Club Sale | It’s done!

Status
Not open for further replies.
NK86 said:
Which of their other sporting ventures would have seen them spending 5-6B pounds (just to get ownership and not considering other investments to be done over an above that)?

Genuinely curious as I have seen this being mentioned as some sort of proof that they won't do the same in this scenario.
Click to expand...
No other sporting takeover has ever been as valuable as United. It's pointless to look for a comparison from a financial POV. But they're in cycling, F1, sailing, and much smaller football clubs and they've operated all of them in a way to be successful and not to make themselves money. Their operations have been to gain value in the asset by being better rather than just being a cash cow for themselves.

Also, I'm not going to pretend to know how to operate a football club, let alone one valued at what United is. When/if they do eventually take over fully, yes they will still have to invest further in the club. Just like anybody would. We don't know how it will go. There's nothing to say they won't do that, just like not much to say they will do it beyond how they run their other much less valuable sporting franchises.

A normal way to run a football club is to make it sustainable, smart, where the owner doesn't have to step in often. When you need big investment bits like a stadium or renovating training facilities, it's normal to get some debt from that or find outside investment, sponsors, etc. I can live with that and it's own it should be IMO. Sugar daddy clubs, good for you, but that's not what I want nor is it how things should work for me. But it's allowed so whatever, they're lucky with it. I still don't want that for us.
 
Castia said:
Jim needs around 8 billion (6B for the club, 700m debt, 1B+ for stadium/facilities) before we even start looking into the transfer market to make this ‘takeover‘ viable from many fans point of view. He isn’t putting that on INEOS it would tank the company. That’s why the Glazers will be here in 10 years this guy doesn’t have the required cash to do a proper job.


Very similar situation to when the Glazers bought the club. We’ve learned feck all.
Click to expand...

Jim doesn’t have to put anything on INEOS, which is vastly more valuable than Manchester United multiplied many times over. He simply has tangible assets in his collection with revenue that he could use to assure a lending agency and secure a loan with better terms than the glazers did when they used the club itself as a collateral.

The Glazers seem to be looking to have their cake and eat it too. They’ll use the cash injection to keep the club relevant, leave the football matters to Jim’s team as they never cared much in the first place and finally sell out their stake when they realize the price is higher, which might happen as early as the next premier league broadcast deal is negotiated.
 
Get ready for INEOS to brand the shit out of everything now. INEOS on the shirt, players advertising those strange INEOS commercial handwashes and soaps. TV adverts filmed in one of the Old Trafford suites, Wayne Rooney drinking from a bottle of INEOS toilet cleaner slurring "thdey say that hees uh legumd" as Giggs pervs on a female groundskeeper down below.
 
Ratcliffe "Let's get the team and management sorted first so we can become successful again"

Fans "incoherent nonsense"
 
bosnian_red said:
Yeah unlikely for facilities to be under their remit with just 25%. But being able to revamp the structure and operations is a big deal and the most important one. Hopefully he changes us to operate smartly, implements a modern structure and puts the right people in charge, and we see a gradual improvement. Will take time for a real impact as doing things the right way usually means you aren't spending 100m on players or buying players already in their primes. Stuff that has an instant impact but also leads to a quick decline and running out of cash (like us now).
Click to expand...

Oh well. Never mind maybe next time. Just so casually shrugging off one of the major issues at the club.

He won’t touch the debt either and one way or another will be taking out more credit. He won’t even be injecting much cash into transfer we’re under a strict budget due to ffp.

He’ll employ the guy from cycling and possibly Grant Mitchel from Eastenders to watch over the football. Anybody wanting this ’buyout’’ wink wink must be off their head.
 
If Jim comes on, does an interview and explains his investment and intentions, that’s already far more than the Glazers have done in 20 years.
 
hobbers said:
Again, no.

His other sporting endeavours were at the peak of their success long before Ineos invested in them. And they've declined since.
Click to expand...
Any backing for that statement? Because everything that I've read about them have been very successful in other sporting ventures but slow going in football so far.

I pay 0 attention to cycling, sailing or F1 so I really have no opinion beyond what I've read. Which has been a group who at least tries to improve, similar to how they are with football, and doesn't use them as a cash cow. That's an improvement on the Glazers. A focus on football, even if mistakes are made along the way, is normal.
 
Lyng said:
Given that the stadium is falling apart it is indeed nonsense.
Click to expand...
It's really not though, they could do nothing to the stadium for 10 years and it'd still be serviceable.
 
He can’t be in for the money, right? Wouldn’t make any sense since our dividends are peanuts compared to Ineos. Correct?
 
bosnian_red said:
Any backing for that statement? Because everything that I've read about them have been very successful in other sporting ventures but slow going in football so far.

I pay 0 attention to cycling, sailing or F1 so I really have no opinion beyond what I've read. Which has been a group who at least tries to improve, similar to how they are with football, and doesn't use them as a cash cow. That's an improvement on the Glazers. A focus on football, even if mistakes are made along the way, is normal.
Click to expand...

I've already posted about it but they took over from Team Sky in 2019 and invested in Mercedes in 2020. They invested when these teams were already at the absolute peak and their success has zero to do with Ineos.

Coincidentally Mercedes havent won the championship since then.
 
JagUTD said:
Ratcliffe "Let's get the team and management sorted first so we can become successful again"

Fans "incoherent nonsense"
Click to expand...

You think this guy can even do that going off his past record within football?
 
Rhyme Animal said:
This is exactly what’s been happening for 10 years.

It’s just a continuation of exactly what Utd have been doing.

But then, that shouldn’t be too much of a surprise given that the Glazers will still own the club.
Click to expand...
Ratcliffe can’t be seen to be keeping the status quo. It just will not be accepted.

There will be big changes and they will be communicated in due course.
 
Castia said:
Oh well. Never mind maybe next time. Just so casually shrugging off one of the major issues at the club.

He won’t touch the debt either and one way or another will be taking out more credit. He won’t even be injecting much cash into transfer we’re under a strict budget due to ffp.

He’ll employ the guy from cycling and possibly Grant Mitchel from Eastenders to watch over the football. Anybody wanting this ’buyout’’ wink wink must be off their head.
Click to expand...
He is getting 25%. He's not getting 100%, yet (hopefully it does lead to full ownership as what is being talked about but we don't know for sure one way or another). When/if he does take full control, we'll see then.

Yes the facilities need renovation. But it's also not like they are archaic, they're "fine". There are priorities to fix first. We'll see what happens to the facilities in the meantime.

This is a positive because the Glazers aren't in control of the sporting side anymore and it's a path for somebody else to take full control. It's a positive because it's someone new. It's a positive because it ensures a human rights violating regime won't take over my football club so I won't have to put morality to one side while supporting the club I love. If Ratcliffe is nothing more than an average owner, it's still a MASSIVE improvement.
 
AltiUn said:
It's really not though, they could do nothing to the stadium for 10 years and it'd still be serviceable.
Click to expand...

Roof is leaking and the training ground is shambles....but its okay cause beloved Jimmy Ratcliff doesnt wanna spent money on it.
 
bosnian_red said:
No other sporting takeover has ever been as valuable as United. It's pointless to look for a comparison from a financial POV. But they're in cycling, F1, sailing, and much smaller football clubs and they've operated all of them in a way to be successful and not to make themselves money. Their operations have been to gain value in the asset by being better rather than just being a cash cow for themselves.

Also, I'm not going to pretend to know how to operate a football club, let alone one valued at what United is. When/if they do eventually take over fully, yes they will still have to invest further in the club. Just like anybody would. We don't know how it will go. There's nothing to say they won't do that, just like not much to say they will do it beyond how they run their other much less valuable sporting franchises.

A normal way to run a football club is to make it sustainable, smart, where the owner doesn't have to step in often. When you need big investment bits like a stadium or renovating training facilities, it's normal to get some debt from that or find outside investment, sponsors, etc. I can live with that and it's own it should be IMO. Sugar daddy clubs, good for you, but that's not what I want nor is it how things should work for me. But it's allowed so whatever, they're lucky with it. I still don't want that for us.
Click to expand...
As I said, they have never had to invest that much in any of their sporting ventures, so we are in totally unchartered territory. None of us know how they will manage the debt which they absolutely need to take out just to buy us. So the worry that we could just be used to service that debt (at least partly) is not as unfounded or bizarre as some of you are trying to make it out to be. Maybe you are just hoping that it won't be the case but unfortunately there's nothing concrete to back it up.

I was pro-Qatar, but I genuinely hope Ineos turns us into the winning machine we were under Sir Alex. Don't really care much about how they get us there.
 
I just want a team that competes. I've seen the good times and am happy to see a rebuild. Good football is all I ask for. Owners I'm a bit meh about. I've even defended the current owners where I've felt people are being unfair.

That all said I don't understand the need to have a go at the Qataris or the whole ha ha they couldn't afford us etc.

From a purely business perspective I think Jim has over paid and unless the gamble of us being worth loads more in a few years pays off I don't see the business sense here. It's the kind of thing an emotional person would do.

The Qataris leaving it is the best business decision for me.

A part of me sees Jim as doing what has become the status quo. Pay loads for average players and give huge wages to the point we get stuck with players. Which limits new signings in key positions.

Time will tell but I can see some of the gloating coming back to haunt a few.
 
Lyng said:
Given that the stadium is falling apart it is indeed nonsense.
Click to expand...

Out of interest are there any examples of clubs that first invest heavily into their stadium going on to have sustained success over those that get the footballing side right first, then invest in their facilities?

Off the top of my head, the two big examples of the former are Arsenal and Spurs. Who by investigating heavily in their stadium became the butt of many jokes and heavily restricted their ability to invest in their squads, meaning they effectively gave up on any chance of success for years.
 
JagUTD said:
Out of interest are there any examples of clubs that first invest heavily into their stadium going on to have sustained success over those that get the footballing side right first, then invest in their facilities?

Off the top of my head, the two big examples of the former are Arsenal and Spurs. Who by investigating heavily in their stadium because the butt of many jokes and heavily restricted their ability to invest in their squads, meaning they effectively gave up on any chance of success for years.
Click to expand...

The worry is that due to debt not being cleared we cannot afford both. It shouldnt be either or.
 
bosnian_red said:
He is getting 25%. He's not getting 100%, yet (hopefully it does lead to full ownership as what is being talked about but we don't know for sure one way or another). When/if he does take full control, we'll see then.

Yes the facilities need renovation. But it's also not like they are archaic, they're "fine". There are priorities to fix first. We'll see what happens to the facilities in the meantime.

This is a positive because the Glazers aren't in control of the sporting side anymore and it's a path for somebody else to take full control. It's a positive because it's someone new. It's a positive because it ensures a human rights violating regime won't take over my football club so I won't have to put morality to one side while supporting the club I love. If Ratcliffe is nothing more than an average owner, it's still a MASSIVE improvement.
Click to expand...

Just settling for mediocrity before the deal is even done. It’s sad how far we’ve fallen.

Best case scenario under Jim is he fires the chuckle brothers Murtough and Arnold but even then you look at his history and wonder if he can even get that right.
 
AltiUn said:
It's really not though, they could do nothing to the stadium for 10 years and it'd still be serviceable.
Click to expand...
Was it Mitten or Neville who brought up stadium issues first a few years ago and then all the masses added it to their list without ever actually seeing or knowing what the problem was? Mitten even said it on a podcast recently, it's not even that bad. Some issues that need addressing and yes, not "best in class" anymore, but still good and very functional.
 
bosnian_red said:
Actively working on making his football clubs more sustainable and operating smartly to steadily improve? I'd love that.
Click to expand...

Getting relegated and finishing mid table 4 years in a row isn’t what you just described

Hiring his cycling buddy to run those shitty practices is right out of the Glazers playbook
 
I just don’t get this deal. I get that it pockets the glazers cash but I don’t see how it is sustainable over the next ten years.
 
Berbaclass said:
Ratcliffe can’t be seen to be keeping the status quo. It just will not be accepted.

There will be big changes and they will be communicated in due course.
Click to expand...

It’ll just be spin mate. Wait and see.

It’s what Ratcliffe does, and people eat it up.

He’s done it throughout the ‘sale’ process itself - ‘put the Manchester back in Manchester Utd’, ffs.

Explaining away why he’s a Chelsea season ticket holder who tried to buy Chelsea.

He did it with Brexit and then fecked off people’s jobs to move his factories elsewhere in order to save a few quid.

It’ll just be blustery, noncommittal spin that proves to be utter bullshit.

It’s what he does. Watch and see - remember this post.
 
lostcauz said:
Let’s just ignore the club debt that affects FFP shall we?
Click to expand...
The new FSR rules that are replacing FFP are based on player spending as a percentage of revenue, so unless I'm missing something, the debt shouldn't have an impact there?

Not that the debt isn't a concern, of course.
 
Berbaclass said:
Forgive me if I’m being dense here but how does the debt stop the possibility of building a new stadium?
Click to expand...

Well first of all, that article is not straight from Ratcliff so its more of a what the writer expect them to do. But if that is true then there seems to be a clear indication that the money isnt there to do both at the same time, which is worrying.
 
Wednesday at Stoke said:
Jim doesn’t have to put anything on INEOS, which is vastly more valuable than Manchester United multiplied many times over. He simply has tangible assets in his collection with revenue that he could use to assure a lending agency and secure a loan with better terms than the glazers did when they used the club itself as a collateral.

The Glazers seem to be looking to have their cake and eat it too. They’ll use the cash injection to keep the club relevant, leave the football matters to Jim’s team as they never cared much in the first place and finally sell out their stake when they realize the price is higher, which might happen as early as the next premier league broadcast deal is negotiated.
Click to expand...
Refuse to believe that Jim will have no iron clad clauses on when and for how much he will buy the remaining Glazer shares. Anything else will make this the stupidest investment in the history of investments (eclipsing what Musk did when he bought Twitter).

Ineos are not stupid to take on all the risk and give the Glazers all the benefit of it.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.