Yeah, big Jim has spent billions just so he can be the next Murtough
Club Sale | It’s done!
- Thread starter JB08
- Start date
- Status
Do you think Avram and Joel’s signatures will no longer be required on, say, transactions over £10m?
If their their sign off is required, do you think they will sign off based on complete faith? Or do you think they will require a dossier of sorts explaining the purchase? If they do require a dossier, let’s call it persuasion, do you think they will have found a way to be any quicker in that process than they have been historically?
You really think JIM would spend 1.8 bil for sporting control if he thinks it meant he'd have no sporting control?
I get not trusting the Glazers but it simply would make no sense for Ineos as a company. And they are much more business savy than the Glazers.
Then why would they allow anyone else to spend their money. Or allow someone to spend money which can end in their pocket?
Minority owner can't get autonomy in spending money. Anywhere. That kind of business doesn't exist.
For those against Qatar due to state ownership - understand that until we know for sure Sir Jim has an air tight agreement for eventual full control - United will likely be state owned anyway down the line if the Glazers really believe the club can reach a higher valuation (8-10B). You’re just delaying the inevitable. At the above figure, only so many can afford the club. Not that many can afford now under the Glazers current valuation.
They obviously won't do that.
It's remarkable to see how many people seem to entertain that idea. I don't know what it is. Pure stupidity or some kind of emotional, non-rational reaction to the news.
If people genuinely believe that ol' Jimbo has been - somehow - duped (by the cunning Glazers), they're stupid (I'm sorry, but they are).
No I don't assume it - I'm genuinely interested in the comparison of Jassim Vs Jim from someone with 'moralistic tendencies'
A lot of people completely missing what I’m saying here.Yeah, big Jim has spent billions just so he can be the next Murtough
Ratcliffe isn’t replacing Murtough and I’ve never said as such. I said he will install people who will be hampered by the same indecision that hampered everyone else.
If you’ve followed transfers at all you’ll know that we’ve often delayed them because Joel/Avram are not totally convinced and like to have time to digest it before signing off £50m-£100m of club funds.
I don’t see a situation where Joel and Avram are not required to sign off those sorts of transactions. Let’s say Michael Edwards was given the role and had full footballing autonomy. We go into next year with the plan that we need to sign two players which will be £100m each and 3 others that will be £50m each. Even with full footballing control, that is a financial decision with risk on Joel and Avram’s investment so I am absolutely certain that they will be just as slow to sign the funds off and we will be just as cumbersome in the transfer market.
The idea that “100% footballing control” somehow also covers club funds because it relates to transfer dealings is beyond naive.
The situation is neither are managing directors. Exactly like the other Glazers who own more shares.
You all are chatting so much shit. We didn't lose out on anything, we probably got saved.
Let's look at Qatari sports ventures. PSG is a shitshow. They are running that club like clowns. Malaga is in 3rd tier in Spain on the safe road to bankruptcy. Well done guys.
Or let's take a look at Sheikh Jassim's business side. He became a board member at Credit Suisse Bank and in the span of 10 years, they managed to go from 1,4 trillion in deposits to 500 billion. It's an unprecedented collapse. They had to bailout the Credit Suisse, it was finished. Hi is a failed businessman, with no experience in sport or football.
We dodged the real bullet.
I will tell you why they would do this. They genuinly believe, and have analysts telling them that the club could be worth 8-10bn dollars in 4-10 years. They have also got analysts telling them that in order to achieve that valuation the club needs sporting success and they need more investment than they can provide.
They currently have 75.7%, they are selling 25% for 1.5bn to INEOS, leaving them on 50.7%. Their shares have been valued at a total of 4.5bn - total club valuation 6bn. Should the club reach those lofty valuations they would recieve 4-5bn more, earning them a total of 6-8bn for their shares when they sell out. Compared to the 3.75bn they would have gotten from the Qataris 5bn total valuation.
See above. If you think the Glazers will totally relinquish control over club finances relating to player transfer you’re going to be in for a surprise.
“100% footballing control” will cover the scope of the footballing hierarchy and the footballing direction, there’s no way they will forfeit oversight of how the club finances are spent. What if he decided to do a Boehly and spend £1bn over the next year?
So you think INEOS are spending all this money and missed the most basic concept that there is a link between the finance and sporting aspects?. You genuinely believe they’ve spent all this time and money to just have Murtough’s job and at no state anyone stopped to think that defaulting every decision to Joel/Avram might not be a good idea.
It’s been obvious for years that no one was going to give the Glazers money and allow them to just carry on as normal. It makes zero sense, any minority investor was always going to want much more.
I understand what you’re saying. But I believe from reports this is the situation:
Jim buys 25% now including 100% footballing power (which includes transfer budgets etc. )
Jim will buy the rest in a staggered approach over the next years.
Glazers the greedy cnuts are just looking to get the most money possible. They don’t care about United. So they’ve been convinced buy Jim that this is the best offer. How? Jim pays them the 25% money now (with his demands) and then pays whatever the valuation is in due course. That in the Glazers minds is more than what Qatar offered now as they think we will be worth more in the future.
I’m basing all this on the few reports. Nothing confirmed.
For me, there is one positive with Jimmy Glazer.
His personal wealth exceeds £30b
His personal wealth exceeds £30b
His personal wealth isn't liquid, it's tied to INEOS shares.
Forbes got him at £30b
Does anyone know how the deal is structured? Does it buy out a few of the Glazers entirely with the ones that wish to remain remaining?
You can't have control without controlling the purse, basic business - there is no way they have an agreement that doesn't give them budgetary control.
There are many other scenarios why they bought it.
They will be in charge for football stuff in a way to hire football stuff, reshape scouting network, youth system and things like that. For larger sums (transfers and contracts) they must go to the board (Glazers).
Also, having 25% of Manchester is an investment for the future. Ineos idea is that club's value will go up in future. United (and any top club) is just a good investment with more and more money coming in football and with ME buyers lurking behind the corner you can always sell it for more money.
And nobody is arguing that they will not have a vote about stuff. But people here behaving like we will have club inside a club. Business Man Utd with Glazers as owners and FC Man Utd with Jim as owner.
I don't agree with the core values and principles of either to be honest. You have to understand, for me, its not even so much about Qatar being evil, it's just that I would prefer we come as close as possible to reversing our current trajectory through honest means, and the Qatar money is just winning the lottery. We become everything we teased man city for.
To us the fans it is a football club but it's quite clear that in the last 10 years we have been anything but - we have been run solely as a commercial enterprise with football secondary to that.
I know, it's his net worth which is almost entirely tied to INEOS shares. It isn't liquid assets, it's not cash, it's available income. To move that to United he would have to sell part of INEOS which he isn't doing and why the biggest banks in the world are involved in his project, he is borrowing that money.
Yeah, they will. It will be probably the first thing in the contract.
Also, are transfer funds really that much of a problem? We spent loads of money in the last 10 years. They weren't really shy in giving transfer and salary funds. The problem is how were those funds spent, transfer fees given by our incompetent directors, salary given to players. We had the money, we just spent it like idiots.
And crucially, our budget for the next years is already set by FFP. And it will not be huge. This brings as at the previous point, terrible management in the last 10 years.
Yes, but that would be a very benevolent move by Ineos. And I don't see a business doing that.
FFP is a club problem and not an Ineos problem.
Do you genuinely believe the Glazers are going to relinquish all oversight and let someone else spend whatever they want? What if Ratcliffe dies and INEOS change direction and decide not to buy the club. What if for whatever reason INEOS goes into financial difficulties and cuts the sporting wing. Whatever the scenario, the fact of the matter is until they don’t, the Glazer’s will still be majority owners of this club and will have a vested interest in protecting their investment.
See above. I just don’t see any way that they do not still have some oversight on financial dealings. What if Ratcliffe’s football director and co decided to spend £500m next summer? That’s half his investment worth of club funds he’s spending, you don’t think the Glazer’s will be required to sign off on that?
Ratcliffe/INEOS won't be handing over 1.5 billion to the Glazers saying: "Right, here's some money, we now own a part of this thing."
There will be specific terms, conditions, clauses, etc.
If the Glazers could just sell their remaining shares to the highest bidder, Jim obviously wouldn't have been interested in 25% in the first place.
Again: How stupid do people think Jim is?
Edit, posted by mistake
When Jim kicks the bucket in 5 years time. Who takes over?
This plan of SJR is never going to work, the Glazers want the club to run as a comercial operation rather than a Footballing operation so as soon as they are in a position where they feel they can make more money from doing things differently to what Sir Jim is doing they will probably try to go against him in-fighting will start.
I dont believe for a second that SJR is going to come in and immediatly spend billions of INEOS's money on the debt, the stadium, and training ground when he will only own 25% of the club, nothing will probably be done to any of those until he at least has a majority share.
I dont believe for a second that SJR is going to come in and immediatly spend billions of INEOS's money on the debt, the stadium, and training ground when he will only own 25% of the club, nothing will probably be done to any of those until he at least has a majority share.
I’m not even arguing against that. I’m saying that when it comes to it, if we are spending £100m on a single player it will still end up on Joel’s desk and he’s not going to change who he’s been his entire life and rubber stamp it without doing his own due diligence first which has the potential to hold things up.
The same way they allow their employees. With budgets and board oversight. No one is saying Jim would have open rein on the bank account / ability to make debt. Only that within a budget set aside for the sporting element he could restructure and run it as he / his team sees fit. I'd be very surprised if they were ever involved in day to day running lower than signing off on the major deals as it is.
A lot of people here giving their opinions as facts! Like you, I don't have any facts about this but I do know for a fact that you can own 25% of a business but have control. I would expect the shares to be reconfigured and the INEOS shares to have full voting rights (making decisions) whilst the Glazer shares not having voting rights but having dividend rights - so it CAN be done.
Now for some opinion. I can't imagine INEOS would buy 25% without a pathway for the other 75%. It can't afford to buy the entire business today so taking 25% with an agreement to buy the other shares on a deferred basis makes sense. Someone above gave a good reason why the Glazers would do it - they can take £1.5bn off the table today but still participate in any valuation growth in the business. A lot of people have said "why would they give up football control" BUT the big thing is that the value of a football club isn't hugely dependant on results. Take Man Utd, the value of the club has grown exponentially despite us having a horrific 15 years.
My guess on the deal is:-
£1.5bn for 25%
An agreement on the valuation calculation principal for the rest of the club - a multiple of EBITDA as an example - with tranches agreed at set dates
All just a guess though!
Now for some opinion. I can't imagine INEOS would buy 25% without a pathway for the other 75%. It can't afford to buy the entire business today so taking 25% with an agreement to buy the other shares on a deferred basis makes sense. Someone above gave a good reason why the Glazers would do it - they can take £1.5bn off the table today but still participate in any valuation growth in the business. A lot of people have said "why would they give up football control" BUT the big thing is that the value of a football club isn't hugely dependant on results. Take Man Utd, the value of the club has grown exponentially despite us having a horrific 15 years.
My guess on the deal is:-
£1.5bn for 25%
An agreement on the valuation calculation principal for the rest of the club - a multiple of EBITDA as an example - with tranches agreed at set dates
All just a guess though!
We all care but what can we do to change what's going to inevitably happen?
Sorry, its your wording was out so I didn't quite grasp it.
What did he say about Ratcliffe?
Well he should fecking sell some of his ineos stake to invest in United, now that he's finally getting to own his boyhood club!
If he is healthy and takes care of himself there's no reason he wouldn't live into his 80s so that's at least 10-15 years. Another end of an era where we'll get sold again.
Apparently very stupid and with no discernable sense of business. Which would be unusual for one of the richest men in the country.
That is a lot of speculation. What is in it for INEOS in all this?
- Status