If he didn't sign off at that time, he'd leave for free. If United just want to get his salary off the book, United can let him go for free now also. But no, United want 40m.
Club ownership | Senior management team talk
- Thread starter golden_blunder
- Start date
-
Hello, Guest! We have a new competition (with tagline and award as prizes) starting.
A new Odds or Evens competition is starting now. Click here to enter to submit your predictions. Submissions will be open for the next 3 days, 9 hours, 40 minutes, 17 seconds, and will close on Sep 12, 2026 at 15:00.
We should have sorted his contract earlier so that his leverage would have been less. Put ourselves up against it once he did what he did with that amazing season.
Did the "cabal" not replace Sancho/Hojlund/Antony with Mbeumo/Sesko/Cunha? They also replaced Onana with Lammens.
I get that people are a bit panicky about the transfer market, that has well and truly become bonkers, but we're almost a month from its closing and the only league matches in August are against Hull and Ipswich. If we cannot beat them without new signings we may as well fold the club now.
While I am highly skeptical as to whether Wilcox and Berrada are good enough for what Ratcliffe would surely like to see happen, and the decisions both in the market, and more significantly at managerial level, have been a mixed bag, I would still make a distinction between the two ownership groups. The Glazers are simply rotten scum with no redeeming qualities that have done nothing but massively hinder any progression at the club. In theory Ratcliffe is in this for personal glory rather than a money making scheme, and that would necessarily entail ambition. If you can share that assumption, which is hardly a stretch, then the bigger picture is the actual financial reality of the club today.
I guess the main challenges they've had to navigate so far with view to not having much money to spend and very little room to change that, while inheriting the mess left by Woodward/Arnold and co. is:
a) Shifting average players on high contracts and not signing average players on high contracts
b) Due diligence with regards to targets, i.e. stop signing mercenaries or wasting time chasing players who won't join
c) Fix the wage structure, which is a key part of a healthier culture, moving closer to a meritocracy
d) Change the perception of how the club operates in the market
e) Build a squad with a coherent vision in mind that's not solely dependent upon the head coach each time
I feel their efforts so far are a mixed bag
a) They've done a lot better than what was before, while of course that bar was as low as can be. They've not dished out huge contracts to not good enough players, but we still read that Ugarte (prior to his injury) was tricky to shift because his wage was substantial. I don't know about Zirkzee, but they bought him and now Juve want him on loan with no obligation to buy. We can't sell Rashford, we can't sell Onana, we can't even sell Bayindir to Turkey for peanuts. We have been played by both Barca with Rashford and Betis with Antony, and now likely Juve with Zirkzee.
b) This seems to be a lot healthier situation than before by most if not all accounts. Certainly, that's how it appears. Has anyone been publicly pursued, besides Anderson, who has chosen not to join?
c) This is already happening, albeit, it could still be better. They probably wanted to shift Casemiro last summer (thankfully they couldn't, though I was among many here hoping he'd be off). They probably also did hope for a major Saudi move for Bruno. They definitely wanted to sell Rashford and still do. De Ligt, who had already played for 3 big European clubs arrived at 25 and by most accounts is earning just shy of 200K.
d) This is starting to change. They maybe should have gone for Mbeumo first before triggering Cunha's release clause, but this summer certainly they are not flashing cash that comes back to haunt them later, what is haunting them is the cash the other clubs are flashing, often frivolously. That they did what they did with that Ederson move makes me think they are both more meticulous, but also more ruthless. They could well end up spending a lot more (borrowed) money this summer, banking on future successes or an eventual full takeover, but no one knows, like last summer, which is quite the change.
e) This is probably where I am most skeptical. The Ugarte purchase. The Zirkzee purchase. The throwing all the eggs in Amorim's one tactical idea basket (this is hindsight) buying Mbeumo when we had Amad, when we were in much greater need for a midfielder and almost allowing Mainoo out on loan (no one expected Casemiro to have the season he did and Bruno had his good season after Carrick moved him back into his position).
They've also been targeting highly promising youth players, which United should always do but haven't had the ambition for for a while.
I'd be genuinely surprised if the club have not signed a couple of really good players by the end of the month, maybe three.
Yes United can forgo the fee but would Still would require pay off to Rashford because even on free Rashford isn't getting close to what he is being paid at United , thing is despite all the noises nobody actually wants to pay for Rashford not the transfer fee nor the wages United are Stuck with him unless we we realease him with massive pay off .
We would have to pay Rashford his remaining 2 years salary up front, which is probably £20M+. Not a good idea.
If we don't ask any fee, there will be taker.
It was an amazing 8 weeks. Not a full season. Was silly to renegotiate during that 8 week period.
Only if they match his current wages, which rules out most clubs outside the PL. So we’d just be handing a rival a free player. And we’d have to pay to replace him, which we can’t afford.
Not really, if we let him go without the £30m+ fee then he’s easily getting paid off by the team acquiring him.
Agree, nothing from their current signings indicates the will to fight for titles, these latest signings give the feeling of "we just want to compete for top 5" not the title.
Gill was also shit as a CEO. He just had Fergie had as a manager so never really had to do anything. I'd maintain he jumped ship once he knew Fergie was close to retirement. For all his faults, Peter Kenyon was much better at the job which is why it stung so much when he went to Chelsea and took loads of our transfer targets with him.
It's always worth saying that we've really had a good structure/ownership model. We've always had either a bad/average/ok manager or a generational one that stays for twenty years and wins everything on offer.
The praise Gill receives is strange. The transfer activity from 2008/9 onwards was abysmal and other clubs caught us up, not to mention appointing someone like Moyes.
Yeah, he gets far too much hype. We were good due to fergie, in the market we were crap
It’s the Gordon Brown effect. Everyone who came after was so bad his reputation improved.
I’ve always thought Gill jumped the second he heard Ferguson was stepping down. The timing of both of them stepping down at the same time was way too convenient. It would never have happened in such an organisation, unless there were some abhorrent event which implicated both of them. Sadly it paved the way for Woodward and his cronies to make their way to the top, as they were the guys who helped the Glazers in their now highly illegal purchase of the club.
I'll have to dig the book out, but I have a vague memory that Gill announced it before Ferguson told anyone. I seem to recall SAF said that Gill came round to tell him he was retiring, and that SAF had already decided to retire but not told anyone yet. But that's going from memory, would need to check.
I think more people were aware of Fergie's plans long before he made them public.
There seemed to be a weird kind of almost finality after that defeat against Madrid.
Could be because the owners weren't allowing transfers to happen?
He peddled the "no value in the market" line and supported the owners compared to what he said before they came in.
Clubs caught us up by signing the likes of Silva, Toure, Aguero, Hazard etc. Compare that to who we were signing and it's not surprising what came afterwards.
Even in our last game against City under Ferguson, at home, as champions elect, we were soundly beaten.
That's the thing, people talk like it's only since fergie left but in reality he was papering over cracks. If he had left in 2010 we wouldn't have won anything since. So many good players were on the move and we didn't have a look in
A year ago I would have agreed with you. But look at the players you’ve listed, then take into account Chelsea’s recent fine and City’s 115 chargers.
You have to also accept, we were competing against unfair odds. Players that we had keen interest in picking clubs not as successful as us because of funds they should have never received.
It's going to get worse before it gets better for our recruitment, not that it should.
We have to deal with working towards paying for a new stadium too which crippled Arsenal and Spurs for years with their spending.
The stupidest thing about this, is INEOS seem to be operating a Premier League proven/centric recruitment. But if money was tight for us, they actually should have pivoted and be buying talent from abroad who could be more value.
Our scouting and recruitment should be good enough to be able to pick up talented players from around the world and not get shafted with the Premier League tax.
Could we not have signed a better and younger player than Tielemans? Could we not have signed a better CDM than Santos from another league? Are we not able to sign a talented left back from another league that is better or has better potential than Lewis Hall as we already know Newcastle don't want to sell, and I personally don't want us to sign him anyway. He's not good enough in attack to make a difference to our play.
We have to deal with working towards paying for a new stadium too which crippled Arsenal and Spurs for years with their spending.
The stupidest thing about this, is INEOS seem to be operating a Premier League proven/centric recruitment. But if money was tight for us, they actually should have pivoted and be buying talent from abroad who could be more value.
Our scouting and recruitment should be good enough to be able to pick up talented players from around the world and not get shafted with the Premier League tax.
Could we not have signed a better and younger player than Tielemans? Could we not have signed a better CDM than Santos from another league? Are we not able to sign a talented left back from another league that is better or has better potential than Lewis Hall as we already know Newcastle don't want to sell, and I personally don't want us to sign him anyway. He's not good enough in attack to make a difference to our play.
Christ, you do nothing but piss and moan about fecking transfers. Have a day off. Go for a walk or something.
Why don't you stop being an INEOS lover.... Have a day off from that, and let fans that want their club to have ambitions of winning trophies talk.
It's a little late to start playing the 'market is fecked' card, especially when we have played a big part in the current state of the market with our dealings over the years. If you're going to continue to refuse to pay the fees required to sign PL proven talent, you need to look outside of England, but it seems we have very little interest in doing so.
Yeah INEOS do need to utilise european market more as can pick up players for very decent fees
I think it's mostly newer fans who only ever experienced Woodward and co, but some of the older folks do seem to have forgotten how much we used to complain about Gill as well. He bowed out at the perfect time.
Like Lammens?
Yeah we need to see a bit more of that
I'm not being an INEOS lover, just that moaning bedwetters using practically every single post they make to say the same thing and shit on the club's transfer strategy is both annoying and boring. Look at the last three or four pages of the posts you've made across all threads FFS. They're almost all in some way moaning about fecking transfers. Change the record.
Some are just hating owners irrespective of what they actually do. And , even more importantly, would not know an owner who would be perfect. They still dream someone comes in, wipes out the debt, only has the club at heart, and makes every transfer a success and gives them their 100m signing each summer.
I see that Ineos is by far better than the Glazers and am glad they stepped in.
Agreed. Ineos is far from perfect but I think we've certainly seen improvement under them and some reasons to be optimistic, particularly in the last few windows. I would still be very surprised if we don't make another signing or two but, like you say, some just seem to enjoy moaning.
Whether people like it or not, running a football club is a business. A person / persons running or owning an interest in a business will largely do so to suit their interests. Which is their prerogative.
Broadly speaking those interests are return on investment, operating costs, capital expenditure.
I think we’re at a point, or maybe way past, where hyper inflation of operating costs -driven largely by player costs and salaries, makes maintaining a balance across all three interests difficult to maintain.
Looking at the approach since Ineos landed, it’s hard to argue they’re not doing a better job managing holistically across those interests.
I get the emotion but, unless you’re a shareholder, it really isn’t your business. Paying money to watch the team doesn’t entitle you to have a say in how it’s run, any more than buying your milk from Tesco does.
Broadly speaking those interests are return on investment, operating costs, capital expenditure.
I think we’re at a point, or maybe way past, where hyper inflation of operating costs -driven largely by player costs and salaries, makes maintaining a balance across all three interests difficult to maintain.
Looking at the approach since Ineos landed, it’s hard to argue they’re not doing a better job managing holistically across those interests.
I get the emotion but, unless you’re a shareholder, it really isn’t your business. Paying money to watch the team doesn’t entitle you to have a say in how it’s run, any more than buying your milk from Tesco does.
No I won't. That's the record INEOS are playing. We've all heard it before. Remember when under the Glazers we would be seemingly "in for players" but not actually be willing to pay what was needed to get them?
Being constantly in long transfer sagas but not actually being serious? We're definitely acting like that this summer again. INEOS turned into the Glazers.
You're posting on pretty much nothing else though.
Ten Hag has aged a bit since I last saw him, heh.
It's the strongest opinion I have. Don't worry about my posts.
It's the only opinion you have
I like that we've seen that Ineos is willing to pivot and have multiple targets lined up. I'm sure they have players in Europe in mind but their preference is the PL, which I think is fair. It's a strategy that worked well for us in the past as well as Liverpool and City more recently. I'd imagine the list of PL players they'd be in has dwindled though, so it wouldn't surprise me if we see a signing out of Europe, and possible a couple, before the window closes.