What are you talking about? I just pointed out he talks shit to try and big up Radcliffe.
Club Sale | It’s done!
- Thread starter JB08
- Start date
- Status
My main question is how the change will affect daily operations and transfer decisions. If Sir Jim negotiated extensive control on the management decision making side, I guess there is some small chance this could be a net positive still. I certainly wouldn’t put in 100’s of millions of my own money with the current decision making structure. I hope Sir Jim isnt stupid enough to do that either.
You absolutely do. People "flipping" houses is incredibly common.
Hello.
I'm a long time RedCafe lurker but felt compelled to sign up after reading this thread for the last 12 hours or so.
I'm quite surprised that the sentiment about the Qatar-Ratcliffe situation is so overwhelmingly negative.
My read, based on the information currently available, is that this is a very good outcome for the club.
We haven't gone into the hands of a state owner. This is absolutely massive for the institution that is Manchester United. We are big enough, if run right, to compete and be successful. You only need to look at Arse and Pool to see that.
Ratcliffe is a grizzled businessman and made a deal that creates a roadmap for full ownership. And while that 100% number is a few years off, respected reporters are saying he could be in control of the club in a year.
His initial 25% stake would give him 40% weight when it comes to board voting rights.
He's going to have sporting control right out of the gate, and any investment into the club will be under his direction, not the Glazers.
It's not a massive leap to assume that Dave Brailsford will arrive in some type of overarching Performance Director capacity, with Paul Mitchell as DoF - these are experts in their fields with proven track records. When was the last time United could say this in terms of the people above the manager? Never.
And we're also set to benefit from the data and sports science expertise Ineos already has.
Men like Jim Ratcliffe don't engineer this type of situation to be a 'yes man' - I should have thought there's going to be a codified roadmap to control / ownership, with watertight milestones for compulsory share purchases. I'd venture that he's going to act as though he's running the show from day one. He's paying a huge premium for his first tranche of shares and will have negotiated accordingly in terms of control and input. It's just totally illogical to suggest he's spending 1.5bn to be an invisible investor.
I understand this is not the clean break that we all desperately wanted, but we are at the beginning of the end game. This news is a net positive, and I look forward to seeing how it all comes out in the wash in the coming week.
My two pennies, for what they are worth.
I'm a long time RedCafe lurker but felt compelled to sign up after reading this thread for the last 12 hours or so.
I'm quite surprised that the sentiment about the Qatar-Ratcliffe situation is so overwhelmingly negative.
My read, based on the information currently available, is that this is a very good outcome for the club.
We haven't gone into the hands of a state owner. This is absolutely massive for the institution that is Manchester United. We are big enough, if run right, to compete and be successful. You only need to look at Arse and Pool to see that.
Ratcliffe is a grizzled businessman and made a deal that creates a roadmap for full ownership. And while that 100% number is a few years off, respected reporters are saying he could be in control of the club in a year.
His initial 25% stake would give him 40% weight when it comes to board voting rights.
He's going to have sporting control right out of the gate, and any investment into the club will be under his direction, not the Glazers.
It's not a massive leap to assume that Dave Brailsford will arrive in some type of overarching Performance Director capacity, with Paul Mitchell as DoF - these are experts in their fields with proven track records. When was the last time United could say this in terms of the people above the manager? Never.
And we're also set to benefit from the data and sports science expertise Ineos already has.
Men like Jim Ratcliffe don't engineer this type of situation to be a 'yes man' - I should have thought there's going to be a codified roadmap to control / ownership, with watertight milestones for compulsory share purchases. I'd venture that he's going to act as though he's running the show from day one. He's paying a huge premium for his first tranche of shares and will have negotiated accordingly in terms of control and input. It's just totally illogical to suggest he's spending 1.5bn to be an invisible investor.
I understand this is not the clean break that we all desperately wanted, but we are at the beginning of the end game. This news is a net positive, and I look forward to seeing how it all comes out in the wash in the coming week.
My two pennies, for what they are worth.
West Ham, bookmark this.
ESPN's Mark Ogden believes that the Qataris could decide to look elsewhere and purchase Premier League rivals Tottenham instead.
His sense worked the Nice then
Wasn't particularly keen on either bid so at least it seems to be coming towards an end. Ultimately whatever anyone says or promises they'll do, it's only talk until they actually get control. There's no guarantee that anything Jassim said would have happened, for all we know that could also have proved to be a disaster.
Ratcliffe's track record doesn't give any confidence that he'll be any different but I suppose if we look at it positively, at least he's made these mistakes at other clubs. He's a successful businessman so you'd like to think he learns from those mistakes, I think there are signs that Nice have started to make better decisions so hopefully that's the case.
Grim that the Glazers will still be hanging around but let's see what Ratcliffe's plan is. Go back a year and if you'd been told that he would take a minority stake before eventually taking full control in 2-3 years I think most would have accepted that.
Ratcliffe's track record doesn't give any confidence that he'll be any different but I suppose if we look at it positively, at least he's made these mistakes at other clubs. He's a successful businessman so you'd like to think he learns from those mistakes, I think there are signs that Nice have started to make better decisions so hopefully that's the case.
Grim that the Glazers will still be hanging around but let's see what Ratcliffe's plan is. Go back a year and if you'd been told that he would take a minority stake before eventually taking full control in 2-3 years I think most would have accepted that.
Interesting, so we can safely rule out that he'd purchase Tottenham
I hate his face as much as Malcom Glazers
It only makes sense from a business point of view.
The Glazers only considered selling in the first place because they've run the club into the ground and can't turn it into a profitable enterprise. The stadium is falling apart, the team is barely performing on the pitch, training facilities are in need of a major upgrade. They've been kicking these cans down the line for a while and throwing the clubs money into ridiculous transfers and salary packages, but the well has run dry.
So, it looks like they initually decided to sell up and take roughly £6BN...not bad for an asset you've invested exactly nothing into.
However, the Ratcliffe bid presents them with an opportunity to bring in some cash now and hold onto the club, with the expectation that the value will increase further.
So they get £1.6-£1.8BN now for 25% of the club, and expect they can maybe get £6-8BN for the remaining 75% of the club in 2030. Plus they'll still get dividends whilst they remain as shareholders.
Had they sold to SJ now, they have got £5/6BN...and never another penny more.
I’ve said this before on this thread do you understand the religious beliefs of a large proportion of the spurs fan base a buyout by an Arab businessman would not go down very well in the current crisis
Im not trying to say his Nice project was good in the past 3 seasons, but has there been any potential with it?
And is there any reason to suggest that he would handle United differently? Learn from the struggles from Nice perhaps?
So people are are actually celebrating Ratcliffe owning 17% of the club overall
Bunch of Turkeys voting for christmas this fanbase. Be anti-Qatar for whatever reason you like but anyone championing this nonsense isn’t doing so with the clubs best interests at heart.
Now Jassim is out of the picture sure Ratcliffe can make a take it or leave it offer to the Glazers. . . The club is fecked, see you at the protests in 10 years to get Ratcliffe out.
25% for the club will becoming with certain promises and one being in charge of Football operations, whereby the glazers have no say in this side of the club. If this can be achieved with proper football people along with the eventual sale of the rest of the controlling shares I’m happy with that, throw an extra £1.5bn at them next year, dilute there shares as we go. This i can live with
There’s blind faith then there’s this.
So you say he’s not done well with Nice in the past 3 years so what makes you think he’s learned from the struggles. How about we go off fact not idilic future.
Of course there's such a thing. Unfortunately it's the sellers that set the price, not market or fan opinion.
I think it’s from the pure fact that Joel/Avram didn’t /don’t want to sell and the other 4 do.
It’s been known for a while now that Avram/Joel are the two most hesitant to sell. Hence why it’s gone on for so long and the price is so high.
Nice currently stand 2nd and unbeaten in France, ahead of PSG and the fan sentiment toward Ratcliffe has been that something has been building behind the scenes despite the poor start.
How much do you know about his Nice project outside of league finishes?
This article before their fine start to the season, citing various fan sentiment that they think nice are still looking on the up in the future - https://www.google.com/amp/s/theath...0/jim-ratcliffe-nice-manchester-united/?amp=1
Exactly. People don’t have to pick a side, all the options are flawed and worrisome. Being massively team Jim is as bizarre as being the same for Qatar. It’s all a mess.So people are are actually celebrating Ratcliffe owning 17% of the club overall
Bunch of Turkeys voting for christmas this fanbase. Be anti-Qatar for whatever reason you like but anyone championing this nonsense isn’t doing so with the clubs best interests at heart.
Now Jassim is out of the picture sure Ratcliffe can make a take it or leave it offer to the Glazers. . . The club is fecked, see you at the protests in 10 years to get Ratcliffe out.
This is good news, right?
It just doesn't make any sense? One of the best business man in England is buying 25% of Man Utd to pour money into it while he still has to buy the rest of the Glazers stake at a higher price. Something isn't adding up.
He probably knows what a mess the Glazers are making of the club and didn't want to be part of that.
I just hope we see him at loads of games. I think we will. Maybe having the boss there all the time might encourage some of the players to buck their ideas up.
It makes perfect sense.
But you just said he hadn’t done well for 3 years. What’s the trophy in Ligue 1 for 2nd after 8 games again?
Is everyone still saying how shit Ratcliffe-run Nice are without actually bothering to check the current Ligue One table (and notice that they’re currently above Qatar owned, financially doped, PSG?)
Tbh I've given up on making this point. I don't really see how Ratcliffe + the Glazers is any better than the Glazers. It might be worse because he's obviously going to work with them rather thwn be hostile and no one in the equation is going to be putting their own money into the machine. Ratcliffe might invest some money but it will be leveraged/asset money (I.e. debt) and he will be expecting to get it back.
I really don't think a lot of people have researched exactly who Jim Ratcliffe is or how he got to where he is. It wasn't by giving out money or by being honest or having any kind of values.
I wouldn't be expecting a stadium renovation unless it literally becomes structurally unsafe, and expect your ticket prices to be footing the bill for it or even more of the clubs money to be sucked into a black hole if it does happen. A guy who shut down his own factory to force his workers onto extortionate contract terms rather than give them a pay rise that would barely even amount to pocket change for him, isn't going to be handing anything out and isn't going to give a shite what the fans think about him.
I'm completely baffled why anyone with an ounce of intelligence prefers this idea over the Qatar bid. Yes I get the moral objections, but they would have renovated the local area, as well as have a positive PR to try and maintain. It would actually have done some good if anything because Man Utd is a very big spotlight and would bring more attention to human rights violations, outdated attitudes etc. Has some kind of good somehow been done by them not buying the club? Where is the moral victory because I'm not seeing it? This will somehow improve humam rights records will it?
I almost think in some cases people have just taken this road because they want to pretend it makes us better than City, which it doesn't. This is before you get to looking into where most of Ratcliffe's money actually comes which makes the moral high ground path more than a bit dubious.
Basically this is very bad news imo. I don't think I could stomach a Ratcliffe/Glazer partnership. I dislike him a lot more than I dislike them (outside of football reasons) and I don't see what is on the positive side of the equation to balance that off, other than some very farfetched wishful thinking.
The one thing we can be sure of is that Sir Jim is definitely not stupid.
I agree, a public face at games helps and shows he does care, I was all for Qatar but people are fuming at one thing only at that is debt, Jim is not stupid to realise the amount of debt there and with 25% he is getting something for it.
His league finishes haven't been great but he's apparently put in strong ground work for the long term, which builds for longer lasting success it seems. The fans themselves have eluded to this before they started clicking this season more.
My point is that he seems to be an owner capable of learning from mistakes. The article said he had a full review completed which had also led to a fair bit of change.
My only concern with him is his British player bias, but I personally had a bigger worry with how Qatar would run the club over Ratcliffe. Money aside, Qatars reported heads seemed to be unknown whereas Ratcliffe we know wants Paul Mitchell it seems and has a better idea of what needs to be done by way of footballing decisions. The problem with him for me is he will need to structure finance creatively to spend. He is also a superb business man however so he may well work well on it.
True. Though if you really wanted something enough, you would play the long game and be flexible. Not simply talk a good game and fail to stump up the dough.
This is a goodbye to:
- Update of Old Trafford
- Improvements to training facilities.
- Investments in the community.
- Large investments in the squad.
But most of all, it's not a goodbye for the Glazers. This is the worst thing that could happen to United.
- Update of Old Trafford
- Improvements to training facilities.
- Investments in the community.
- Large investments in the squad.
But most of all, it's not a goodbye for the Glazers. This is the worst thing that could happen to United.
FTFY. Enjoyed those quotes, thanks for sharing. RAWK more sensible than a large contingent of our posters
So is he doing Ed Woodwards job or does he have control of footballing finances?
Christ sakes, calm down.
25% doesn’t make him the boss
“oh look there’s an investor we’d better buck our idea up”
- Status