Club ownership | Senior management team talk
- Thread starter golden_blunder
- Start date
Hopefully the Glazers are going in a few years as it seems to be their intention.
Well that plan exists but it is not binding.Absolutely true but the Glazers also know that as things stand, we’re losing money (P&L basis) and (more importantly), losing cash… a lot of it.
If things carry on, we’ll either need a chunk of extra debt (not sure we get it) or the Glazers to chuck money in ().. or they’ll end up being majority shareholder of a business losing value. I’m hoping Ratcliffe has a clear plan of how he’ll make sure he’s only putting more money in for the goal of 50.1%.
We are not losing cash though we are spending too much cash. There is a difference. The club is not in a dire financial situation. We are not broke.
Why was Ratcliffe original bid for 100% of the club ?
OT rebuilt and redeveloped is projected to be worth £7b. You really think the Glazers are going ?
Thank god I’m no longer at school. I’d be getting bullied so much.
You are right though all his unsuccessful bids were for 100% of the Glazer's B shares. So he was prepared to pay slightly in excess of $33 a share for around 2/3 of the Club. Ineos in, the glazers out, other shareholders as they were.
An owner with the funds to clear our debt. Is that not what everybody wanted?
I don’t think there are any but then I never said there were. I’m just pointing out INEOS haven’t invested into the club as so much bought stock and some of the proceeds have gone on infrastructure instead of to the previous owners. It keeps getting brought up in defence of the shit show we’ve seen the past year or so.
Ratcliffe has the funds, he’s worth over £25Bn.
Isnt this kinda what we all should hope for? If there's no more money coming in to this cash cow, the Glazers will be sniffing around for someone who does. This club is a goldmine for potential buyers. As long as we dont get relegated or some shit, this club will always have someone to drag it out the shit eventually. Just may not be any time soong.
What’s the difference?
I think they put the club up for sale and the provision of a future sale in the recent agreement for a reason. Whether or not it happens is another story.
I think selling future value after a stadium re development has kicked off is a good exit strategy. I am 100% sure they have zero intention to invest any funds into a stadium redevelopment.
Well there is varying figures available online. He may well be ‘worth’ that but he would need to sell assets to free up the cash or take on additional debt. Besides that fact, he doesn’t have the inclination to clear the debt.
Neither would I. Settling the debt of a minority owned business would be the definition of stupidity… and almost definitely guarantee the Glazers stayed.
And at the original offer (for 25%), publicly filed documents stated Ratcliffe had liquid assets (cash and short term saleable securities) of more than Uniteds market cap, never mind the 25.1% extra he’d need…. now down to c20%.
Only cos we're Man United. If any other bloated organisation losing 100m a year tried to cut costs from top to bottom I don't think anyone would be too bothered
Its fecking complicated, espesially with Ineos now on board with the leaches.
So what we, based on a lot of research, do know of the feckin Glazers:
1. Four Glazer sibblings desperatelly wanting to sell the whole United
2. Avram cant sell his UTD shares till his funeral. He is indepted to his last bone, this is his only leverage. If the club was sold for 5 or so billion he would not just be left with literally nothing - Avram would also face a tough legal challenges in the US where he has destroyed most/all of his other bussiness and is due to pay a lot of money.
3. Joel Glazer - the brain of the family now - has been on the fence. Tired of Machcester people constantly harrassing him, he also wanted initially to sell it all. But when Avram told him off Joel just couldnt.
There is such strong bond between these two sibblings, Avram and Joel, and the question is why. One story I heard long time ago was young Joel drowning in a lake to death in a family holiday with even the father Malcolm not risking his life - but young Avram has non of it. He jumpes into muddy watters and heroically dragges Joel into the safety. Thats possibly why Joel will never throw Avram to the doggs. He ows him his life.
Now with INEOS, its really hard to say. If there is a plan, and what kind it is of aquiring a majority share. Avram is going nowhere, Joel cant let his brother down. The four other sibblings can not sell without at least one of Joel/Avram to agree to a full sale.
Plan B was an Elliott type investment Glazers have searched for - just a short therm help. A well known high stakes punter in Florida Casinos, Avram plan was to be bailed out be an Elliott to just keep him going for another nuber of years. Then Joel found something much better - a naive Jimmy Brexit.
So what we, based on a lot of research, do know of the feckin Glazers:
1. Four Glazer sibblings desperatelly wanting to sell the whole United
2. Avram cant sell his UTD shares till his funeral. He is indepted to his last bone, this is his only leverage. If the club was sold for 5 or so billion he would not just be left with literally nothing - Avram would also face a tough legal challenges in the US where he has destroyed most/all of his other bussiness and is due to pay a lot of money.
3. Joel Glazer - the brain of the family now - has been on the fence. Tired of Machcester people constantly harrassing him, he also wanted initially to sell it all. But when Avram told him off Joel just couldnt.
There is such strong bond between these two sibblings, Avram and Joel, and the question is why. One story I heard long time ago was young Joel drowning in a lake to death in a family holiday with even the father Malcolm not risking his life - but young Avram has non of it. He jumpes into muddy watters and heroically dragges Joel into the safety. Thats possibly why Joel will never throw Avram to the doggs. He ows him his life.
Now with INEOS, its really hard to say. If there is a plan, and what kind it is of aquiring a majority share. Avram is going nowhere, Joel cant let his brother down. The four other sibblings can not sell without at least one of Joel/Avram to agree to a full sale.
Plan B was an Elliott type investment Glazers have searched for - just a short therm help. A well known high stakes punter in Florida Casinos, Avram plan was to be bailed out be an Elliott to just keep him going for another nuber of years. Then Joel found something much better - a naive Jimmy Brexit.
It would be stupid but I was asked what I would prefer to INEOS.
Being worth something doesn’t mean you have that money in cash in the bank.
That’s the estimated value of all his assets and investments, predominantly his shareholding in the 30 odd companies that constitute the INEOS Group.
.
If musk needed financial loans to buy Twitter do you seriously think Ratcliffe has the cash? And Musk is many many times 'worth' more than Ratcliffe.
Surely you are not that naive?
Conversely, the issue of financing the stadium development may be used as leverage against the Glazers, to the benefit of SJR.
The leaches are not going to be presented with a free bonus prize.
Future value only comes after the investment is provided and in place.
The Glazers will have to assume their own share of the liability, or take the offer of an early exit route.
At the moment they hold the cards.
It’s entirely feasible that the stadium project, may be the mechanism that tilts the balance of power.
Last edited:
You can choose to piss away your earnings on booze or whatever takes your fancy but your are not obligated to do so. In the same way the club can choose how it spends its cash profits and the club has the biggest cash profits in the PL so it has greater latitude than most clubs wrt how it spends its money. Spending too much on rubbish players was a choice not an obligation. It can choose to refrain from heavy spending.
Not too complicated is it?
It just feels very different going from The Theatre of Dreams to The Power Point of Rude Awakenings.
Given that INEOS have so far paid far more for what they currently have than it's actually worth it wou;d take years to build it in to an entity they could make a profit from
It can’t choose to continue paying the termed out transfer fee instalments it’s agreed to or change the wage costs without selling OR renegotiating contracts.
That’s not complicated either.
And what is “cash profit” and when did we make one recently?
You can count the numbers of those people on your fingers
Already answered Ratcliffes liquidity position above.
Unless you think he lied to Rayne and in publicly filed documents with the NYSE. Surely you’re not that naive?
Your are totally right. Outstanding. You mean that if you order a pint you have to pay for it? It's not free?
Still doesn't mean you have to get piss- you- pants drunk.
As for "cash profit", I presume the inverted commas is there to signal you incredulity that such a thing might exist. Well, it does. We make one every year.
148m in 2024, 155m in 2023, 81m in 2022, 95m in 2021, 132m in 2020.
Here is what I think.
1) They saw a way to profit on the original price of the club, while still keeping majority ownership of the club.
2) They also needed someone invest a couple of hundred million in infrastructure.
3) They needed someone to do what they couldn’t get away with.
4) They had OT plan, impossible for owners to not know what parts of land they own. They needed help to get the OT redevelopment going and approved. This can’t be any random person. It’s arguable connections / influence is more important than money.
They got exactly what they wanted
Conjectural stuff, but I like point 4.
For 1 they did profit sure but about a third was pocketed by other shareholders.
For 2 the $200 first investment helped with PSR 2024 and will help with PSR 2025, The £158m injection was cash pooled and spent on anything and everything- wages, credit card repayment, transfer fees, debt interest.....
The second part of $100m, you could argue, is assigned to the Carrington project (requiring about 60m funding).
For 3 Having a front man\shield for the cost cutting is certainly useful for them, but no one should doubt their complicity or their capacity to go it alone.
We have been here before- the Glazers instigated a cost cutting exercise to weed out the evils of "overstaffing" and operational inefficiency post takeover. Ticket prices soared. Fans were pissed. All to ensure that they could get the best possible terms in the first debt refinancing and load the club with even more debt.
I missed this. It's genuinely the best post in this thread. As a script, its got that southern gothic vibe with maybe a touch of magical realism. Is Joel actually dead? What was so hideous about him that only Avram set upon his rescue and why was a famous bluesman trying to thwart it. It sounds ominous for Jimmy Brexit.
I think it’s very unlikely the stadium project goes ahead with the ownership in the current status quo. I would imagine SJR will demand Glazers sell him more shares and he becomes majority owner or it won’t happen.
They're trying to get most of it funded through the city.
That's quite interesting. I wasn't aware of Avram's financial woes.
I am glad Elliott investment didnt materialize - I am not sure if I want them on anything related to Utd. You seem to be quite in the know - that childhood story is next level.
Very interesting.
https://www.fitchratings.com/resear...atings - London - 21 Jan,Finance LLC at 'BB+'.
Posting this again. Things are not looking so bright for Jim ans Ineos. This year will be tough for them.
Posting this again. Things are not looking so bright for Jim ans Ineos. This year will be tough for them.
Firstly, you obviously felt the need to have 2 different currencies so it makes your agenda look better... why use £ for one transfer and Euros for another... £42m on Ugarte is a good deal.
Signing 52m is not overspending.. 80m for a CB is... the difference is, the scouts, not just ours think he is a generational CB.. not some random CB. I get it you dont like Yoro, he is 18.
We bought Mazroui as a full back cover for 18m, so what if he played under Ten Hag.
We didnt spend money firing Ashworth though, the reason he was sacked that soon was because he was still in his probation period...
So, I will ask again, because you seem to ignore it in all your posts... what other promises have they broken, the way you mentioned your post, they have broken multiple promises... can you please show me a link or quote of these promises and which ones are broken? Cause at the moment you are making promises they made in your head like the transfer fund one.
You have zero trust because they have shown to improve the structure of the club but wont spend money on transfers.
Ohhh how ironic... 2 posts ago having a go at me saying I am here for insults... guess you need to look at yourself in the mirror first. Ofcourse there is an argument that can be made, but ofcourse you are Captain Hindsight
They did invest into the club... you keep ignoring it. IT was not part of the 1.2bn to take over the club... read the key word addition
https://www.manchestereveningnews.c...l-news/man-united-80m-cash-injection-30790300
"Ratcliffe has now provided the additional £245million of further investment as agreed when purchasing around a quarter of the club. That expenditure was in addition to the £1.2 billion deal that made Ratcliffe one of the club's minority owners and saw Ineos delegated responsibility for managing football operations."
Im starting to lose a little faith in INEOS, there has been PR disaster after PR disaster. Alot of mistakes on the football side too.
One thing I'm also worried about is the ever increasing influence of American owners in the premier league. American sports are run in a completely different way with salary caps to protect owners from paying too much money in wages. In the NBA for example most teams are operating on a 50% gross profit margin. There are no transfer fees. The only outgoing is player salaries.
I fear that these US owners are hiding behind PSR as a way to reduce their costs and make their clubs more profitable. Football clubs traditionally spend every penny they bring in, if not worse. English clubs could be less competitive in Europe if this continues. Weve seen the lack of transfer activity in recent windows and clubs selling their best young players to be compliant. It all feels anti competitive to me.
One thing I'm also worried about is the ever increasing influence of American owners in the premier league. American sports are run in a completely different way with salary caps to protect owners from paying too much money in wages. In the NBA for example most teams are operating on a 50% gross profit margin. There are no transfer fees. The only outgoing is player salaries.
I fear that these US owners are hiding behind PSR as a way to reduce their costs and make their clubs more profitable. Football clubs traditionally spend every penny they bring in, if not worse. English clubs could be less competitive in Europe if this continues. Weve seen the lack of transfer activity in recent windows and clubs selling their best young players to be compliant. It all feels anti competitive to me.
Not the stadium and most is not all, there is very little chance this goes ahead unless SJR has a bigger piece of it. There is all the current debt to refinance let alone taking on more, there will have to be movement in the ownership.