Caporegime
To me it is basically now the club is being run in a similar way to how other clubs are run. Something that should have been done when Fergie retired.
The Manchester United Club Thread **Sponsored by Comedy Central**
- Thread starter Robbo
- Start date
To me it is basically now the club is being run in a similar way to how other clubs are run. Something that should have been done when Fergie retired.
Soldato
It's been a long time coming. Utd was the template for other PL clubs in the Fergie era and you can see what the likes of City/Liverpool/Arsenal did with their structures to improve how they were run. Then Fergie and Gill left and the other clubs overtook us with how well they were run. No-one at Utd seemed to realise, or care, and we're only just now (hopefully not a false dawn) getting back to a well run club.
Caporegime
It just baffled me. They could clearly see how other clubs were run. They could see how they operated and the success they were having with it. The only explanation I have got is just pure arrogance. The guys in charge loved the power and were so arrogant that they couldn't possibly entertain the idea that they weren't doing as good a job despite every metric shouting at them that they weren't.
Caporegime
As long as the money kept rolling in that's all they cared about.
Soldato
Exactly. It was the money and, for the Glazers and their appointed staff, pure arrogance that the club was doing as well as it was because of them and not Fergie. I think we won 11 cups/titles between 2005 when the Glazers took over and 2013 when Fergie retired. The Glazers probably thought that was because of them and not in spite of them. So why would they realise the other clubs were stealing a march on us? They never understood that the clubs were inspired by us and, effectively, playing a waiting game for Fergie to retire and the club would fall apart and they could then fight for the league without Utd in the mix.
Yep, the brand of Manchester United was all they cared about. Keep the money coming in and that's all they care about.
Caporegime
Money would have rolled in much better if we weren't so crap on the field and wasting hundreds of millions of pounds on sub-standard players.
Soldato
As you said above, from my perspective i'd add it was pure ego ('This is man utd, and i'm part of this so therfore i must be great) which created arrogance, then defensiveness which snowballed into further lack of self-awareness and an inability to show vulnerability and admit to their fallibility... typical leadership shadow stuff often seen by self in hindsight or more obvious from the outside. Leadership and culture problem. It's also part of the squad and quite natural for sports stars and managers.
ETH has shown elements of it last season pulled into the negative culture himself - although the hopeful and positive side of me believes he has the self-awareness and understanding, he just calculatedly chose not to run the squad/club through the mill in the media as it would have caused further problems and also put himself at risk. He wouldn't have won anything from throwing it all out there and still won't. Do your deep work in private. That's why in my mind we just had him repeating the same thing in pre-match and post-match interviews. He was consistent in his messaging 'stick to the process' and consistent in his negative feedback. To us though it would make him look naïve, lost, unaware, poor etc.
My two cents/ramble and it lines up with everything i've said about this squad and club, it was never a 2-3 year job, it's 5 years+ to shift the **** from the club.
Jim might not be jesus but he's shown a lot of solid leadership decisions so far and can see why the Glazers chose him over the Qatar bid.. the get to keep their fiscal fingers in and the club is in capable hands with effective business connections and workings.
Things look well in the right direction. Onwards into year 3.
Last edited:
Caporegime
In the end they all inherited money, they were hardly business geniuses, let alone football ones. They were completely incompetent and didn't really care, a bad combo.
New statement from Ashworth on the United website talking about their plans. Think we've already got more communication from the new regime than we did in the entirety of the previous one.
Not sure if this is 100% right or not, but genuinely baffled if so… supposedly Getafe are getting 20% of the fee for Greenwood?!
It was apparently part of the loan deal with Getafe. Murtough and Arnold masterclass right there.
Would the reasoning be because they could have played a part in maintaining some of his value?
Edit: Seems it’s true, according to Ducker from The Telegraph, who’s usually pretty on the money.
It was apparently part of the loan deal with Getafe. Murtough and Arnold masterclass right there.
Would the reasoning be because they could have played a part in maintaining some of his value?
Edit: Seems it’s true, according to Ducker from The Telegraph, who’s usually pretty on the money.
Last edited:
Good to see things like this.
www.manutd.com
Ashworth's first message to United supporters
In our 2024/25 yearbook, United's new sporting director outlines his exciting vision for the club.
www.manutd.com
Caporegime
Wouldn't surprise me. They were taking a risk on him and ultimately doing us a favour.
Soldato
Exactly. They bought into Utd and then they and their appointed staff believed they were brilliant. Course the clever 'gamble' for the Glazers is that if selling 25% to Ineos works, then their 75% is worth more. If it doesn't work they have someone to blame.
Such business acumen to buy a club and then saddle the club with the debt they incurred buying the club.
Yeah I think I heard that when Greenwood signed for Getafe. They were going to get a cut of the deal if he signed for a third club. If Utd got a good price then it would be argued Getafe helped resurrect his career. With Greenwood being an academy player any fee the club got is pure profit so giving away 20% is probably a good 'fee' for Getafe's services.
Caporegime
Strange how we saw so little of this last season from Onana. I assume he was told not to because we were playing with 1/4 of a back 4 who could play the ball.
It appears the club are focused on building a new stadium, 100k seater. Not decided yet though.
www.skysports.com
Man Utd stadium plans: Club favour building new 100,000-capacity stadium rather than redeveloping Old Trafford
Man Utd looking to build a new stadium rather than redevelop Old Trafford; new stadium would be built on club-owned land adjacent to Old Trafford and elevate community; it is reported a 100,000-seater stadium has been recommended, which would make it the largest in the UK
Soldato
Wonder if they go ahead with this plan, will they demolish OT for a carpark or keep the ground but renovate and reduce the stadium to be a ground for the womens' teams? Would be a cool way to keep OT in some form.
Seems like Ineos believe that a new stadium would allow them to generate much more income over the life of the stadium than renovating existing OT would. Might be cheaper to renovate by £800m or so but if a new stadium gives them a chance to make the £800m over a few decades, they'll build a new stadium.
Seems like Ineos believe that a new stadium would allow them to generate much more income over the life of the stadium than renovating existing OT would. Might be cheaper to renovate by £800m or so but if a new stadium gives them a chance to make the £800m over a few decades, they'll build a new stadium.
Man United to decide on 100,000-capacity new Old Trafford stadium by end of 2024
Manchester United want to make a final decision on whether to spend more than £2bn on a 100,000-seat stadium by the end of the year.
www.bbc.co.uk
Problem is that you need to add the lost revenues to the £800m. Refurbs typically take a couple of years and during that time your capacity is diminished. Lets say they lose 25,000 seats for two years. Thats c 50 matches where you would lose at least £100m in tickets alone nevermind all the other matchday revenues. Plus it's a right pain to manage the stadium access, the atmosphere would be even more compromised and you'd still be dealing with a 40 year old stadium in terms of upkeep. Expanding the capacity to 100k would recover that extra £1bn cost within 5-10 years and United are one of the few clubs who could fill that week in week out. Not to mention the other uses the stadium could have.Wonder if they go ahead with this plan, will they demolish OT for a carpark or keep the ground but renovate and reduce the stadium to be a ground for the womens' teams? Would be a cool way to keep OT in some form.
Seems like Ineos believe that a new stadium would allow them to generate much more income over the life of the stadium than renovating existing OT would. Might be cheaper to renovate by £800m or so but if a new stadium gives them a chance to make the £800m over a few decades, they'll build a new stadium.
Man United to decide on 100,000-capacity new Old Trafford stadium by end of 2024
Manchester United want to make a final decision on whether to spend more than £2bn on a 100,000-seat stadium by the end of the year.www.bbc.co.uk
New stadium is the only way to go if you can fund it sensibly.
Soldato
That's why I think they'll build a new stadium. I just wonder if they will keep OT and reduce it for the women's team? Hasn't Madrid's renovation taken 4-5 years? I don't think OT could be renovated within 2-3 years. I think if they renovated we'd be looking at 2030 ish for it to be completed.
I don't think the £1bn would be expected to be clawed back in 5-10 years. 15-20 might be more realistic. Still Ineos seemed to want to build a new stadium once they got the deal done for their 25%.
With a bit more fag packet maths I think you are probably right in terms of a pay off period. A lot depends on the additional revenues you can generate by hosting other events. I was at Tottenham for eh NFL this year and it was incredible in terms of how they leveraged it. A couple of those and half a dozen concerts probably gives you a fair boost to normal match days. I prefer something new also. Old Trafford has never been a great stadium and now its second rate.
Madrid started in 2019 I think but it was impacted by Covid and is only close to completion now. I think Everton's has gone up a bit quicker.
Caporegime
Madrid managed to do their stadium without knocking it down because it means more to them than the financial costs.
This is purely a financial decision to do it as cheaply as possible.
Tottenham's stadium might be a "masterpiece" but it has no soul. Just like City's and Westham's stadiums.
I am totally against this tbh. I also preferred old wembley to the new one too.
This is purely a financial decision to do it as cheaply as possible.
Tottenham's stadium might be a "masterpiece" but it has no soul. Just like City's and Westham's stadiums.
I am totally against this tbh. I also preferred old wembley to the new one too.
Last edited: