To mark INEOS’ first anniversary of operating United, The Athletic has spoken to numerous sources within the club’s ecosystem, all of whom spoke confidentially to protect their jobs, to detail what measures have been taken at the club and with the men’s first team.
Among much more, The
Athletic reveals:
- A fear
of further job cuts
- Approvals
to sign off anything costing £25,000 or more go above Berrada
- Ratcliffe
proposed X owner Elon Musk or Amazon’s executive chairman Jeff Bezos help
pay for new stadium
- Club
looking at significant ticket price rises
- Further
ambassador cuts and high-profile exits, including former chief executive
David Gill’s £1million-per-year retainer
- More
INEOS executives getting involved at United on a day-to-day basis
Ratcliffe resented the fact United are a loss-making
enterprise, in the red for over £113n n the last financial year. While the initial deal agreed Ratcliffe would
assume sporting control of United, it quickly became clear he needed to get a
grip of the business to address matters on the pitch. His scope therefore
expanded.
United are one of the most profitable clubs in the world
before player trading and interest payments on debt come into the equation — a
legacy of Glazer ownership — but a key objective for Ratcliffe has been
headcount reduction, down from around 1,000 to 750. Those large-scale
redundancies have left morale, in the words of several employees, “on the
floor”. Others at the club would counteract that view, insisting that people
understand what Ratcliffe is trying to do and why.
In that light, some staff at United are making contingency
plans and looking at opportunities elsewhere. For instance, the commercial
director at a different north-west football club is sitting on around a dozen
applications from current United employees.
People who have worked with Ratcliffe consider staffing
levels an obsession, with the 72-year-old applying to United the business
strategies that have helped him become one of Britain’s richest men. Stripping back
companies to increase efficiencies has been his blueprint but former colleagues
feel the same approach might not work at United because they think football is
different.
The start of December used to be the time the rank-and-file
could look forward to the office Christmas party. But the hierarchy at United,
led by Ratcliffe, put paid to that this time round. Cutting the Christmas party caused
widespread upset because it would have been a chance to mix with colleagues in
a relaxed environment and have some fun at the end of a year when many had
given up evenings and weekends to work.
It is estimated United saved around £250,000 by cancelling
the Christmas function, but those at the club say the call was made in light of
so many people losing their jobs, and celebrating in those circumstances would
have been wrong, rather than it being a financial calculation.
Staff being able to let their hair down when away, or wine
and dine clients, was seen by the Glazers as a fair expense and the club’s
sponsorship business was industry-leading, but Ratcliffe viewed it differently.
He withdrew corporate credit cards and enforced much tighter spending, to the
point where staff now have to plot train journeys using the split-ticket
mechanism for lower-cost fares.
One particularly embarrassing moment came during pre-season
when a meal out for staff and players ran into thousands of dollars and senior
executives, due to new credit card limits, found their cards blocked initially
when attempting to pay. They ended up splitting across multiple cards to cover
the bill.
A clear point of conflict comes over what happens with Old
Trafford. Ratcliffe appears determined to build a new stadium, when Joel had
previously shown preference — although little momentum — to redevelop. How to
finance a ground from scratch, at a cost upwards of £2billion, has not been
sufficiently explained.
A fan commented: ‘For argument's sake, let us assume that
Utd indeed were overstaffed and needed to make cuts. It also makes sense for
the club to try and curtail executive and commercial spending, such as nights
out in Vegas. While studies have consistently shown there is no real drop-off
when companies allow sensible work-from-home policies, there's a traditional
assumption that people have to work in an office to be at their best. I am not
surprised to see Ratcliffe issue that call as well.
It does, however, get a little bemusing when the club is asked why there's no
office Christmas party, and the stated reason was that 250 people had been let
go and people wouldn't want to celebrate, when it was INEOs who created the
conditions for both in the first place!’
My view is that there was some fat to be cut, but it has been pushed too far and is damaging the morale of key staff.
Comments
Post a Comment