Club ownership | Senior management team talk

tomaldinho1 said:
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?
Click to expand...

Not on the table, meaning they have zero offers on the table for minority ownership. Raine Group recommended a full sale and the only offers tendered prior to the INEOS flip were for full sale.
 
Hopefully they realize that the situation is unsustainable and they will all sell
 
Ali Dia said:
Anything the glazers preferred was always going to be poisonous for this club. They can't get anything right. It seems like this is just the latest example of them failing upwards financially but doing untold damage to the asset and the brand. They are vultures who sold the soul of the club for a few quid.
Click to expand...

That's why we needed a full sale and clean break from them. Any deal that kept them at the helm was a bad deal for us. Our decline started with their LBO and the debt they put on us which wasn't ours. It was Sir Alex and his genius that prevented us from our current state for a decade under their ownership. We have been on a constant free fall since his retirement and had finally reached a state where it became completely unsustainable to run the club without getting rid of the debt. There wasn't a better opportunity to get rid of them.

We needed someone with deep pockets who could come in a clear their debts. The club on itself makes plenty of revenue through sponsorships, gate receipts, TV and prize money to run itself. Those interest on debt payments/bond coupons is what is killing us. The "business run on debt" argument is so fecking stupid it's unbelievable. Good businesses take debt for two reasons: either to make capital investments to boost revenues or for working capital requirements. Our debt is neither of those and purely because of evil capitalistic greed. If the financial system wasn't so corrupt a LBO wouldn't have existed.

The Ineos buyout has done nothing but given the Glazers a lifeline to continue holding on to this club and bleeding it dry. Their stake purchase isn't going to clear the debts and they have no history of turning a football club around. Their two previous purchases have kept those clubs in the same state, if not deteriorated them. If they couldn't do with clubs in smaller leagues how can we expect them to change our fortunes in a much tougher league with us in a much worse state? I suspect Jimmy simply bought the club for prestige reasons or with the intention of selling his stake at a better valuation. The have made nothing but terrible decisions so far both on the the football and adminstrative side. They have wasted pounds and are now trying to save pennies by removing jobs held by ordinary folks or stalwarts like SAF from ambassadorial positions. It's a fecking shit show both on the pitch and on the optics side.
 
Cassidy said:
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
Click to expand...

Make this make sense... if INEOS cannot afford the asking price because the competition was too good... why would the Glazers sell to someone for lower?

£1.5bn deal is sweeter than a full sale?

The fact was the other fake bid just wasn't a real on on the table.
 
Cassidy said:
Not on the table, meaning they have zero offers on the table for minority ownership. Raine Group recommended a full sale and the only offers tendered prior to the INEOS flip were for full sale.
Click to expand...
Any proof of this? Seems extremely unlikely given their interest would be for getting the maximum value for the Glazers, their client, they would not care if it was a full sale or partial.

Ravitch officially said the Qataris were very wary of criticism for being seen to overpay, they verbally got to within 10% of the Glazer's $5b valuation but refused to negotiate. They never tendered anything, nor proved their funds (that doesn't mean they couldn't have done it but facts remain confirmed by the SEC) so if you mean they put forward bids below the Glazers' valuation, sure, as did the Spotify dude and many others supposedly but the only bidder, literally the only one, who met the valuation. There's a difference between me emailing someone on the sell side saying 'I will offer $5b' and me actually proving I have the money to do it.
 
tomaldinho1 said:
There's a difference between me emailing someone on the sell side saying 'I will offer $5b' and me actually proving I have the money to do it.
Click to expand...

Exactly the Qatari bid was just a social media bid, with all the promises about wiping debt, new stadium etc.... when in fact they were just there for the fun of it. Imagine calling INEOS broke, in the same sentence saying "Qatar would have done x,y,z" when they couldn't even match INEOS bid and show proof of funds.
 
RedRocket9908 said:
This was never proved to be true and if it was a state bid like a lot on here claim they would have had no problem producing the proof of funding
Click to expand...
Yep, if a serious Qatari wanted to buy us, we would have them as owners. The supposed interest was never from the individuals that hold real wealth.
 
pcaming said:
Yep, if a serious Qatari wanted to buy us, we would have them as owners. The supposed interest was never from the individuals that hold real wealth.
Click to expand...

The Glazers never had any intention of making a full sale, it was reported from the start of the process that Joel and Avram didnt want to sell their shares.
 
romufc said:
Make this make sense... if INEOS cannot afford the asking price because the competition was too good... why would the Glazers sell to someone for lower?

£1.5bn deal is sweeter than a full sale?

The fact was the other fake bid just wasn't a real on on the table.
Click to expand...

They didn't, they sold less shares for a higher total valuation.
 
tomaldinho1 said:
Any proof of this? Seems extremely unlikely given their interest would be for getting the maximum value for the Glazers, their client, they would not care if it was a full sale or partial.

Ravitch officially said the Qataris were very wary of criticism for being seen to overpay, they verbally got to within 10% of the Glazer's $5b valuation but refused to negotiate. They never tendered anything, nor proved their funds (that doesn't mean they couldn't have done it but facts remain confirmed by the SEC) so if you mean they put forward bids below the Glazers' valuation, sure, as did the Spotify dude and many others supposedly but the only bidder, literally the only one, who met the valuation. There's a difference between me emailing someone on the sell side saying 'I will offer $5b' and me actually proving I have the money to do it.
Click to expand...

Quite a few reports, including in the FT too.

You are corroborating what I said here, their offer was higher than Ratcliffs offer for full sale, this is why INEOS offered a new deal at a higher valuation which opened the door to minority ownership, it wasn't on the table until they realised they were outbid

By the way just to clarify nothing was confirmed by the SEC, except what United filed.
 
Cassidy said:
Quite a few reports, including in the FT too.

You are corroborating what I said here, their offer was higher than Ratcliffs offer for full sale, this is why INEOS offered a new deal at a higher valuation which opened the door to minority ownership
Click to expand...
Can you provide link?

I'm not - widely reported the glazers wanted minority sale Bloomberg link and the valuation was £5b for a full sale then, in summer '22, the same valuation that Ravitch officially gave once the deal was done. Qatar came back with multiple verbal bids, as confirmed by Raine, none of which touched the valuation given to them and refused to go to £5b (regardless of whether they could have proven the funds). Ineos took a different approach, first dropping their offer to buy 69% of the club to simply a 'majority', then dropping to 25% which they ended up paying just over £1b for.
 
tomaldinho1 said:
Can you provide link?

I'm not - widely reported the glazers wanted minority sale Bloomberg link and the valuation was £5b for a full sale then, in summer '22, the same valuation that Ravitch officially gave once the deal was done. Qatar came back with multiple verbal bids, as confirmed by Raine, none of which touched the valuation given to them and refused to go to £5b (regardless of whether they could have proven the funds). Ineos took a different approach, first dropping their offer to buy 69% of the club to simply a 'majority', then dropping to 25% which they ended up paying just over £1b for.
Click to expand...

I'll send one if I find it.

Ratcliff's full bid was not for £5bn, and the £5bn was not the original price. By the way, it was only after Washington NFL was sold that the price of £5bn came, which caused the issue for both bids, and both INEOS and Qatar had to raise offers.
I'm not disputing what you say here; my point was that Ratcliff moved to a minority offer when the price was raised, and his original offer was below Jasim's, this opened the door for the few Glazers who preferred a minority deal
 
Cassidy said:
I'll send one if I find it.

Ratcliff's full bid was not for £5bn, and the £5bn was not the original price. By the way, it was only after Washington NFL was sold that the price of £5bn came, which caused the issue for both bids, and both INEOS and Qatar had to raise offers.
I'm not disputing what you say here; my point was that Ratcliff moved to a minority offer when the price was raised, and his original offer was below Jasim's, this opened the door for the few Glazers who preferred a minority deal
Click to expand...
Please do.

I gave you a link from Bloomberg with the £5b valuation pre Washington sale.
 
Red in STL said:
They are not the owners, they are a minority shareholder, there's a huge difference
Click to expand...
I know. Read back through what you were responding to. I was asked what I would prefer to INEOS taking full control. Always better to understand what you’re replying to.
 
Insanity said:
That's why we needed a full sale and clean break from them. Any deal that kept them at the helm was a bad deal for us. Our decline started with their LBO and the debt they put on us which wasn't ours. It was Sir Alex and his genius that prevented us from our current state for a decade under their ownership. We have been on a constant free fall since his retirement and had finally reached a state where it became completely unsustainable to run the club without getting rid of the debt. There wasn't a better opportunity to get rid of them.

We needed someone with deep pockets who could come in a clear their debts. The club on itself makes plenty of revenue through sponsorships, gate receipts, TV and prize money to run itself. Those interest on debt payments/bond coupons is what is killing us. The "business run on debt" argument is so fecking stupid it's unbelievable. Good businesses take debt for two reasons: either to make capital investments to boost revenues or for working capital requirements. Our debt is neither of those and purely because of evil capitalistic greed. If the financial system wasn't so corrupt a LBO wouldn't have existed.

The Ineos buyout has done nothing but given the Glazers a lifeline to continue holding on to this club and bleeding it dry. Their stake purchase isn't going to clear the debts and they have no history of turning a football club around. Their two previous purchases have kept those clubs in the same state, if not deteriorated them. If they couldn't do with clubs in smaller leagues how can we expect them to change our fortunes in a much tougher league with us in a much worse state? I suspect Jimmy simply bought the club for prestige reasons or with the intention of selling his stake at a better valuation. The have made nothing but terrible decisions so far both on the the football and adminstrative side. They have wasted pounds and are now trying to save pennies by removing jobs held by ordinary folks or stalwarts like SAF from ambassadorial positions. It's a fecking shit show both on the pitch and on the optics side.
Click to expand...

I agree totally. It's so depressing. If anyone with deep enough pockets came in and cleared the debt and signed a few of the best young players in the world then said hey there has to be major cuts and unpopular decisions akin to what INEOS are doing right now that would still be a red flag as far as I'm concerned.

This is all besides the fact that INEOS have dabbled in sports and failed across the board apart from some shady cycling success. They enable the glazers and the debt to stay and grow. These guys are currently asset stripping us, raising prices and alienating the community that was created around the club and all while the glazers remain majority owners. It's literally like a nightmare that couldn't be any worse. These guys are the receivers in all but name. Surely we are too big to fall down much further but I can see us staying around battling for the EL places level for a long time to come if this is their approach. They don't seem to have a clue beyond let's give it a few years and see where we are then. It's just more venture capitalism on steroids and massive egos failing in a sport they don't understand but this is now the austerity version of the same thing.

The glazers have literally destroyed what made this club special in the first place and INEOS are carrying on their work
 
Last edited:
Ali Dia said:
I agree totally. It's so depressing. If anyone with deep enough pockets came in and cleared the debt and signed a few of the best young players in the world then said hey there has to be major cuts and unpopular decisions akin to what INEOS are doing right now that would still be a red flag as far as I'm concerned.

This is all besides the fact that INEOS have dabbled in sports and failed across the board apart from some shady cycling success. They enable the glazers and the debt to stay and grow. These guys are currently asset stripping us, raising prices and alienating the community that was created around the club and all while the glazers remain majority owners. It's literally like a nightmare that couldn't be any worse. These guys are the receivers in all but name. Surely we are too big to fall down much further but I can see us staying around battling for the EL places level for a long time to come if this is their approach. They don't seem to have a clue beyond let's give it a few years and see where we are then. It's just more venture capitalism on steroids and massive egos failing in a sport they don't understand but this is now the austerity version of the same thing.

The glazers have literally destroyed what made this club special in the first place.
Click to expand...

This is where the club is though, people aren’t lining up to throw billions at it. The club has been run into the ground so INEOS are doing what has to be done financially, the finances are going to take time to sort out. The financial problems have to be co fronted and improved rather than allowed to deteriorate further.

What they have to do is find a way to improve us on the pitch, but that’s not easy, even with more resources. The reality is we might be shit for a while and there’s a good chance we aren’t even at rock bottom yet.

The Glazers have killed the club off over a long period of time, there is no asset stripping or receivership but an attempt to fix what is a big mess from our weakest position on and off the pitch in the Premier League era.
 
Last edited:
The monies ran out and we're making redundancies and looking at freebie deals for the summer, I don't think we've ever been this far away from being a challenging club in the PL era than we are now there's no light at the end of the tunnel.

I reckon we'll be relegated within 3 years. The squad is shite and the vast majority overpaid so we cant even move them on. The manager has been employed with a certain system and there's no money to back him, you just have to wonder what in the feck is going on.

Everything is a recipe destined for disaster
 
Castia said:
The monies ran out and we're making redundancies and looking at freebie deals for the summer, I don't think we've ever been this far away from being a challenging club in the PL era than we are now there's no light at the end of the tunnel.

I reckon we'll be relegated within 3 years. The squad is shite and the vast majority overpaid so we cant even move them on. The manager has been employed with a certain system and there's no money to back him, you just have to wonder what in the feck is going on.

Everything is a recipe destined for disaster
Click to expand...

We won't be relegated but it's clear that there's no quick fix.

I expect the summer window to be quiet and I think we'll really struggle again next season. A lot of our fanbase don't seem to realise that the days of splashing £150/200m on players are gone and are still talking about signing some of the biggest names in Europe. We can't afford or attract that calibre of player right now so we need to try a very different strategy.

I still have a lot of reservations about Ratcliffe and INEOS, but this isn't their doing. They are trying to correct at least a decade of poor decisions on and off the pitch and I'd bet even they didn't fully appreciate the scale of the task in hand.

The summer of 2026 is where I will start to make more of a judgement on both the owners and the manager. There needs to be green shoots of recovery and lot's of good signs that we are improving on and off the field.
 
MaMa given red said:
We won't be relegated but it's clear that there's no quick fix.

I expect the summer window to be quiet and I think we'll really struggle again next season. A lot of our fanbase don't seem to realise that the days of splashing £150/200m on players are gone and are still talking about signing some of the biggest names in Europe. We can't afford or attract that calibre of player right now so we need to try a very different strategy.

I still have a lot of reservations about Ratcliffe and INEOS, but this isn't their doing. They are trying to correct at least a decade of poor decisions on and off the pitch and I'd bet even they didn't fully appreciate the scale of the task in hand.

The summer of 2026 is where I will start to make more of a judgement on both the owners and the manager. There needs to be green shoots of recovery and lot's of good signs that we are improving on and off the field.
Click to expand...

This is the way I largely see it as well, Ineos are trying to undo a decade of bad business decisions and the road for that to happen is going to be shit, unless I am wrong I don't see why they went with a manager like Amorim to do it as I don't think he'll be able to get a tune out of the current squad.

There is a thread about goalkeepers and who we can sign people are talking Donaruma and Maignan and I'm like am I only one who sees what is happening we are never going to get either of them unless they are at the end of their contracts or past their best
 
Gavinb33 said:
This is the way I largely see it as well, Ineos are trying to undo a decade of bad business decisions and the road for that to happen is going to be shit, unless I am wrong I don't see why they went with a manager like Amorim to do it as I don't think he'll be able to get a tune out of the current squad.

There is a thread about goalkeepers and who we can sign people are talking Donaruma and Maignan and I'm like am I only one who sees what is happening we are never going to get either of them unless they are at the end of their contracts or past their best
Click to expand...
all this talk of ineos trying to fix things. when the elephant in the room are the glazers, who if it wasnt for Ineos would now more likely than not be looking for an exit - because if Ineos are to be belived the club was on verge of bankruptcy. The interest payments and dividends and associated costs far outweigh any savings Ineos can make with non-playing staff, and theres not that much more to be made from the playing staff left, as replacements will have to be brought in to keep the club vaguely competitive. Unless the plan is to keep our heads above water just about for 5 years until a new stadium is almost ready, and then walk away with some profit, hoping that the team hasnt imploded in the meantime.

Ineos cant divorce themselves from the problems, in essence they are it.
 
Superden said:
all this talk of ineos trying to fix things. when the elephant in the room are the glazers, who if it wasnt for Ineos would now more likely than not be looking for an exit - because if Ineos are to be belived the club was on verge of bankruptcy. The interest payments and dividends and associated costs far outweigh any savings Ineos can make with non-playing staff, and theres not that much more to be made from the playing staff left, as replacements will have to be brought in to keep the club vaguely competitive. Unless the plan is to keep our heads above water just about for 5 years until a new stadium is almost ready, and then walk away with some profit, hoping that the team hasnt imploded in the meantime.

Ineos cant divorce themselves from the problems, in essence they are it.
Click to expand...

You do realise the Glazers are businessmen / women as well? So if wasn't INEOS, there were rumours of them getting funding from other sources like AC MIlan did.

This notion that if it wasn't for INEOS, they would have to sell does not run, they would have refinanced in other ways.
 
AngeloHenriquez said:
1958 Posting about planned protests for Arsenal on 9th March
Click to expand...
May as well. INEOS have been a bit shit havnt they?

Job losses, Ashworth, Ten Hag, Amorim. The financial situation. Ticket prices.

Then theres this Brailsford guy with his influence, even though he knows zilch about football.

They are starting wind up alot of people.
 
PlasticRed said:
May as well. INEOS have been a bit shit havnt they?

Job losses, Ashworth, Ten Hag, Amorim. The financial situation. Ticket prices.

Then theres this Brailsford guy with his influence, even though he knows zilch about football.

They are starting wind up alot of people.
Click to expand...

I've never had any faith in Ineos, I tend to be skeptical until proved otherwise as their track record from what I could see in football was nothing to be excited about. I wanted a full sale like most but irrespective I can deal with the cuts financially if that's what it has to be as we had been run with no fiscal discipline but in hiring & firing Ashworth, not moving Casemiro on and extending Ten Hag's contract they've cost us more than the average people they have fired, charity funds they have cut and it just all comes across very desperate, if you combine that with the ticket prices and the Fulham comments they just seem so detached from the average person. When it was announced Ineos were taking over the only glimmer of hopes I had was that there was a pathway to a full takeover at some point, a stadium repair/ rebuild and better communication but the stadium is no closer in over a year, we still hear nothing and Ratcliffe recently said he has no plans to take over the club as full owner so I don't see anything positive with their involvement, we still don't even have a technical director and we have essentially wasted a lot of money (Ashworth) to be in our current predicament of having no football director all while they claim to hire the best in class, yet they hire a new manager with a completely different to style to that of the squad and back him very little in January and I don't buy the "PSR" excuse, Barcelona, Chelsea and other clubs have all found ways round it to sell off assets or bring more revenue in or convert debt/ loans to shares and they aren't interested.

I'll be attending the protests.
 
Redstain said:
Said it back in January and now recent reports about INEOS debts and operational constraints are coming to light.

United needed more financially affluent owners given the very unique circumstances the Glazers put the club in. It's something only a massive injection of capital is going to resolve. Sir Jim doesn't have the resources.
Click to expand...

Yeah we definitely did, unfortunately these leeches either priced out interested parties or the ones who could afford it had no desire to buy
 
romufc said:
You do realise the Glazers are businessmen / women as well? So if wasn't INEOS, there were rumours of them getting funding from other sources like AC MIlan did.

This notion that if it wasn't for INEOS, they would have to sell does not run, they would have refinanced in other ways.
Click to expand...
They tried before and they failed (Apollo). Honestly I'd rather see us partially owned by Elliott group then ineos. They have a better football record and they are far more ruthless

I suspect that they'll be under far more scrutiny being American rather then local lad (tm)
 
Last edited:
Redstain said:
Said it back in January and now recent reports about INEOS debts and operational constraints are coming to light.

United needed more financially affluent owners given the very unique circumstances the Glazers put the club in. It's something only a massive injection of capital is going to resolve. Sir Jim doesn't have the resources.
Click to expand...
Rubbish, when people say “resolve” they mean right now (!) because they’re sick of being shite. It can very easily be resolved over a number of years. We have to be patient.
 
Offside said:
Rubbish, when people say “resolve” they mean right now (!) because they’re sick of being shite. It can very easily be resolved over a number of years. We have to be patient.
Click to expand...
Patient requires trust which is something they haven't earned, they haven't proved it at other clubs nor do they communicate anything to us to help the narrative. There are plenty of options they could take to make us instantly be in a better fiscal position but they don't want to put the money in, which is their choice but I think blindly being loyal is why not enough people questioned the Glazers buying us 20 years ago.
 
AngeloHenriquez said:
I've never had any faith in Ineos, I tend to be skeptical until proved otherwise as their track record from what I could see in football was nothing to be excited about. I wanted a full sale like most but irrespective I can deal with the cuts financially if that's what it has to be as we had been run with no fiscal discipline but in hiring & firing Ashworth, not moving Casemiro on and extending Ten Hag's contract they've cost us more than the average people they have fired, charity funds they have cut and it just all comes across very desperate, if you combine that with the ticket prices and the Fulham comments they just seem so detached from the average person. When it was announced Ineos were taking over the only glimmer of hopes I had was that there was a pathway to a full takeover at some point, a stadium repair/ rebuild and better communication but the stadium is no closer in over a year, we still hear nothing and Ratcliffe recently said he has no plans to take over the club as full owner so I don't see anything positive with their involvement, we still don't even have a technical director and we have essentially wasted a lot of money (Ashworth) to be in our current predicament of having no football director all while they claim to hire the best in class, yet they hire a new manager with a completely different to style to that of the squad and back him very little in January and I don't buy the "PSR" excuse, Barcelona, Chelsea and other clubs have all found ways round it to sell off assets or bring more revenue in or convert debt/ loans to shares and they aren't interested.

I'll be attending the protests.
Click to expand...
Good luck at the protests and to anyone else that is going. Full sale, debt fully repaid and a new start is what we need. Get these parasites out.
 
AngeloHenriquez said:
Patient requires trust which is something they haven't earned, they haven't proved it at other clubs nor do they communicate anything to us to help the narrative. There are plenty of options they could take to make us instantly be in a better fiscal position but they don't want to put the money in, which is their choice but I think blindly being loyal is why not enough people questioned the Glazers buying us 20 years ago.
Click to expand...
Plenty of people questioned the Glazers buying the club at the time, but you also have to remember the circumstances as well
 
MaMa given red said:
We won't be relegated but it's clear that there's no quick fix.

I expect the summer window to be quiet and I think we'll really struggle again next season. A lot of our fanbase don't seem to realise that the days of splashing £150/200m on players are gone and are still talking about signing some of the biggest names in Europe. We can't afford or attract that calibre of player right now so we need to try a very different strategy.

I still have a lot of reservations about Ratcliffe and INEOS, but this isn't their doing. They are trying to correct at least a decade of poor decisions on and off the pitch and I'd bet even they didn't fully appreciate the scale of the task in hand.

The summer of 2026 is where I will start to make more of a judgement on both the owners and the manager. There needs to be green shoots of recovery and lot's of good signs that we are improving on and off the field.
Click to expand...

I judged them when keeping Ten Hag, have a mountain to climb if they ever want to change my stance on their minority ownership
 
I can see the protests getting very hostile before the seasons out. I'd say in 4-5 weeks, we'll start hearing about ST prices being increased and won't be a small increase either I'd imagine.
 
I’ll say one thing about INEOS, they’ve certainly done a number on some of our fans. People talking like we should be happy with just staying up.
 
I think they'd have had a decent idea the the financial situation was dire but completely over estimated how competitive the current squad is. Which makes the financial situation even more difficult.
 
pascell said:
I can see the protests getting very hostile before the seasons out. I'd say in 4-5 weeks, we'll start hearing about ST prices being increased and won't be a small increase either I'd imagine.
Click to expand...

I agree, and rightly so. We have been far too tolerant as a fanbase and these owners have taken kindness and loyalty for weakness. I really wish we had a full sale so that we could close the Glazer chapter and move forward.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.