Editor's word
New announcements from the club seem to provide a good time to share this, my editor’s piece from issue 16 of Barmy Article, from January.
Readers of the physical fanzine will have seen this already, here it is for the more casual follower, in a shareable format.
Happy New Year.
It’s been strange to not feel underwhelmed by a Utd performance for almost a whole month, unless you also follow the men’s team.
I have mixed feelings on the remainder of the WSL season. I’m torn between the lack of expectation caused by most of our performances and hope from how close we are in that 2nd— 4th place bracket since city’s slip up against Everton. I’m also naively hopeful that Skinner will realise how to make use of this potentially fantastic squad we have at our disposal. It wouldn’t take much for things to click into place and to bring exciting, entertaining football to LSV.
Until city’s loss to Everton, I was conscious of where points had been dropped between us, city and Arsenal. The others had only dropped points against the other ‘big teams’ (except for Arsenal’s draw with Everton under their previous manager) so our draws at Brighton and home to Villa looked particularly damaging. The January restart brings a chance to get in the swing of things against West Brom (without taking them for granted) before a pair of derbies against a vulnerable city team spread thin by injuries. Following that we have 8 games against the ‘lesser teams’ that a competent team with the talent we have at our disposal should be going on a formidable run before the return fixtures against the big guns in what should be, if we’ve done our job properly, an enthralling 3 weekends to end the season. But what about off the pitch?
Off the pitch we’re seeing more disarray than on it, that goes for both LSV and Old Trafford. A year into the reign of INEOS sees a sour taste in the mouths of most Utd fans. A 28% stake was supposed to give full footballing control to Sir Jim Ratcliffe and his new footballing structure, but it’s more than just football that’s felt the impact.
Staff Christmas parties have been cut, bonuses replaced by vouchers, redundancies across the whole of the non football set up and most recently, an announcement that funding for Utd’s own charity, the Manchester United foundation, will be cut from 2025 onwards.
It isn’t difficult to understand that big business (which is what football now is) needs big decisions. Is it so unreasonable to expect a football club to retain it’s status as a community asset too though? Even if redundancies are inevitable, there are ways in which to go about it without relying on ruthlessness. Rather than a measured approach to streamlining the non footballing staff it feels like more of a hostile environment to ‘encourage’ people to leave of their own accord.
In a recent interview with men’s fanzine, United We Stand, Sir Jim Ratcliffe told Andy Mitten that staff morale will be driven by success on the pitch. Does he really want accountants, caterers and marketing folk to come into work unhappy on a Monday morning because the players didn’t do their job at the weekend? Any employer should have staff morale as one of their priorities and aim to create a great place to work. That is a working culture that should spread through the club.
Players always commented on the family feel of the club despite its size. As much as some people like to think of players as robots taking home their gigantic wages, they are humans too and the feel around the whole club affects them. This dismissive attitude to staff morale troubles me, especially from a 28% owner who is supposed to concentrate on the football side of things.
While much of what Sir Jim has said publicly has shown naivety and ignorance, we should commend the fact he’s said something. We barely heard from the Glazers in their 18 years of running the club into the ground so INEOS’ transparency can at least be seen as a good thing, except that transparency was a myth in their recent decision to price remaining men’s matches at £66 regardless of ticket type or where in the stadium it is. This decision completely blindsided the likes of the Fans Forum and Fan Advisory Board who are there for the club to consult on issues concerning the fans. You’d think ticket pricing would be right up there in fans’ concerns, yet INEOS forced the decision through regardless.
For all of INEOS’ failings when it comes to basic decency, they have at least started to put a footballing structure in place that’s been long overdue at Utd. That hasn’t been without hiccup either though. With the Dan Ashworth saga, while there are positives to acknowledge in recognising a perceived bad decision and rectifying it quickly, such a high profile appointment falling apart after just 5 months suggests a severe lack of due diligence. Was he hired purely on his previous record or were discussions had about direction and strategy? The point of a director of football is to ensure recruitment is in line with the needs of the club, that the correct profiles are identified. It isn’t just about the players with the best stats, but the players with the best fit. Surely that should be the case when recruiting that director. There are criticisms about the cost of hiring and firing Dan Ashworth as well as the decision to extend Erik Ten Hag’s contract before sacking him 100 days later. That waste of money when the rank and file are feeling the squeeze looks frustrating, but to be fair, that’s how football contracts work. The criticism in my view is the lack of forward thinking itself.
All this criticism and I haven’t even mentioned the women’s team yet. There has been no shortage of ignorance when Sir Jim has been asked about the women’s team. From dated language to de-prioritisation. Ratcliffe regularly refers to the men’s team as the first team or the main issue. While in financial terms this might not seem so unreasonable, he misses the boat entirely on what is needed. The women’s team already have the likes of Matt Johnson (interim head of women’s football) and Harvey Bussell (head of women’s player recruitment) in place. There is a structure there.
Ratcliffe talks of addressing the men’s team first, but what’s the criteria? What does ‘sorted’ look like and what does that then mean for the women’s team? Is it a copy of the men’s structure? A stand alone, bespoke set up geared towards women’s football? Surely with a structure already in place there’s no need to stand still. The women’s team exists whether Ratcliffe likes it or not. Provide the budget and let those involved do what they’re already in place to do.
He talks of the women’s team as ‘an opportunity’. We’re way beyond that. Man Utd Women is a fundamental part of Manchester United. Modern day football clubs MUST support 2 first teams. His knighthood was for services to business and investment. He needs to demonstrate this by investing in Man Utd Women. During his campaign to buy Utd, he said he’ll put the Manchester back in Manchester United, it’s time to prove this wasn't lost in translation and that he isn’t just putting the MAN back in Man Utd.