Club ownership | Senior management team talk

Giggsyking said:


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.
Click to expand...

Winning it by then is some ask but it’s not as far fetched that United will be challenging for titles in the next 3-4 years and some make out. They obviously need to hope some of these young signings fulfil their potential

And when the new stadium is done United should be bringing in serious money - thought that’s further down the line

And a lot depends on the Glazers going. I can’t see them being here when the stadium is being built (because why would INEOS do that as minority owners) but who knows. They haven’t gone yet
 
MaxZorin said:
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.
Click to expand...

I do not agree with the guy on everything. But I find this take regarding being a giant again in two season is delusional or some sort of PR to to sell the fans some illusions.

I've been through the Fergie years, yes I was a teenager but I remember very well my dad (also a united fan) was happy with the progress and never wanted him out. I do not think the ta ra Fergie was across the entire supporters base. Remember Fergie did it in 6 years not 3, with spending money not cuts and he was clever in managment not only in coaching. We have nobody at the club nor in management neither in coaching as goog as him to replicate what he did, to add to that we are competing with financially giant clubs now.

I am not saying we will never win the league in the next 5 years, but I feel all this 21 project is PR stunt to buy some more time.
 
MadDogg said:
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.
Click to expand...

Yeah there was just too much noise about issues with the funding of Jassim's bid. Like I said in earlier post the leeches priced out serious interested parties
 
LawCharltonBest said:
And a lot depends on the Glazers going. I can’t see them being here when the stadium is being built (because why would INEOS do that as minority owners) but who knows. They haven’t gone yet
Click to expand...
I agree this is key - not that it's guaranteed that INEOS as full owners would inject the money necessary to repair all the damage, but they certainly won't while the Glazers are still here. Them leaving remains the catalyst to the club's chances of recovery. Until then things remain at best in a holding pattern.
 
LawCharltonBest said:
Winning it by then is some ask but it’s not as far fetched that United will be challenging for titles in the next 3-4 years and some make out. They obviously need to hope some of these young signings fulfil their potential

And when the new stadium is done United should be bringing in serious money - thought that’s further down the line

And a lot depends on the Glazers going. I can’t see them being here when the stadium is being built (because why would INEOS do that as minority owners) but who knows. They haven’t gone yet
Click to expand...

It would be nice to know what the timeline is for Ineos to purchase the remainder of the shares required to become majority owner. If that even still is in play.
 
DevilRed said:
It would be nice to know what the timeline is for Ineos to purchase the remainder of the shares required to become majority owner. If that even still is in play.
Click to expand...
I keep thinking we have to hear something at the end of the season around the time that the stadium plans are announced. I can’t see why INEOS would commit to such a big project as minority owners.

And I can’t see how it gets done with The Glazers as majority owners as they won’t commit a penny to it, or raise any money for it through share sales either. INEOS have put money into the club already and you’d imagine would put a lot more in when they’re majority owners.
 
LawCharltonBest said:
Winning it by then is some ask but it’s not as far fetched that United will be challenging for titles in the next 3-4 years and some make out. They obviously need to hope some of these young signings fulfil their potential

And when the new stadium is done United should be bringing in serious money - thought that’s further down the line

And a lot depends on the Glazers going. I can’t see them being here when the stadium is being built (because why would INEOS do that as minority owners) but who knows. They haven’t gone yet
Click to expand...
Isn’t there a thing in the contracts between Ineos and the parasites where the more money Ratcliffe puts into the club whether it be the maximum allowed to offset PSR or for infrastructure the more percentage of the club Ratcliffe gets ? So if he does the stadium surely that would put him well over the 50.1% of the club ownership as he’s got 28% now and is the largest individual shareholder
 
davidmichael said:
Isn’t there a thing in the contracts between Ineos and the parasites where the more money Ratcliffe puts into the club whether it be the maximum allowed to offset PSR or for infrastructure the more percentage of the club Ratcliffe gets ? So if he does the stadium surely that would put him well over the 50.1% of the club ownership as he’s got 28% now and is the largest individual shareholder
Click to expand...
He can't dilute the Glazers unilaterally though, they have to agree to it. Which naturally limits the amount that'll get put in.
 
davidmichael said:
Isn’t there a thing in the contracts between Ineos and the parasites where the more money Ratcliffe puts into the club whether it be the maximum allowed to offset PSR or for infrastructure the more percentage of the club Ratcliffe gets ? So if he does the stadium surely that would put him well over the 50.1% of the club ownership as he’s got 28% now and is the largest individual shareholder
Click to expand...
Short answer is no to all of that, except for the bit about his current stake. The club will pass PSR this year- we'll cut our cloth accordingly. After that a different way of testing for sustainability will apply. Thankfully that should but an end to all of those fanciful amortization workings that have polluted this place.
Bottom line is that we are a club running at losses in excess of 100m. And will be thereabouts this year. And that's despite having a cash profit base that is better than everyone else in the PL. Poor player trading and finance costs are the 2 main reasons for those losses. Cutting cash expenses (redundancies, etc. ) will boost cash profits marginally but the real focus should be on addressing the other two. It's easy to cut costs, and talk about the necessity of doing so for the greater good.
The current ownership structure is frankly a bit rubbish. It's too opaque, with no real clarity as to how it resolves itself in time. The only way it survives long term is if both parties interests are closely aligned. And were that the case, differentiating between the 2 would be splitting hairs.
 
A quick broadcast for everyone that thinks INEOS dont know how to run a football club, aka Nice are crap.

They sit 3rd in Ligue 1. Behind PSG and Marseille.
 
davidmichael said:
Isn’t there a thing in the contracts between Ineos and the parasites where the more money Ratcliffe puts into the club whether it be the maximum allowed to offset PSR or for infrastructure the more percentage of the club Ratcliffe gets ? So if he does the stadium surely that would put him well over the 50.1% of the club ownership as he’s got 28% now and is the largest individual shareholder
Click to expand...
That was only true for the $300m that Ratcliffe has already put in. Any future shares being issued for further investment would have to be agreed separately. Glazers might be up for doing that to some extent (with the expectation that the value of the club going up would more than make up for their lower percentage of ownership), but I'd doubt they'd go as far as giving up majority ownership.
 
PlasticRed said:
A quick broadcast for everyone that thinks INEOS dont know how to run a football club, aka Nice are crap.

They sit 3rd in Ligue 1. Behind PSG and Marseille.
Click to expand...
Their best ever finish under ineos was 5th, I would hold your horses with the congratulations until the season is actually done since a couple of losses might push them back to 5-6th.
 
Giggsyking said:


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.
Click to expand...


Just challenging by 2028 is dreamland stuff, nevermind winning. This club is so far off the top, it's unreal. Closer to relegation than anything. Liverpool had to wait 30 years and I don't remember them ever being this horrible, off and on the pitch. United are genuinely unwatchable, and the results and numbers reflect that. I don't even know why INEOS bother making up such ridiculous shit. It's not like they have shareholders to appease, but maybe it's for investors? I don't know, it just sounds like something you'd see on those Shark Tank shows. The comparison is quite apt, for I feel like going to Mars will happen sooner.

That being said, they've done stuff recently that I approve, so we will see. This summer will be telling.
 
Last edited:
Telsim said:
Just challenging by 2028 is dreamland stuff, nevermind winning. This club is so far off the top, it's unreal. Closer to relegation than anything. Liverpool had to wait 30 years and I don't remember them ever being this horrible, off and on the pitch. United are genuinely unwatchable, and the results and numbers reflect that. I don't even know why INEOS bother making up such ridiculous shit. It's not like they have shareholders to appease, but maybe it's for investors? I don't know, it just sounds like something you'd see on those Shark Tank shows. The comparison is quite apt, for I feel like going to Mars will happen sooner.

That being said, they've done stuff recently that I approve, so we will see. This summer will be telling.
Click to expand...
The difference between challenging for title and actually winning it is mostly in quality of the other top clubs. And the only thing that is predictable about it is that it's completely unpredictable. My guess is that it's mostly for keeping up morale and emphasizing that the current situation is supposed to be temporary. As long as he doesn't bank the future of the club on that and make a lot of idiotic short-term decisions (and I really don't see reasonable indication of those) there is nothing wrong with making goals that are quite unlikely to be fully achieved.
 
Telsim said:
Just challenging by 2028 is dreamland stuff, nevermind winning. This club is so far off the top, it's unreal. Closer to relegation than anything. Liverpool had to wait 30 years and I don't remember them ever being this horrible, off and on the pitch. United are genuinely unwatchable, and the results and numbers reflect that. I don't even know why INEOS bother making up such ridiculous shit. It's not like they have shareholders to appease, but maybe it's for investors? I don't know, it just sounds like something you'd see on those Shark Tank shows. The comparison is quite apt, for I feel like going to Mars will happen sooner.

That being said, they've done stuff recently that I approve, so we will see. This summer will be telling.
Click to expand...
Are you forgetting this club went 26 years and a relegation before winning the title again.
 
It’d be strange if SJR didn’t eventually try to force the Glazers to sell. Under normal circumstances, owning at least 30% of a company would entitle him to buy the rest of the shares and control of the club?
 
NWRed said:
https://www.stuff.co.nz/sport/36057...-jim-ratcliffe-and-ineos-over-sponsorship-row

First Ben Ainslie and now the All Blacks.

INEOS are building a reputation not only for sporting failure but acrimonious splits with their sporting partners/projects.

Anyone else seeing the future here?
Click to expand...
I was just about to post that (albeit from the BBC). No idea how long it’ll take for the truth to come out, but if INEOS are proven to be unlawfully reneging on a deal halfway through then it won’t look good. No doubt a fine and some other BS will come their way only to get brushed under the carpet. Either way, I hope the Kiwis have a case.

Seems like INEOS know how to operate in the world of petrochemicals but have no idea in sport. Still early days with United, and if they help fund a turnaround on the pitch then no doubt all the behind-the-scenes changes will be seen as necessary etc.

They don’t appear very likeable though, not that they give a shit about that.
 
NWRed said:
https://www.stuff.co.nz/sport/36057...-jim-ratcliffe-and-ineos-over-sponsorship-row

First Ben Ainslie and now the All Blacks.

INEOS are building a reputation not only for sporting failure but acrimonious splits with their sporting partners/projects.

Anyone else seeing the future here?
Click to expand...

To be honest, I'm not really interested in athwart sporting brands, just United.

The alternative is Qatar, who have still failed to win a CL and are constantly losing their best players with their psg franchise.

We will have to wait and see about Ineos and not base opinion on anything but United's progress.
 


A lot of deals like these have break clauses etc so it could be something along those lines, but notice does have to be given, they can't just walk away.
 
TrailMonkey said:
Seems like INEOS know how to operate in the world of petrochemicals but have no idea in sport. Still early days with United, and if they help fund a turnaround on the pitch then no doubt all the behind-the-scenes changes will be seen as necessary etc.
Click to expand...

Thats actually incorrect. They have multiple sport ventures, cycling, rowing, F1.. they have done well in some of them too.
 
It’s a different ball game owning Man United. Everything you do is scrutinised to the extreme. Don’t think Brexit Jim quite appreciated that fact.
 
PlasticRed said:
A quick broadcast for everyone that thinks INEOS dont know how to run a football club, aka Nice are crap.

They sit 3rd in Ligue 1. Behind PSG and Marseille.
Click to expand...
Is that the same Nice that finished second bottom in the Europa League?
 
PlasticRed said:
A quick broadcast for everyone that thinks INEOS dont know how to run a football club, aka Nice are crap.

They sit 3rd in Ligue 1. Behind PSG and Marseille.
Click to expand...

And? That makes them good owners because.....

It's the first time they have been third all season....but according to you that makes them good owners....

romufc said:
Thats actually incorrect. They have multiple sport ventures, cycling, rowing, F1.. they have done well in some of them too.
Click to expand...
You can't really include F1 in that, surely. I doubt they have any involvement in the running of the team, but if they did it's hardly a good look as the teams been worse since.
 
astracrazy said:
You can't really include F1 in that, surely. I doubt they have any involvement in the running of the team, but if they did it's hardly a good look as the teams been worse since.
Click to expand...

So why dont you just wait to see how it develops at United rather than focusing too much on their other sporting ventures?
 
Antony, Sancho, Rashford and Casemiro off the books in the summer should be a massive help, surely?
 
romufc said:
Well you replied to a post that was talking about it.

The poster claimed that INEOS had no idea in sport, so I was replying to that actually.
Click to expand...
All I said was you can't include F1 in that list, so how does that mean I'm focusing too much on their ventures in other sports - it was the other poster who did that. Why don't you just admit you thought you were replying to the other guy :lol:....good grief
 
astracrazy said:
All I said was you can't include F1 in that list, so how does that mean I'm focusing too much on their ventures in other sports - it was the other poster who did that. Why don't you just admit you thought you were replying to the other guy :lol:....good grief
Click to expand...

Regardless of who I am responding to.. you are going on as if Mercedes are bottom of the championship :lol::lol:
 
You must log in or register to reply here.