Club ownership | Senior management team talk

[MadDogg]

because UAE with better structure spent more than Ineos hence the downfall of SKY cycling team.
Similarly Jasim would have spent more on UTD so we could have become a better team with new stadium without debt.

That is EXTREMELY hypothetical.

At the end of the day, Jassim couldn't even offer enough to get the Glazers to sell, let alone spending further huge amounts. That's ignoring the question marks about him, what with him not providing any evidence of funds despite the selling party asking him to do so multiple times. And if his offers were legit, most likely he would have just been the public face while our club was turned into another sports-washing vehicle rather than a proper football club.

Personally, I think the most likely situation was that Jassim did the early part of the deal himself, knowing that he didn't have enough funds but expecting that once he got far enough in that the Qatar ruling family would back him up. For some reason they never did. Hence why he made a lot of noise but ultimately spluttered into nothing.

 

[Moriarty]

Personally, I think the most likely situation was that Jassim did the early part of the deal himself, knowing that he didn't have enough funds but expecting that once he got far enough in that the Qatar ruling family would back him up. For some reason they never did. Hence why he made a lot of noise but ultimately spluttered into nothing.

Has anyone heard from him since the abortive bid for United? There must be some Qatari reds on here with some knowledge of him.

 

[romufc]

Has anyone heard from him since the abortive bid for United? There must be some Qatari reds on here with some knowledge of him.

The number of people who actually think that this was an option is crazy.

There has been numerous reports, from numerous sources, including reputable American sources who were directly involved with the deal to suggest that the Qatari bid failed to deliver.

How can one call INEOS and SJR tight... when this so called Qatari owner would have cleared debt, spent loads of money.... yet couldn't come up with money to buy it over INEOS...

Yeah makes sense.

 

[Banana Republic]

Just forget the mystery Sheik.
It looks like it was never going to to happen.

The Glazers were and still are holding out for the highest price they can wring out of a prospective buyer.
The various investment groups that were put together to make a bid, couldn’t get near the asking price and only Sir Jim was prepared to enter into a difficult campaign to wrest control off them.

INEOS have sunk a huge fortune into getting involved and so far it’s only got them 28% of the club, with most of that money going into the Glazer’s pockets and not the club or to pay off the huge debt.
SJR will not be happy to write his company’s investment off and walk away.

Hopefully SJR will be able to eventually get full control and we can see the back of the leaches for once and for all.
It must stick in his craw that most of the money he’ll need to put in, will end up with that family.

In the meantime, let them get on with the difficult task of trying to turn the financial sh1tshow around, get some stability and hopefully provide a better foundation for the club’s prime activity, success on the pitch.

The alternative is potential bankruptcy and the club being thrown out of the league and European competition.
Maybe even being closed down for good!

There are bound to be ups and downs on the way, especially at this early stage and against a backdrop of consecutive annual losses that are mounting up, with the credit card maxed out, the lack of cash and the PSR/FFP straight jackets.

Cost cutting will have to be brutal, from top to bottom, but it isn’t a simple task to offload our biggest expense… players we no longer want or can afford to keep.

We’ll just have to get used to a few more seasons of no title challenge and a revolving door of player changes, until we have a team that can sit at the top table again and compete for the big titles.
Unfortunate but unavoidable.

.

 

[Zed 101]

The alternative is potential bankruptcy and the club being thrown out of the league and European competition.
Maybe even being closed down for good!

I cannot see Utd becoming bankrupt, the turnover is just too high, the debt can be refinanced even at the level it is at although it would probably be on even less favourable terms.

As for closing down for good, if we were taken over by the receivers there would be buyers, all of a sudden we would be available for less than £1.5bn or a fraction of the £7bn the Glazers were asking, there would be a huge load of buyers at that price point, as minority shareholders INEOS would probably have it all wrapped up in no time, and would own the club outright for the cost of our debts.

In all honesty whilst I would not want Utd to be in that position it would probably be the quickest way to turn our finances around, the Glazer's would be forced to sell, the receivers would ensure the debt was cleared as part of any buy out.

Problem is that the Glazer's are never going to let that happen, they have enough money to be able to clear the debt if they had to, there is no way that they would risk losing £bns, however as the financial situation becomes more and more stretched it does potentially force their hand to either clear down some of the debt (probably to take it out again further down the line) or preferably sell more of their shares to INEOS on the using the generated cash to clear down the debt.

All in all the financial situation is so bad that it could actually be a good thing for the prospects of wrestling the club away from the Glazer's, the financial model they have requires us to be in or around the top 4 to be sustainable, successive seasons outside the top 4 force them into a position where they cannot keep taking out more debt and have to actually invest, or sell part of their shares in order to generate revenue, this is what prompted the whole club up for sale thing 2 years back.

Add in that if INEOS invest £bns into the redevelopment of the stadium and surrounding areas, they are only going to do so for their gain, they are not going to let their investment be a windfall for the Glazer's, we could easily see a situation where INEOS own the new stadium and everything around it, and the Man Utd do not actually own their own stadium, at least not whilst the Glazer's are still the owners.

I know we are all suffering at the moment, the team is paper thin, and we are no better than the position we find ourselves in, in the league, but actually hovering around mid table for a few seasons could actually be the best thing that could happen to the club if it forces the Glazer's hands

 

[Big Ben Foster]

I totally missed this, but apparently earlier this season, new restrictions were put into place by the PL around shareholder loans.

So if I'm reading the rules correctly, this means INEOS won't be allowed to internally lend the club money at below-market rates when a large portion of our debt comes due for refinancing in 2027.

Which in turn means it'll either need to be refinanced at market rates (significantly higher than what we're currently paying) or paid off.

Any experts with a better understanding of the PL rules or the minutia of debt financing, please correct me if I'm wrong.

 

[Banana Republic]

100% agree, Zed 101.

Your thinking on the stadium mirrors my own.
Sir Jim is determined to get the new stadium built as it will be the bedrock of the club’s long term viability (as well as being desperately needed).
There’s no way he’ll allow the Glazers to reap anything more than minimal benefit from such a massive investment.
Regardless, it was already on the cards that a new stadium would be part of a separate enterprise, especially as the proposals form part of wider reaching developments in the OT area and may involve national or local government involvement on some level.

At the moment, the Glazers hold the cards.
It’s a matter of how, why and when the balance tips the other way and they consider it prudent, or are forced, to reduce their shareholding, or exit the scene completely.
SJR will be carefully plotting his way through the sticky mess and the financial situation may indeed be one of his best weapons?

.

 

[PlasticRed]

As annoying and frustrating as it is. INEOS did right keeping our warchest safe until the summer.

Nobody decent moved this January. Signing Tel wouldnt have drastically changed our course.

Lets see how much of an impact Dorgu and Amad can make as WB's.

There will be plenty of players available in the summer, and we already have a striker lined up in Gyokeres and probably did the groundwork on Cunha.

 

[romufc]

As annoying and frustrating as it is. INEOS did right keeping our warchest safe until the summer.

Nobody decent moved this January. Signing Tel wouldnt have drastically changed our course.

Lets see how much of an impact Dorgu and Amad can make as WB's.

There will be plenty of players available in the summer, and we already have a striker lined up in Gyokeres and probably did the groundwork on Cunha.

I agree.

Its obvious they want to avoid making any panic signings, getting players in now, by the time they are integrated, there is little point spending the inflated prices in January.

I am glad we didnt do the Tel deal, 10m for 3 month loan for a player that will need moulding, where there is little evidence that he will be better than either Zirkzee or Hojlund.

When you go into the summer, the player pool is bigger, so prices will be lower. There is obviously a plan to sign players in the summer, they can put in the hard yards now, so that we have deals lined up in the summer.

It also gives Amorim a few more months to decide what his priority signings would be.

 

[tomaldinho1]

Has anyone heard from him since the abortive bid for United? There must be some Qatari reds on here with some knowledge of him.

Since he threatened to prove the SEC were wrong that he had no proof of funds?.....yeah....no, no one has heard a peep

 

[Redjazz]

I totally missed this, but apparently earlier this season, new restrictions were put into place by the PL around shareholder loans.

So if I'm reading the rules correctly, this means INEOS won't be allowed to internally lend the club money at below-market rates when a large portion of our debt comes due for refinancing in 2027.

Which in turn means it'll either need to be refinanced at market rates (significantly higher than what we're currently paying) or paid off.

Any experts with a better understanding of the PL rules or the minutia of debt financing, please correct me if I'm wrong.

It would make sense. After all INEOS as a related party wouldn't be able to to take out a sponsorship agreement at above market rate to improve our commercial income. It stands to reason that they couldn't lend to the club at below market rates to reduce our costs. Anyway, this idea of INEOS getting into banking\lending business in order to offer benign terms to the club is fantastical stuff not too far removed from the kind of gibberish the amortization lunatics spout on here.
The bolded is true. The larger chunk (about$425m?) of dollar debt is at a fixed 3.79%. Benign terms by today's standards where overnight rates are currently running at about 5%. So a replacement debt will start with a higher base rate. The final pay rate will will also reflect overall leverage and cash flow coverage. Our coverage hasn't improved, in fact the opposite has happened- cash profits (EBITDA) have stalled out while our net spending has increased significantly. Less room to pay interest, the more you pay.

 

[Redjazz]

As annoying and frustrating as it is. INEOS did right keeping our warchest safe until the summer.

Nobody decent moved this January. Signing Tel wouldnt have drastically changed our course.

Lets see how much of an impact Dorgu and Amad can make as WB's.

There will be plenty of players available in the summer, and we already have a striker lined up in Gyokeres and probably did the groundwork on Cunha.

There isn't really any war chest to speak of. More about doing what we can with what we have.
I would be looking at a quiet enough summer, quieter still if euro ball is absent next year.

 

[Nico87]

How bad was the Glazers financial plight before Jim invested?

Would they have been forced to lower the price for a full sale or if they didn’t get what they wanted or would they have just took the club of the market?

 

[Andycoleno9]

Not sacking ETH in June must be the worst decision in PL in last 10 years.

 

[Redjazz]

How bad was the Glazers financial plight before Jim invested?

Would they have been forced to lower the price for a full sale or if they didn’t get what they wanted or would they have just took the club of the market?

Not Great. Not since covid. Woodward got the jitters and took to the hills. Arnold went full panic mode and recruited a lot of expensive rubbish pushing losses pre tax out to 100m+ annually from a position of profits pre covid. Poor player trading (amorization less profit from player sales is too high on the p&l account which equates to excessive net spend in cash flows) and rising interest rates had put us in a bit of bother.
The Ineos impact, apart from the obvious cost cutting, hasn't worked its way through yet- we are well on our way to losses in excess of 100m for the current financial year. Recovery will take time.

The Ineos investment was not an absolute necessity. $300m was welcome but the club (the Glazers) had the means to secure alternate funding. So no, the Glazers would not have been forced to lower their terms. We had a review which officially invited all comers but unofficially (excepting for the 1 year term no sale period in the Ineos agreement) the club has never been of the market.

 

[kerrygold]

ETH had a plan as well, did that excite you as well?

ETH had a plan as well, did that excite you as well?

Admittedly in the beginning yes.

 

[JediSith]

Baldist!

Or glassist

 

[colombianmancunian]

That is EXTREMELY hypothetical.

At the end of the day, Jassim couldn't even offer enough to get the Glazers to sell, let alone spending further huge amounts. That's ignoring the question marks about him, what with him not providing any evidence of funds despite the selling party asking him to do so multiple times. And if his offers were legit, most likely he would have just been the public face while our club was turned into another sports-washing vehicle rather than a proper football club.

Personally, I think the most likely situation was that Jassim did the early part of the deal himself, knowing that he didn't have enough funds but expecting that once he got far enough in that the Qatar ruling family would back him up. For some reason they never did. Hence why he made a lot of noise but ultimately spluttered into nothing.

I think that’s exactly what happened. He couldn’t get the royal family on board.

 

[C'est Moi Cantona]

Not sacking ETH in June must be the worst decision in PL in last 10 years.

We'd likely have Tuchel as manager now if he'd gone in the summer.

 

[Moriarty]

We'd likely have Tuchel as manager now if he'd gone in the summer.

I dunno. I thought INEOS had sounded him out and he wasn't interested. Or was that after they gave ETH an extension?

 

[stefan92]

I dunno. I thought INEOS had sounded him out and he wasn't interested. Or was that after they gave ETH an extension?

You are right. EtH got the extension after other managers weren't interested.

 

[C'est Moi Cantona]

I dunno. I thought INEOS had sounded him out and he wasn't interested. Or was that after they gave ETH an extension?

I think that was the case, so if Tuchel had wanted the job ETH would have been sacked.

I'm not sure why Amorim wasn't considered last summer though, it would have been a whole lot easier if had been.

 

[Moriarty]

I think that was the case, so if Tuchel had wanted the job ETH would have been sacked.

I'm not sure why Amorim wasn't considered last summer though, it would have been a whole lot easier if had been.

I wonder if Tuchel was the only target and why Amorim's name wasn't in the frame. I read that Amorim was considered by the dippers and by, I think, West Ham, but neither club was willing to take a punt. Then we hear that he was earmarked as Guardiola's heir apparent and that's why Berrada moved as he did. Who knows, but maybe they were left with a choice of sacking ETH and having no replacement or keeping him on. Anyway, it's all moot at this point. We have made our bed so we must lie in it, lumpy though it may be.

 

[Giggsyking]

I can not remember Rumble's username here on the caf, but he is totally right, if you remember, tag him. Ratcliffe should be questioned, there is no ground to his 21 project. Just wants to buy time on the back of 3 more years of failure.

 

[Cloud7]

That is EXTREMELY hypothetical.

At the end of the day, Jassim couldn't even offer enough to get the Glazers to sell, let alone spending further huge amounts. That's ignoring the question marks about him, what with him not providing any evidence of funds despite the selling party asking him to do so multiple times. And if his offers were legit, most likely he would have just been the public face while our club was turned into another sports-washing vehicle rather than a proper football club.

Personally, I think the most likely situation was that Jassim did the early part of the deal himself, knowing that he didn't have enough funds but expecting that once he got far enough in that the Qatar ruling family would back him up. For some reason they never did. Hence why he made a lot of noise but ultimately spluttered into nothing.

I was never able to really work out what went on with his bid, but this seems pretty plausible

 

[Tallis]

I can not remember Rumble's username here on the caf, but he is totally right, if you remember, tag him. Ratcliffe should be questioned, there is no ground to his 21 project. Just wants to buy time on the back of 3 more years of failure.

The post from Swedish Rumble is a little incoherent and the bottom line is not always consistent with the argument he makes.

If he is trying to say that Ratcliffe is the wrong owner because he doesn't want to put money into the club and another owner who was prepared to put money in the club would have been better, its hard not to agree with him.

However the reality is that there is no such owner. Glazers ran the process and only Ineos came up. The Qatari's would have put more money into the club but they didn't get their in the end.

 

[MaxZorin]

I can not remember Rumble's username here on the caf, but he is totally right, if you remember, tag him. Ratcliffe should be questioned, there is no ground to his 21 project. Just wants to buy time on the back of 3 more years of failure.

If, in 1991, you were told United would be champions within two years you'd be laughed out of court.

Ta ra Fergie (I know this was in 1989, but that actually enhances the point I'm making)

Personally, I think the most likely situation was that Jassim did the early part of the deal himself, knowing that he didn't have enough funds but expecting that once he got far enough in that the Qatar ruling family would back him up. For some reason they never did. Hence why he made a lot of noise but ultimately spluttered into nothing.

Jassim doesn't have any wealth beyond what is bestowed onto him from Qatar's ruling autocracy. All his wealth emanates from his state appointed role in the Qatari National Bank.

I'd say Qatar got cold feet because of local council reluctance (Burnham speaking publicly about concerns - I know it's probably hypocritical, but two wrongs don't make a right) and because The Glazers read them well enough to continually up their bid.

The latter point may enrage Qatari advocates but it's true; their talking up the use of 'do up Trafford' money was a tactical error.

 

[Giggsyking]

The post from Swedish Rumble is a little incoherent and the bottom line is not always consistent with the argument he makes.

If he is trying to say that Ratcliffe is the wrong owner because he doesn't want to put money into the club and another owner who was prepared to put money in the club would have been better, its hard not to agree with him.

However the reality is that there is no such owner. Glazers ran the process and only Ineos came up. The Qatari's would have put more money into the club but they didn't get their in the end.

He gave Boehly as an example, it is not a far fetched dream. The notion that we are going to grow into some European giant again n 2 years is nothing but a fantasy. We are currently in a relegation battle.

 

[Devil_forever]

I can not remember Rumble's username here on the caf, but he is totally right, if you remember, tag him. Ratcliffe should be questioned, there is no ground to his 21 project. Just wants to buy time on the back of 3 more years of failure.

@golden_blunder can you please ban posts by this guy on here? He's getting free advertisement for posting inaccurate and in many cases outright lies on his blog.

 

[berbakay]

He gave Boehly as an example, it is not a far fetched dream. The notion that we are going to grow into some European giant again n 2 years is nothing but a fantasy. We are currently in a relegation battle.

Villa finished 14th 3 years ago and 17th 5 years ago. Forest finished 17th and 16th the last two seasons. Things can turn around very quickly if we get things right.

 

[Giggsyking]

Villa finished 14th 3 years ago and 17th 5 years ago. Forest finished 17th and 16th the last two seasons. Things can turn around very quickly if we get things right.

They are both paying more than what they used to pay prior to ownership change. Not in our case, we are payingbfar less and made huge cuts.

 

[Andy_Cole]

@golden_blunder can you please ban posts by this guy on here? He's getting free advertisement for posting inaccurate and in many cases outright lies on his blog.

This is just an opinion. Why ban?

 

[Giggsyking]

If, in 1991, you were told United would be champions within two years you'd be laughed out of court.

Ta ra Fergie (I know this was in 1989, but that actually enhances the point I'm making)

But Sir Alex splashed the cash. He did not cut back on expenses, the opposite from day one he started paying. We will not close the deficit with the big clubs by Jims strategy. Neither has he shown he can succeed anywhere else.

 

[golden_blunder]

@golden_blunder can you please ban posts by this guy on here? He's getting free advertisement for posting inaccurate and in many cases outright lies on his blog.

I will ask the group - we carefully consider each one that is put on the banned list

This particular one you’ve linked though, I have to say that I agree with everything he’s written

 

[sglowrider]

This is just an opinion. Why ban?

Only post good/positive news?

Imagine banning everything that you didnt agree with? 50% of the posts here would be eliminated.

 

[RopersReturn]

It’s just hard to imagine the Glazers are capable of being so shrewd in business, they’re clearly being advised. I just don’t believe that a family of rich brats, half of whom were in favour of a full sale originally, are fully competent since inheriting the club.

 

[MaxZorin]

But Sir Alex splashed the cash.

He was indeed splashing it around those days, as well.

Record fees for certain players.

The consensus was he was a shouter from Little Scotland, who sold all the talent (Whiteside, Strachan, McGrath) and replaced it with duds. The football was terrible and there was no end in sight.

He simply had to go. If it wasn't burgeoning fan-media (Mitten, the Brent of his age) on his case, it was the press, including handsomely paid ex-pros like George Best.

Also in the firing line were the likes of Martin Edwards. What a waster. Michael Knighton was demanded by 'real' fans who had the club's best interest at heart. (Thank Christ Murdoch wasn't keen in those days as well.)

I'm not saying Amorim is the new Fergie nor Ineos are the second coming. Just a reminder what we are sadly experiencing now is nothing new, and those insisting on silver bullets like 'full sale only' need a wider perspective.

 

[Garethw]

I think that was the case, so if Tuchel had wanted the job ETH would have been sacked.

I'm not sure why Amorim wasn't considered last summer though, it would have been a whole lot easier if had been.

Because they weren’t interested in a 343 formation manager then. It just shows how utterly incompetent they are at making decisions.

 

[Lemoor]

I can not remember Rumble's username here on the caf, but he is totally right, if you remember, tag him. Ratcliffe should be questioned, there is no ground to his 21 project. Just wants to buy time on the back of 3 more years of failure.

What is even his point in that bizarre rant? That Ratcliffe should be questioned for not personally paying for all the negative effects of the management in last 20 years? There is so much legitimate criticism, but instead he just cries about not spending like Chelsea, as if this is some great management model.

 

[Leftback99]

What is even his point in that bizarre rant? That Ratcliffe should be questioned for not personally paying for all the negative effects of the management in last 20 years? There is so much legitimate criticism, but instead he just cries about not spending like Chelsea, as if this is some great management model.

That account talks some absolute nonsense about our finances, I don't know why it gets quoted.