Club ownership | Senior management team talk

[acnumber9]

If INEOS invest it would dilute the Glazers ownership no? Without them receiving cash?

Because that’s the way the deal was agreed. There was nothing to stop INEOS paying the going rate and agreeing to invest extra without equity in return.

 

[C'est Moi Cantona]

But why overpay instead of paying the going rate and investing the extra are they’ve acquired their stake? Explain the logics

I don’t know their motivation. Possibly because they think the extra money invest will grow the asset further. Whatever the motive, it’s an unequivocal fact that they gave up equity for the all the money that was invested.

Because Qatar were willing to pay more than the going rate for a full purchase, so Ineos paid more than they would per share but just for 25 %, PLUS extra to invest in Carrington.

The Glazers are then allowed to insert the 18 month buy the rest of our shares or we'll sell elsewhere caveat just for good measure.

Everything is stacked in the Glazers favour here, which is why I say Ineos's motivation for the purchase goes way beyond any potential future financial gain.

 

[acnumber9]

Because Qatar were willing to pay more than the going rate for a full purchase, so Ineos paid more than they would per share but just for 25 %, PLUS extra to invest in Carrington.

The Glazers are then allowed to insert the 18 month buy the rest of our shares or we'll sell elsewhere caveat just for good measure.

Everything is stacked in the Glazers favour here, which is why I say Ineos's motivation for the purchase goes way beyond any potential future financial gain.

None of that answers why they would deliberately overpay so they could invest the extra in infrastructure instead of just paying what the Glazers wanted and agreeing to fund the training ground in addition.

Whatever way you want to slice it, the Glazera gave up equity and agreed for some of that money to be spent on the club instead of pocketing it. None of this is to say they deserve praise for that. It’s just a fact that they have given away some of their asset for it. INEOS have given up money and got equity in return.

 

[AneRu]

Yes, the Glazers would turn down investment into their asset for nothing.

And why would Ineos do that if they don't get any equity? And why would the Glazers allow for the dilution of their equity for nothing? Nothing in their behavior previously lends any credibility to the assumption that the Glazers could simply allow Ineos to put up more money for the benefit of the club, gain more equity, whilst they get nothing.

 

[Coops73]

Because Qatar were willing to pay more than the going rate for a full purchase, so Ineos paid more than they would per share but just for 25 %, PLUS extra to invest in Carrington.

The Glazers are then allowed to insert the 18 month buy the rest of our shares or we'll sell elsewhere caveat just for good measure.

Everything is stacked in the Glazers favour here, which is why I say Ineos's motivation for the purchase goes way beyond any potential future financial gain.

Do we know when this comes into affect ?

 

[acnumber9]

And why would Ineos do that if they don't get any equity? And why would the Glazers allow for the dilution of their equity for nothing? Nothing in their behavior previously lends any credibility to the assumption that the Glazers could simply allow Ineos to put up more money for the benefit of the club, gain more equity, whilst they get nothing.

They wouldn’t. That’s my point. They haven’t done it out of the goodness of their heart. They did it to gain a bigger share of the club. The Glazers literally did give up shares and agreed to a portion of the money going to investment in the infrastructure.

 

[We Are Manchester United]

“They” have not put money into transfers time and time again, though. The money was generated by the club, and the club could have spent even more (particularly during the late 2000s when we had the chance to build a long-lasting dynasty, and on infrastructure) if not for the Glazers' debt, dividend and strategic review payments.


Yes, they are to blame; the buck stops with them, ultimately. The fact that they couldn't find highly competend people to run the club, even after a decade, speaks to their failings as owners of the sporting institution. One might argue that Manchester United has been the most under-performing club of the modern era (relative to revenues), as a direct consequence of their ownership of the club. Matter of fact, I can't think of even one way they've benefited the club (in contrast with the Agnellis at Juventus, Berlusconi at Milan, Mansour at Manchester City, Abramovich at Chelsea et cetera). There's only a loooong list of cons with this lot.

Fair points. Well made.

 

[Chumpsbechumps]

All the information is available online. Go have a look at it and make a judgement for yourself if you guys think the club has loads of money.

We are missing out on CL money, spending over a 1bn in the last 8 years on transfers, paying astronomical wages for championship standard players and you guys think that we are financially sound?

Oh this is interesting. A conspiracy theory. I like it.

Hold on, who said we are financially sound ?

We’ve been throwing stupid money away since Ferguson left. I’ve been complaining about how it’s been managed while morons professed “Woodward doesn’t coach the team so has no impact on it”.

So I’m not saying we should still be able to go out and buy whomever but to go from spending 200 million to basically “we have to sell the fine china” is a massive shift. Raising ticket prices , selling top earners , selling youth players , thats a complete 180.

If things are that bad, then why was so much spent in the summer ? Again , this contradicts the line that we are at Oliver Twist stage of begging bowl that’s the kind of narrative being projected.

So don’t confuse “we should be able to still party” with “I don’t believe things are as bad as they say”. I’ve listened to more informed journalists
Discuss it and while I always knew uniteds wastage would be a problem , I still haven’t read reliable data driven explanation of why it’s changed so much from the summer transfer window to now where we are all of a sudden needing to goto all these extremes.

 

[oz insomniac]

Looks like we are seeing the signs of transfer windowitis despite the change in management at senior level. Of course, Woodward started the disease and it has continued to fester.

However, there is a a lot of frustration felt by the managers since Fergie as those counselled with moving players on ( post Woodward and his balance sheet ethos) have been that ineffective that the club has overspent while still keeping worthless players on never ending contract extensions. No wonder Amorim is looked g dejected and frustrated, he’s obviously used to actions be8ng louder thean words in Portugal, and he seems hamstrung in his ability to change and strengthen the roster.

The Glazers have done irreparable damage to the club, all the while under the auspices of the FA, and have no real interest in the club other than dividends and increasing value, happy to portion off some shares and give INEOS the task of resurrecting a sinking ship.

As Mae West said, it’s going to be a bumpy ride, but one we have to undertake to get steady again and compete with the big boys. What a disaster for One of the biggest clubs in the world, shafted by a bunch of absent shopping mall owners, let’s brace ourselves and hope for a decent outcome.

 

[NoLogo]

Relegation in 5 years at this rate

That's what I have been saying to people who were always "nonsense we are not getting relegated". The trajectory of this club has been downward for the last 11 years, our debt has almost doubled during this time. If Ineos can't change course we are heading down to the championship and given how much debt we are in I don't event think bankruptcy is out of the question. Imo the only thing that can save us at this point is some super rich owner bailing us out.

 

[NoLogo]

I remember the Antony transfer thread. "It's not your money."

This has always been such an infuriating argument. Of course it's not my money but the fecking club that I love and support doesn't have an infinite supply of it like some other clubs. I for one don't want to see Manchester United go into bankruptcy maybe some other people don't care but I do. 60M for Mount was the same shite. I argued that he was barely a 60M player with 4 years left on his contract paying that amount with one year left was utterly irresponsible and is part of the reason why every team we deal with is trying to fleece us.

 

[Reiver]

Looks like we are seeing the signs of transfer windowitis despite the change in management at senior level. Of course, Woodward started the disease and it has continued to fester.

However, there is a a lot of frustration felt by the managers since Fergie as those counselled with moving players on ( post Woodward and his balance sheet ethos) have been that ineffective that the club has overspent while still keeping worthless players on never ending contract extensions. No wonder Amorim is looked g dejected and frustrated, he’s obviously used to actions be8ng louder thean words in Portugal, and he seems hamstrung in his ability to change and strengthen the roster.

The Glazers have done irreparable damage to the club, all the while under the auspices of the FA, and have no real interest in the club other than dividends and increasing value, happy to portion off some shares and give INEOS the task of resurrecting a sinking ship.

As Mae West said, it’s going to be a bumpy ride, but one we have to undertake to get steady again and compete with the big boys. What a disaster for One of the biggest clubs in the world, shafted by a bunch of absent shopping mall owners, let’s brace ourselves and hope for a decent outcome.

Not disagreeing with anything you've said but getting Antony out the door in any capacity must represent a minor miracle?

 

[Jim Beam]

People have doubts but we might smash psr table next season

 

[Leftback99]

Hold on, who said we are financially sound ?

We’ve been throwing stupid money away since Ferguson left. I’ve been complaining about how it’s been managed while morons professed “Woodward doesn’t coach the team so has no impact on it”.

So I’m not saying we should still be able to go out and buy whomever but to go from spending 200 million to basically “we have to sell the fine china” is a massive shift. Raising ticket prices , selling top earners , selling youth players , thats a complete 180.

If things are that bad, then why was so much spent in the summer ? Again , this contradicts the line that we are at Oliver Twist stage of begging bowl that’s the kind of narrative being projected.

So don’t confuse “we should be able to still party” with “I don’t believe things are as bad as they say”. I’ve listened to more informed journalists
Discuss it and while I always knew uniteds wastage would be a problem , I still haven’t read reliable data driven explanation of why it’s changed so much from the summer transfer window to now where we are all of a sudden needing to goto all these extremes.

We probably blew £20m+ changing manager and sacking Ashworth for one. They wont have budgeted for that. We were clearly already close to the bone by the fact we had to sell McTominay.

We're also further down the league than they would have expected (£3m per place I've read before).

Selling Garnacho is to bail us out.

 

[Chumpsbechumps]

We probably blew £20m+ changing manager and sacking Ashworth for one. We were clearly already close to the bone by the fact we had to sell McTominay.

20 million shouldn’t throw us over the egde, that’s pennies in the kind of finances United are managing.

SJR knew exactly the state of things financially and with PSR when he bought the club. He knew last summer aswell.

This whole “United is financially threatened” narrative hasn’t just happened in the last few weeks.

I think United needed to be run better. I think alot of what he’s doing had to be done (other then a sugar daddy pumping hundreds of millions and clearing our debt), but I feel this escalation of cost cutting and having to sell players is a PR excercise for them to make the tough calls but implying things are worse then they are to effectively scare fans into accepting.

If things are as serious as they are saying, they shouldn’t have made any signings in summer. If they knew that and still did , it was a massive mistake. If they didn’t know it and did it, it’s a massive concern. Either way, I don’t trust this narrative is anything other then taking the focus off what they want and possibly should do out of prudence.

Like you could have predicted Casemiro , Antony and probably rashers weren’t going to work out. All the focus is on ETH, but I’d say he would have been ok with those being offloaded. Instead we have a new coach having to try and offload players who could of been off the books in summer.

So again, I feel like this narrative of “things are really bad” is just a PR stunt to distract from the things they plan to do.

 

[AneRu]

They wouldn’t. That’s my point. They haven’t done it out of the goodness of their heart. They did it to gain a bigger share of the club. The Glazers literally did give up shares and agreed to a portion of the money going to investment in the infrastructure.

My bad, I assumed the discussion was whether the Glazers would allow Ineos to pay the debt and give them more equity to which I think they would want a significant portion - a hefty sum to give up more control. I can't see Jim investing £500m just to take his stake to 35% or thereabouts, unless he is targeting a slow motion acquisition that doesn't strain him too much.

Another thing is I don't think either party sees the £36m interest payment as too detrimental to the club's operations as we see it. If Sir Jim has another £500m that he wants to put on the table it would be put to other uses like the stadium renovations or as seed money on the construction of a new one.

 

[Leftback99]

20 million shouldn’t throw us over the egde, that’s pennies in the kind of finances United are managing.

SJR knew exactly the state of things financially and with PSR when he bought the club. He knew last summer aswell.

This whole “United is financially threatened” narrative hasn’t just happened in the last few weeks.

I think United needed to be run better. I think alot of what he’s doing had to be done (other then a sugar daddy pumping hundreds of millions and clearing our debt), but I feel this escalation of cost cutting and having to sell players is a PR excercise for them to make the tough calls but implying things are worse then they are to effectively scare fans into accepting.

If things are as serious as they are saying, they shouldn’t have made any signings in summer. If they knew that and still did , it was a massive mistake. If they didn’t know it and did it, it’s a massive concern. Either way, I don’t trust this narrative is anything other then taking the focus off what they want and possibly should do out of prudence.

Like you could have predicted Casemiro , Antony and probably rashers weren’t going to work out. All the focus is on ETH, but I’d say he would have been ok with those being offloaded. Instead we have a new coach having to try and offload players who could of been off the books in summer.

So again, I feel like this narrative of “things are really bad” is just a PR stunt to distract from the things they plan to do.

The PSR limit is £105m over 3 years so £20m is huge in relation to it.

Its not a PR stunt at all. Some of us have seen this coming for years. The accounts are public.

 

[Chumpsbechumps]

The PSR limit is £105m over 3 years so £20m is huge in relation to it.

It’s not a PR stunt at all. Some of us have seen this coming for years. The accounts are public.

I’ve seen it coming aswell but 20 million really doesn’t justify raising ticket prices and putting the whole squad available for sale. You can’t be having 20 mil completely throw a multi billion pound organisation into turmoil, that on its own is ridiculous. And they can’t pretend it was unforeseen, they had to factor in paying off ETH as you don’t agree that sort of package when retaining him without crunching the numbers.

Ive no issue with the club making changes , I just don’t believe 20 million explains the statements and I think we are in big trouble if provisions weren’t made last summer to give us wiggle room to take a 20 mil hit this season. You don’t know what sort of revenue you will get from cups , you have to allow for some reduced income.

 

[Leftback99]

I’ve seen it coming aswell but 20 million really doesn’t justify raising ticket prices and putting the whole squad available for sale. You can’t be having 20 mil completely throw a multi billion pound organisation into turmoil, that on its own is ridiculous. And they can’t pretend it was unforeseen, they had to factor in paying off ETH as you don’t agree that sort of package when retaining him without crunching the numbers.

Ive no issue with the club making changes , I just don’t believe 20 million explains the statements and I think we are in big trouble if provisions weren’t made last summer to give us wiggle room to take a 20 mil hit this season. You don’t know what sort of revenue you will get from cups , you have to allow for some reduced income.

Allowing for worst case scenario would likely include having to sell/loan players like we are.

 

[Moriarty]

People have doubts but we might smash psr table next season

Do we get a trophy for it? How many have Liverpool won?

 

[C'est Moi Cantona]

Do we know when this comes into affect ?

It should be late summer time this year.

It's just an option for them though, not set in stone.

Personally though I firmly believe Ineos will buy the Glazers out at some point this year.

 

[Jim Beam]

Do we get a trophy for it? How many have Liverpool won?

Trophy but you can write off any open top bus parade. Unless we can offload a player or two.

 

[Moriarty]

Trophy but you can write off any open top bus parade. Unless we can offload a player or two.

Then we'll have an open top bus parade with just the driver and Joel Glazer. He likes celebrating that kind of stuff.

 

[alexthelion]

1.3bn and 300m say different.

None of that is a benefit to the club, though. Straight to the mouth-breathing Glazers.

 

[UpWithRivers]

This is not about PSR. Its about two leaches. The Glazers that ran us into the ground and INEOS. INEOS are a puppet of the Glazers. They are there to take the brunt of the overcorrection to the fk up they made. Man Utd is not Woolworths. If you take over a failing company then yes you cut costs and fire staff and sell off assets. But you cant do that with an institution like Manchester United. Its like taking over Buckingham Palace, firing the King and turning some of the wings into apartments. Yes it will save you money but it will no longer be the same asset you bought because the value is in the history and the success and the idea of what it represents and the people that support it. To save United you have to pump more money into it not cut costs and put up prices or at least do both. Yes in the long term it should get to a stage where its not losing money. But that should be a long term plan. If Sir Jim was serious he would pay off the debt of 700 mill or whatever it is to allow us to sign players and then build the stadium. Then none of this PSR would be a thing. Its INEOS and the Glazers putting it out to the media that we are broke and need to cut costs Bullsht. If they really wanted to they could solve the financing easily. But INEOS cant do it because they only own 25 percent and the Glazers wont do it. But if they wanted they could find loopholes. Sell shares. Sell naming rights. Whatever. Chelsea, Barca and loads of clubs are doing this while we are acting like Everton, selling assets and arguing about pennies here and there. its a joke

 

[FortunaUtd]

Would be amazing to beat PSR at home. They have been in good form and our home record is poor.

 

[Cassidy]

1.3bn and 300m say different.

Only 300m into the club

 

[alexthelion]

Given that, thus far, they have put actual funds in, and that the club has continue to make a loss, I struggle to see how they are leeching anything (as yet).

That may change over time, but certainly isn't the case so far.

Have they put funds in though?

They've made the Glazers richer, sure, but it's done nothing for the club's financial position.

 

[Blood Mage]

Relegation in 5 years at this rate

Fewer than that on this current trajectory. Big change is needed and we need to start taking a data-backed moneyball approach to transfers like Brentford.

 

[Cassidy]

Have they put funds in though?

They've made the Glazers richer, sure, but it's done nothing for the club's financial position.

300m not an awful lot but not nothing

 

[Tom Van Persie]

 

[WhatIsLove]

Fewer than that on this current trajectory. Big change is needed and we need to start taking a data-backed moneyball approach to transfers like Brentford.

yep trends showing that the clubs gonna have to cease to exist within 2 years. Reports we are so broke that there was an account on ebay selling grass cuttings from old Trafford under the name of 'RedCliffe1999'. Take from that what you will.

 

[croadyman]

This is not about PSR. Its about two leaches. The Glazers that ran us into the ground and INEOS. INEOS are a puppet of the Glazers. They are there to take the brunt of the overcorrection to the fk up they made. Man Utd is not Woolworths. If you take over a failing company then yes you cut costs and fire staff and sell off assets. But you cant do that with an institution like Manchester United. Its like taking over Buckingham Palace, firing the King and turning some of the wings into apartments. Yes it will save you money but it will no longer be the same asset you bought because the value is in the history and the success and the idea of what it represents and the people that support it. To save United you have to pump more money into it not cut costs and put up prices or at least do both. Yes in the long term it should get to a stage where its not losing money. But that should be a long term plan. If Sir Jim was serious he would pay off the debt of 700 mill or whatever it is to allow us to sign players and then build the stadium. Then none of this PSR would be a thing. Its INEOS and the Glazers putting it out to the media that we are broke and need to cut costs Bullsht. If they really wanted to they could solve the financing easily. But INEOS cant do it because they only own 25 percent and the Glazers wont do it. But if they wanted they could find loopholes. Sell shares. Sell naming rights. Whatever. Chelsea, Barca and loads of clubs are doing this while we are acting like Everton, selling assets and arguing about pennies here and there. its a joke

Don't see Ratcliffe having any intention of clearing the debt unless he gets majority ownership

 

[Escobar]

Don't see Ratcliffe having any intention of clearing the debt unless he gets majority ownership

Pressure will increase as we look more unstable financially and without CL. And that might leave to the Glazers selling before the calue further decreases. One might hope

 

[croadyman]

Pressure will increase as we look more unstable financially and without CL. And that might leave to the Glazers selling before the calue further decreases. One might hope

Don't think the leeches give a toss about that

 

[MaxZorin]

Anyone hoping the club continually fails to 'get Qatar in' are a good example of everything which is wrong with sportswashing.

Can't see it happening, anyway, hopefully not. It would be a bigger embarrassment than city and newcastle combined.

 

[stefan92]

Pressure will increase as we look more unstable financially and without CL. And that might leave to the Glazers selling before the calue further decreases. One might hope

The only pressure that would be relevant would be a lack of income. I don't see empty seats in Old Trafford, I don't believe they feel any pressure.

 

[UpWithRivers]

Don't see Ratcliffe having any intention of clearing the debt unless he gets majority ownership

Exactly. And the Glazers wont sell. He knew this and he knew the status if the club when he bought into it. But all its done is fkd us even more because we have 2 owners that cant or wont act. So they reverted to plan b - cost cutting. Or should I say plan A because he knew that was the only way this could work with a shared ownership. I said it when he bought the club that the Glazers played a blinder. Imagine if they sacked Sir Alex and put ticket prices up and sold Garnacho etc. There would have been a riot. So they sold minority stake to INEOS and happy days

 

[Rauður Djöfull]

How the mighty have fallen
I'm so tired of this ownership and getting SJR has done nothing

 

[Pickle85]

Exactly. And the Glazers wont sell. He knew this and he knew the status if the club when he bought into it. But all its done is fkd us even more because we have 2 owners that cant or wont act. So they reverted to plan b - cost cutting. Or should I say plan A because he knew that was the only way this could work with a shared ownership. I said it when he bought the club that the Glazers played a blinder. Imagine if they sacked Sir Alex and put ticket prices up and sold Garnacho etc. There would have been a riot. So they sold minority stake to INEOS and happy days

How is this worse than the Glazers? And as for 'cant and won't act', the entire management structure of the club's footballing side has been torn up and put back together and we have a new manager. Christ some of you lot are drama queens.

Have a little patience. Yes, it's not been great so far but there's hardly been any time for an impact to be seen.