- Feb 12, 2013
- 11,773
- 26,417
Financial control always stays with the leadership. In business, especially ones involving high stakes, budget decisions and financial strategy remain centralised. The approach is about maintaining a balance between growth and operations without splitting responsibilities, Man United and Ineos is unique and unlikely to ever be repeated.I’d hope it would mean that who ever it was would be in charge of the football side and leave levy to do what he does best with growing the club and commercial aspect.
However, I can’t see that happening, he is clearly married into the club and it would be difficult for all involved. Where does the football end and the commercial side begin?
The idea of handing off control to separate parties sounds appealing, but in reality it is financial oversight drives strategic decisions. The financials dictate what’s feasible, and those in charge of the budget set the parameters for all other decisions. The business model stays unified, with financial authority steering the ship and keeping everything aligned.
The only way a minority shareholder could splash cash on players outside the budget is by dipping into their own pockets—and Staveley doesn’t have pockets anywhere near deep enough on her own. She’d be stuck going back to investors, pitching for every transfer deal. It’s not a case of writing a cheque; they could be scrambling for backing with a fresh pitch deck every time a target comes up. I can explain the problems with this too if anyone is actually interested.