Glazers / Woodward out!

Nytram Shakes

Full Member
Joined
Feb 2, 2014
Messages
4,044
Location
Normally dark rooms
The spending this summer was just stupid! clubs not backed by billionaire owners with bottomless pockets need to reign it in or forget the championship we are going to see premier league clubs going under before this pandemic and the global economic recession is done.
 

Drifter

American
Joined
Jan 27, 2004
Messages
63,925
So after a good CL result Woodward emerges. He knows when to pick his moments.
 

Tincanalley

Turns player names into a crappy conversation
Joined
Apr 12, 2011
Messages
6,998
Location
Ireland
Our
I liked reading your post overall, and there are a couple of things I wanted to highlighted based on what I quoted above.

First off, our transfer policy and squad management is all on the manager. That's why we've seen different types of players recruited under different managers. The scouting committee offers additional options and recommendations to the manager. Ultimately, however, the manager decides on who they want in the team. They then pass their options and priorities over to our negotiators, who then perform the work in negotiating the transfers. I have several concerns over this approach:
  • Depending on who's managing us, there's potentially no contact between the football personnel and the players we want to recruit
    • Ole takes care of this himself
  • The club does nothing to establish relations with other clubs
    • No clear lines of communication
    • No key United contacts
    • Reliance on third-party negotiators
    • Should the manager pick up this responsibility?
  • We rely more on third-party intermediaries (typically the player's agent(s)) to negotiate on our behalf
    • Building relations with other clubs is difficult
    • Agents can misinform/mislead the club
The other problem that wasn't highlighted here is how the club is losing its qualities that made it a more likeable club. The club's higher-ups aren't interested in establishing or maintaining any sort of culture within the club. When Sir Alex was around, the higher-ups worked to present United as a family club with a friendly atmosphere. We built good relations with not only other teams but also sponsors and staff within the club. We also took care of players and ensured that they were looked after at all times. When Gill left and Woodward came in, this changed. We stopped establishing long-term relations with our sponsors and used our huge profile to extract as much value as possible from sponsors. We've also taken a cold, hard stance with player/manager departures (see Rio, Evra, etc.). The club isn't flexible with players who don't want to stay/have no future in the club, making their departures more difficult (see Smalling, Rojo, Romero, etc.). We also don't do a good job of informing managers when their time's up. All in all, this makes our club look less friendly to both people who work in the club and those outside of the club. Ole's starting to change this, but the fact that it's all tied to the manager is a huge concern. The culture should be established from the very top, not the manager.

TL;DR: our leaders don't run the football club; the manager does. The leaders only get involved in football matters when money is involved. This is where a DoF would help as they'd establish a culture within the club and a more amicable profile to others. Maldini serves this role well at AC Milan; we can do something similar at our club.
Our leaders? Who the f are our leaders?
It’s a board. There are staff, and owners.
 

dabeast

New Member
Newbie
Joined
Apr 28, 2018
Messages
202
Bloodsucking vipers
 

Crustanoid

Full Member
Joined
Feb 14, 2008
Messages
17,157
Bye Ole, but the real constant underpinning our chronic failure is the owners. Remember that when he inevitably gets sacked
 

shahzy

New Member
Newbie
Joined
Sep 6, 2014
Messages
536
Sancho and a CDM wins us that.
No it doesn't. You don't have to fantastic players if you have a coach that has a system. Did anyone think winaljdum and Henderson were great players before Klopp?

This is a case of a manager being shite added on to that is a board who make shit decisions and are leeches. Murphy's Law.
 

Revan

Assumptionman
Joined
Dec 19, 2011
Messages
42,391
Location
Munich
They need to feck off. Not for not spending more, but for being clueless on how to run the club. Every manager we have had so far should have been sacked way before it happened (Moyes in October, Van Gaal in December in his second season, Jose at the end of the second season, Ole when he finished his caretaker contract). And we still do not have a director of football or transfer committee.

OUT
 

lilcurt

Full Member
Joined
Jan 5, 2006
Messages
2,264
Location
Birmingham
Sancho and a CDM wins us that.
Tonights result is nothing to do with the Glazers, the squad we have should be winning comfortably. The coaching is a joke and the in game management was terrible.

Glazers out, of course. But not everything is on them. Ole is a terrible manager as well.
 

3KDré

Full Member
Joined
Feb 24, 2015
Messages
5,736
Tonights result is nothing to do with the Glazers, the squad we have should be winning comfortably. The coaching is a joke and the in game management was terrible.

Glazers out, of course. But not everything is on them. Ole is a terrible manager as well.
They're responsible for appointing him. We didn't even wait until the end of the season, just gave him a 5 year contract not long after the PSG game.
 

lilcurt

Full Member
Joined
Jan 5, 2006
Messages
2,264
Location
Birmingham
They're responsible for appointing him. We didn't even wait until the end of the season, just gave him a 5 year contract not long after the PSG game.
At the time we were all kidded to thinking it was the way to go. Hindsight is wonderful but it was 'that' stupid a decision at the time.

What is stupid now is waiting for things to get worse.
 

jamesjimmybyrondean

Full Member
Joined
Feb 26, 2019
Messages
3,510
You really can't keep up the energy of shouting Glazers and Woodward out every time when we are playing so bad on the pitch.
 

3KDré

Full Member
Joined
Feb 24, 2015
Messages
5,736
At the time we were all kidded to thinking it was the way to go. Hindsight is wonderful but it was 'that' stupid a decision at the time.

What is stupid now is waiting for things to get worse.
But that's the point isn't it? Fans are reactionary, always have been always will be. A football club's board is supposed to be better than that, supposed to think long term.
 

Van Piorsing

Lost his light sabre
Joined
Feb 10, 2006
Messages
19,152
Location
Polska
Apart from Donny the signings are not even playing, what was even the point of this window ?

How can they even still be here ? They're hackfrauds of the highest order.
 

TheNextNo7

New Member
Newbie
Joined
Mar 31, 2014
Messages
204
They probably dont give 2 f**ks about this club now that they signed and are leeching of Tom Brady and companys remaining years at the Tampa Bay Buccaneeers, a project that so far is successful. Doubt they cared much if it was a success as long as they made money on him through the marketing side of things, bit like Pogba here, we are now content with CL just for money, we will never challenge again for a title in a long long time while this is allowed to go on
 

lilcurt

Full Member
Joined
Jan 5, 2006
Messages
2,264
Location
Birmingham
But that's the point isn't it? Fans are reactionary, always have been always will be. A football club's board is supposed to be better than that, supposed to think long term.
I agree, all I'm saying is I don't think that was their worst decision given the circumstances. If you remember the alternative was who? People said Poch but at the time he was having success in the CL, we wouldn't have got him that summer.
 

marktan

Full Member
Joined
Aug 28, 2017
Messages
3,311
All starts with those at the top. 7 years later we still don't have an actual winger :lol: :lol: :lol:

Boggles the mind
 

R'hllor

Full Member
Joined
Jun 6, 2013
Messages
12,848
A proper CDM(not Fred,not Mctominay and not a past in Matic) plus a right winger would bring a lot of balance to this team.
If only balance could play on its own, lets stop hiding and depending purely on quality of players we have, such a lazy FM aproach.
 

tomaldinho1

Full Member
Joined
Nov 26, 2015
Messages
5,079
I actually think this is a load of rubbish - hiring promising young players in a position where talent is rare is actually forward planning (for once). they will both have commercial resale value and, hopefully, the talent to make it in our first team. I actually fully agree with not ever looking at the mega transfers again until we get a style of play and system that can be successful - we've thrown money at too many mediocre managers and got nowhere.

Glazer ownership do not make it harder for a coach to coach his team - Woodward has a meme reputation but we have still been signing some of the most highly sought after players since the Glazers came in and we haven't really lost out to any other clubs on key targets. The Glazers should stop taking such high dividends and put some money into the club from an infrastructure standpoint (which I believe will also allow them tax breaks & doesn't count towards FFP) but our transfer kitty has been more than sufficient every year to build an elite team.
 

marktan

Full Member
Joined
Aug 28, 2017
Messages
3,311
Thing is it was a ludicrous position to give Ole the full time position, before even finishing the search for a top manager. We should've waited until the summer of 2019 to give him the job, but as with everything else with the club the decision makers rush into one poor decision after the other. So another 2 years wasted now.
 

Crustanoid

Full Member
Joined
Feb 14, 2008
Messages
17,157
Well to be fair we’ve (fans, ex players and managers and the whole Manchester United community) allowed this to happen by being so placid about the fact that these parasitic leeches are literally living off and draining everything out of everything that was built up before they came.
 

Isotope

Full Member
Joined
Mar 6, 2012
Messages
16,070
Supports
Ole Ole Ole
Of course. 300+k/wk for DDG, 250k/wk Martial, and 250+k/wk for Pogba aren't "real living wage".

Anyway. What's this "United resist to pay staff real living wage"? Is it equal to minimum wage?
 

cptkeane1993

New Member
Newbie
Joined
Aug 31, 2019
Messages
120
My biggest worry is that, to the Glazers, we're like the Tampa Bay Bucs who never win the championship (2002 was the last) but regularly used to make play-off appearances (even that stopped in 2007).

The equivalent of this strategy, to us, would mean they are happy with the titles we won when Sir Alex was still around (5 titles between 2007 - 2013) and now they're just happy for us to make the Champions League - soon this will stop too.

The media needs to look at the big picture and not just focus on the manager (who is the face given he does the pressers) and the immediate results. Ole can only play the cards he's dealt with and in the face of intense supporter and media pressure, this is not easy. It was the same for the previous managers - and at least Ole's so far handling himself well and representing the club with dignity. I think we actually need more of those from the pre-Glazer era - Ole is one - to come in and expect the higher standards required by a club of our stature. I suspect though as much as Ed Woodward might want to bring the likes of Evra, Rio even VDS back in, the owners would veto such moves to keep things under control and the status quo continuing. The lack of appointment of an experienced Director of Football is telling, the owners don't really care about the football. Yes we've spent a lot but to provide x% of the yearly income as transfer funds isn't quite serious commitment to be top of the tree again, it is just part of the expense in the Balance Sheet with the remaining profits (pre-Covid) still being healthy.

As fans, we're emotional and naturally influenced by how the media portrays our team and our manager but sometimes we need to take a step back and see what the root of the problem is. If not, we will never find a solution. This is beyond Jose, Ole, Poch etc etc.
 

wolvored

Full Member
Joined
Jul 6, 2016
Messages
5,782
This last report above all others show they will milk the club even when operating at a loss.
On this path we will eventually fade away to a sleeping giant under the glazers. By that I mean they will be thinking an FA cup win is a good season. Finishing 4th every 2-3 seasons will become acceptable. The big sponsorship deals will eventually get smaller and so the transfer budget. Eventually the fan base will shrink as the youngsters and overseas fans will support the winning teams and this will also have an effect on revenue streams.
The only good that will come out of it is eventually the money will dry up enough for the 3 that dont want any dealings with the club to force a sale, or 1 of the 3 that actually runs the club might pass away . This might not be for a long time though.
 

Lebowski

Full Member
Joined
Jan 2, 2010
Messages
485
Location
Collyhurst
Anyway. What's this "United resist to pay staff real living wage"? Is it equal to minimum wage?
The 'real living wage' is a £x/hour wage needed to afford daily expenses as calculated by the independent think-tank The Resolution Foundation

Confusingly, the term 'minimum wage' was changed to 'national living wage' in the UK a few years ago to avoid the negative connotation of 'minimum wage' and to win the Tories some good PR when they increased it. This is the wage which employers must pay under law.

Obviously the legal minimum national living wage is considerably less than the 'real' living wage because it isn't based on the cost of living.

United enter the picture because a few days ago, Manchester's foodbanks wrote to United and City calling on both clubs to pay the real living wage to all of their employees because several club staff are reliant on foodbanks and cannot afford to put food on the table. Mostly cleaning, catering and admin staff. United responded 'we pay our staff the national living wage' which is a poor response because as stated above this is the lowest amount an employee can legally be paid. The club have also attracted criticism for failing to pay their staff a real living wage whilst continuing to pay massive dividends to their billionaire owners during the pandemic.

For the record, Liverpool, Chelsea, Everton, Palace and West Ham pay the real living wage to all staff.
 

wolvored

Full Member
Joined
Jul 6, 2016
Messages
5,782
The 'real living wage' is a £x/hour wage needed to afford daily expenses as calculated by the independent think-tank The Resolution Foundation

Confusingly, the term 'minimum wage' was changed to 'national living wage' in the UK a few years ago to avoid the negative connotation of 'minimum wage' and to win the Tories some good PR when they increased it. This is the wage which employers must pay under law.

Obviously the legal minimum national living wage is considerably less than the 'real' living wage because it isn't based on the cost of living.

United enter the picture because a few days ago, Manchester's foodbanks wrote to United and City calling on both clubs to pay the real living wage to all of their employees because several club staff are reliant on foodbanks and cannot afford to put food on the table. Mostly cleaning, catering and admin staff. United responded 'we pay our staff the national living wage' which is a poor response because as stated above this is the lowest amount an employee can legally be paid. The club have also attracted criticism for failing to pay their staff a real living wage whilst continuing to pay massive dividends to their billionaire owners during the pandemic.

For the record, Liverpool, Chelsea, Everton, Palace and West Ham pay the real living wage to all staff.
I think the national living wage is what you get at 25 and over and the minimum wage is 24 and under and has different stages to it depending on age so an 18 yo would get less than a 22 yo etc
 

Lebowski

Full Member
Joined
Jan 2, 2010
Messages
485
Location
Collyhurst
I think the national living wage is what you get at 25 and over and the minimum wage is 24 and under and has different stages to it depending on age so an 18 yo would get less than a 22 yo etc
Yeah, you're right.

When they increased the 25+ minimum wage in 2016 they rebranded it the 'living wage' but the legal minimum wage for 16-24 year olds is still often referred to as the 'national minimum wage'.

Most countries have a tiered national minimum wage for age and apprenticeships, so it's a quirk that the UK use two different terms for essentially the same thing. Anyway, national living/minimum wage and 'real' living wage are different - that's the main point i was trying to get at :P
 

wolvored

Full Member
Joined
Jul 6, 2016
Messages
5,782
Yeah, you're right.

When they increased the 25+ minimum wage in 2016 they rebranded it the 'living wage' but the legal minimum wage for 16-24 year olds is still often referred to as the 'national minimum wage'.

Most countries have a tiered national minimum wage for age and apprenticeships, so it's a quirk that the UK use two different terms for essentially the same thing. Anyway, national living/minimum wage and 'real' living wage are different - that's the main point i was trying to get at :P
Yes I see what you mean. If a 22 yo and a 26 yo were took on at the same time, doing the same job, surely they should get the same wage. As for Utd these parasites get deadwood woodward to announce a loss, but still get a dividend. Disgraceful.