Having one individual responsible for football, the other for non-football seems sensible. The club secretary is also head of football operations. I think the ‘club secretary’ bit will eventually drop off that title. It’s a little archaic and football ops is more fitting. And the assistant is probably younger, learning on the job. Ideal if the top dog moves on, is unavailable, retires, no? Don’t get me wrong, I agree there’s ’seemingly’ more staff than previously the case. But we are not winning a lot of matches so things like this become issues, or are perceived as such. I really do get it though. I hear you. I’m as frustrated as the next man. But whilst we can pontificate all day on here about this person or that, it’s up to the board to ensure their staff are giving value for money.
When J.D was in charge we had secretary who had a secretary below him who also had a secretary below him. That was in days of administration.
Not really sure what your first point is? Elite football is different to modern football? I havent mentioned anything about elite football...
I don't think the Head of Football Operations is something new. It's just given a more official title, but we've had a secretary role for as long as I can remember, and I'm pretty sure the FA mandates it. I'd guess, given the additional governance requirements of the academy and the women's team, there is additional supervisory oversight required by this role, hence the title. I'd be surprised if we have too many of anything from a staffing point of view, and indeed, if you look at other clubs, we run lean in many areas. I think that @Dyson and @YT are correct though the information vacuum creates these misunderstandings.
I’ve listened to it this morning. In general I agree with Dyson’s point that it’s useful to hear from owners. In this case I think it’s made a bad situation even worse. How stupid do you have to be to come out & name bad signings as players currently contracted to the club? Even if you think it you don’t come out & say it publicly. Good luck getting them lads off the books now.
Honesty may be that we made some wrong decisions, but we can’t afford to change it. We are putting our hands in our pockets to give you lot a football club and you constantly complain about us. Nobody wants to buy the club that we know about and selling the ground to the council has made us a less attractive proposition on the market. There’s too much football in this region, you can get to six other grounds within half an hours drive. All the money is going to the bigger clubs. We have delivered some success over the past few years, but this is a tough one. We shop in Poundland not Harrods because we are skint. Grow up and smell the coffee. By the way, thank you for all your support and take advantage of our early bird deals.
I don't get it with him, yes explain the value of money to the employees but he's doing all this penny pinching getting bad PR, if he just chopped a couple of players from his bloated playing staff , that money would eclipse what he's supposedly 'saved' sacking Ethel the tea lady etc!
I thought it was refreshing personally. I know what you mean, but I can't imagine him saying that has any impact on their value. Its known they're not rated and they overpaid - they've lost their value already. That's why they're paying half of Sancho's wages for example. His point about turning a tanker around is bang on - and for us its a similar challenge on a much smaller scale. We're losing more money than we make and at some point soon we need to change that.
I'd love it if they came out and said that but whilst admitting what they've learned and will do different.
Today it seems they are not skint. Hope this is built using Man U money, not locals money https://www.bbc.co.uk/sport/football/articles/cvgprplz94yo
I've read some United fans saying the money spent actually building the stadium will be from themselves and not used up by any government schemes. However to complete the works they are reliant on the funding manchester is getting to regenerate that area of Manchester which includes moving railway tracks, obviously improving transport links to the area and improving the area in general. So it's a case of we'll do our bit but we can't unless you will.
Given how they’re banging on about creating jobs and it bringing in revenue for the UK, there’s not a chance the club are paying for this stadium.
I heard bits of the Radcliffe interview last night. The thing that rang alarm bells for me was that his goal was for it to become the most profitable club in the world. I'm pretty sure your average supporter of any team would choose on-field success alongside financial stability, rather than generating huge profits. Profits don't benefit the fans, unless they're consistently being recycled back into the club, which I doubt will be the case here. You can theoretically generate huge profits by continuously developing players and selling them on when their values are maximised. At the top end of the Premier League it's unlikely to generate much on-field success.
I listened to the Gary Neville version. The intent I got from it was that if its the most profitable it means they're performing on the pitch AND are sustainable/doing the right things. Was about balancing on field and off field success. Which is fair enough.