Club ownership | Senior management team talk

C'est Moi Cantona said:
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.
Click to expand...
A valid point, and goes a away to explaining why the Glazers used so much debt in the LBO back in 2005 rather than an equity partner.
In truth, Ineos have greater control than a typical minority shareholder. They get to use the club's funds (which belong to all shareholders) to support an agenda set by them. If they are successful then all shareholders benefit according to their stake. The price for that extra control, you could argue, is the share premium the Glazers might demand.
In any event, we know from the records that the deal that brought JR on board wasn't the deal he wanted. It was a compromise. Both parties needed to be satisfied. The Glazers wanted a full sale or a minority equity partner. He wanted majority control via the Glazer B shares. All of his many offers, excepting the winning bid, had him acquiring all the B shares. The final unsuccessful bid was $33 per share for 60% of the B shares upfront with the remaining 40% to be purchased in 3 to 5 years through a series of binding put\call options. It was a generous bid.
The compromise- he finally settled on a 25% minority stake at $33 per share for B and A shares.
So all of his unsuccessful bids had him buying around 70% of the equity. The other shareholders could stick around, but he wanted the Glazers gone. No doubt that remains his position and the agreement provides a mechanism by which he can buy more of the Glazers' B shares. But neither party is obliged to buy or sell.
Hard to call the outcome. Only idek2346 knows.
 
FlawlessVictory88 said:
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.
Click to expand...
The clubs can't do transfers between each other, hence why Todibo couldn't be signed in the summer.

Nice aren't even allowed to make contact with United's ownership so technically Ratcliffe should be having no influence at all over them this season.
 
IRN-BRUno said:
The clubs can't do transfers between each other, hence why Todibo couldn't be signed in the summer.

Nice aren't even allowed to make contact with United's ownership so technically Ratcliffe should be having no influence at all over them this season.
Click to expand...
However these are UEFA rules and only apply when both clubs are participating in UEFA competitions (or maybe even the same competition, I'm not sure about that point). Was the same for Red Bull - Salzburg and Leipzig made weird deals all the time until Leipzig got qualified for the CL. Then they had to restructure things as both clubs wanted to participate in the CL, but not before.

So if this season ends without qualifying for Europe those limits wouldn't apply as far as I understand.
 
stefan92 said:
However these are UEFA rules and only apply when both clubs are participating in UEFA competitions (or maybe even the same competition, I'm not sure about that point). Was the same for Red Bull - Salzburg and Leipzig made weird deals all the time until Leipzig got qualified for the CL. Then they had to restructure things as both clubs wanted to participate in the CL, but not before.

So if this season ends without qualifying for Europe those limits wouldn't apply as far as I understand.
Click to expand...
I think that's correct. As things stand, after 30th June it would be possible to deal with them again.
 
So basically ratcliffe will sell anyone if the offer is good enough? How is he an improvement on the glazers (who were terrible). Scholes is right, what positive thing have they done for the club?

 
dinostar77 said:
So basically ratcliffe will sell anyone if the offer is good enough? How is he an improvement on the glazers (who were terrible). Scholes is right, what positive thing have they done for the club?

Click to expand...


There's literally nothing at all in that article.

No one's untouchable and they're not actively trying to sell any of those three. The rest is waffle with a click bait headline.
 
Withnail said:
There's literally nothing at all in that article.

No one's untouchable and they're not actively trying to sell any of those three. The rest is waffle with a click bait headline.
Click to expand...
Jackson is an arse. According to him, the entire squad is available if the price is right. When was the last time he wrote a piece showing United in a positive light? He should move to the red tops which is about the level of this article.
 
Some of you are so trumpian in your response to journalists.. its weird.

That Jackson piece does appear to be a club briefing to test the waters...

Does anyone think someone like Ratcliffe would hesitate to sell off the likes of Mainoo if it helped balance the books / he felt the price was right? Like he gives a rats arse about fans feelings.
 
Superden said:
Some of you are so trumpian in your response to journalists.. its weird.

That Jackson piece does appear to be a club briefing to test the waters...

Does anyone think someone like Ratcliffe would hesitate to sell off the likes of Mainoo if it helped balance the books / he felt the price was right? Like he gives a rats arse about fans feelings.
Click to expand...



Picked up by the Athletic too.
 
Withnail said:
There's literally nothing at all in that article.

No one's untouchable and they're not actively trying to sell any of those three. The rest is waffle with a click bait headline.
Click to expand...
Yeah, my immediate reaction was "no shit". Of course every player is sellable for the right price.
 
Whilst on the twitter thread some here are trying to shoot the messengers.
 
Certainly been a brief regarding this ‘open to offers for every single player’.

I find it a little odd but then again I guess they are essentially saying that nobody is safe / above the club etc.

Keeps everyone on their toes.

Or we are just financially fecked - probably this.
 
Foolsgold21 said:
Certainly been a brief regarding this ‘open to offers for every single player’.

I find it a little odd but then again I guess they are essentially saying that nobody is safe / above the club etc.

Keeps everyone on their toes.

Or we are just financially fecked - probably this.
Click to expand...
Our luck we will sell the ones we want to keep and keep the ones we want to sell.
 
They tried to force Rashford out but if he digs in they will turn to the next in line they can get big money for.
 
Foolsgold21 said:
Certainly been a brief regarding this ‘open to offers for every single player’.

I find it a little odd but then again I guess they are essentially saying that nobody is safe / above the club etc.

Keeps everyone on their toes.

Or we are just financially fecked - probably this.
Click to expand...
Who knows but if they’re playing a canny game by making out we’ve got feck all in order to keep everyone on their toes or to send some sort of message to the world that we’re skint so don’t take the piss with asking prices for your player, it seems a bit extreme and surely anyone with accounting knowledge would be able to debunk/varify that.

There’s obviously been a brief but the negativity around United at the moment is really darking me out, I had hoped to of seen the back of that with Ratcliffe and INEOS but it feels as bad as anytime under the Glazers and we’re still havr them cnuts around.

I think the talk of Mainoo being available to buy for the right amount is contract manoeuvring but if they actual go through with something like that it would be one of the lowest periods in the clubs history in my opinion, not because I think he’s a world beater (though I do think he has that potential) but the sort of message that will send out would be so bad, especially coming from a club whose history is based on bringing youth through to become first team players for the club, not to just sell on the make a quick buck.
 
I'm not sure where the logic is in briefing that we'll consider selling anyone. Firstly, it's not really believable, secondly it's a bad look and finally, it just creates unwanted focus on a situation that otherwise wouldn't have been talked about. Even if there is a price for Mainoo, there's no need to be briefing the press that.

Think it's all a bit of a non story but another bad PR move.
 
saivet said:
I'm not sure where the logic is in briefing that we'll consider selling anyone. Firstly, it's not really believable, secondly it's a bad look and finally, it just creates unwanted focus on a situation that otherwise wouldn't have been talked about. Even if there is a price for Mainoo, there's no need to be briefing the press that.

Think it's all a bit of a non story but another bad PR move.
Click to expand...
I disagree partly. I am sure it is a non-story, probably something mostly taken out of context. But the overall message isn't a negative one. I am pretty sure at Real or City there aren't any players the club would come out to say they are beyond selling. Consider it as strategic ambiguity. When SAF was the manager, everybody knew he was ready to sell as soon as something happened. This mindset is the right one as it is the opposite of player power.
 
Andy_Cole said:
Where are the Ratcliffe fan boys now?

Gone very quiet. You know who I’m talking about.
Click to expand...
If its true Mainoo is asking for 200k a week then id hope INEOS would sell him. He's a young DM that any other club would give 100k max. The days of daft wages are over. Get 70m and reinvest it.

The whole reason we are in this mess is because we have overpaid on player contracts. Now someone is actually sticking to their budget people are kicking off? United fans are completely deluded when it comes to market rate wages. Years of Woodward and Glazers have made people think 200k a week is a bog standard wage. Mainoo would be top earner at most clubs.

SJR cant win can he?
 
Last edited:
It’s all a bit silly really, we’re not going to sell Mainoo and we’re not going to pay him 200k a week.

Under the Glazers the club was strong armed by everyone over transfer fees, agent fees, wages for new players, wages for current players. This is a misguided attempt to try and change the narrative but it’s falling into easy clickbait and encourages over the top reactions and meltdowns.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.