Ratcliffe wants to be different to Glazers – but Man Utd job losses are bad look

Sir Jim Ratcliffe has said all the right things since becoming Manchester United co-owner.

In a matter of months, Ratcliffe has communicated more than the Glazers have in 20 years; he’s hired leading brains in the industry at boardroom level and begun plans to revamp or rebuild Old Trafford.

First impressions matter and Ratcliffe has succeeded in making a good one, but some actions behind the scenes over the past few months haven’t sat right with a section of fans.

Sources indicated ‘radical change’ would follow Ratcliffe’s investment and while those changes have been overdue in terms of creating a footballing structure and promising to overhaul recruitment policy, his approach to ordinary staff at the club has raised a few red flags.

ALSO READ: Everton stance on United target Jarrad Branthwaite

ALSO READ: United set to reward exciting young goalscorer with pro contract

Ratcliffe has sought to cut costs and staff at the club have been impacted. United had previously given tickets for cup finals to their 1,1000 staff members with travel to Wembley, along with pre-match food and hotel accommodation included. But those plans have now been scrapped.

For the FA Cup final last weekend, staff were still given a free match ticket, but they had to pay £20 for travel to and from Wembley, while all the other benefits were binned.

When there are players who earn more than £300,000 per week on the books, it seems petty to cut costs by saving a sum which represents a drop in the ocean in comparison. Although it may seem like a minor inconvenience, that cost-cutting approach is part of a wider, more sinister and arguably Glazer-esque treatment of ordinary United staff members by Ratcliffe’s regime.

The withdrawal of perks has been a ‘blow to morale’ and it’s claimed the cuts have been enforced to work within UEFA and the Premier League’s Profit and Sustainability Rules. But spending £86million on Antony should be investigated, not denying staff a sandwich on cup final day.

United staff will survive without perks but they were invited to accept voluntary redundancy en masse this week, which shows the extent of Ratcliffe’s cost-cutting.

On Tuesday, a report from The Athletic revealed that non-football staff have been given just seven days to decide whether they wish to continue their careers at United.

Earlier this month, Ratcliffe informed staff that working from home would no longer be permitted and the redundancy programme is essentially an opportunity for employees to leave United if they don’t comply with working from the office, for personal or professional reasons.

It’s understood that club staff who accept the resignation offer by June 5 will be entitled to the payment of their annual bonus, which would ordinarily be paid later in the year.

It’s Ratcliffe’s prerogative to order a return to the office and attempt to improve wider staff culture, but going after ordinary staff at a multi-million-pound business doesn’t feel right.

The average salary in the United Kingdom is £35,000 a year and the average United player salary is £8.94 million, so it would take 255 job losses to play for a footballer’s wages.

Ratcliffe pledged ‘to put the Manchester back into Manchester United’ when INEOS’ bid was confirmed in 2023 but his cost-saving approach contradicts that promise.

At a time when the cost of living has never been so high and finances are stretched for ordinary people, hard-working Mancunians at United will be impacted. There have been millions wasted on transfer and wages and yet it’s non-football staff members who are affected.

There’s no denying change was required at Old Trafford, but the savings Ratcliffe is looking to make by cutting staff members and perks are marginal compared to player wages.

United have rewarded underperforming players with lucrative contracts, millions have been wasted on transfer fees and it’s John from Salford whose livelihood is threatened.

It’s guaranteed there would be more outrage at the staff cuts if Ratcliffe was 10 years into his co-ownership and United had continued to disappoint on the pitch.

Ratcliffe will be given the benefit of the doubt but his approach to staff doesn’t sit right.