I beg to differ on that. We've got a stadium and a training ground to address + years of bad buying had saddled us with a lot of expenses (salaries and deferred fees) that we've got to pay. We need competence and ample cash investment both of which INEOS has yet to show on the football front.
Club Sale | It’s done!
- Thread starter JB08
- Start date
- Status
I beg to differ on that. We've got a stadium and a training ground to address + years of bad buying had saddled us with a lot of expenses (salaries and deferred fees) that we've got to pay. We need competence and ample cash investment both of which INEOS has yet to show on the football front.
Which are enormous costs in the early years of the new ownership. New stadium, new training ground, paying off the debt. That is immense. Not sure INEOS will have any interest in paying for any of that, apart from maybe the debt, which is the smallest position.
I did think about putting Chelsea in there as the exception to the rule, but I was swimming in excess punctuation so decided against
My worry with the likes of Ratcliffe is his age. He looks fit and healthy, etc, but the job we need doing is going to take a few years. I mean with Old Trafford, training ground, women/youth stadium, etc.
What happens if he becomes unwell later down the line, midway through these thinga being signed off? Who looks after the club? What are their credentials?
What happens if he becomes unwell later down the line, midway through these thinga being signed off? Who looks after the club? What are their credentials?
On one hand Ratcliffe is the dream owner. He's from Manchester, he's a United supporter and he's relatively rich. If we had to choose between him and the Glazers then the answer would be obvious.
Having said that when dissecting the issue it becomes a bit more complicated. First of all Ratcliffe had owned football clubs before and none of them had been a success. Most of it was down to a mix of relatively poor investment (when compared to the club's ambition of becoming a top club) and management. Secondly does Ratcliffe has the money and will to compete with the big guys with deep pockets? That's important as we've got an Abu Dhabi run club and a Saudi run club while concurrently having to find funds to build/renovate the stadium, squad and training ground. From what we've seen at Nice then the answer is no.
Having said that its not all doom and gloom. United is not Nice and quite frankly I love what he's doing with building a web of football clubs which is in line to the Red Bull brand and which I believe is the future. However considering the massive investment we need and the rivals we'll be facing then I'd rather see us being sold to the Qataris, the Saudis or the Dubais then to Jim Ratcliffe. Its as simple as that. Considering the track record of his football clubs then maybe Aston Villa are more appropriate for the man.
Having said that when dissecting the issue it becomes a bit more complicated. First of all Ratcliffe had owned football clubs before and none of them had been a success. Most of it was down to a mix of relatively poor investment (when compared to the club's ambition of becoming a top club) and management. Secondly does Ratcliffe has the money and will to compete with the big guys with deep pockets? That's important as we've got an Abu Dhabi run club and a Saudi run club while concurrently having to find funds to build/renovate the stadium, squad and training ground. From what we've seen at Nice then the answer is no.
Having said that its not all doom and gloom. United is not Nice and quite frankly I love what he's doing with building a web of football clubs which is in line to the Red Bull brand and which I believe is the future. However considering the massive investment we need and the rivals we'll be facing then I'd rather see us being sold to the Qataris, the Saudis or the Dubais then to Jim Ratcliffe. Its as simple as that. Considering the track record of his football clubs then maybe Aston Villa are more appropriate for the man.
I agree with this, ineos have assets around 70 Billion, with Jim at around 12 billion. All ineos assets are tied up, so they have limited cash available. We need 1 billion to regenerate the stadium. Another 100 million plus for the training ground, around 600 million investment in the squad. He simply does not have the money.
Anybody can suddenly die at any age. this really doesn’t hold any weight
Hard disagree. The fact that Sir Jim is a Manc means a lot- it's the next best thing to being fan owned (and in a way it is fan owned if Jim owns it). I just feel like we'd be selling our souls by supporting an oil club whereas with Ratcliffe in charge, we'd retain the moral high ground over the sugar daddy sides.
And at present, we're competing for the PL despite the mismanagement of the leeches. We don't need oil money to compete, just like Real Madrid don't need it. We just need someone in charge who won't take money out and let EtH get on with it.
They appoint their first good manager in 10 years and use it to drive up the price, you genuinely have to admire the sleaziness
If you look in Real's history they tend to get financial help from a nation ie Spain. Also in terms of success, the city were they are located and the franchise they are on a different level. Not to forget that no one in the Spanish league is remotely as financially rich as the Saudi/Abu Dhabi are
Last edited:
You are forgetting one thing --- will it make enough money or ROI in the future when the new owners have paid £5-6Billion? The goalpost will have shifted then.
Always thought it is Ratcliffe who will buy us. That’s why Ronaldo compared us to rats!
It doesn't necessarily need to make any money year on year for them, as I've stated before, if it sells for 5billion, the ROI on for the Glazers is around 15 times the intial outlay (the debt has cost the club over £1billion, hasn't cost the glazer's a penny), regardless of any dividends or other things they charged to the club in the those years.
I agree that the feasibility of this tactic is questionable.
If I’m being honest I think this new ownership situation is going to split the fans. I think we’ll see that a large portion of the local fanbase gets behind Ratcliffe whilst the wider international/online fanbase throws more support behind a wealthy state.
The local fanbase is smaller but has the advantage of visibility at every home game. We’ll see how it pans out.
The fanbase isn't going to chose who they sell to though. It will be who provides the best offer. We will need to see who the final candidates are and who passes the rules in place now for ownership.
There are already journalists warning Utd fans Ratcliffe won't splurge a load of money on us for transfers but as everyone says we don't need that anyway.
Just being debt free, not having owners leaching from us, that's great.
Just being debt free, not having owners leaching from us, that's great.
We still need a new stadium and squad investment to compete. Getting rid of the Glazers and debt is dandy and all, but it would feel frustrating if we're finally close to closing the gap on City and the new owners get shy with the club coffers.
So how much will they have to spend to give the Glazers what they want, pay off debt and stadium/youth/womens facilities and training ground upgrade. What would they be looking at? That is the figure, not just clearing the debt. The club can then pay for it's own tranfers.
The perfect scenario would be some sort of JR/Qatar consortium I imagine. Something along the lines of what Lionel @Messier1994 proposed earlier.
It would be far more entertaining if we challenged for honours while being run in a sustainable manner. I don't need Mbappe, I just need us not to be run by idiots with no interest in the sporting side.
Anyone who can do that is an improvement in my book. Ratcliffe might be preferable, but you just know some ultra rich oil state is going to jump in and blow everyone out of the water. Supposedly we are the Qatari Emir's favorite team, and he would like to play real life football manager. I'm just praying for competence.
Probably around 3-4bn for the club, 1bn in debt and a 1.5bn investment pledge. Maybe 5.5-6.5bn? About1-2 billion more in total than Chelsea?
I dunno who has that kind of money, but the Glazers are getting a return of something like 700% on their original investment, so there are probably numerous buyers out there.
Last edited:
I'm talking about probability, not possibility.
But it’s still nonsense?
A younger owner has a higher probability of getting into a car crash, or blowing a massive chunk of their wealth on something stupid (hello mr Musk).
Also, about Ratcliffe and and his cash, I read some saying he has a lot of money tied up...did he not say he had the cash waiting to pay for Chelsea/United? That it would be quite quick because of this.
Yeah that is only way it could work for me
I would expect that any stadium project will be funded through a mixture of finance and naming rights. I'd also expect new owners to clear the Glazer's debt. United can take care of transfers without any outside help - we don't need to be spending £200m on Mbappe to compete and the club makes more than enough money to cover player purchases. A debt-free United with no dividends to pay to the Glazers and a new/refurbished OT, is a perfect platform for any manager to compete for titles.
Why worry? Not like you’ll get a say in any event.
if Jim buys us and then dies we either get sold again or someone at Ineos steps up.
For me it would be JR and Ryan Reynolds.
A lot of fans will want Ratcliffe just because he's a British United fan, but I do worry that he won't be willing to spend the money we expect on transfers, especially with potentially a new stadium to pay for.
Maybe the word "worry" isn't the word I was looking for. However, I want whoever the next owners are, to be able to oversee the transformation, which would be a long time.
Not to me, no, it is not nonsense. As I say, I look at the probability, rather than the possibility.
And whoever buys the club, I want them to be able to oversee the long term transformation which is needed.
Can I ask why you’re worried about this though?
I think a lot of us don't actually think we need outside investment for transfers. We don't need oil money to compete in the same way Newcastle do and City did. We just need competent owners who cares about the football club.
I think we need to be careful of wanting anyone but the Glazers and thinking Ratcliffe will be our saviour without doing any research.
Is he really a Man Utd fan? He's had a Chelsea season ticket for over a decade and has desperately tried to buy them on more than one occasion.
His record of owning Nice is quite poor. I know we are a different prospect but the fundamentals are the same, if anything the demands here are much greater.
Is he really a Man Utd fan? He's had a Chelsea season ticket for over a decade and has desperately tried to buy them on more than one occasion.
His record of owning Nice is quite poor. I know we are a different prospect but the fundamentals are the same, if anything the demands here are much greater.
He doesn't have to spend on transfers at all. Look at the money spent over the last decade on new players, not a single cent came from the Glazer family.
Stadium redevelopment or a new stadium, and clearing debt, should be the major areas of expenditure for the new owner I think.
Does this Jim guy have money for us to turn in to a PSG or will we buying of the same level we did under the glazers?
I suppose I'd be concerned about any owner, unless it was a oil state (not that I necessarily want that).
I just hope he's not going to use his superficial suitability as a cover for incompetence.
Imagine if Beckham comes galloping over the hill with Qatari money? Sort of charm offensive they'd employ.
United will hopefully not end up like PSG.
The club generates enough money to buy players, without any outside assistance.
Simon Jordan was just saying that any new owner would likely look for some sort of finance to build a stadium etc as they do not lose value where players can lose value.
I don’t want us to turn in to the Galacticos like PSG - but we are a club with enough history to avoid that anyway IMO.
I just wonder if we had a super amount of Money then maybe for a while we could really be unbeatable - especially in the Champions League (which I find our history to be a tad overrated or disappointing).
I personally don’t mind seeing it but I totally understand why fans don’t want the club being owned by oligarchs of countries as well.
- Status