The Manchester United Club Thread **Sponsored by Comedy Central**

[BaZ87]

Because its just relentless and we have been over all these things a dozen times. Nothing he said was particularly new, it was just coming from the horses mouth as an interview.



Because I am sick of the constant feed of bloody miserable reporting on United and the glee with which every man and his dog laps it up. Even when there is nothing to say or its not even noteworthy people are picking at United. As I said, United are the biggest club in the country and everything that happens (or doesn't) is picked up on. That was very much my point. That anything United is taken in the most negative light to generate clicks and your response was "I always love the 'nothing to see here, it's just the press looking for clicks' attitude some Utd fans have. You could be mistaken into believing that everything is going well at Utd at times.".

I mean come on Baz, how many United fans have you actually heard say that "everything is going well at United at times". You're just making stuff up. The reason we have this attitude is because of the way things are constantly reported. Its never ending and just the same thing over and over again.

When you're 14th in the League and your owner is sacking staff on sight then of course the reporting is going to be negative. You're big enough and old enough to know that.

And as for your last paragraph, of course I was exaggerating but I get exasperated by this 'they just want clicks because it's Utd' line that gets rolled out time and time again. The club is a mess right now and the face of your ownership has just done a load of interviews trying to justify bad and or controversial decisions he's made over the last year or so - of course they're going to report on this and of course (and rightly so) they will challenge what he's said. It's not clickbait because it's Utd, it's a major news story.

 

[fez]

When you're 14th in the League and your owner is sacking staff on sight then of course the reporting is going to be negative. You're big enough and old enough to know that.

And you're big enough and old enough to know that no matter what is happening at the club its reported to the nth degree.

And as for your last paragraph, of course I was exaggerating but I get exasperated by this 'they just want clicks because it's Utd' line that gets rolled out time and time again. The club is a mess right now and the face of your ownership has just done a load of interviews trying to justify bad and or controversial decisions he's made over the last year or so - of course they're going to report on this and of course (and rightly so) they will challenge what he's said. It's not clickbait because it's Utd, it's a major news story.

Its clickbait when they are challenging what he is saying with utter crap. We are talking about a specific article here. A crap article. This is my point.

 

[BaZ87]

And you're big enough and old enough to know that no matter what is happening at the club its reported to the nth degree.



Its clickbait when they are challenging what he is saying with utter crap. We are talking about a specific article here. A crap article. This is my point.

I wasn't talking about a specific article, I was replying to your comment about every outlet milking the story for clicks but anyway.

 

[imtoooldforthis]

edit: Just seen the stadium thread

 

[sigma]

Ratcliffe and Neville are both full of ****. Ratcliffe's twisted, exaggerated or outright lied about Utd's finances to justify his victorian factory owner style of running a business and all Neville wanted to do was say 'what about the Glazers', which is fine if you're not in bed with Peter Lim.

Can you confirm how much money you think United actually have? I recall you saying something about an investor call?

Surely they can't be willing to lie so openly?

 

[C Kent]

Swiss Ramble are good for that sort of thing

 

[Mekrel]

I didn't watch the full interview, mainly because I wasn't happy with Neville's interviewing style. I don't think he was as challenging as he could and should have been.

It didn't seem like he challenged hard enough on some of Ratcliffe's responses to questions.

I was hoping he would have said something along the lines of:
"Considering the fans disdain for the Glazers, and the poor decisions the club has made due to the previous structure of Ed Woodward etc al not getting things right, can you appreciate the fans can feel the club has gone from the frying pan and into the fire? Some of the decisions made have been disastrous from keeping ETH, letting him spend money on poor signings, sacking him and then paying Dan Ashworth to join to only sack him months later."

It felt a little staged to be honest which I get with these interviews of what you're allowed to question and what you can't.

 

[BaZ87]

Can you confirm how much money you think United actually have? I recall you saying something about an investor call?

Surely they can't be willing to lie so openly?

They can and have for the past 1-2 years. They keep going on about PSR all while telling investors it's not an issue. Utd have confirmed just the other week that before interest payments and instalments on historic transfers (which Ratcliffe confirmed were £90m odd this summer) and non cash expenses, they'll make a profit of £160m this season. Utd generate huge amounts of cash each season, which they blow on transfers - they didn't need to make these cuts, they chose to. Unfortunately for Utd fans, Ratcliffe has continued where the Glazers have left off in terms of blowing cash, which makes a mockery of his 'take care of the pennies and the pounds will take care of themselves' line - he's saving those pennies but still blowing those pounds.

 

[sigma]

They can and have for the past 1-2 years. They keep going on about PSR all while telling investors it's not an issue. Utd have confirmed just the other week that before interest payments and instalments on historic transfers (which Ratcliffe confirmed were £90m odd this summer) and non cash expenses, they'll make a profit of £160m this season. Utd generate huge amounts of cash each season, which they blow on transfers - they didn't need to make these cuts, they chose to. Unfortunately for Utd fans, Ratcliffe has continued where the Glazers have left off in terms of blowing cash, which makes a mockery of his 'take care of the pennies and the pounds will take care of themselves' line - he's saving those pennies but still blowing those pounds.

I'll have to watch it again but how can he say they'd run out of money then? Has he included interest expenses?

 

[BaZ87]

I'll have to watch it again but how can he say they'd run out of money then? Has he included interest expenses?

I can't explain why he's said it. Even after interest charges and instalments on transfers, Utd still make cash.

Maybe he's calculating the cost of sacking Amorim and Wilcox in October, having allowed them to spend £200m in the summer.

 

[Jimbeam3678]

I'm pretty sure on the running out of money point, Neville agreed with that and quoted some fans (presumably with some experience in accountancy) having followed their finances carefully over the last few years and came to the same conclusion. Surely all 3 can't be telling porkie pies.

 

[BaZ87]

I'm pretty sure on the running out of money point, Neville agreed with that and quoted some fans (presumably with some experience in accountancy) having followed their finances carefully over the last few years and came to the same conclusion. Surely all 3 can't be telling porkie pies.

Neville's a moron. He comments on the club running out of money but in the next breath he'll be on another show talking about how much money Utd needs to spend on transfers. I can still clearly remember the Utd - Liverpool game being called off and his comments that day - in one segment he was banging on about football being broken, greed, money etc then after the break went on to discuss how Utd should sign Kane, Sancho etc etc in the summer. Similarly during covid the helmet was laughing and joking with Ole about how Utd should use their financial muscle to take advantage of clubs struggling. He's the biggest hypocrite in football. He bangs on about the Glazers all while being in bed with Peter Lim. He has no real issue with what the Glazers have done beyond it being done to Utd.

Utd are running out of money (and increased their debt) because they've spent 10s of millions sacking managers etc every other year or so and spending more than they make each summer on transfers. As I sarcastically put in the post above, yes if Utd blow another £200m in the summer and then sack the manager and DoF then maybe that's the reason why Utd could run out of money. The business of Man Utd isn't running out of money, as I said earlier, they literally advised investors that they're going to make £160m(ish) in cash profits this season just the other week. The problem at Utd is they take that £160m odd and have an average net spend over the last few seasons of £190m. If Utd keep spending more on transfers than they're making then yes, they'll run out of money.

edit: it's like a gambling addict saying he needs to cut down on what he feeds his kids because otherwise he'll run out of money, all while spending 90% of his wage in William Hill.

 

[shipinabottle]

I can't explain why he's said it. Even after interest charges and instalments on transfers, Utd still make cash.

Maybe he's calculating the cost of sacking Amorim and Wilcox in October, having allowed them to spend £200m in the summer.

I'm not fully clued up, is it as simple as they have set a budget for transfers on certain player positions in the summer which means that the cuts have to come elsewhere?

If we want to win, the squad has to change. These changes are covering an element of the budget for players.

 

[BaZ87]

I'm not fully clued up, is it as simple as they have set a budget for transfers on certain player positions in the summer which means that the cuts have to come elsewhere?

If we want to win, the squad has to change. These changes are covering an element of the budget for players.

I think these changes are, to use Ratcliffe's own words, to make Utd more profitable.

 

[shipinabottle]

I think these changes are, to use Ratcliffe's own words, to make Utd more profitable.

Is your implication that these changes are to make it profitable for himself?

 

[BaZ87]

Is your implication that these changes are to make it profitable for himself?

Not exactly no, although increasing the profitability of the club will help the valuation of his stake in the club I suppose.

He's a ruthless businessman that's known for stripping out every single cost he possibly can - it shouldn't come as a surprise that he's transferred his way of running his main businesses to how he's running Utd. What remains to be seen is whether it will work in sport and more specifically football. We all know the Glazers are in Utd for the money, they're not employing 1100 people for the good of the Manchester economy - they obviously felt that's the required number of staff to run an operation the size of Man Utd. And for all their faults, they do have some experience in running large sports sides. Similarly FSG at Liverpool aren't employing 1000+ staff out of the goodness of their heart. They too are in it for the money and vastly experienced in running large sports sides. Likewise Real Madrid with over 1200 staff and all the other comparably sized clubs with similar numbers of staff. Are all these clubs getting it wrong and can a football club the size of Utd reduce their staff by 40% and get the same output?

edit: and to be clear, that's not a loaded question. If Ratcliffe can pull it off then all those other clubs will follow suit however I find it slightly hard to believe that all these clubs are getting their staff numbers so drastically wrong.

 

[fez]

We all know the Glazers are in Utd for the money, they're not employing 1100 people for the good of the Manchester economy - they obviously felt that's the required number of staff to run an operation the size of Man Utd. And for all their faults, they do have some experience in running large sports sides.

I struggle to see how anyone can look at anything the Glazers have done since they took over and say "they are doing X for a reason". If they ran United well they would have an asset worth probably double what it is and we would likely have had masses of success over the past decade plus.

 

[BaZ87]

I struggle to see how anyone can look at anything the Glazers have done since they took over and say "they are doing X for a reason". If they ran United well they would have an asset worth probably double what it is and we would likely have had masses of success over the past decade plus.

They've bought a club with next to none of their own money, improved the commercial side of the club and have banked 9 figures from partial sales, all while retaining a controlling interest. You might not like what they've done but they clearly knew what they were doing. Utd's/there failings have been with the football side of the club, not the business and given that Utd's peers are, broadly speaking, employing the same number of staff as the Glazers were then it's hard to say that's been done by chance.