardly ever do this, it's for a reason.
My "defence" of INEOS is causing the trouble? Flattered you think I'm that influential.
From the above description you'd think the Glazers had never happened.
Personally I think there's was a decent amount of damage done pre INEOS.
INEOS have saved the Glazers, not Manchester United