Club ownership | Senior management team talk

Krakenzero said:
It baffles the mind how people try to make us believe that a privately owned, yearly audited company in a very public and competitive sector could realistically have 450 redundancies out of 1,200. Essentially saying the Glazers have been cheating themselves over more than a decade.

The rationalization through numbers is even funnier: aprox 9M, without considering layoff costs such as indemnization packages that probably means a smaller net value.

In the meantime United spent ~11M in renewing and firing Ten Hag and his staff; ~4M in hiring and firing Ashworth; and ~30M in hiring and firing Amorim and his staff. So the most public mismanagements cost United roughly 5 times the supposed redundancy savings.
Click to expand...
The story of the Glazers has been one of a relaxed approach to dreadful revenue profligacy as long the value of the asset increased. So yes, mass overhiring is totally on brand for them.
 
acnumber9 said:
You got individuals offering ‘options’ in multiple positions. Amad isn’t an option at 10 if he is playing wing back.

The point is we shouldn’t be celebrating the fact that United’s owners are sacking staff and seeking to invest less money in the team.
Click to expand...
Are they seeking to invest less in the team? According to an AI search we have spent…
2021-22 £126m
2022-23 £219m
2023-24 £186m
2024-25 £222m
2025-26 £226m

So I don’t think investing in players is a problem, investing in the right players historically has been and that’s how we ended up with so much shite we couldn’t shift.

And if Amad is playing rwb he’s still an option at 10, that’s the point of subs and versatile players, but if we go the players can only play one position route…

Gk lammens altay
Cb Maguire mdl martinez yoro heaven shaw
Rwb Dalot maz
Lwb dorgu
Cm Casemiro Bruno ugarte mainoo
10s Amad mbeumo cunha mount
Striker sesko zirkzee

Still two in each position, except Lwb. Not saying good options, but options and ballpark squad size most clubs aim for.
 
If we make CL next season, and top 5 should do it, our revenue will increase by up to £200m due to prize money, additional match day & tv income, plus claiming back some of the sponsorship reductions we had this season due to lack of European football. Apart from the debt we are now in a pretty good place (I sound like Michael Carrick with that phrase). Bottom line is that we should have a very strong transfer budget this next window.
 
George The Best said:
This is the one thing I don’t get. £13m to service a £1.3bn debt doesn’t make any sense.
Click to expand...
It shouldn't. Interest bearing debt ( bank loan, bond, and the rcfs) come to about £800m currently (500m in loans and bonds, and 290m on the credit cards). The exact amount depends on the rcf and that changes quote a bit throughout the (a) year. Cash interest paid on the interest bearing debt is currently at £35m to £40m per year.
 
acnumber9 said:
If they take savings and reinvest, I’ll have little complaint. I don’t think that’s their goal. Since day one it’s been about saving money. For a club who already had one of, if not the best wage to turnover ratios in the game.
Click to expand...

So right now you are complaining because of what ypu think they will do.

I guess we"ll see what they actually do soon.
 
Amir said:
So right now you are complaining because of what ypu think they will do.

I guess we"ll see what they actually do soon.
Click to expand...
Based on all available data and the fact Ratcliffe regularly talks about cutting costs. Rather than your fairytale that they will.
 
Stevondo8 said:
Are they seeking to invest less in the team? According to an AI search we have spent…
2021-22 £126m
2022-23 £219m
2023-24 £186m
2024-25 £222m
2025-26 £226m

So I don’t think investing in players is a problem, investing in the right players historically has been and that’s how we ended up with so much shite we couldn’t shift.

And if Amad is playing rwb he’s still an option at 10, that’s the point of subs and versatile players, but if we go the players can only play one position route…

Gk lammens altay
Cb Maguire mdl martinez yoro heaven shaw
Rwb Dalot maz
Lwb dorgu
Cm Casemiro Bruno ugarte mainoo
10s Amad mbeumo cunha mount
Striker sesko zirkzee

Still two in each position, except Lwb. Not saying good options, but options and ballpark squad size most clubs aim for.
Click to expand...
How does that spending compare with our rivals? Is spending increasing with inflation? Are wages being reduced?

Amad can’t be an option to replace Mbeumo if he is already playing in another position.
 
acnumber9 said:
Based on all available data and the fact Ratcliffe regularly talks about cutting costs. Rather than your fairytale that they will.
Click to expand...

It's hardly a fairytale that money freed up will be used to improve the team. We've spent quite a bit last summer.

What do you think Ratcliffe will do with freed up money? Take it to his own pocket?
 
Amir said:
It's hardly a fairytale that money freed up will be used to improve the team. We've spent quite a bit last summer.

What do you think Ratcliffe will do with freed up money? Take it to his own pocket?
Click to expand...
They’ve done little but cut costs since they’ve been here. You think they’ll just stop doing that and start spending more?
 
Bright_Eyes said:
They are different but it's yet to be seen how different. Hiring the top people perhaps better but yet to be seen as it's early days and there have been some pretty significant hiccups (e.g. Ashworth).

Main thing I wanted to say though is that Ratcliffe didn't just pump hundreds of millions into the club. He bought extra shares after the original purchase and set up a deal where that money gets spent on the club. It's good we got money spent on infrastructure but that's not the same as Ratcliffe just pumping millions into the business. He basically just bought more shares.
Click to expand...
I just laid out pretty clearly exactly HOW different they are. One faction wants to suck every penny they can out of the club and doesn't really care about the team above and beyond the revenue they can bring in, the other has come in and invested millions into the business both by buying shares which gave them the way in and infrastructure projects, and also appear to recognise that the way Manchester United are going to be the most successful off the pitch is by being successful on it, and therefore have put people in charge of recruitment who appear to know what they're doing. They've made mistakes for sure, but our two biggest problems when they came in was costs (both playing and non playing) being way out of control, and years of mostly poor recruitment both in terms of the choice of player and the wages being offered to them. They appear to have solved both of these problems in the space of less than two years. If we're going to hammer them for their choices regarding Ten Hag, Ashworth, and Amorim (all choices fully supported by most fans at the time by the way) then we should be intellectually honest enough to give them their due when they get (much more important things in the grand scheme) things right. The fact is the club is in a MUCH better position right now in every single way than it was when they came in, and they are responsible for that improvement.
 
acnumber9 said:
We’ll be playing European football next season. We are when we have had next to no options on the bench. The way people celebrate the reduction of the wage bill baffles me. We already had one of the best wage to turnover ratios. Anybody thinking it will be reinvested is deluding themselves.
Click to expand...
We will be signing more players in the summer. You think anyone who thinks we're going to spend a lot of money again this summer, when we're now back operating profitably and hopefully heading into the CL, is delusional?
 
acnumber9 said:
Not entirely, a good part of that was their lame duck manager.

The underlying point is that we surely didn’t anticipate only playing 40 games this season and we’ve spent all season short on options. That impacts performance.
Click to expand...
That's what happens at the beginning of a squad overhaul. They've had two summers and been in extreme financial jeopardy, in what universe should we have been heading into this season with a top squad capable of competing on many fronts?
 
acnumber9 said:
My ‘complaint’ is that celebration of reducing the wage bill baffles me. Reduction alone doesn’t benefit us as fans and it doesn’t benefit the team. It benefits the owners. If anybody was in any doubt about what motivates Ratcliffe that should’ve been relieved with his recent comments.

If they take savings and reinvest, I’ll have little complaint. I don’t think that’s their goal. Since day one it’s been about saving money. For a club who already had one of, if not the best wage to turnover ratios in the game.
Click to expand...
People aren't just celebrating reduction of the wage bill, they're celebrating the facts that the club had been overpaying for underperformance for years and they're now doing everything to avoid doing so, and also bringing players in on rational wages. Everyone is aware wages are the biggest indicator for success. Maybe you'd have a point if these wage cuts were due to the club shipping players out who were on big wages but were integral to the success of the team, but obviously that's not what's happened. Our finances have been in a mess for so long largely due to signing the wrong players and putting them on the wrong wages, the fact that the people now running things first of all recognise this and secondly immediately moved to rectify it should be celebrated.
 
Only way he will ever make any kind of dent in that debt is by turning minority into majority ownership or selling to someone richer which seems unlikely
 
BedStuyRed said:
I just laid out pretty clearly exactly HOW different they are. One faction wants to suck every penny they can out of the club and doesn't really care about the team above and beyond the revenue they can bring in, the other has come in and invested millions into the business both by buying shares which gave them the way in and infrastructure projects, and also appear to recognise that the way Manchester United are going to be the most successful off the pitch is by being successful on it, and therefore have put people in charge of recruitment who appear to know what they're doing. They've made mistakes for sure, but our two biggest problems when they came in was costs (both playing and non playing) being way out of control, and years of mostly poor recruitment both in terms of the choice of player and the wages being offered to them. They appear to have solved both of these problems in the space of less than two years. If we're going to hammer them for their choices regarding Ten Hag, Ashworth, and Amorim (all choices fully supported by most fans at the time by the way) then we should be intellectually honest enough to give them their due when they get (much more important things in the grand scheme) things right. The fact is the club is in a MUCH better position right now in every single way than it was when they came in, and they are responsible for that improvement.
Click to expand...

People were fine enough with Woodward until they weren't some years later. Berrada if anything has had more criticism in his early days. So saying they're doing a better job at hiring upper management is a bit premature.

The rest is fair enough though as is your point in general, I'm probably nitpicking a bit as I dislike both of our owners.
 
BedStuyRed said:
We will be signing more players in the summer. You think anyone who thinks we're going to spend a lot of money again this summer, when we're now back operating profitably and hopefully heading into the CL, is delusional?
Click to expand...
No, I think anybody thinking we have reduced the wage bill in order to increase it again is delusional. Who does reducing our wage bill benefit?
 
BedStuyRed said:
People aren't just celebrating reduction of the wage bill, they're celebrating the facts that the club had been overpaying for underperformance for years and they're now doing everything to avoid doing so, and also bringing players in on rational wages. Everyone is aware wages are the biggest indicator for success. Maybe you'd have a point if these wage cuts were due to the club shipping players out who were on big wages but were integral to the success of the team, but obviously that's not what's happened. Our finances have been in a mess for so long largely due to signing the wrong players and putting them on the wrong wages, the fact that the people now running things first of all recognise this and secondly immediately moved to rectify it should be celebrated.
Click to expand...
You haven’t been paying enough attention to how Ratcliffe operates. Cost cutting is what he does. He doesn’t even try to hide it.
 
acnumber9 said:
They’ve done little but cut costs since they’ve been here. You think they’ll just stop doing that and start spending more?
Click to expand...

Except they haven't done little but cut costs. They've spend on infrastructure, players and support staff and rebuilt or actually built a football department.
 
Amir said:
Except they haven't done little but cut costs. They've spend on infrastructure, players and support staff and rebuilt or actually built a football department.
Click to expand...
In exchange for shares. They haven’t just cut costs to be fair. They’ve increased prices too.
 
acnumber9 said:
How does that spending compare with our rivals? Is spending increasing with inflation? Are wages being reduced?

Amad can’t be an option to replace Mbeumo if he is already playing in another position.
Click to expand...
There’s only so much googling I can be arsed to do…

21/2222/2323/2424/2525/26
Arsenal151173211211264
Chelsea108550416248305
Liverpool7711915538435
Man city130135230219272
Utd126219186222226

Odd issue with the data AI found but that’s per whatever capology is. Spending broadly in line with rivals except Chelsea.

And of course Amad can be, you take mbeumo off, move Amad into that position and stick Dalot or whoever where Amad was…
 
Spending is a very limited way of judging things here.

If you spend well , you don’t need to spend as much. I’d argue Uniteds spending more then riyals most years wasn’t a signal of ambition, moreso compensation for how poorly we have been spending it and usually our biggest spending was when CL qualification was in jeopardy.
 
Chumpsbechumps said:
Spending is a very limited way of judging things here.

If you spend well , you don’t need to spend as much. I’d argue Uniteds spending more then riyals most years wasn’t a signal of ambition, moreso compensation for how poorly we have been spending it and usually our biggest spending was when CL qualification was in jeopardy.
Click to expand...
United had to spend more also because of a smaller pool of players willing to come to us (so their clubs demand more due to limited supply) and we also have to pay inflated wages to those players to persuade them to join a non-CL club.
 
acnumber9 said:
In exchange for shares. They haven’t just cut costs to be fair. They’ve increased prices too.
Click to expand...

The money spent on players and staff wasn't in exchange for shares.

The club was losing money year after year
Assuming ypu agree this was unsustainable, what do you think the right course of action would have been?
 
Amir said:
The money spent on players and staff wasn't in exchange for shares.

The club was losing money year after year
Assuming ypu agree this was unsustainable, what do you think the right course of action would have been?
Click to expand...
No, it wasn’t paid for by putting money in either.

The solution is to deal with the cause. No attempt is being made to do so. The solution, as is always the case for these people, are cuts and price increases.
 
Stevondo8 said:
There’s only so much googling I can be arsed to do…

21/2222/2323/2424/2525/26
Arsenal151173211211264
Chelsea108550416248305
Liverpool7711915538435
Man city130135230219272
Utd126219186222226

Odd issue with the data AI found but that’s per whatever capology is. Spending broadly in line with rivals except Chelsea.

And of course Amad can be, you take mbeumo off, move Amad into that position and stick Dalot or whoever where Amad was…
Click to expand...
Per that data we have spent less than all of them since INEOS took over. Which is in line with what I am saying.
 
Amir said:
Except they haven't done little but cut costs. They've spend on infrastructure, players and support staff and rebuilt or actually built a football department.
Click to expand...
Let’s have it right, the money spent on Carrington was part of the terms the Glazers insisted on in allowing Ineos to invest. There’s no proof they’ve spent a penny more of their own money.

Anything else they’ve spent is highly likely from money generated by the club, not out of their pockets, and it’s the fans who’ll get bummed for it with ticket prices etc.

I’ve not been impressed by their staff recruitment either - the jury is still out on both Berrada and Wilcox for me. I’d trust Vivell on transfers over either of them or Jim.

I bet they won’t pay a ‘best in class’ manager out of his contract this summer, it will inevitably be someone who’s free.
 
acnumber9 said:
The solution is to deal with the cause. No attempt is being made to do so. The solution, as is always the case for these people, are cuts and price increases.
Click to expand...

That would be paying the debt caused by the Glazers, which you cannot expect INEOS to do.

What INEOS have been doing is take control of the part of the debt that wasn't caused by the buy out but by mismanagement.
 
Amir said:
That would be paying the debt caused by the Glazers, which you cannot expect INEOS to do.

What INEOS have been doing is take control of the part of the debt that wasn't caused by the buy out but by mismanagement.
Click to expand...
They knew what they were buying into.
 
G-manc said:
Anything else they’ve spent is highly likely from money generated by the club, not out of their pockets, and it’s the fans who’ll get bummed for it with ticket prices etc.
Click to expand...

Yes, but @acnumber9 is saying that they won't use the money the club has saved on wages on improving the squad (not that I'm sure what he's claiming they'll use it on). And yet, we have seen that they have indeed used money generated by the club to improve the squad.
 
Amir said:
Yes, they did. So?

Is your point that they shouldn't have bought into the club if it meant they'll have to make changes and save money?
Click to expand...
I think if they couldn’t tackle the debt they shouldn’t have bought in. Is tackling the debt not what people wanted?
 
BedStuyRed said:
I just laid out pretty clearly exactly HOW different they are. One faction wants to suck every penny they can out of the club and doesn't really care about the team above and beyond the revenue they can bring in, the other has come in and invested millions into the business both by buying shares which gave them the way in and infrastructure projects,
Click to expand...

You mean into the Glazers. They paid millions to the Glazers to have a seat at the table, and then paid millions more to have a slightly bigger seat in an infrastructure investment agreed by both parties. Majority and minority.

BedStuyRed said:
They've made mistakes for sure, but our two biggest problems when they came in was costs (both playing and non playing) being way out of control, and years of mostly poor recruitment both in terms of the choice of player and the wages being offered to them.
Click to expand...

No, they weren't. United's biggest problems are A) the Glazers and B) the crippling, 45M a year servicing debt United acquired in order to have the privilege of being owned and mismanaged by the Glazers. Both problems are not only still there, but INEOS minority bid pretty much secured they will stay there for a long time.

BedStuyRed said:
The fact is the club is in a MUCH better position right now in every single way than it was when they came in , and they are responsible for that improvement.
Click to expand...

Not a fact at all. Everything is more or less the same than when they arrived. Stock price is a little lower though (around 10%). And United was still in contention for a title (which they won and got them into the UCL)back then.

United just won 4 games. Due to fixing one of the biggest fumbles of the current administration, if I might add. But the club isn't in a different situation than 2 years ago.
 
acnumber9 said:
I think if they couldn’t tackle the debt they shouldn’t have bought in. Is tackling the debt not what people wanted?
Click to expand...
I don't know if anyone is going to do that for the Glazers. And anyway, that sort of offer was not on the table. Unless you believed the Qatary one...
 
You must log in or register to reply here.