Not sensible, but if he truly wants the club to prosper, then yes.
He hasn't given the club £1.25bn he gave that to the rats.
Club ownership | Senior management team talk
- Thread starter golden_blunder
- Start date
He hasn't given the club £1.25bn he gave that to the rats.
We are one of the highest because of our on the pitch success in the past, not because there is massive growth potential. The name Manchester United carries wright but it has been diminishing over the years. So you are not going to get the x2 x7 ROI like what people think.
No, see this is what people are not understanding, its not about being bankrupt, its about sustainability.
If we want to build a new stadium, pay 100m transfer fees per season, those decisions have been made. Add to that to streamline operations.
Alot of companies make redundancies, its not just because they are going bankrupt, to think that is foolish.
Its called context which you have simply not understood.
There is a difference between buying something to make a quick profit and buying and buying something improving its value and then making a profit.
All the clubs I have mentioned were same as us on the pitch, none of those clubs had been bought for above market value. Heck none of them were bought for 5bn. So you think Manutd can make x5, x7 value on the club.. that is plain delusion. Especially, the way you think, SJR doesn’t care about the football only profit.
Let me explain one thing to you, I might be wrong, this is my opinion, to increase value of something and that too a football club, it has to be successful on the football pitch, you might think otherwise, but all those examples you keep giving me, the owners made them successful.
No, I don’t claim he is a unique Billionaire, I am saying if he makes a profit on the football club, it would mean we are doing well on the pitch, so at that point I couldn’t give a sh** if he makes profit. What I don’t agree with, is that he has bought the football club, going to trim out all the staff, make us bottom half and then in 5 years make a profit and walk away.
Can you please show me where I have said don’t criticise them? You can do what you want, I am having a look at the bigger picture. INEOS and SJR are not some pony business where they are duped… They like most people who go into sport know, to make the big money, you have to be successful, like every other business.
You must be deluded to think otherwise, if you invest in something, it has to do well to make money, its quite simple actually. It goes in literally everything in life. Footballers, make more money, the better they are, football clubs, make more money the better they are.
Ofcourse you don’t agree but think INEOS and SJR saw Chelsea, City owners have seen the clubs x7, so INEOS have blindly decided football clubs are so profitable lets buy the biggest and expect a x7 profit in 5 years
You're tilting at windmills and arguing against points that I didn't make.
You started off by saying that it's deluded to think that Ineos want to make money out of their investment in Man Utd.
Now you're arguing that they do want to make a profit, but over the longer term and that their profit and plan are contingent upon the club being successful. I agree, that was the point I was making originally that you took issue with.
As I said yesterday, our hope as supporters has to be that Ineos' strategy to make money aligns nicely with our desire to support a club that we are proud of. Some decisions they've made seem to support that, some seem not to. But ultimately time will tell.
My point that you took issue with is solely that we shouldn't be naïve and think that Ratcliffe is doing this because he just wants to do everything he can to save Man Utd and see us challenge for titles again, no matter the cost to him personally. He's a businessman. Every decision he makes will be with the intention to maximise shareholder value and his investment. We just have to hope that maximising his investment also involves taking a longer term view and taking steps that make the club something we can be proud of as supporters.
He's put 300 mill of his own money into the club. Maybe the idea is to get the club making money again to then pay it off.
My point is, when fans and you saying that he bought the club to make a profit only. I am told that thats why he is cutting jobs and costs, so that he can make a profit.
Thats not going to make him profit... my point is the best way to make profit is to win, be successful.
Mind boggling defending decisions like sacking 450 low wage workers or closing the cantine to save the money they had to pay for their stupid mistakes. Crazy that billionaires have fanboys.
Ornstern eh.
Orny
Tbf all we can do now is to have a laugh. At thsi point in time, it aint that far fetch.
The mad thing is, even parody accounts are making shit up that is believable because the cost cutting has got that bad, you wouldn’t put it past SJR to do such a thing!
I don't know, I am not a billionaire. And there isn't a chance in hell that I am going to become one. I like wasting time on an internet forum.
However, if you look at others of his ilk, age never ever is a roadblock for their avarice. I don't know of many who decided to just call it day and have an early retirement. Like, I mentioned in another post, Malcolm bought the club when he was the same age as Jimmy and no one thought he bought it to "give a crap".
You may have other reasons to believe that he is going to turn our fortunes around; however, I am not buying that at his age he only bought a stake because it was hurting him to see United suffering.
Glazers bought the club using the clubs money when the PL was booming. Two very different scenarios.
Fred the Red is the elephant in the room.
He's yet to be seen by Ratcliffe's Eye of Sauron so far.
He's yet to be seen by Ratcliffe's Eye of Sauron so far.
Because he didn't think United would be for sale any time soon? Because he'd tried to buy United 12 months earlier and the Glazers said no? (You don't remember him working with the United fans to try to get rid of the Glazers?) Chelsea was being sold for a very reasonable price too due to other circumstances, there is every chance they saw that as a good business opportunity.
Do you think he's made money on Nice or his other club? Genuine question because I don't know. He personally won't make money off United unless he takes dividends and sells up in the next few years. If he sold within the next few years he will probably make a loss unless a proper oil backed state (not fake Jassim) takes a real interest to buy at any cost.
Don't INEOS have some sort of clause whereby they have to increase their stake within the next 3 years or something like that? I remember this being said when they invested last time. Glazers had the power to sell to somebody else if INEOS don't buy the club within a certain timeframe, if I recall correctly.
Well done, you have proven my point. This isn't a money making investment.
Surely adidas supply the kits as part of the sponsorship agreement?!
How does one wrestle the club from their greasy money grabbing mitts without giving them the aforementioned escape route? Surely the only scenario where the Hlazers lose is the club going under?
There were rumors about that but I doubt these rumors were backed by anything tangible. What I am aware off is that
a- The club can't be sold by the Glazers up till December unless of course to INEOS
b- Afterwards the Glazers can sell (and push INEOS out with them) but INEOS has a first option if they want to match the bid
Ok, I knew there were some clauses which almost compelled INEOS to buy or risk losing out. It doesn't make sense because they're investing money and I'm not sure they'll get that back if the club is sold by the Glazers. I think with all of this we just need to wait and see what happens. I am trying to remain optimistic because their investment and everything else that is happening makes no sense unless they genuinely want to try to sort us out.
I think this is why sir Jim is pressing on with the stadium planning. The stadium investment and debt repayment will be central to INEOS increasing their stake in the club, eventually holding the majority ridding us of the yanks once and for all. Keep the faith!
We have to hope so. I don't get why some supporters can't see this. The Glazers flat out refused to sell the club entirely, this was literally our only lifeline to get rid of them in the long run.
50 years ago this week, we signed the brilliant Steve Coppell.... next week Ratcliffe will bid for a bottle of Copella cloudy apple juice
TBF to INEOS they got crippled by the class A shareholders who expected SJR to buy their shares at par to the Glazers shares despite the former shares are basically junk. That's ridiculous on a common sense level but seem to have some legal basis that in turn makes the club more expensive to buy. Hence due to time restrictions and unwillingness to match these stupid demands, the two went for a lightweight deal with very few clauses attached and no timeline on when and if the club would be fully owned by INEOS.
If I remember well the clauses are
a- The Glazers can't sell the club for the next 18 months
b- After 18 months if someone offered a fee that the Glazers like (let's say Elon Musk for 7B) then SJR would have the right to match it. If he doesn't match it though then he'll have to sell his own shares
c- three year freeze on dividends.
If what I read is true SJR doesn't want to buy more equity and the Glazers aren't willing to sell. Which makes sense from SJR since the chance of buying more equity isn't on the table at the moment
I believe that the plan at the moment is to make the club leaner and to give it an aim. Once all ducks are in order (club is not losing money, stadium plans are finalized, United might win a trophy or two etc) then the whole sale argument will reopen. Maybe its no coincidence that Berrada's plan to win the title by 2028 concedes with the Glazer's ability to start taking dividends once again. At that point INEOS would have a big decision to take ie to buy the entire club, sell the club or else sit there and see a big chunk of their hard work made vanish in form of dividends (ie the same dividends who crippled the club). SJR himself criticized dividends in the past.
So you think that he wanted to buy Chelsea to make money, but since that failed and United came on the market, he's now changed his approach and doesn't care about making money and just wants to get United back to the top?
He said exactly the same things when he was trying to buy Chelsea that people are pointing out to demonstrate he's not interested in the money: "This is not about money, it's about making Chelsea one of the truly elite clubs in the world, I have Ineos to make money" etc.
It's the normal playbook for sports investments these days and I don't think you can look to PR releases or press statements and find much truth. Asset managers and multinational corporations don't tend to be very popular, and their objective of increasing the value of their asset and seeking a return doesn't resonate with football fans who are concerned with safeguarding the identity of their club, playing well and winning things.
Honestly, I don't know. From a very quick Google he bought Nice for £100m and they are now worth more than £200m, but I have no idea if that's accurate. From the outside it looks like his purchase of Luzern and Nice were a combination of his belief that the value of football clubs would continue to rise, and his very clear and public hatred of paying taxes. He moved his company headquarters from London to Switzerland to avoid tax (and bought Luzern shortly after), and moved his personal residence to Monaco to avoid tax on his UK earnings before buying Nice. He paid more for Nice than Qatar paid for PSG and Frank McCourt paid for Marseille, and he was one of the only credible bidders happy to operate within the Glazer's sale parameters, so he clearly really wants to own football clubs for whatever reason.
As I've said earlier on, in my opinion, the reason is likely that he sees football clubs as a good investment. Maybe he looks to the insane prices of US sports teams and thinks that since football is a more international game, that's where football club valuations will eventually head. Football also has fans in important parts of the world that are still continuing to grow economically. It's also totally possible that there are other factors at play - he's tried buying Newcastle and Chelsea, so it's possible the prestige of owning a PL club matters to him. I'm sure it's some mix of a lot of reasons and just to be clear I'm not saying he only cares about making money or that his plan is to gut the club and sell it off piece by piece for a quick buck. I just think it's implausible to think that a billionaire who has been as hard nosed and ruthless as Ratcliffe would be putting Ineos' money on the line purely for the love of the game or the club.
You are making the connection too literal. Nobody is saying that he's cutting jobs and staff lunches because he literally wants to use those savings to line his own pockets, that's not how 'efficiency savings' (i.e. cuts) work.
He's making cuts because he believes that they will lead to the business running more profitably and sustainably in the long run.
You mention that the best way for them to profit for the club to be successful. That's true to an extent of course, and Ineos (just like the Glazers) would rather United be successful than not. However I don't think it's too farfetched to think that they may conclude that going toe to toe with state owned clubs like city and Newcastle will be too much financial risk for too little potential upside, and they will be happier with regular CL football and the occasional challenge for trophies if the stars align. I think they will be looking at Arsenal and Liverpool and trying to copy their structure and models rather than the city 'best in class in every category, no matter the cost', personally.
It remains to be seen whether he will be right, and whether their overall plan will be successful, and whilst we can speculate, it's not currently clear what their long term plan even is. Fans are understandably cautious when they see the two biggest decisions they have made (keeping Ten Hag in the summer and appointing then sacking Ashworth) as being disastrous.
To buy shares. Not into the club for free.
They were two very different propsositions, so yes. It's an age old saying that you don't buy a football club if you want to make money. Chelsea sold for around £4b and the Glazers weren't even entertaining offers to buy out the club. I don't see how he makes money on United, at least in the next 5 years. It will be a lot of expenditure on stadium & team, cost cutting etc. This pushes him further into the red as he's already overpaid and already invested on top of that. But the other issue is that, as I was discussing with @devilish above, he might actually be forced to buy the club or lose all of his investment within the next two years (or however long remains on that agreement).
It's just not a good investment, so why don't you believe him when he says that he can make better money elsewhere? It's true and it is clear as day when you look at it for what it is.
At this point it is a guessing game. If he was 20 years younger then I think I could perhaps believe this, but at 72 years old with billions behind him, I just don't see what is in it for him other than wanting to have fun with his money and try to build a legacy.
He got shares for all of it? If I remember correctly, when he bought into the club a circa £200m investment was committed. I don't remember hearing that he would receive more shares for it.
The old adage about not buying a football club if you want to make money isn't true at all any more.
When the Glazers bought United you could just about make that argument: most clubs were run as passion projects / vanity projects by local businessmen, and clubs that weren't named 'Manchester United FC' tended to make losses each year. Malcolm Glazer and United were an outlier at the time, and he bought United on the bet that Americans are better at capitalism (in particular marketing) than Europeans, and that he could exploit commercial opportunities that were unrealised / turned down by the old guard. He was right.
However, these days there is so much money in the game and it has such a strong global appeal that it is much more common for people to make money out of owning a football club. I mentioned it above but currently half of the PL and a third of all EFL teams are owned by Americans. These aren't people who really loved watching Match of the Day growing up, they are asset managers and equity firms who believe that they can make money. Some succeed, like the Liverpool and Villa owners, some don't, like Ellis Short or Randy Lerner.
You also have other factors that are too complicated / boring to get into here like inflation, declining returns from traditional investments, currency exchange rates, stagnating growth in most modern western economies and so on that make investing in sports teams a much more tempting proposition these days.
You might be right, and as I said I don't discount that he probably wants the prestige of owning a 'top' Premier League club, I just think it's insane to think it has nothing to do with money. If it wasn't, I don't see why he would be so hard nosed and ruthless with redundancies and perks. If it was truly just a passion project and to build a legacy, you'd have thought he'd rather spend a few crumbs of his billions on free staff lunches and a staff Christmas party instead of dealing with the bad press and criticism that taint his legacy / perception in the eyes of most fans.
It’s not really giving either. Unless me paying for my weekly shopping is considered to be me giving money to Tesco.
He bought stock. It wasn’t a a gift.
Did he receive anything in return for that?
Yes.
Yes he got shares for all of it. Zero chance that Ratcliffe would just gift that to the club.
Yep. Renovated training ground, plans for new stadium, exciting young coaching team appointed, resolving the club financial issues - just like sabotage!
Raised ticket prices. Sacked a DOF after a few months. Hired a coach and gave him no money to at least buy a few players to help. Sacked loyal staff . Sorry they are Glazer puppets. The Manchester United i fell in love with had principles and loyalty . If you are backing these Charltons then good luck. But its going down the toilet right now. Why should loyal staff members get sacked for The Glazers debt . Your debt not ours was a banner the fans had.
I thought that was 18 months after the initial partial sale to INEOS, so that would be June? Could be wrong.