Club ownership | Senior management team talk
- Thread starter golden_blunder
- Start date
Good post, completely agree.
Arguably he already has ‘full control’ and if he gains the overall majority of shares then he won’t need 100%.
The importance of owning 100% of the club was a PR lie fed to fans by the Qatari bid. It’s not how business works. Even the Glazers don’t have and have never had 100% - they are merely the largest percentage.
Edit - I might even go as far as to say it is in our interest that INEOS never own 100% (or anyone else for that matter) because in the event things go seriously south it would be nigh on impossible to wrestle ownership of the club away from them.
What has he said?
https://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/ar...n-Jim-Ratcliffes-controversial-beach-pad.html
BROADBAND BOTHER Britain’s richest man Sir Jim Ratcliffe has asked neighbours to help fund his new high-speed internet connection.
Jim McScrooge
BROADBAND BOTHER Britain’s richest man Sir Jim Ratcliffe has asked neighbours to help fund his new high-speed internet connection.
Jim McScrooge
You don’t become a billionaire by spending all your own money!
He probably illegally streams United matches. Can't be bothered paying for cable.
I am not disagreeing. But we are talking about "full takeover" and what that means. A full takeover means "full" or "complete" control. 100% ownership of the equity.
The Glazers had 100% from 2005 to 2012. Probably our best spell financially especially in terms of revenue growth. That isn't a PR lie. And I am not making the point in support of a 100% ownership ticket, but more to counter
the steadfastness with which you stated " The importance of owning 100% of the club was a PR lie fed to fans by the Qatari bid."
JR may have "full control" on the footballing side (whatever that means) but on the Board he is a minority shareholder.
He may become a majority shareholder and one mechanism by which he can is outlined in the governance agreement. Having read the bloody thing, I provided a summary on here at the time.
SJR is going to buy more shares at some point, he’s not going to spell it out to Andy Mitten though.
At some point something has to be done about the debt in order for the club to move forward. They have to refinance about 400m of it in 2 years which will not be at the very low interest rates they are currently.
The debt will just increase if it is refinanced as will interest payments, it’s already a handicap for the club as it is and only so much can ever be done whilst it remains that way.
At some point something has to be done about the debt in order for the club to move forward. They have to refinance about 400m of it in 2 years which will not be at the very low interest rates they are currently.
The debt will just increase if it is refinanced as will interest payments, it’s already a handicap for the club as it is and only so much can ever be done whilst it remains that way.
Last edited:
If you talk about United being an amazing team, you are a boomer. Like an old man reminiscing about how good they were when they were young (you weren't that good btw). Pretty soon if you speak about United like that you'll have to specify the decade. It's been that long. 
DM really going to town on Ratcliffe. They must want Qatar or Saudi. Ideological reasons. Having United as such a vehicle would blow their minds.
Perhaps Trump will swoop in on deadline day and buy us. Putin, perhaps. Kim Jong Un is another contender. I mean, the mass starvation of his people may be wrong and all, but it will swell our transfer kitty. Priorities, people.
The whole sheboodle is a sad state of affairs.
Sun reported it too, but I decided to post DM as it's probably more credible, if any.
Weird. Eating one of its own.
Ratcliffe has defected to Labour.
The Mail will never let such a slight go unpunished, especially from their own.
What next? Regrexiteer next?
The Mail and other right wing rags have always seemingly been pro state ownership to be fair.
A strange quirk of modern Conservativism is the willingness to sell UK assets to nation States.
That's why it was so weird when people who were opposed to the Qatar/Jassim bid were labelled as racists.
Ratcliffe is clearly an uber Tory but probably has more in common with the right of the Labour Party than whatever direction the the Tory Party is going in.
The only thing sadder than him needing to even write that article, are the people who have been sucked into actually blaming Ineos whilst forgetting about the Glazers.
I hope it's Ineos that got Ducker to write this, as I don't believe for one second that the relasionship between SJR and the Glazers is anything like is made out to be.
Last edited:
If anyone ever asks about Uniteds main issue send this article
Villains indeed.
We are in such a mess even new owners wouldn't be a panacea. We're going to have to suffer some pain for a long while before we can see the green shoots. IMO, it's too early to judge Ineos, all we can do is hope they have made the correct installments on the footballing side of things, you know, trying to build an identity of how we want to play, who we want to sign and where we want to be in five years time.
Lot of pressure on Jason Wilcox, he seems to be the only one of the 'grown ups' with a football background after the sudden departure of Ashworth.
Does anyone know if he has the wherewithal to steer United in the right direction?
We are in such a mess even new owners wouldn't be a panacea. We're going to have to suffer some pain for a long while before we can see the green shoots. IMO, it's too early to judge Ineos, all we can do is hope they have made the correct installments on the footballing side of things, you know, trying to build an identity of how we want to play, who we want to sign and where we want to be in five years time.
Lot of pressure on Jason Wilcox, he seems to be the only one of the 'grown ups' with a football background after the sudden departure of Ashworth.
Does anyone know if he has the wherewithal to steer United in the right direction?
Yep. Obviously I understand the frustrations over the cost cutting but there's a good reason behind why it's being done. The club has been run into the ground.
The Glazers drove the truck in the ditch, but some United fans are complaining about INEOS who are trying to tow it out in one piece.
The Telegraph strikes me as more Ratcliffe's type. You know? Right-leaning, part of the club, low regulation, employer first, patriotic for all the wrong reasons.
Many of the Ineos critics are pro-Qatar, so it's hard to get a good gauge.
As a United fan, I want to go back to the moment where I felt optimism and happiness for the future of my club. I would have never imagined the state of the club it is in now. Man Utd are cursed.
So it's legacy then? Get into the club by buying necessary shares, cement your legacy by building a stadium forever linking your name to it, then selling the entire thing to a state backed bid when the club's valuation rises closer to that valuation they think it will get to within just a few years.
It wasn't really a clause that put pressure on INEOS though. If anything it was a clause that protected INEOS investment by ensuring that they were the only ones who could buy shares if the Glazers turned out to be two-faced on their deal. While for the Glazers first refusal ensured that if the Qataris came in with a bid that was too good to refuse, they wouldn't be locked into an agreement on a lesser price - they would get their money either way.
I think ultimately the Glazers, Joel and Malcolm in particular, are interested in remaining in control of the shares until after the US WC - when they are reportedly convinced that the valuation of football clubs will skyrocket - potentially driven by the creation of the Super League. Ratcliffe's deal allowed them to stick around, gave Ratcliffe a chance at the Man Utd legacy he seems interested in and gave them both a way to make a ton of money a few years down the line when either a state backed actor or a massive US company comes in and pays a premium. Amazon for instance, might be interested in owning an iconic franchise if the Super League became a thing.
This has always been my hypothesis as well. The Glazers are convinced the Super League in an inevitability - getting INEOS on board provides them with the capital they need to get through the next few years, until it finally happens and they can realize those gains.
I am not sure what sort of legacy SJR thinks he will be leaving behind, if he is the one that allows the Glazers to hang around until after the US World cup and beyond then that is what he will be remembered for. It's an interesting take though, but I just don't see it.
I also don't see why SJR would want to be the one who does all the dirty work for the next 5-6 years to raise the value of the club for just 27 % of the return, or more likely still raise the cost of the remaining shares they want to buy themselves by a stupid amount.
It was always a crazy deal on paper for Ineos if they don't take full control in the near future. It's a bit like people who own shared ownership houses, why would they want to invest a load of money into their house until the own it outright, as anything they do to it before will only benefit the other shareholder alot more than them when it's sold, or cost them even more when they want to buy more shares.
Last edited:
Don't worry. He will in full control before end of this year and will own a majority stake.
I've seen a number of posts regarding our potential spending in this window and the summer but something I haven't seen mentioned is the potential to sell academy players to Nice (also owned by SJR) to navigate PSR and allow us more room for transfers.
Sell Biancheri to Nice for 15m, this would hypothetically allow us to buy Cunha for 60m as long as the transfer was amortized over at least 4 years.
Another transfer which could really help us is Angel Gomes. He's a free agent this summer so if United sign and then immediately sell him to Nice for 25m. It would also be pure profit as he's an academy player and this would open up 100m transfer again assuming it's amortized.
The majority of Chelsea's spending has been funded by selling academy players.
Sell Harry Amass to Nice for 20m and insert a buyback clause for 21m. Once again it opens up a world of possibilities for us in the transfer market.
Sell Biancheri to Nice for 15m, this would hypothetically allow us to buy Cunha for 60m as long as the transfer was amortized over at least 4 years.
Another transfer which could really help us is Angel Gomes. He's a free agent this summer so if United sign and then immediately sell him to Nice for 25m. It would also be pure profit as he's an academy player and this would open up 100m transfer again assuming it's amortized.
The majority of Chelsea's spending has been funded by selling academy players.
Sell Harry Amass to Nice for 20m and insert a buyback clause for 21m. Once again it opens up a world of possibilities for us in the transfer market.
Ronaldo retires, gets his Saudi mates to buy United and puts him in as the chairman.
Assume this is a joke but what do Nice get out of it?
How does Nice pay for those players without breaking FFP rules themselves?
Nice is owned by SJR.
He would be effectively be paying himself 15m for Biancheri thus opening up far more cash for United to spend in the summer window.
Nice would also get some of the very best United academy players developing there, if they go on to perform at a level where we want them back they'll have crushed as Greenwood currently is.
Do something similar with Gore/Chido/Goodwill etc
Jim’s had his moment in the sun, the record books will have his name alongside UTD owners, mission accomplished.
Nothing screams legacy like building something. Putting down the greatest stadium in the country is definitely a possible legacy project. 50 years from now the Glazers are a footnote, while Ratcliffe building a stadium will live for a long time. I wouldn't be surprised to see us in a much improved situation should the Super League materialise, transfer fees are replaced by cap management and PSR - which is limiting us substantially - becomes entirely irrelevant. It will be the Sir Alex Era, Glazer era (failure), Ratcliffe era (stadium and rebuild), and whatever comes after (Super League era?).
If Glazer asessments of future valuation is correct, his investment of 1.3bn would give him a return of 2.4bn possibly as soon as 2027 and a stadium built during his era. Maybe also the revitalisation of Man Utd given a bit more time. Legacy and profit.