We passed on Tels, passed Bailey and passed on Nkunku, that’s 3
Club ownership | Senior management team talk
- Thread starter golden_blunder
- Start date
100%. There is no way he had to leave because he wasn't 'decisive' as insinuated by Ratcliffe. Otherwise, they are really poor at doing their due diligence.
They will know the impression it would give; being on gardening leave longer than being at the actual job isnt a good look any way you spin it.
This line of thought never makes sense to me. Injuries aren't a thing? We've sometimes put 2 goalies on the bench instead of Rashford. I seriously doubt Heaton is a good forward.
Frankly, the ownership issue is a mess. You have 2 parties who do not trust each other and compiled a 1000 hour lawyered governance agreement to prevent either from screwing the other over. And a minority shareholder having complete autonomy over the football side of things is just bonkers. That type of compartmentalization doesn't work in real life. The whole thing is a marriage of inconvenience between 2 parties with fundamentally different motives. Ownership needs to be resolved because the current format is an impediment to the work that needs to be done to turn our fortunes around.
Ideally, the owners need to deal with the dollar debt sooner rather than later.
A fair chunk of it ($400+m) is fixed and on benign terms, but that needs to be refinanced by 2027. The other chunk ($225m) is variable (around 6%) and needs to be settled by 2029.
Our transfer debt is being managed by a few variable rate credit cards (RCFS) currently running at around 7% when used. Additionally we are paying a margin for the unused portions, once the credit cards are activated. So players bought since Covid are contributing not only to amortization, and wage costs, but also to interest costs as well. The variable rates have jumped pushing up our overall interest payable by about 100%. We need to wean ourselves off the cards, and that can only be accomplished by not buying expensive players when the cash flows aren't there to support it.
It's hard to envisage us seeking a full debt financing for a new stadium while still burdened with both the dollar debt (or offspring thereof) and the RCFS. The revenue and EBITDA uplift needed by then to secure affordable funding is just not bankable. Amorim would need to be Fergie on steroids. And I am not being flippant. Ultimately, as we saw with Fergie under the Glazers, the most important driver of footballing and financial success isn't the owners, directors, CEOS, CFOS, Mr Marginal Gain, the Woodwards, the Arnolds. It's the manager.
As to the debt, I would be optimistic that the club would call on its ongoing registration with the Sec to issue new A shares to the tune of $400m and use the proceeds to take out one of the dollar debts. Maybe the variable chunk with the remainder partially funding the transfer debt (and hence the RCFS). Both parties would need to okay it, as both would take a hit economically, but importantly neither would be impacted control wise.