Club Sale | It’s done!

[AneRu]

Although Ratcliffe and INEOS have played this poorly from a PR perspective, they seem to have taken the right approach in a business sense.

I get that having the Glazers in minority ownership is far from palatable but they wouldn’t have any real power, surely? They’ll just get richer… which they would anyway if the Qataris took over.

Ratcliffe’s people have said that the debt would go on INEOS, not the club itself. While being debt free would be ideal, it’s fairly normal business practice to manage debt.

As regards to the concern about how United will be ran, there seems to be a certainty from some fans that the Qataris would be great custodians and INEOS would be terrible. Nice haven’t been tremendous, granted, but they’ve hardly been awful. I’d say PSG, despite the colossal investment, have been managed in an underwhelming, soulless manner - great academy players sold, unbalanced squad, uninspiring squad players, marquee names.

Both Nice and PSG appear to be turning the corner strategically with Campos wielding his scouting influence in Paris and a higher emphasis on the academy. Nice hired a very well regarded Sporting Director from Lens.

Ratcliffe will definitely invest in the squad and infrastructure. He’s reportedly worth 23 billion (nearly 5 times richer than Boehly), yet people are talking about him as some sort of pauper.

He’s been pragmatic IMHO - not necessarily telling the fans all we want to hear but doing enough to get the deal done and to get the Glazers out of majority ownership and therefore control. I believe we’ll be much better under his stewardship, should the deal go through.

Also, does talk of a new stadium and huge money transfers really dispel all moral concerns about the Qatari’s potential ownership?

Trying to be optimistic - this could really be a good thing for United if the rumoured outcome transpires.

The concern is that if he takes on a £3b debt to fund the takeover and puts it on Ineos' already geared balance sheet will the parent company have enough wiggle room to provide investments needed at OT and in the playing staff?

I don't remember the exact figures but it's been stated, in this thread, that whilst INEOS is big and makes a tone of money per year they owe a big chunk of money already. Now they would be adding 3b whilst the club could need anywhere between 1b and 2b when works on the stadium commenced.

The other question is that the Glazers won't put a penny in and it's doubtful that those on the stock market would too. So would Sir Jim have the apetite to renovate the club whilst the freeriders benefit from his investment or he will delay major investments until he has kicked out other shareholders?

 

[DownRiver]

Interesting interview, he seems much more versed on the current climate of football.

His face when talking about City

 

[Giggsyking]

As regards to the concern about how United will be ran, there seems to be a certainty from some fans that the Qataris would be great custodians and INEOS would be terrible. Nice haven’t been tremendous, granted, but they’ve hardly been awful. I’d say PSG, despite the colossal investment, have been managed in an underwhelming, soulless manner - great academy players sold, unbalanced squad, uninspiring squad players, marquee names.

So this is how biased opinions look like? painting the job the Qataris has done in PSG as bad by winning the league almost every year, but SJR taking Nice from 5th to 9th is not an indication on how poorly he managed his football clubs?

I am not saying he will do a poor job in united if he takes over, but please dont twists facts and try to make them look like something they are not. Jim and Qatar literally competing in the same league. One is leading the league, and the other is below a club called Clermont foot 63 in the table ffs.

 

[Berbaclass]

The concern is that if he takes on a £3b debt to fund the takeover and puts it on Ineos' already geared balance sheet will the parent company have enough wiggle room to provide investments needed at OT and in the playing staff?

I don't remember the exact figures but it's been stated, in this thread, that whilst INEOS is big and makes a tone of money per year they owe a big chunk of money already. Now they would be adding 3b whilst the club could need anywhere between 1b and 2b when works on the stadium commenced.

The other question is that the Glazers won't put a penny in and it's doubtful that those on the stock market would too. So would Sir Jim have the apetite to renovate the club whilst the free riders benefit from his investment or he will delay major investments until he has kicked out other shareholders?

Interesting point, one which I hadn't considered.

 

[AneRu]

He's stated that no new debt will be heaped on the club, so I guess we just have to believe it won't.

He may not read the fan base perfectly, but surely he realizes that loaning against United would result in riots, death treats and whatnot, which he can't be interested in: he's doing this as some sort of "legacy" project by all accounts. And on that same note, it doesn't make much sense to buy the club and then not invest on the football side, i.e. staff, including players, and infrastructure, etc.

There are a lot of things he could invest in that would make more sense financially than a football club. To be clear, I have no sympathy for him, zero. But the idea that he'll come in and run the club into the ground in order to make a relatively measly profit (for a guy who already controls a business worth 60+ billion) doesn't make much sense to me. It's more likely, in my opinion, that he'll be willing to spend a bit in order to achieve success on the pitch and be known as the man behind United's resurrection (again: the "legacy" angle).

I think we will just have to hold on to this and believe that he will do right by the club. He does have the resources to do it and United has the capacity to eventually repay him in prestige and growth of value of his holding.

 

[Plant0x84]

Your attitude is just bizarre sometimes

Why do you say that?

 

[Berbaclass]

Interesting interview, he seems much more versed on the current climate of football.

His face when talking about City

Comes across fairly well here to be fair.

 

[Plant0x84]

If Sir Jim is having to borrow £3bn as reported

Where was this reported? I’d like to read it myself.

 

[Giggsyking]

Interesting interview, he seems much more versed on the current climate of football.

His face when talking about City

He comes across well here. He will have 1 year from me for that face he made when mentioned city

 

[Pexbo]

One of the things that has absolutely boiled my blood during the Glazers ownership is their willingness to invest when we drop out of the Champions League but having no interest in following up with investment and letting us kick on when we have a season where we finish comfortably in the Champions League.

We spent a lot last season, there’s no denying that. Under usual Glazer ownership we were definitely in for another fallow year at exactly the point ETH needs backing in his push to get us back to the top.

Whatever happens from now I think we are guaranteed the funds for a big summer of spending. There’s no scenario where the ownership whoever it may be does not splash the cash and try to get the fans on their side.

 

[Kinsella]

Interesting interview, he seems much more versed on the current climate of football.

His face when talking about City

Oh look…that’s where the high praise for the Glazers comes from.

 

[Telsim]

Are the parasites gone yet?

 

[AneRu]

He comes across well here. He will have 1 year from me for that face he made when mentioned city

I think he is quite knowledgeable and well versed with what's happening. Interesting to note that he has noticed what Brighton have achieved so one can conclude that he will know the importance of a powerful Sporting Director and the value of a good recruitment team to support the Head Coach.

If he wins we can be assured that he will bring the best in class Football Executive team to build a recruitment structure that will, in time, make us more efficient in recruitment.

 

[Mr Pigeon]

That's true, but I still find it a bit odd that the majority of them want out (one has to assume that they/their advisors consider it a good time to sell, i.e. that they are not confident that the brand will keep growing significantly), whereas those two want to stay.

I mean, not being interested in the sport is one thing - but this has to be mainly about money at the end of the day: they/their advisors must consider it more profitable to take the money at this point and re-invest it.

Outside of the United ownership, is there a considerable difference between Joel/Avram and the other four in terms of finances/what they own/how much money they sit on?

The rest probably want to sell because we're just some grubby British soccer team who don't understand the real purpose of sport. Nothing like the Tampa Bay* Buccaneers, sponsored by Sprite™ Touchdown Hypercam©, that's Sprite™: Spray the Flavor Over Your Face©™ and their new
Compu-Global-Hyper-Mega-Net™©®™® Stadium (Sponsored by Sprite™)

*Location of sports franchise may change

 

[Rightnr]

Comes across fairly well here to be fair.

Agree but then again, he's very elusive on his answers (understandably so on some questions) but he also said the Glazers are nice people, so as much as his face soured on the mention of City, I still will judge based on action, not words (as I will for any other owner).

 

[pascell]

Are the parasites gone yet?

Depends who you're referring to. Most on here will say they're just about to come into control.

 

[Nero]

Are the parasites gone yet?

Give it another 17 years.

 

[Plant0x84]

You are talking nonsense here mate. First of all, it is not "little bit of debt" it is north of 750m and is entirely bad debt (unlike the Spurs good debt), we have lost 1.5b in amortization and interest payments on this "little debt". Secondly, we have an idea about his plans about the debt, it has been mentioned many times by the journos that he will not "put a new debt" but has no plans to remove our huge existing one. Also, it is logical to think he will not put money from his own pockets while Joel and Avram do nothing and just reaping the benefits taking a free ride.

Sorry to say, but it’s you on this post speaking nonsense. In terms of INEOS (a company who turn over at least 50bn annually) the current Glazer debt (750m) is a small drop on their vast ocean.
It has been reported (by Bloomberg for one) that sir Jim has sought finance from JPM and GS to cover this existing debt, and it will be borne by INEOS. The further up the group they can place it, the better it will be in terms of tax deductions benefit to INEOS. In effect in that scenario the club will be debt free, and unlikely to pay out dividends so all revenue will be free to be reinvested.
As for your final point none of us can know SJRs true intentions, but given the statement put out when the first bids went in it’s reasonable to assume money has been set aside to fund this summer in the event that they take control. Any infrastructure improvements will likely be debt financed but that’s perfectly normal (see spurs and Arsenals new grounds) and frankly why shouldn’t the club pay its own way. We are more than capable, especially with the Glazers out of control of the club.

 

[Giggsyking]

Sorry to say, but it’s you on this post speaking nonsense. In terms of INEOS (a company who turn over at least 50bn annually) the current Glazer debt (750m) is a small drop on their vast ocean.
It has been reported (by Bloomberg for one) that sir Jim has sought finance from JPM and GS to cover this existing debt, and it will be borne by INEOS. The further up the group they can place it, the better it will be in terms of tax deductions benefit to INEOS. In effect in that scenario the club will be debt free, and unlikely to pay out dividends so all revenue will be free to be reinvested.
As for your final point none of us can know SJRs true intentions, but given the statement put out when the first bids went in it’s reasonable to assume money has been set aside to fund this summer in the event that they take control. Any infrastructure improvements will likely be debt financed but that’s perfectly normal (see spurs and Arsenals new grounds) and frankly why shouldn’t the club pay its own way. We are more than capable, especially with the Glazers out of control of the club.

I have no problem in debt financing the new stadium, it is after all not going to affect that much our spending capacity in the new FSR. My problem is our old debt and unlike your claim, the reports we read say that he is keeping it on the club.

 

[Nou_Camp99]

You are talking nonsense here mate. First of all, it is not "little bit of debt" it is north of 750m and is entirely bad debt (unlike the Spurs good debt), we have lost 1.5b in amortization and interest payments on this "little debt". Secondly, we have an idea about his plans about the debt, it has been mentioned many times by the journos that he will not "put a new debt" but has no plans to remove our huge existing one. Also, it is logical to think he will not put money from his own pockets while Joel and Avram do nothing and just reaping the benefits taking a free ride.

You misinterpreted what I meant there. Our current debt isn't little. I didn't mean that.

I meant he could clear most of it and leave a little bit. It's advantageous tax wise.

 

[Giggsyking]

You misinterpreted what I meant there. Our current debt isn't little. I didn't mean that.

I meant he could clear most of it and leave a little bit. It's advantageous tax wise.

That makes more sense.

 

[Plant0x84]

The other question is that the Glazers won't put a penny in and it's doubtful that those on the stock market would too. So would Sir Jim have the apetite to renovate the club whilst the freeriders benefit from his investment or he will delay major investments until he has kicked out other shareholders?

Why do you refer to minority shareholders as ‘free riders’?
They paid in to purchase their shareholding as an investment and will benefit from a return when they sell. That’s just normal business.
This situation is skewed by the Glazers who paid for their shares using debt that was placed on the club. That’s how they bought out the Edwards family in 2005. It is also skewed by the way they have sold shares for personal gain rather than to invest into the club. But we already know the Glazers MO so this isn’t a surprise.

 

[Nou_Camp99]

That makes more sense.

No worries.

Fingers crossed it's all over soon. Which ever way it goes I'm just looking forward to them no longer having any control. Their time is up as owners.

 

[AneRu]

Why do you refer to minority shareholders as ‘free riders’?
They paid in to purchase their shareholding as an investment and will benefit from a return when they sell. That’s just normal business.
This situation is skewed by the Glazers who paid for their shares using debt that was placed on the club. That’s how they bought out the Edwards family in 2005. It is also skewed by the way they have sold shares for personal gain rather than to invest into the club. But we already know the Glazers MO so this isn’t a surprise.

I am talking of a situation where SJR wants to invest own funds into the club, say they want to fund the stadium upgrade using INEOS' resources. The other shareholders will benefit from the growth achieved by this investment without putting a cent in themselves.

 

[Regulus Arcturus Black]

Who cares if Glazers dont have anything to say or any real power in the daily runnings of the club

Get in Jim

Aye, couldn’t give a toss if they turn into mere minority investors.

 

[Regulus Arcturus Black]

I am talking of a situation where SJR wants to invest own funds into the club, say they want to fund the stadium upgrade using INEOS' resources. The other shareholders will benefit from the growth achieved by this investment without putting a cent in themselves.

That’s kinda how share ownership works man.

Unless you for example think Musk and Tesla shouldn’t have invested as other shareholders would benefit from the growth achieved by this investment without putting a cent in themselves?

 

[Plant0x84]

I have no problem in debt financing the new stadium, it is after all not going to affect that much our spending capacity in the new FSR. My problem is our old debt and unlike your claim, the reports we read say that he is keeping it on the club.

https://www.bloomberg.com/news/articles/2023-02-09/jim-ratcliffe-taps-jpmorgan-goldman-to-advise-on-man-united-bid?leadSource=uverify wall

“ If a bid is made, the banks will cover the value of Manchester United’s existing debt—which stands at roughly $800 million—and potentially go much higher, they said.”

 

[SparkedIntoLife]

So this is how biased opinions look like? painting the job the Qataris has done in PSG as bad by winning the league almost every year, but SJR taking Nice from 5th to 9th is not an indication on how poorly he managed his football clubs?

I am not saying he will do a poor job in united if he takes over, but please dont twists facts and try to make them look like something they are not. Jim and Qatar literally competing in the same league. One is leading the league, and the other is below a club called Clermont foot 63 in the table ffs.

PSG have spent over 1.5 billion on transfers in 12 years under the Qataris. Of course they should be winning Ligue 1. They started in a much better position than Nice pre takeover too and have incredible potential as the capital city club with a ridiculously good catchment area.

Nice have been owned by INEOS for 3 - 1 great year, 1 average one and a poor one so far. However, they have just appointed one of the best minds in the French game. The sample size is really small.

The heartbeat of United is our youth is development. PSG, until recently, sold off many of its young talents like Nkunku, Diaby and Maignan. Nice have been buying young French players like Todibo, Thuram, Beka-Beka and Diop.

I’d say INEOS have made big mistakes so far with Nice. I’m not saying they’ve been great, though I do think they’re showing signs of learning their lessons. However, PSG, in my view, have been ran in a very cold, corporate way - big egos, lack of squad balance, selling off exciting young home grown players etc.

My point is that people shouldn’t automatically assume that the Qataris will give us the dream football strategy that most United fans want. A lot of how PSG has been run has been the antithesis of what most of us want.

 

[Berbaclass]

Jesus, I saw a Keegan tweet and I got excited and thought there was news

 

[Plant0x84]

I am talking of a situation where SJR wants to invest own funds into the club, say they want to fund the stadium upgrade using INEOS' resources. The other shareholders will benefit from the growth achieved by this investment without putting a cent in themselves.

But that’s my point. Technically they have put money in to buy their shareholding - it’s just that the club hasn’t seen a penny of it because the Glazers have played the system to benefit themselves. Sadly that’s just business - it’s normal and shouldn’t be a concern to the fans. If Jim says he will invest then he will do it. I’m sure he’ll buy the rest of the club eventually.

 

[Rood]

That's true, but I still find it a bit odd that the majority of them want out (one has to assume that they/their advisors consider it a good time to sell, i.e. that they are not confident that the brand will keep growing significantly), whereas those two want to stay.

I mean, not being interested in the sport is one thing - but this has to be mainly about money at the end of the day: they/their advisors must consider it more profitable to take the money at this point and re-invest it.

Outside of the United ownership, is there a considerable difference between Joel/Avram and the other four in terms of finances/what they own/how much money they sit on?

Stories of the majority of the Glazer siblings wanting out have been around for many years, its not a new thing - only 3 of them have ever even visited Manchester.

Joel we know has been involved in the day to day running of the club in recent years (to our detriment unfortunately) so probably has some kind of attachment to the club, Avram has also shown up at certain times (although he did cash in on a significant amount of shares only 2 years ago so is only 4th on the list of % shares today).

I think the crunch has come for some of them as investment for the stadium is needed - we know feasibility studies on likely costings have been done. Probably a few of them baulked at the risk of bringing in new debt or diluting their shares to fund major infrastructure works and thats why they want out. A few other factors too - a black hole in the finances due to COVID, Chelsea sale etc

 

[NorryKay]

I think he is quite knowledgeable and well versed with what's happening. Interesting to note that he has noticed what Brighton have achieved so one can conclude that he will know the importance of a powerful Sporting Director and the value of a good recruitment team to support the Head Coach.

If he wins we can be assured that he will bring the best in class Football Executive team to build a recruitment structure that will, in time, make us more efficient in recruitment.

Genuine question. What impact has he made at Nice.

 

[glazed]

The short version is that if the club is run as a business we won't win anything because the financial sweet spot swerves directly competing with a club owned by an oil rich nation state. So SJR is just a cuddlier version of the Glazers.

 

[Smores]

I am talking of a situation where SJR wants to invest own funds into the club, say they want to fund the stadium upgrade using INEOS' resources. The other shareholders will benefit from the growth achieved by this investment without putting a cent in themselves.

Majority shareholders don't just put in their own money. They'll raise new shares and buy them thus existing shareholders have theirs diluted.

 

[InfiniteBoredom]

The short version is that if the club is run as a business we won't win anything because the financial sweet spot swerves directly competing with a club owned by an oil rich nation state. So SJR is just a cuddlier version of the Glazers.

Liverpool ran City close the last few years and Assna but for the choke would have pipped them this year, on smaller budgets than us.

In France, despite PSG’s oil money so many are gagging for, they’ve lost the league to Montpellier, Monaco and Lille in the last decade. If those teams weren’t vultured upon by richer teams, they probably could’ve won more.

At the end of the day, you can only field 11 players, have a squad of 25-26 and there are thousands and thousands of good footballers in the talent pool. This nihilistic bullshit about not being able to compete with oil money doesn’t cut it, and we already did it when we were ran by better people.

 

[Plant0x84]

The short version is that if the club is run as a business we won't win anything because the financial sweet spot swerves directly competing with a club owned by an oil rich nation state. So SJR is just a cuddlier version of the Glazers.

This doesn’t sound like a business focused on profitability to me…

We would see our role as the long-term custodians of Manchester United on behalf of the fans and the wider community," the statement said.
"We are ambitious and highly competitive and would want to invest in Manchester United to make them the No. 1 club in the world once again.
"We also recognise that football governance in this country is at a crossroads. We would want to help lead this next chapter, deepening the culture of English football by making the club a beacon for a modern, progressive, fan-centred approach to ownership.
"We want a Manchester United anchored in its proud history and roots in the northwest of England, putting the Manchester back into Manchester United and clearly focusing on winning the Champions League."

 

[FlawlessThaw]

Liverpool ran City close the last few years and Assna but for the choke would have pipped them this year, on smaller budgets than us.

In France, despite PSG’s oil money so many are gagging for, they’ve lost the league to Montpellier, Monaco and Lille in the last decade. If those teams weren’t vultured upon by richer teams, they probably could’ve won more.

At the end of the day, you can only field 11 players, have a squad of 25-26 and there are thousands and thousands of good footballers in the talent pool. This nihilistic bullshit about not being able to compete with oil money doesn’t cut it, and we already did it when we were ran by better people.

So basically in both the English and French leagues, if you have a lot of luck, well thought out planning and a great manager you might be lucky enough to see a team win the league once every few years.

 

[Rightnr]

The short version is that if the club is run as a business we won't win anything because the financial sweet spot swerves directly competing with a club owned by an oil rich nation state. So SJR is just a cuddlier version of the Glazers.

For some of our fans, it's better to win 1 out of 10 or come close every 5 years or so than win 5/6/7 in 10 years but be owned by ambitious people with real money which is what's needed to win in football at the moment

 

[LordSpud]

I'm ready to face the music. Bring in Sir Jim and INEOS

 

[InfiniteBoredom]

So basically in both the English and French leagues, if you have a lot of luck, well thought out planning and a great manager you might be lucky enough to see a team win the league once every few years.

The great manager is the crucial part, City won their first PL in 2012, in the next 5 years the league winners read Utd, City, Chelsea, Leicester, Chelsea. Their recent domination (4 out of 5, likely 5 out of 6 title soon + regular CL semis appearances) is down largely to one man. It’s like all the ABUs crying about us buying refs and titles while Fergie were dominating the league. The same Fergie who saw off Chelsea who distorted the market to an even bigger degree than City did, winning 5 titles to their 3 in the 9 years from Abramovich takeover to his retirement. Money can be absolutely mismanaged, it provides you with a baseline but it’s not a guarantee for success, us, Chelsea this season, PSG falling to team with a tenth of their budget, Moshiri at Everton, the list is endless. We have a big enough revenue stream to compete if we sort ourselves out, and pumping in more and more money to get the Mbappes of the world isn’t going to magically solve the problem.