Ineos plans to cut a further 100-200 roles at Manchester United, having already laid off a quarter of the club’s workforce last year.
There is growing concern among supporters about the co-owners’ other business plans and how they will affect United going forward.
The petrochemical giant pulled out of a four-year sponsorship deal with New Zealand rugby this week, citing cost-cutting measures.
One year into Sir Jim Ratcliffe’s and Ineos’s time in charge of football operations at Old Trafford, supporters are far from convinced the Manchester-born billionaire is the red knight in shining armour he presented himself to be.
At recent protests around ticket price rises, Ratcliffe’s name was taken in vain as much if not more often than the Glazers – something nobody expected so soon into the regeneration project.
What has dumbfounded supporters is why Ratcliffe has come in and raised ticket prices and laid off so many staff in the first year of business.
Before Ratcliffe came in, the club employed 1,100 people – more than double the amount of staff at Manchester City. From a PR perspective, such moves have been a disaster.
An insider told The i Paper that, given the club have lost £300m in the past three years, they have to “explore every option”.
United insist no final decisions or announcements will be made at this time, but a range of options remain open.
However, as difficult as it may be to stomach, those with understanding of the industry and what Ineos walked into, after nearly two decades of decay under the Glazers’ ownership, could see it coming.
What’s worse, is there may be even more to come.
“It is not a surprise to me nor should we be surprised,” said Dr Dan Plumley, principal lecturer in sport finance at Sheffield Hallam University. “It’s not nice, I completely agree with the sentiment there. It’s not what you want to see, but we’ve seen it already.
“If we roll the clock back and you remember all the stuff in the media around who was going to buy Manchester United, whether it be Ineos or Qatar, there was certainly always that kind of undercurrent that if it was to be Ineos, that they were going to go in and be quite ruthless and have control over the football operations side of the business.
“That is how it is playing out now. I understand the anger, but it was always going to happen this way.”
Fans worry that if Ineos can’t afford to sponsor the All Blacks’ training jerseys, how can it hope to fund the club’s ambitious restoration project?
The elephant in the room when looking at the elaborate plans for a “Wembley of the North” stadium to replace the crumbling Old Trafford is: who is going to pay for it?
There is a task force fronted by recognisable faces, all happy to present plans for regenerating the entire area around a new stadium fit for the global stage. Their demeanour changes when finances are brought up.
Ratcliffe and this task force are hoping public money can be used to fund infrastructure work around the new stadium, but the actual ground itself will require private investment.
Plans have been drawn up to create a structure to better that of Tottenham Hotspur’s stadium, with initial figures discussed topping the £2bn mark. The i Paper has been told by several sources that figure could, given the colossal project they are planning, come out more than double that.
Fans also question why if the current state of the club was so bad, did the Glazers not undertake similar cost-cutting drives themselves?
“Ultimately it comes down to owner motives,” Plumley said. “Those close to the day-to-day operations.
“One of the criticisms has been that the Glazers are not that close to it, certainly in terms of the day-to-day. So if there are issues with overstaffing they’re not seeing. Day-to-day operations has not always been their modus operandi.
“Ineos and Jim Ratcliffe have run their businesses very differently.”
As a result, the club will continue to look for a new home for Casemiro and his £350,000-a-week wages, and hope Marcus Rashford’s loan to Aston Villa becomes a permanent one.
This will further improve their position in the eyes of the Premier League’s Profitability and Sustainability Rules (PSR).
But the fat-trimming, which Ineos chiefs see their task to be, is likely to continue.
“In the short term, the club are focusing on PSR and improving that,” Plumley added. “But the club in the long term, especially with PSR rules set to change, will remain a global financial superpower.
“From a PR perspective, they could have handled things differently, sure, but they are ruthless businessmen and will continue to run their business in this way.
“I don’t think we can rule out further cost-cutting and job losses, as harsh as that may seem, and of course we don’t know what that might look like, but I wouldn’t be ruling anything out in the longer term, especially with the way football finances are.”
from Football - The i Paper https://ift.tt/2AR3IO7
Post a Comment
EmoticonClick to see the code!
To insert emoticon you must added at least one space before the code.