Club Sale | It’s done!

Status
Not open for further replies.
I thought that each Glazer could sell their shares when they wanted but those shares would convert to Class A Shares. Due to this being a significant sale of large chunk of controlling shares, requiring board and outside approval, it makes sense the reduction would be split equally amongst each Glazer.

So they lose a little over 4% each which now means no individual Glazer holds more than 15% of the voting rights. This also means at least 4 of them would need to agree in order to achieve over 50% on any decision while as few as 2 could side with Ratcliffe to form a majority.
Feck, there's a fair bit of number crunching involved in that, but the rough cut would have JR with 29% ownership and 28 to 29% voting power.
Voting power is really in the B shares. He gets 1/4 of 110m B shares upfront and an additional 6m from the 300m investment giving him about 33/116 or 28% voting power. Now a more accurate calc would include A shares but it doesn't really move the dial.
He would own more of the club than any 2 Glazers combined and his voting power would just about equal that of the 2 biggest glazer holdings (and exceed that of the 2 fellas with the biblical names).
Collectively, the Glazers would have about 70% voting power after the 300m investment.
JR would need to acquire about 25m more B shares from them to get to a majority.

On the face of it SJR moves into a strong position as the single biggest shareholder with control over sporting operations (apparently), but boardroom politics and fallouts now become a risk as the Glazers can still outvote him.

Although there are some clauses relating to future share sales, there is no clear path to majority ownership for SJR which is what many had hoped for (personally I didn't expect it anyway).

Hopefully SJR can bring the positive change we need and there will be no need for any boardroom battles.
 
Am I right that if he pays for stadium renovations, then that means we will have more money to invest in players? Or does FFP make it all go in the same pot and investments in the stadium must still come from a club's earnings?
 
Am I right that if he pays for stadium renovations, then that means we will have more money to invest in players? Or does FFP make it all go in the same pot and investments in the stadium must still come from a club's earnings?

Different pot from what I remember.
 
So basically the complete opposite of what they are taking over at United then, which has to be position of strength for them early on at least, as I don't see they is any way they can make things worse than have been for the last 10 years, and stand a very good chance of making things alot better by just doing what seem like very basic changes.

They also could have learnt alot from all these mistakes I keeping hearing about.


Let's not jinx us this early! Look at Chelsea
 
Last edited:
On the face of it SJR moves into a strong position as the single biggest shareholder with control over sporting operations (apparently), but boardroom politics and fallouts now become a risk as the Glazers can still outvote him.

Although there are some clauses relating to future share sales, there is no clear path to majority ownership for SJR which is what many had hoped for (personally I didn't expect it anyway).

Hopefully SJR can bring the positive change we need and there will be no need for any boardroom battles.

That was always going to be inevitable with the structure of this sort of deal.
 
That architect suggesting it would be cheaper to spend £2B on a new stadium within the land owned by United rather than upgrading OT.

Guess he knows more than I do, but it doesn’t sound right…
 
Let me preface this by saying that I am happy that Glazers are not in charge of the sporting side any more.
However, I am not so excited with Ineos taking over, and let me explain why. In fact, I am quite nervous and somewhat apprehensive.

I'm an avid fan of another sport and specifically a team in which Ineos took over, back in 2019. The sport in question is cycling and the team in particular was Team Sky (now known as Team Ineos). Since their takeover, things have kind of collapsed for that team.

For context, in 2019 Team Sky were by far the most prestigious and dominant cycling team in the world, for the past decade. They had a conveyor belt of winners, nurtured talent (and other...more dubious things) and a winning mentality. From 2012 to 2019, they won 7/8 tour de frances and at one point, won 4 grand tours in a row. They did it with different riders, time after time. Nothing exemplified this more than 2019, when Chris Froome, Sky's best rider broke his leg 1 month before the tour de france. They ended up winning the tour de france with their 2nd best rider (Egan Bernal), and their 3rd best rider finished runner up (Geraint Thomas). The sporting side was run almost exclusively by David Brailsford and in co-operation with Sky, who in particular had a vested interest with James Murdoch having a huge personal love for cycling races.

After Comcast took over Sky, and James Murdoch was sidelined from the Sky leadership structure, Sky pulled their sponsorship and ownership of the team. In stepped Ratcliffe and Ineos. Since then, the team has fallen hugely from its heights.

1) Previously Sky had a huge transfer budget but use it very well. They were meticulous in their scouting, signing rather unknown riders and turning them into superstars. They used their vast budget to build a team, not a collection of superstars but couldn't ride together in a team. Under Ineos, this changed entirely. In one season they signed four GC GT riders (think, Galaticos basically) and tried to shove them into the same teams at Grand tours. It worked for smaller races but in the big races they crumbled. Riders started infighting, one rider wouldnt work for another and it kind of fell apart.

Now Ineos transfer strategy is "is he's doing amazingly well at youth levels, sign him". Cycling as a sport doesn't quite work like that, because the physiology of a rider peaks at different ages for different people. Someone dominating at U-21 and U-23's may not transition at all at World Tour level. Some of Ineos' signings like Magnus Sheffield, Tom Pidcock with that method have worked out well, but others like Lucas Plapp, Ben Tulett, Arensman etc have been a flop.


2) The meticulous of training and equipment and modern scientific methods and infrastructure have fallen a lot under Ineos. Peak sky were the masters of Time trialling, wind tunnel procedures, equipment calibration and innovation. Now they have fallen behind to the likes of Jumbo Visma, Quickstep, Team UAE etc. Their solution is to throw money at the problem but without a proper structure they've been unable to do so. Nothing was more apparent than the hiring of Dan Bigham. Bigham was seen as the Time trialing guru based on his knowledge of bikes, aerodynamics and positioning. He was hired...and then didnt have the power to actually implement anything within Team Ineos. He was hired as the marquee TT coach and then marginalized because Ineos thought he was a bit crazy and eccentric. Bear in mind this guy masterminded the Danish Track team to multiple world champions and olympic medals.

3) Ineos' coaching staff has been a revolving door hire and fire and rehire. Roger Hammond, hired in 2021, fired in 2023. Rod Ellingworth, fired in 2019, rehired in 2022, refired in 2023. Servais Knaven was let go end of 2022 for reasons unknown. All in all, there has been no stability in coaching and management at Team Ineos.

4) Scouting quality has collapsed under Ineos management. They missed out on the likes of Pogacar (although that was more a sky problem), Ayuso, Vingegaard, Gloag and instead banked on riders with better youth results like Carlos Rodriguez, Ethan Hayter, Luke Plapp. The latter riders are not bad, just not the generational talents of the former. As mentioned, Ineos' scouting culture is to look at results of U19 and U23 race results and just go "Yep, he won, he must be good."

Recently their strategy has been almost entirely that. Kim Heiduk, Michel Leonard etc are signings of "Their power numbers at such a young age is really good, they must be incredible!" Only for them to do nothing at the top level. Josh Tarling has been a revelation but he was so dominant that he was hard to miss. Same with Tom Pidcock.

5) Coaching quality has really suffered. Peaks aren't timed properly and riders are out of form / out of shape for the biggest races of the year. Take for example, Dani Martinez. At his best he is one of the worlds best, but at the Tour he was completely undercooked and didn't perform. The same can be said for the likes of Richard Carapaz back when he was at Ineos, Pavel Sivakov, Tao Geogeghan Hart (although constantly crashing doesn't help). Tom Pidcock, who is currently their best overall rider, is still very young and is doing a full Cyclocross season in Winter, The tour de france, the entire spring classics season, 1 week stage races and World champions AND Mountain bike racing mid Road season. He is going to burn out.

Compare and contrast to pre-Ineos, where the entire Sky Tour de france team was in peak form and nobody ever went into the big races under cooked or over cooked.


I know that cycling isn't transferable to Football but I don't have much optimism given that the above problems highlighted are all a result of incompetent Ineos management and their lack of coaching/sporting nous. The above highlights a misunderstanding of sporting structure and instead trying to throw money at the problem.

Under Sky management, there were forum/reddit threads of, "What can we do to stop Sky dominance of the sport." There were famous quotes on the cycling subreddit of things like "Cycling is a simple sport. It is a race where 160 riders toil for 21 days in the French summer through the Alps and Pyrennes and at the end of the race, Sky always win."

Now, Team Ineos are a meme.

Ultimately, I pray that Ineos succeed and bring us back to where we were but i am not optimistic.

What you have described called the breakdown or the teardown of the Ineos Curse? The opposite of the Midas touch.




People need to go into this new era with our eyes wide open.

We are so desperate as a fan base that we are treating Ratcliffe as some knight in shining armour who would swoop in and make things all magical again.... Without actually looking at facts or thinking that managing United is so obvious and is being done by incompetent fecks at the moment.

See the teardown of the decline of Team Ineos post above.

Past is prologue as one smart man once said.
 
Last edited:
What you have described called the breakdown or the teardown of the Ineos Curse? The opposite of the Midas touch.




People need to go into this new era with our eyes wide open.

We are so desperate as a fan base that we are treating Ratcliffe as some knight in shining armour who would swoop in and make things all magical again.... Without actually looking at facts. See the teardown of the decline of Team Ineos post.

Past is prologue as one smart man once said.


Jordan would know all about failure.
 
What you have described called the breakdown or the teardown of the Ineos Curse? The opposite of the Midas touch.




People need to go into this new era with our eyes wide open.

We are so desperate as a fan base that we are treating Ratcliffe as some knight in shining armour who would swoop in and make things all magical again.... Without actually looking at facts or thinking that managing United is so obvious and is being done by incompetent fecks at the moment.

See the teardown of the decline of Team Ineos post above.

Past is prologue as one smart man once said.


Who cares what Mr Magoo says?
 
Even if Jordan is right, in 18 months time we might discover if Jassim was full of shit all along or he might end up with the club after all and Ratcliffe out on his ear (unless he pays out again).
 
What you have described called the breakdown or the teardown of the Ineos Curse? The opposite of the Midas touch.




People need to go into this new era with our eyes wide open.

We are so desperate as a fan base that we are treating Ratcliffe as some knight in shining armour who would swoop in and make things all magical again.... Without actually looking at facts or thinking that managing United is so obvious and is being done by incompetent fecks at the moment.

See the teardown of the decline of Team Ineos post above.

Past is prologue as one smart man once said.

People need to go into this era knowing Simon Jordan is an opinionated cock, with an agenda paid for by the media. :wenger:
 
What you have described called the breakdown or the teardown of the Ineos Curse? The opposite of the Midas touch.




People need to go into this new era with our eyes wide open.

We are so desperate as a fan base that we are treating Ratcliffe as some knight in shining armour who would swoop in and make things all magical again.... Without actually looking at facts or thinking that managing United is so obvious and is being done by incompetent fecks at the moment.

See the teardown of the decline of Team Ineos post above.

Past is prologue as one smart man once said.

The information maybe correct but we should ban all Talk sport post in the cafe, it'd be a better place for it.
 
Even if Jordan is right, in 18 months time we might discover if Jassim was full of shit all along or he might end up with the club after all and Ratcliffe out on his ear (unless he pays out again).

I doubt if Jassim could afford to come back in in 18+ months time. He had a business model and what the Glazers had wanted must have been way outside the upper limits of what he had projected.

Besides, he wanted a 100% buyout which in my mind was the only way any takeover was going to work. He clearly mis-read the room -- or in reality his team misread the room. The Glazers were much more greedy than he thought and are willing to chance things by not accepting the bird in hand.
 
Last edited:
People need to go into this era knowing Simon Jordan is an opinionated cock, with an agenda paid for by the media. :wenger:

The information maybe correct but we should ban all Talk sport post in the cafe, it'd be a better place for it.

Why? Its better to stick out/bury our heads in the sand than to ignore the guy?

Like I said, the fact that we are blindly (or naively) expecting Ratcliffe to come in and make things all magical again is just a reflection of the desperate state of the United fans. Everyone in the current regime are all incompetent fecks and fools. And Ratcliffe will swoop in and make this all good again. Thats not how life works.

In the real world, managing United isn't easy and the current regime (or including ex-CEO Arnold) are fools or incompetent fecks. They may not have been the best due to the restrictions they had -- or even the best in one field may not be great in another environment.

I am not saying that the Ratcliffe team is doomed to failure. But I also think there is a possibility that Ratcliffe's/Brailsford's management skills or ability to hire the right folks are all cracked out to be.
 
It would depend on how the option of first refusal is worded but for the most part it could just be SJR gets first refusal on matching any other bidder….ie I can’t see how a predetermined price would be put in an event which is uncertain re timing. Outside of “fair market value” of course. But I’m sure it’s first refusal in terms of at least matching any other offer…which still isn’t that bad for the Glazers.
Took me an age to reply but thank you for explaining this!
 
I doubt if Jassim could afford to come back in in 18+ months time. He had a business model and what the Glazers had must have been way outside the upper limits of what he had projected.

So, would I be right in thinking that the Glazers hope somebody richer comes along in the next 18 months (if Ratcliffe doesn’t pay the huge amount required)?
 
Will be interesting to see what Trawlers/INEOS position is on Greenwood and Sancho

Sancho, they were going to see if there is anyway in which that working relationship can work in order to gain some value in him for the summer.

Greenwood. I do not know. Again, raise his value or look at his situation from original internal investigation and see what they decide. I would like them to look at it all again.
 
Yes. Unless Ratcliffe is willing to match the new offers.

I imagine he fully intends to as all this effort and planning for just 18 months would be crazy. Plus, it’s not as if he wouldn’t have the money to match anyone.
 
Think that’s exactly what Ratcliffe said. He knows he’s made mistakes at Nice.

Not just at Nice but at the America's Cup, Team Ineos etc too.

What Ratcliffe is supposed to offer is actual 'management expertise'. But what you are suggesting is more akin to on-the-job training.
 
I imagine he fully intends to as all this effort and planning for just 18 months would be crazy. Plus, it’s not as if he wouldn’t have the money to match anyone.

Or he could actually have hands-on knowledge and realise that it may not be worth it?

It was a clever thing that Ratcliffe did. He only willing to take a £1.3 billion risk; as opposed to Jassim who was willing to take a £5 billion risk to find out if Team Jassim could turn things around.
 
Not just at Nice but at the America's Cup, Team Ineos etc too.

What Ratcliffe is supposed to offer is actual 'management expertise'. But what you are suggesting is more akin to on-the-job training.

I’m wasn’t suggesting anything. I just said Ratcliffe in an interview said he knows he’s made mistakes.
 
Or he could actually have hands-on knowledge and realise that it may not be worth it?

It was a clever thing that Ratcliffe did. He only willing to take a £1.3 billion risk; as opposed to Jassim who was willing to take a £5 billion risk to find out if Team Jassim could turn things around.

Or it was the only way he could get his foot in the door keeping the Glazers in situ and intends to get them out. I honestly cannot see someone already talking about “no quick fixes” making an assessment about the long term future of the club in just 18 months.
 
That architect suggesting it would be cheaper to spend £2B on a new stadium within the land owned by United rather than upgrading OT.

Guess he knows more than I do, but it doesn’t sound right…

Makes sense -- one objective is to increase the capacity of the stadium to make it a 90,000 seater. Having to retrofit is very complex -- reinforcing existing structures to support the increased capacity. Tearing out old stuff from wiring to piping etc.

Then, when you have to build a new stand over the operational railroad area, it makes it exponentially more complex. Build a tunnel for the new railroad tracks, or divert it ? All that comes into consideration. I suspect this would be the most expensive consideration when trying to retrofit OT.

A brand new stadium next door, ala Spurs may be the lesser evil.
 
Makes sense -- one objective is to increase the capacity of the stadium to make it a 90,000 seater. Having to retrofit is very complex -- reinforcing existing structures to support the increased capacity. Tearing out old stuff from wiring to piping etc.

Then, when you have to build a new stand over the operational railroad area, it makes it exponentially more complex. Build a tunnel for the new railroad tracks, or divert it ? All that comes into consideration. I suspect this would be the most expensive consideration when trying to retrofit OT.

A brand new stadium next door, ala Spurs may be the lesser evil.

Is 90,000 the desired number, then? I asked that in another thread as I didn’t know.
 
Or it was the only way he could get his foot in the door keeping the Glazers in situ and intends to get them out. I honestly cannot see someone already talking about “no quick fixes” making an assessment about the long term future of the club in just 18 months.

Agree -- he read the room correctly.

The only way the Glazers would sell out is if someone gave them an offer they couldn't refuse -- and my guess is that its in the £8billion range which is what I am assuming Ratcliffe and the Glazers are targeting now.
 
Is 90,000 the desired number, then? I asked that in another thread as I didn’t know.

That's what has been mentioned in past reports. I think the claim is to be the largest stadium in the country again including Wembley.
 
Agree -- he read the room correctly.

The only way the Glazers would sell out is if someone gave them an offer they couldn't refuse -- and my guess is that its in the £8billion range which is what I am assuming Ratcliffe and the Glazers are targeting now.

Woah! I know nothing about this sort of thing, but could the valuation of the club increase that much in just 18 months? Bloody hell!
 
That's what has been mentioned in past reports. I think the claim is to be the largest stadium in the country again including Wembley.

Would have been nice to go biggest in Europe over Barca. Not as if they couldn’t fill it.
 
I doubt if Jassim could afford to come back in in 18+ months time. He had a business model and what the Glazers had wanted must have been way outside the upper limits of what he had projected.

Besides, he wanted a 100% buyout which in my mind was the only way any takeover was going to work. He clearly mis-read the room -- or in reality his team misread the room. The Glazers were much more greedy than he thought and are willing to chance things by not accepting the bird in hand.

I dont think anyone 'mis-read the room', as you say yourself, for Jassim is was 100% or nothing - he had no interest in trying to work with the Glazers. He just wanted full control from Day1 and made his maximum bid on that basis.
Jim on the otherhand was ready to offer full flexibility to the Glazers to give them some cash in return for 2 seats on the board in a joint venture.

I'd have certainly prefered the full sale Jassim option but I'm willing to give Jim a chance to improve us. I expect he will because it really isnt that difficult to improve our current sporting set up, just go and employ proven football people rather than the constant promotions from within that the Glazers have gone for. How on earth they didnt realise this themselves after 10 years of consistent failure in the transfer market I have no idea.
 
That architect suggesting it would be cheaper to spend £2B on a new stadium within the land owned by United rather than upgrading OT.

Guess he knows more than I do, but it doesn’t sound right…

I don't remember them saying cheaper but more cost effective.

Spending several hundred million to improve old Trafford as is would probably reduce capacity. And any major redevelopment would make portions of the ground inaccessible for periods of time.

Building a new stadium would allow you to reorient the ground away from the railway, while staying open until the last possible moment. Similar to how spurs did it.
 
Woah! I know nothing about this sort of thing, but could the valuation of the club increase that much in just 18 months? Bloody hell!

Who knows right?! Does Wall Street reflect the actual valuation of companies nowadays?

Short answer: No.
 
I don't remember them saying cheaper but more cost effective.

Spending several hundred million to improve old Trafford as is would probably reduce capacity. And any major redevelopment would make portions of the ground inaccessible for periods of time.

Building a new stadium would allow you to reorient the ground away from the railway, while staying open until the last possible moment. Similar to how spurs did it.

Right. As sad as it would be to see OT go, even venerable places such as Highbury were finally laid to rest and it’s about progression. I’m on the cusp of changing my vote.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.