Club Sale | It’s done!

Status
Not open for further replies.
mu4c_20le said:
So the Glazers strung along the sheikhs in order to bait their real target, Ratcliffe? I remember this theory being brought up as a joke because people were saying the opposite and that Sir Jim was being used to get a bigger offer, he should just walk away, qatar will just blow him out of the water etc
Click to expand...

Some of them wanted a full sale but Joel and Avram did not and that has been reported all along. SJR has been forced to reduce percentage he is taking whilst still putting up a similar amount of capital from his original bid.
 
Pickle85 said:
You're deluded and lashing out. Jassim love united?! Ok...he wasn't a front for a Qatari sports washing operation then. Sure. Loving your insults though...kee em coming. It's hilarious.
Click to expand...

Im not lashing out, I’m amused by your gullibility, and everything I’ve stated is objectively true.

If you’re suggesting ‘Jassim’s not even a real guy’ you’re spouting conspiracy theories, xenophobic ones at that.

Please, keep going.
 
Can we just stop with the ridiculous hyperbole?

After everything the club has been through, if you think this is the end of us as a club, I really suggest you read some books about our history.

We will continue to fight for the soul of the club. To argue that those concerned about the impact of a Qatari state takeover care less about the clubs future is bizarre.

I dread to think of the response on here if the forum had been going in 1999.

https://www.theguardian.com/football/1999/apr/10/newsstory.sport13
 
Mr Pigeon said:
The same opposition fans high five one another one forums when one of them says "VARchetser United have always had refs in their pocket." Opposition fans know feck all about the club.

For the folk saying that this is the worst possible outcome; nope, that would be the Glazers still holding complete ownership of the club.

We have folk, as we always do, jumping immediately to the worst case scenario to stir up drama. Why would a guy in his 70s offer to buy 25% of the club if that's all he's interested in? He's going to demand sporting control, he's going to want the club to compete for honours. He's not Avram and Joel Glazer, happy to collect dividends just as long as the sponsorship money doesn't dry up, with zero business acumen because Dad did all the work.
Click to expand...

He's a man of many talents and even more names. Jim Ratcliffe, Jimmy Brexit, Jim Glazer, The Rat, Ratterz, Jimbo, Mr Chelsea, Jim Radcliffe, Captain Barce, Dave down the pub and many more.
 
Rojofiam said:
Athletic article here: https://archive.ph/nuH5i
Click to expand...
Why would a minority stakeholder get sporting control?
Because that is the price Sir Jim Ratcliffe is demanding for his very generous — and completely out of character — offer to give the Glazers’ a premium price for what looks like a very mediocre slice of the pie.
There is absolutely no other reason why anyone who owns only 25 per cent of the company would be given such enormous power. After all, Manchester United are still, just about, first and foremost a sports team. And controlling that bit would appear to be the most important bit
 
I'm glad the Qatar gentleman hasn't invested in us, I would hate to have mocked and slagged Manchester City off for sportswashing, dirty oil money and human rights abuse like we have and then be exactly the same.
 
The Athletic article is a good read. As ever the devil will be in the details. Once Ratcliffe can speak publicly (after the board ratify?) we should be able to see the exact terms and conditions, and hopefully the timeframe for buying majority control.

We don't know anything at the moment.
 
MancunianAngels said:
Hahahahaha.

Who's prepared to get themselves arrested and have their careers ruined because they're desperate for state ownership?

You see this is what happens when you don't really stand for anything other than a potentially quicker route to success.

People aren't really prepared to do anything when your movement doesn't really stand for anything meaningful.
Click to expand...
Desperate for the Glazers to go, 100%. Not a fan of state ownership personally.
 
I didn’t want to be a state owned club from the start, so I’m happy with that. But I also want the Glazers out, so disappointed with that. Let’s wait and see what the deal with Ratcliffe is, what sort of control he gets and when he can get full control.
 
Mr Pigeon said:
The same opposition fans high five one another one forums when one of them says "VARchetser United have always had refs in their pocket." Opposition fans know feck all about the club.

For the folk saying that this is the worst possible outcome; nope, that would be the Glazers still holding complete ownership of the club.

We have folk, as we always do, jumping immediately to the worst case scenario to stir up drama. Why would a guy in his 70s offer to buy 25% of the club if that's all he's interested in? He's going to demand sporting control, he's going to want full ownership in the long term, he's going to want the club to compete for honours. He's not Avram and Joel Glazer, happy to collect dividends just as long as the sponsorship money doesn't dry up, with zero business acumen because Dad did all the work.

Very few people could outright buy the club without saddling more debt on to us. Just because some Sheikh waved his wallet at the club and said he'd build us a new stadium on the moon doesn't make Jim Ratcliffe as bad as the Glazers. Have you forgotten how shite the Glazers actually are?!
Click to expand...

The Glazers are still here and aren't going anywhere. I'd take a 100% debt free buy out by Ratcliffe any day of the week but that isn't what we've got. Besides which wanting success and having the ability to deliver it are two very different things. Ratcliffe won't have control of the club, doesn't have the funds to clear the debt or invest in the stadium and training ground and even if he did hasn't shown he has the ability to run a club in a way that can deliver success.
 
Frosty said:
The Athletic article is a good read. As ever the devil will be in the details. Once Ratcliffe can speak publicly (after the board ratify?) we should be able to see the exact terms and conditions, and hopefully the timeframe for buying majority control.

We don't know anything at the moment.
Click to expand...

The next week will be really interesting. I can't wait for the INEOS statement, to be honest.
 
Mr Pigeon said:
For the folk saying that this is the worst possible outcome; nope, that would be the Glazers still holding complete ownership of the club.
Click to expand...

Well, no. Propping the Glazers up for another 5+ years or indefinitely is by far a worse outcome than even no outcome.
 
Rightnr said:
United's Brexit moment.

It'll be bettter.. eventually.

You might be dead at that point but eventually...
Click to expand...

I hate to break it to you but Brexit is never getting better, and most likely neither will Ratcliffe taking over.
 
Fluctuation0161 said:
Because a route to full ownership is likely more Glazer bullshit. Like they have fed the fans for years to pacify them.

If they were willing to give up full ownership, why not do it now?
Click to expand...
Very common no? Same way the Glazers got control of United.
 
Cassidy said:
Because fans want the Glazers gone now and not maybe in 3 years, key word being maybe
Click to expand...
Fans on average are pretty stupid and can't think rationally when it comes to this. Now would be better. Partial takeover with the path to full within 3 years is still a huge step and a big win. It's the takeover of one of the biggest sporting brands in the world. It's gonna take time.
 
bosnian_red said:
Not sure why. Aren't ineos very successful across their sporting endeavors? May not be a roaring success in football yet, but it's not about instant success. It's about setting up for future improvement over time which seems to be his path.
Click to expand...

Every year that goes by without us rectifying the years of neglect and gross mismanagement the club gets further away from sporting excellence. Ratcliffe being in situ with the scum will be the worst possible start and quite clearly not the clean break I am sure everyone was hoping for, fans, players, staff. Whether he will actually wipe the debt, invest in state of the art stadium and training ground, appoint people with the absolute relevant expertise and experience in positions of authority and compete in the market is anyone's guess. I don't know what "put the Manchester back in Manchester United" means. But I do know what investing 1-1.5B sterling in infrastructure means. Of course Jassim is an unknown so we don't know if he would have professionalised the club, but we know Ratcliffe hasn't done that at Nice.
 
It’s United though, sporting control and commercial control don’t seem easily separated.

Who is the final arbiter of decisions? There surely will be plenty butting of heads because a sporting decision doesn’t make sense from a commercial point of view.

The whole scenario seems needlessly messy.
 
Who's Kissing Cameras? said:
Yep. When the opposition fans are happy, you know we are fecked.
Click to expand...

Yeah, it’s been a constant with Utd since SAF’s retirement -

Some announcement / decision gets made that half the fanbase views as literally comical.

The other half announce themselves as ‘proper fans’ and support the laughable decision and oppo fans cheer it.

Decision gets proved as laughable and the fans that backed it try and backtrack and squirm out of it - a lot like Brexit actually.

Rinse and repeat.

Same will be true of this, obviously.
 
I’ve calmed down and settled.

Ultimately the glamour of the Qatar bid was alluring. The idea of it was so promising and spectacular that it was definitely too good to be true.

I don’t think their involvement is dead, they will be back soon enough to invest or buy the club off Jim.

Now the sporting control aspect of Jim’s bid is interesting not too long ago he mentioned how it was frustrating how the club is being run and he thinks structural change is needed.

If Qatar hadn’t been involved and before they were we were all VERY excited about Jim buying the club.

It’s hard not to go mad and think we’ve sounded it all up the wall for a decade but the sporting control aspect is promising IF true,


However does Arnold vote this through knowing he may be chopped? Maybe he’s above “sporting decisions” weird and interesting times ahead..
 
Cassidy said:
Because fans want the Glazers gone now and not maybe in 3 years, key word being maybe
Click to expand...
Is it maybe? I've seen reports that say Ineos will gt full ownership. This is from the Athletic article:

he will let the Glazers continue to play at being masters of the sports industry universe for a bit longer. But he will eventually take that responsibility off them, too.

That implies he will get full ownership.

Also there's this from Ben Jacobs:

25% is also with a view to eventual control of the club. Those close to INEOS insist this is about getting their 'foot in the door'...
 
NWRed said:
I hate to break it to you but Brexit is never getting better, and most likely neither will Ratcliffe taking over.
Click to expand...

Not directly related to the point but worth pointing out that most of the people who campaigned for Brexit would be quite happy to sell most of our sporting and cultural institutions to foreign states.
 
NWRed said:
To the fans celebrating Ratcliffe's success, you are celebrating the demise of our club. There is reason you are joined by the fans of every other club in the country.
Click to expand...
To a number of fans watching United be bad is proof of how much of a fan they are after years of success, it’s some perverse martyrdom. Clubs huge & outspends 99.9% of the football world already but that Qatari cash would be a step too far.

Then there’s the human rights record which people seem far less concerned with when it comes to a petro-chemical company.

Quite frankly whether it be Jim or Qatar, tell United fans last year when this all broke that the final result would be a deal that keeps the Glazers in situ to any extent & it would have been derided. If that’s the deal that materialises pretending it’s a good thing won’t last long when nothing changes.

This isn’t the first time this fanbase has actively cut its nose off to spite its face but we get to act like petro dollars from ineos are ethical cause. . . [insert mental gymnastics]
 
Sporting control from the outset sounds promising at least.

After all our biggest issue is that. We have spent a lot of money. Just done it badly.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.