Being a local lad/supporter of Manchester United (despite also being Chelsea season ticket holder + he wanted to buy them up) seem to be the only argument those pro Jim Ratcliffe have. If you think that such argument is pure idiocy then fair enough. I agree with that as well.
Club Sale | It’s done!
- Thread starter JB08
- Start date
- Status
Being a local lad/supporter of Manchester United (despite also being Chelsea season ticket holder + he wanted to buy them up) seem to be the only argument those pro Jim Ratcliffe have. If you think that such argument is pure idiocy then fair enough. I agree with that as well.
Need someone big to come to the table,the next interested party can't be far away now surely
Urrmm sort of fair.
I think the thing that would worry me more about him is his comments that I have heard about finances in football and as weird as it is to say for "Britian's richest man" his net worth is also a concern.
He doesn't seem like someone that is actually in a position or has the willingness to contribute in any way financially. Now that is fine for the most part as we make so much money but it is obviously better for us to have an owner who has huge reserves of cash to float us at certain times.
What does that have to do with the previous post?
Ineos had been underwhelming in everything related to sports. Yet somehow things will be different this time round because.....
Do people have an issue with the Glazers morally or is it more because of the leveraged buyout, the debt, the dividends and the 1.5bn cost associated with the privilege of their incompetent ownership so far? All billionaires are very likely to be bellends.
you've tagged the same post twice.
devilish, I am not talking about the validity of Radcliffe as an owner.
I am talking about you answering a question posed to me and putting words into my mouth that I never said.
It was rude.
I think you’ll find that this billionaire that some people want, who is completely uncontroversial, completely excluded from geopolitics, has billions to spend and has no intention to make a business out of it, doesn’t exist.
I didn't know (or couldn't be arsed to check) whose the post is for. I only answered what I think what most pro Ratcliffe fans care about. I mean what does Ratcliffe bring to the table? He's 70 years old, he doesn't seem to like putting too much of his money into his sports investments and he is the Ole of sports ownership. The only argument in his favour is that he's a local lad and a Manchester United fan (with a Chelsea's season ticket who had previously tried to buy them up). There's not much to add to that
Not sure what point you're making here, but most people have an issue with the Glazers because of...everything you listed (to various degrees) rather than it being "moral" as such in the sense of objecting specifically to, say, exactly how they make their money or what sort of clear or undeniable affiliations they have.
The data room?
Where do these journalists get their language from, this aint Nasa.
Theres probably just some online portal they log into held by Raine group.
It's a standard term. They're not usually very complicated - just a collection of files and folders containing various docs pertinent to the transaction.
This
And at the end of the day, every element of the discussion is purely speculation. We know Sir Jim's interested, but we have no idea his intentions or plans. Same if Dubai buys us, everyone thinks that means instant money and success, but they are kind of like the fredo of the emirates, and don't seem particularly well at managing money/assets. We don't know their intent, or even if they have the capability of running us as successfully as city is run.
Last edited:
I guess that’s my point. You’re saying Jim isn’t better than the Glazers morally and is a cnut himself - I’m asking why is that relevant? The morality of the Glazers isn’t why they’re shit owners. People only use the Epstein and Trump links to further hate on them it isn’t why they hate them. What’s relevant is how will he finance the takeover? What are his plans on dividends? What will he do with the debt? How will he fund infrastructure projects? How will he engage with the fan groups? Who will he put in charge of running the club? Why is he buying the club and what is his long term vision of this club? That’s what should be compared with the Glazers when we find out those answers. Him being a climate denying charity fiddling brexiteer has nothing to do with him being better or worse owners than the Glazers.
Maybe you're right. But normal, small scale operations, you give me $, I give you equity and end of. There's no expectation around what I do with my $.
Maybe deals like this have some additional requirements on where the money goes.
Read it from top to bottom, but it changes nothing for me.
In interviews SJR has always maintained Nice was a learning curve before having a team in the PL. It seems obvious and reasonable that there will be mistakes and problems along the way in that scenario. A team in Ligue Un is a low cost, low risk way to try before you buy.
I think as long as these lessons have been learned then owning Manchester United will be a very different experience.
He’s a guy who likes value for money - not an idiot who wastes cash like the current owners.
We absolutely would ‘spend well’ but he absolutely won’t write blank cheques to burn on players like we have been signing under Woodward.
He’s not a murderer, and probably (as best we know) isn’t homophobic or misogynistic so on the scale of ‘utter cnuts’ he’s way down the bottom of the graph.
Good post.
So do you think we could afford say a £100m plus move for Osimhen under him this summer
People arguing over who they think would be good or bad owners of our club without a conscious thought that it could never be as bad as it's been under the Glazer ownership.
We'd have killed to have any new owners only a short 6 months ago.
Celebrate the fact they are selling. We will have zero input as to who buys the club. Crazy world.
We'd have killed to have any new owners only a short 6 months ago.
Celebrate the fact they are selling. We will have zero input as to who buys the club. Crazy world.
I couldn't put it better myself and those points need to put to all prospective bidders.
I think though that because the Glazers are so bad an owner in a perverse way it actually forces the next owners to be better owners. Buying United in some ways is the easy part. But there needs to be 2bn+ capital investment put into the club for stadium, training facilities for youth and senior and other infrastructure projects to grow the club. This is before you think of the squad. I am taking it as read that the debt with be gone and be part of the purchasing of the club.
The Cow is dry a glazer type owner would find it impossible to make out of United right now and the stadium is only going to get worse.
Yes. If we are debt free we can do this without him even putting him hand in his pocket.
Amazon has laid off an unprecedented 18,000 employees. Big tech is in survival mode right now they aren’t spending 5 billion quid.
Amazon bidding for United makes, and I cannot stress this enough, zero sense. They wouldn’t be able to bid for the rights if they owned us, for instance (see BSkyB) which would be a big loss for them when they could just, you know, agree an All or Nothing separately.
Those tech giants might have the money but what makes you think they have any footballing interest at all? It would have to be a long term project and big tech don't do long term-non tech projects, the money they generate is pushed to into more tech, nothing else. They would only be interested in profit, dividends and marketability. Sound familiar? As soon as they got what they needed from the brand they would dump us and move on to the next big buzz. Im astonished to think anyone would believe a tech giant would have long lasting interest in sport, they want to tag on and maximise commercial profits for the short term then dump.
Of course it could be worse. It could be 10 times worse and not be that farfetched. The Glazers not using their money to buy the club meant the most modest dividends was still 10millionx return on their "investment". This won't be the case if it's an owner wanting to recoup 5 billion of their actual money. Saying any sale to anyone as being better than nothing is wrong. We could have shite management and even less money if we sell to the wrong person.
One of the biggest drawbacks is the Glazer's asking price. Even the richest of persons would strain to buy the club and not put some serious spending limits in one form or another. Even with the most generous accounting breaking even on 4-5bn means they would have to take out massive dividends for decades to come.
Last edited:
Seriously screw the glazers to have been the ones lucky enough to get the club when it could still be had for a bargain. We're now so big even the best or richest owners would rather not meet their valuation.
Last edited:
Ratcliffe could simply have bought Nice as a dry run. Insight on how football works and building relationships. They can afford to do that. It’s still an asset and can probably be sold for a little more than he paid at any point from now.
And he has spent money there I think. Certainly bought in the PL deadwood.
And he has spent money there I think. Certainly bought in the PL deadwood.
Might be the time to diversify then so?
This. I have been saying this a while now.
What people forget is after any new owner comes in, he will want a return on the £5-6billion he has spent. That has to come from united obviously.
United may have be self-funded in the past under the Glazers. But when it has a £5-6billion investment loaded onto it, is it still?
Will it make enough annually to cover that investment?
That surely has to affect our ability to spend big on any player --- unless cut corners like the Boehly way, and give new players super-long term contracts. Even that may not be enough.
Thats why the sports washers maybe our only realistic options.
The LBO is the issue. That's why ultimately I don't blame the glazers, I blame the cnuts at the PL admin level who allowed it to happen. Allowing their crown jewel to be taken over in such a fashion is criminal.
You have to given the Glazers credit for spotting the opportunity.
Yeah you have absolutely nailed it with this post
Agree
Stunner! Cracks me up.
That's why I don't understand all the comments about ''clear the debt and we will be alright since we are self-sustaining.''
It will take £ 5-6 billion to be in a position to ''clear that debt'' -- and with that, we will have a 5-6billion quid noose around our necks instead. Then any businessman will want to get a return on that investment. Does United make enough for that ROI or at least some annual dividend?
I doubt it.
It will be a whole lot bigger that the measly £30 million annually that the Glazer were taking out. If the US bond is paying out 6+% annually surely the expected return for the investment of United has to be higher than the US Bonds otherwise why bother.
Current US T-Bond is at 6.89%. And the investment to buy United is say £5billion......our topline revenues are around £ 600 million --- you do the math..... if I was a potential investor of United I would keep my money in US Treasury Bonds. It just would not make sense for United to be a viable investment under current conditions.
It's only a sport washing vehicle or the new owners know something we don't ie the formation of the Super League (which has the same business conditions as a typical American sporting franchise ie no relegation) is the guaranteed thing to happen.
So if a business consortium wins, then we know that some shadowy cabal will organise a super league.
BOHICA
So anyone but the Glazers?
Given the US House position at the moment those US bonds will probably not be a great idea in the near future!
Not a whole lot she can do, technically the US government can't borrow money now, they can do some finanicial jiggery pokery but apparently that can only get them as far as June, after that things go downhill pretty fast and it isn't just the US that will have a problem, 2008 will apparently be a storm in a teacup in comparision
Yellen to the rescue.
That's what I was referring to.
But yes come June... it will be Bannon's wildest wet dream come true. The deconstruction of the administrative state and beyond. The Nigel Farage's on steroids are already in place.
- Status