Club ownership | Senior management team talk

[BeforeKeanetherewasRobson]

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.

Honestly don’t know which figure/ratio you’re referring to. We had (2024) an Op Loss of £69m, a PBT of -£130m, a bottom line loss of £118m and cash balances went down £2.5m.

Not that any of these matter (in isolation) … EBITDA, CFADS and cash flow.

 

[BeforeKeanetherewasRobson]

They're trying to get most of it funded through the city.

Not the stadium, mayor has already confirmed tax payer won’t pay any stadium cost.

Govt/local authorities will contribute to infrastructure, there’ll be some private money and I’d guess we sell land to Peel (developer) who’ll build the housing (and maybe the retail/leisure) like they did with The Lowry site across the canal.

We’ll have to fund our bits.

 

[WPMUFC]

Sources with knowledge of United’s setup at the time, speaking on condition of anonymity to protect relationships, like others in this article, say it is correct that data was used across the club, particularly in the sports science department developed while Sir Alex Ferguson was still in charge back in 2007.


Data science, however, is said to have played little role in decision-making at the highest level.


Important calls were often made by United’s key decision-makers in isolation, meaning there were none of the formal decision-making processes that are necessary to incorporate sophisticated data analysis of the standard carried out at other Premier League clubs.


United did not hold any subscriptions with private data providers, such as Statsbomb or Opta, which supply metrics and location events for every on-ball action such as shots, passes and tackles that form the bedrock of any data department’s work.

More recent updates:

Yet despite the added manpower on top of those four permanent appointments, United’s data team is still considered small in comparison to the Premier League’s standard-bearers.

https://www.nytimes.com/athletic/6129400/2025/02/12/manchester-united-data-department/



We have no idea what we are doing as a football club.

 

[Andycoleno9]

I am still on whole that buying process. Was Jim's plan from the start to get only minority stake or he really couldn't afford that extra 500 million (or so) to get whole club? Of course that 500 million is enormous money but if you can afford to bid 4,5 billion for football club then that 500 million difference shouldn't be THAT big problem.

 

[acnumber9]

You can count the numbers of those people on your fingers

Indeed but that doesn’t make INEOS a good owner.

 

[acnumber9]

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."

Did you even read it yourself? It was part of the initial agreement. Meaning it was part of the deal to buy the club.

From the BBC.

“ The deal, which was agreed on Christmas Eve, also includes $300m (£237m) for future investment in the club's Old Trafford stadium. The initial $200m (£158m) of that commitment elevates Ratcliffe's shareholding to the 27.7% mark, with the remaining $100m ($79m) to follow by the end of the year.”

https://www.bbc.co.uk/sport/football/68355116.amp

Key words being elevates Ratcliffe’s shareholding.

 

[romufc]

Did you even read it yourself? It was part of the initial agreement. Meaning it was part of the deal to buy the club.

From the BBC.

“ The deal, which was agreed on Christmas Eve, also includes $300m (£237m) for future investment in the club's Old Trafford stadium. The initial $200m (£158m) of that commitment elevates Ratcliffe's shareholding to the 27.7% mark, with the remaining $100m ($79m) to follow by the end of the year.”

https://www.bbc.co.uk/sport/football/68355116.amp

Key words being elevates Ratcliffe’s shareholding.

So it is investment. Right then.

 

[acnumber9]

So it is investment. Right then.

In exchange for equity. Ordinarily that money would go to the previous owner. The Glazers could’ve trousered it all if they wanted. Ratcliffe/INEOS have not went above and beyond the way you are portraying.

The only party being in any way altruistic in that transaction are the Glazers. Obviously they did it because they couldn’t finance it themselves but that doesn’t change the facts of what happened.

 

[Drz]

In exchange for equity. Ordinarily that money would go to the previous owner. The Glazers could’ve trousered it all if they wanted. Ratcliffe/INEOS have not went above and beyond the way you are portraying.

The only party being in any way altruistic in that transaction are the Glazers. Obviously they did it because they couldn’t finance it themselves but that doesn’t change the facts of what happened.

Would that make it feasible for Jim to also get more equity in the club if he were to settle the debt?

 

[romufc]

In exchange for equity. Ordinarily that money would go to the previous owner. The Glazers could’ve trousered it all if they wanted. Ratcliffe/INEOS have not went above and beyond the way you are portraying. The only party being in any way altruistic in that transaction are the Glazers.

For a minority owner? They are in talks about a new stadium.....

Investment in the football club in exchange for equity... do you know where the other 1.2bn went? in the Glazers pocket.

How many minority owners do you know that will go for a new stadium and redevelopment of the area? 0.

 

[stefan92]

Would that make it feasible for Jim to also get more equity in the club if he were to settle the debt?

Yes, but the Glazers would have to agree to that.

 

[acnumber9]

For a minority owner? They are in talks about a new stadium.....

Investment in the football club in exchange for equity... do you know where the other 1.2bn went? in the Glazers pocket.

How many minority owners do you know that will go for a new stadium and redevelopment of the area? 0.

Talk is cheap. I will give them credit if and when anything positive happens. How many mimority owners run the football club? I’d say we’re in a fairly unique situation so there’s nothing really to compare it to.

The Glazers sold part of their business. That’s generally what happens. Not many sell what they own for free. What they have done is used a portion of the money to invest in the business. Which happens from time to time when a business needs investment and the owners don’t have the money required. INEOS haven’t put money into the club for nothing in return so this idea they’ve been good owners because of it is silly because actually it doesn’t happen without the Glazers giving up some of their asset for it. So who really is responsible for that money going into the club?

 

[acnumber9]

Would that make it feasible for Jim to also get more equity in the club if he were to settle the debt?

Possibly but I don’t see it being very likely.

 

[romufc]

Talk is cheap. I will give them credit if and when anything positive happens. How many mimority owners run the football club? I’d say we’re in a fairly unique situation so there’s nothing really to compare it to.

The Glazers sold part of their business. That’s generally what happens. Not many sell what they own for free. What they have done is used a portion of the money to invest in the business. Which happens from time to time when a business needs investment and the owners don’t have the money required. INEOS haven’t put money into the club for nothing in return so this idea they’ve been good owners because of it is silly because actually it doesn’t happen without the Glazers giving up some of their asset for it. So who really is responsible for that money going into the club?

No one saying they are good owners, you are assuming that.

I mean we have a massive debt... the Glazers have given them 1.6bn but they are not paying it off.

If you think the Glazers are the reason for investment then no point having this conversation.

 

[acnumber9]

No one saying they are good owners, you are assuming that.

I mean we have a massive debt... the Glazers have given them 1.6bn but they are not paying it off.

If you think the Glazers are the reason for investment then no point having this conversation.

The investment doesn’t happen unless the Glazers give up stock. That is just an indisputable fact. If you can’t see that there is no point having a conversation because you lack basic reasoning.

 

[romufc]

The investment doesn’t happen unless the Glazers give up stock. That is just an indisputable fact. If you can’t see that there is no point having a conversation because you lack basic reasoning.

Okay... so so what about the 1.6bn stock they gave up, where is that investment?

 

[acnumber9]

Okay... so so what about the 1.6bn stock they gave up, where is that investment?

Can you read? I literally said they agreed to a portion of the money going into the club. I have not and have never said they put it all in the club. They gave up some stock in return for investment in the club. That is an undeniable fact.

INEOS have invested nothing more than the money required to buy 27.7% of the club. That is also an undeniable fact. You keep acting like they have invested above and beyond what was needing to buy their equity. They haven’t.

 

[Vault Dweller]

The latest Talk of the Devils pod, discussing the state of the clubs finances is absolutely damning. From the amount heading out of the club on interest payments (and rising interest costs), still owed in transfer amounts, what has went to the Glazers previously, money that has had to be used on credit and what the club can actually afford in cash. Plus, apparently with all of this being owed in Dollars it means that is worse for us too? Won't claim to understand that fully but seems to be a thing too. The picture moving forward is bloody bleak, especially when coupled with the issues Ineos are facing in their other sporting interests (issues with payments not made to the All Blacks for sponsorship, Ben Ainsley is suing them?). Damn.

 

[romufc]

Can you read? I literally said they agreed to a portion of the money going into the club. I have not and have never said they put it all in the club. They gave up some stock in return for investment in the club. That is an undeniable fact.

INEOS have invested nothing more than the money required to buy 27.7% of the club. That is also an undeniable fact. You keep acting like they have invested above and beyond what was needing to buy their equity. They haven’t.

So do you think the £50m invested in Carrington is part of that 27.7%?

I can read.... I just dont sit here making excuses for the Glazers saying they are investing in our football club... when they have done nothing to show they are investing.

 

[GiveItToGi...nowait]

The latest Talk of the Devils pod, discussing the state of the clubs finances is absolutely damning. From the amount heading out of the club on interest payments (and rising interest costs), still owed in transfer amounts, what has went to the Glazers previously, money that has had to be used on credit and what the club can actually afford in cash. Plus, apparently with all of this being owed in Dollars it means that is worse for us too? Won't claim to understand that fully but seems to be a thing too. The picture moving forward is bloody bleak, especially when coupled with the issues Ineos are facing in their other sporting interests (issues with payments not made to the All Blacks for sponsorship, Ben Ainsley is suing them?). Damn.

The only hope I cling to in this situation is that severe constraints often drive more creative decision-making. In the past, we could just throw cash at problems, but now we’ll have to think strategically about solutions. Ironically, being forced to operate with less money might actually lead to smarter recruitment—fewer expensive flops, more focus on scouting and development, and a better long-term approach.

 

[acnumber9]

So do you think the £50m invested in Carrington is part of that 27.7%?

I can read.... I just dont sit here making excuses for the Glazers saying they are investing in our football club... when they have done nothing to show they are investing.

Yes. It’s literally in every single article about his investment.

I’m not making excuses. I’m stating what has factually happened. You’re the one making excuses for INEOS.

 

[Cassidy]

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."

I didn’t ignore it. If you did your research you would know the additional 245m was exchanged for equity. The post specifically talked about investment without exchange of equity.

You keep making accusations which are off the mark

 

[Cassidy]

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

The redevelopment will cost approximately £2bn. They are not going to invest in my opinion. So either they will need to get heavily diluted or they will sell.

 

[Cassidy]

I am still on whole that buying process. Was Jim's plan from the start to get only minority stake or he really couldn't afford that extra 500 million (or so) to get whole club? Of course that 500 million is enormous money but if you can afford to bid 4,5 billion for football club then that 500 million difference shouldn't be THAT big problem.

It seems what happened was not all Glazers wanted a full sale and SJR gave them the option of a minority shareholder (at least in the short term)

 

[romufc]

Yes. It’s literally in every single article about his investment.

I’m not making excuses. I’m stating what has factually happened. You’re the one making excuses for INEOS.

I didn’t ignore it. If you did your research you would know the additional 245m was exchanged for equity. The post specifically talked about investment without exchange of equity.

You keep making accusations which are off the mark

Ofcourse... you think that as a minority owner... INEOS should give the club free money in return for nothing..

Invest money... increase the clubs value and let the Glazers take the profit...

Investment for equity is investment into the club.. its in the name.

The Glazers have had a decade to invest yet you two think the Glazers are the ones investing in the club.

 

[acnumber9]

Ofcourse... you think that as a minority owner... INEOS should give the club free money in return for nothing..

Invest money... increase the clubs value and let the Glazers take the profit...

Investment for equity is investment into the club.. its in the name.

The Glazers have had a decade to invest yet you two think the Glazers are the ones investing in the club.

I don’t expect them to. What I do expect is United fans to not big up and make excuses for owners who have done nothing but cut costs and make mistakes since they’ve been here. Stop pretending they’ve invested money out of the goodness of their heart.

 

[Cassidy]

Ofcourse... you think that as a minority owner... INEOS should give the club free money in return for nothing..

Invest money... increase the clubs value and let the Glazers take the profit...

Investment for equity is investment into the club.. its in the name.

The Glazers have had a decade to invest yet you two think the Glazers are the ones investing in the club.

If you bothered to read my previous post I said that United is uniquely one of the only clubs where owners (majority or minority) have not invested into the club outside of purchase or equity stake. We are in a minority in the PL on this, I am not sure why pointing out this fact gets you enraged. Its a fact simple as deal with it.

Expecting INEOS to act how others have acted at other PL clubs is reasonable in my opinion. Not to mention the whole premise of requiring footballing control was to facilitate this according to their briefings prior to completion of purchase.

With respect to the Glazers I think everyone can agree the best thing for United is for them to be far away from the club and sell their stake, they are nothing but leeches, not sure why you insist in bringing them up.

Most sane fans wanted a full sale and Glazers gone. They were under immense pressure financially and INEOS gave them an out with their switch to minority investment. Maybe it will work out in the end longer term with Glazers going, maybe it will not.

 

[romufc]

I don’t expect them to. What I do expect is United fans to not big up and make excuses for owners who have done nothing but cut costs and make mistakes since they’ve been here. Stop pretending they’ve invested money out of the goodness of their heart.

Thats the thing you are assuming that anyone has said INEOS has invested money out of goodness..

 

[Vault Dweller]

The only hope I cling to in this situation is that severe constraints often drive more creative decision-making. In the past, we could just throw cash at problems, but now we’ll have to think strategically about solutions. Ironically, being forced to operate with less money might actually lead to smarter recruitment—fewer expensive flops, more focus on scouting and development, and a better long-term approach.

You might be right. But will be a hell of a lot of short term pain.

Ultimately, every single bit traces back to the Glazers.

 

[acnumber9]

Thats the thing you are assuming that anyone has said INEOS has invested money out of goodness..

You keep saying they invested above what was required to gain equity. Instead of just admitting you are wrong you make up arguments nobody has made to deflect from that fact.

 

[romufc]

With respect to the Glazers I think everyone can agree the best thing for United is for them to be far away from the club and sell their stake, they are nothing but leeches, not sure why you insist in bringing them up.

Most sane fans wanted a full sale and Glazers gone. They were under immense pressure financially and INEOS gave them an out with their switch to minority investment. Maybe it will work out in the end longer term with Glazers going, maybe it will not.

Oh sorry for bringing up Majority owners in a club ownership thread... Its totally out of order for me to talk about the owners in an ownership thread.

INEOS wanted a full sale too, the fact that Glazers didn't, there isn't much anyone can do...

If really like a house and the owner isn't willing to sell it, what can I do?

 

[Gordon'sHill]

You keep saying they invested above what was required to gain equity. Instead of just admitting you are wrong you make up arguments nobody has made to deflect from that fact.

INEOS have made a massive mistake over ETH, in terms of not sacking him, then I fear another in going for an unproven system manager, time will tell on the latter. Both these things have cost the club money that they didn't have. But Radcliffe has still put money into the club, unlike the Glazers. Lets not lose sight of this. The Glazers have cost the club over £1bn in interest, management fees, dividends etc. Then the £1.25bn Radcliffe paid for his initial stake could have wiped out our debt and part funded the stadium, but it went to the Glazers primarily as the major shareholders. They are bleeding this club dry and the reason ultimately people are being sacked. Never lost sight of this.

 

[Cassidy]

Oh sorry for bringing up Majority owners in a club ownership thread... Its totally out of order for me to talk about the owners in an ownership thread.

INEOS wanted a full sale too, the fact that Glazers didn't, there isn't much anyone can do...

If really like a house and the owner isn't willing to sell it, what can I do?

You are free to discuss the Glazers in the thread, constantly replying to conversations about INEOS with Glazers is a bit silly.

Actually, the financial status of the Glazers meant they had to do something, they were able to move towards minority ownership because it was on the table.
Buy 25% of the house right?

 

[Cassidy]

INEOS have made a massive mistake over ETH, in terms of not sacking him, then I fear another in going for an unproven system manager, time will tell on the latter. Both these things have cost the club money that they didn't have. But Radcliffe has still put money into the club, unlike the Glazers. Lets not lose sight of this. The Glazers have cost the club over £1bn in interest, management fees, dividends etc. Then the £1.25bn Radcliffe paid for his initial stake could have wiped out our debt and part funded the stadium, but it went to the Glazers primarily as the major shareholders. They are bleeding this club dry and the reason ultimately people are being sacked. Never lost sight of this.

I agree with this

 

[acnumber9]

INEOS have made a massive mistake over ETH, in terms of not sacking him, then I fear another in going for an unproven system manager, time will tell on the latter. Both these things have cost the club money that they didn't have. But Radcliffe has still put money into the club, unlike the Glazers. Lets not lose sight of this. The Glazers have cost the club over £1bn in interest, management fees, dividends etc. Then the £1.25bn Radcliffe paid for his initial stake could have wiped out our debt and part funded the stadium, but it went to the Glazers primarily as the major shareholders. They are bleeding this club dry and the reason ultimately people are being sacked. Never lost sight of this.

Money has gone into the club through the sale because the Glazers agreed that. For INEOS it didn’t cost them any extra. They paid the price that was required to gain 27.7% of the club. In agreement with the Glazers some of that money went into the club instead of to the previous owners. That is better for INEOS than just paying it all to the Glazers. The only party to sacrifice in that transaction were the Glazers.
This isn’t said to lavish praise on them. I just don’t understand why INEOS are getting so much kudos for it.

 

[romufc]

You are free to discuss the Glazers in the thread, constantly replying to conversations about INEOS with Glazers is a bit silly.

Actually, the financial status of the Glazers meant they had to do something, they were able to move towards minority ownership because it was on the table.
Buy 25% of the house right?

Because they are owners of the club who have caused us to be in such a mess, leaving INEOS to sort it out.

Yes, so if I really liked the house and realised they are not selling but they mention... you could buy 25 with a view to buy us out over time.

Its not INEOS who went in with straight 25% share.. its the Glazers who changed their mind.

 

[Cassidy]

Because they are owners of the club who have caused us to be in such a mess, leaving INEOS to sort it out.

Yes, so if I really liked the house and realised they are not selling but they mention... you could buy 25 with a view to buy us out over time.

Its not INEOS who went in with straight 25% share.. its the Glazers who changed their mind.

Actually INEOS realised they could not afford the asking price (due to competition), so they raised their overall valuation (to outprice any other party) and moved their deal to minority ownership (something that was not on the table for the Glazers)
Of course the Glazers changed their mind, it was a fecking sweet deal for them

 

[tomaldinho1]

I am still on whole that buying process. Was Jim's plan from the start to get only minority stake or he really couldn't afford that extra 500 million (or so) to get whole club? Of course that 500 million is enormous money but if you can afford to bid 4,5 billion for football club then that 500 million difference shouldn't be THAT big problem.

He got what the Glazers were willing to part with, not a penny more, and paid a premium for it.

Take a step back, this is what has happened:
Minority investor comes in with operational responsibilities to a company that has made a loss multiple years in a row. Makes structural changes to the club, makes large cost cutting decisions across the club as a whole and begins a process of upgrading infra and trying (we will see how this spans out, I am pessimistic) to get a stadium built.

If this was not United, it would not even be news. I work in finance and there are mass redundancies almost every year, if there is underperformance there are redundancies. That doesn't make it better for those affected, nor does it make it welcome news but we have not been 'successful' for a long time and the glazers have not put a penny into the club which means we have been eating ourselves to stay alive in these last years of massive overspending/underperformance.

Actually INEOS realised they could not afford the asking price (due to competition), so they raised their overall valuation (to outprice any other party) and moved their deal to minority ownership (something that was not on the table for the Glazers)

Was literally what they originally wanted, broadly reported by all sources. If someone wants a minority investment and then ends up with a minority investment, guess what they were angling for all along?

 

[Berbasbullet]

Actually INEOS realised they could not afford the asking price (due to competition), so they raised their overall valuation (to outprice any other party) and moved their deal to minority ownership (something that was not on the table for the Glazers)
Of course the Glazers changed their mind, it was a fecking sweet deal for them

*and the competition couldn’t prove they had the funds to pay.

 

[Ali Dia]

It's all fruit of the poisonous tree anyway wherever the glazers are involved. They couldn't even sell us properly. It's just a slow death under their leadership.