Club Sale | It’s done!

Status
Not open for further replies.
So what's next for us, now that the initial shock is over.

We have three major problems:

1. Cost: our wage bill is too high, making our revenues / expenses gap tiny and making it impossible to sign new players we need due to Financial Fair Play restrictions
2. Revenue: there's only that much you can reduce cost. We need to also start making more money
3. Aging/aged infrastructure, both Old trafford and training ground are in bad conditions and inadequate.

Here are my probably controversial thoughts on what we need to do to address these challenges.

Hard Choices

We cannot pretend that these problems do not exist and we are going to start suddenly signing Mbappe or win EPL in the next several years. That ship has sailed with rejecting a billionaire Qatari owner, and it's not clear if even he would have been able to avoid most of the Financial Fair Play restrictions.

Some people say we need to be like Brighton. I would model our behavior more after Newcastle. Even though they did get bought by billionaire owners, due to FFP they didn't immediately start spending a lot. In both Brighton and Newcastle cases, they were looking for unknown, cheaper talent that they believed could grow into greatness, not - ready-made galacticos for high price. The big difference is - once somebody becomes great at Brighton they usually have to sell them. In case of Newcastle, and hopefully United, we can keep great players we have discovered and that should be our strategy.

So with that:

1. Cost: as painful as it is, we should let go everybody whose wage bill is over 200K/week. We simply cannot afford them. And yes, it includes Rashford, Casemiro, Varane. This will be most controversial and many won't like it, possibly including Ten Hag, but we have really no choice if we want to rebuild and ever be great again. Existing wage bill is killing us

Instead we need to make very smart signings of lesser-known players that will play for us for 100-150K/week at most. Or whatever is comparable with how much City and Liverpool are paying on average. Initially - we should pay less.

2. Revenue: clearly we need to sell a lot of players we have today. That's a given. But it won't be enough. We need to also develop new sources of income, be it revised TV deals, digital initiatives or whatever. Somebody needs to become very creative here.

3. Old Trafford and training ground. We need to raise money for these and the only way it can happen is bringing outside investors who will fund renovations without loans to United. For instance, somebody renovates Old Trafford and turns part of its ground into a mega shopping mall :) Something radical like that. Won't be pleasant, but it's better than a leaking Old Trafford.
 
NewGlory said:
So what's next for us, now that the initial shock is over.

We have three major problems:

1. Cost: our wage bill is too high, making our revenues / expenses gap tiny and making it impossible to sign new players we need due to Financial Fair Play restrictions
2. Revenue: there's only that much you can reduce cost. We need to also start making more money
3. Aging/aged infrastructure, both Old trafford and training ground are in bad conditions and inadequate.

Here are my probably controversial thoughts on what we need to do to address these challenges.

Hard Choices

We cannot pretend that these problems do not exist and we are going to start suddenly signing Mbappe or win EPL in the next several years. That ship has sailed with rejecting a billionaire Qatari owner, and it's not clear if even he would have been able to avoid most of the Financial Fair Play restrictions.

Some people say we need to be like Brighton. I would model our behavior next several years more against Newcastle. Even though they did get bought by billionaire owners, due to FFP they didn't immediately start spending a lot. In both Brighton and Newcastle cases, they were looking for unknown, cheaper talent that they believed could grow into greatness, not - ready-made galacticos for high price. The big difference is - once somebody becomes great at Brighton they usually have to sell them. In case of Newcastle, and hopefully United, we can keep great players we have discovered and that should be our strategy.

So with that:

1. Cost: as painful as it is, we should let go everybody whose wage bill is over 200K/week. We simply cannot afford them. And yes, it includes Rashford, Casemiro, Varane. This will be most controversial and many won't like it, possibly including Ten Hag, but we have really no choice if we want to rebuild and ever be great again. Existing wage bill is killing us

Instead we need to make very clear signings of lesser known players that will play for us for 100-150K/week at most. Or whatever is comparable with how much City and Liverpool are paying on average. Initially - we should pay less.

2. Revenue: clearly we need to sell a lot of players we have today. That's a given. But it won't be enough. We need to also develop new sources of income, be it revised TV deals, digital initiatives or whatever. Somebody needs to become very creative here.

3. Old Trafford and training ground. We need to raise money for these and the only way it can happen is bringing outside investors who will fund renovations without loans to United. For instance, somebody renovates Old Trafford and turns part of its ground into a mega shopping mall :) Something radical like that. Won't be pleasant, but it's better than a leaking Old Trafford.
Click to expand...

What genius ideas!?!?

Has Jim offered you a job yet???
 
NewGlory said:
So what's next for us, now that the initial shock is over.

We have three major problems:

1. Cost: our wage bill is too high, making our revenues / expenses gap tiny and making it impossible to sign new players we need due to Financial Fair Play restrictions
2. Revenue: there's only that much you can reduce cost. We need to also start making more money
3. Aging/aged infrastructure, both Old trafford and training ground are in bad conditions and inadequate.

Here are my probably controversial thoughts on what we need to do to address these challenges.

Hard Choices

We cannot pretend that these problems do not exist and we are going to start suddenly signing Mbappe or win EPL in the next several years. That ship has sailed with rejecting a billionaire Qatari owner, and it's not clear if even he would have been able to avoid most of the Financial Fair Play restrictions.

Some people say we need to be like Brighton. I would model our behavior more after Newcastle. Even though they did get bought by billionaire owners, due to FFP they didn't immediately start spending a lot. In both Brighton and Newcastle cases, they were looking for unknown, cheaper talent that they believed could grow into greatness, not - ready-made galacticos for high price. The big difference is - once somebody becomes great at Brighton they usually have to sell them. In case of Newcastle, and hopefully United, we can keep great players we have discovered and that should be our strategy.

So with that:

1. Cost: as painful as it is, we should let go everybody whose wage bill is over 200K/week. We simply cannot afford them. And yes, it includes Rashford, Casemiro, Varane. This will be most controversial and many won't like it, possibly including Ten Hag, but we have really no choice if we want to rebuild and ever be great again. Existing wage bill is killing us

Instead we need to make very smart signings of lesser-known players that will play for us for 100-150K/week at most. Or whatever is comparable with how much City and Liverpool are paying on average. Initially - we should pay less.

2. Revenue: clearly we need to sell a lot of players we have today. That's a given. But it won't be enough. We need to also develop new sources of income, be it revised TV deals, digital initiatives or whatever. Somebody needs to become very creative here.

3. Old Trafford and training ground. We need to raise money for these and the only way it can happen is bringing outside investors who will fund renovations without loans to United. For instance, somebody renovates Old Trafford and turns part of its ground into a mega shopping mall :) Something radical like that. Won't be pleasant, but it's better than a leaking Old Trafford.
Click to expand...
Joel, just sell the fecking club and get off the Caf.
 
horsechoker said:
Ratcliffe has set Casemiro in his crosshairs

https://www.theguardian.com/footbal...chester-united-recruitment-and-plans-shake-up
Click to expand...

This is the type of approach an owner should have. Casemiro is one of the best in his position but a substantial amount of the budget going on a 31 year where father time can kick in at any moment it's a poor use of resources. I understand many wanting Qatar for the money but if Ratcliffe is able to put people in place to refine an effective strategy that itself is worth more than signing a multitude of high value players.
 
UTD_Since_1978 said:
What is the point of Sir Jim buying 25% of Man Utd FC unless he's going to use his own money to bolster UTD's transfer kitty by a huge degree.

Also, I read months ago that he is supposed to be a Chelsea fan despite being a Northerner I think.
Click to expand...

He cant use his own money to bolster our transfer kitty but what he can do is boost the available funds by using INEOS to boost our income through sponsorship from them and their partners or by using their relationships with people like the Saudi Royal Comission to arrange luckrative deals for us to play pre-season friendlies in their countries.
 
I guess getting control of footballing matter and negotiating a deal for full takeover will take time.
 
I think it’s clear glazer have had no plans to sell us anyway unless got a really silly offer.
they don’t care about us in any shape or form just want money.
if possible a process can be putting place to eventually get them out rather than never have them out if worth getting behind.

United don’t need Arab billions all they need is a shrewd businessman who cares about the club and we will have that in Jim.
 
FujiVice said:
The saga continues.
Click to expand...

I have feeling getting the votes is not as straight forward as people think. If we ignore the board members not named Glazer. Going by media reports 4 wanted to sell, only 2 wanted to stay.
 
JediSith said:
I have feeling getting the votes is not as straight forward as people think. If we ignore the board members not named Glazer. Going by media reports 4 wanted to sell, only 2 wanted to stay.
Click to expand...
There are 12 board members. 6 Glazers and 3 people appointed by the Glazers. It is an easy majority.
 
Going to be interesting to see how much control 25% can buy from the Glazers. I still suspect they want to continue playing football manager with the club.
 
RedRocket9908 said:
He cant use his own money to bolster our transfer kitty but what he can do is boost the available funds by using INEOS to boost our income through sponsorship from them and their partners or by using their relationships with people like the Saudi Royal Comission to arrange luckrative deals for us to play pre-season friendlies in their countries.
Click to expand...
He could use his own money to reduce/eliminate the debt which frees up money that can be spent on players
 
Woziak said:
Initially yes the share price will drop, maybe as low as $16-17, however the INEOS board have promised somewhere in the range $41-43 per share to both Class A and Class B. They have suggested that because of the additional investment required on the playing and sporting side of the club, they can only afford to offer 25% as a windfall today.

Sir Jim is now starting to discuss a further £1 billion investment which will include stadium modernisation , minor improvements at carrington, £90m inclusive of Director investment for FFP and then potentially an additional £300m on new players added to an initial payment of £200m to be paid from the historical debt of £635m. This is probably, when all added up is the other £1.5 billion they had originally set aside to buy the club, they should be able to see huge improvements on the field and In the financial day to day running of the club. The Club and stadium investment pays for itself with a proposed increase of 15,000 seats to the stadiums capacity.

Hypothetically let’s say by some miracle ETH starts wining, more focused by knowing he has to prove himself to Sir Jim and by some miracle he ends up with 9 points in CL, qualifies for the round of 16, his team have moved up to say 6th in PL with 35 points at the New year point after 20 PL games and he’s 4 points off top 4, the share price will start to go up.

He has a successful winter transfer window and makes the top 5 this summer then in the following two years, he’s successful, coming 2nd and then 3rd again by wining a couple of cups along the way, maybe even making a CL Semi Final this will increase the share price exponentially.

If by 2027 the new stadium is ready and
New TV deals allow increased revenues of let’s £800m and even though though FSP is 70% which means the club can only spend £560m on wages, finances, net transfer fees, agent fees amortised transfer etc. It’s fair to assume that INEOS initial investment of £500m, forget the Stadium that would be separate line of investment (self funding and paid by sponsorship initiatives) could provide an improvement on the pitch but also during the period from 2024 to 2028, the debt could have been significantly reduced from £635m to £150-200m which is more easily managed by the increased revenues and profits.

At this point Share prices could reach $40-45 and therefore put and call clause’s automatically activated. It all still hypothetical and questions like ;

1. Where does the money come from that Ineos are proposing to invest and will it be repaid ?
2. How much money will be made available for the next three transfer windows?
3. How do they intend to modernise old Trafford into a 90,000 stadium when most fans know it needs major surgery and surely it would be easier to just build snotger
4. Will the existing debt be paid off in manageable chunks over a 3-4 year period
5. Will the Directors of the club invest the £30m necessary over the next three years to prevent FFP sanctions.
6. can the fans have a binding agreement in a manifesto that no fragging shall ever be done at any ground owned by the Club?
7. If Sir Jim Is becoming a co owner, can he state in this manifesto that should Nice and Man united both qualify for the same European competition that united would always play in the most prestigious and Nice relegated to Europa or Conference league football?

There are many more questions but these need to be answered before the vote on Thursday to the 12 board directors making the most important decision for the club this century

I’m gradually coming round to the view that INEOS will take over and the board will ratify this on Thursday. Even if we assume 4 members out of 12 vote against Ratcliffe’s proposal that simply won’t be enough to stop his minority buy in to the business.

I have always assumed that INEOS are buying 25% of the Class B shares which is 28.25m from the 113m and approximately 12.75m of the 51m Class A shares, giving them 41m of the 164m shares available which is exactly 25%.

I would presume that the INEOS lawyers have a ‘Co Ownership’ contract where there are numerous ‘put and call’ agreement clauses and the minimum value per share can be activated by either party in line with the original purchase and future increases.

The matter of the 28.25m class B voting shares which have 10 times the voting rights must have a special dispensation clause in the contract which is to be agreed under the new co ownership structure that these shares do not revert to class A when sold. INEOS are just too smart not to have these clauses in the ‘Buy In’ option they are trying to get board approval for.

Finally on the subject of his actually voting power after the initially 25% purchase you have to assume that 113m class b shares have 1.13 billion(Due to 10* Factor) plus the 51m class A shares would mean that INEOS now have 292.25m voting shares against a total of 1.181 billion so simple math you buy 25%, you own 25% you now have 25% voting power as well.

I say all of this based on speculation from the press with regard to actual numbers , INEOS 25% minority buy out has changed from $1.875bn to $1.75 billion to £1.5 billion to £1.3 billion to now more recently £1.4 billion.
Click to expand...

What I do not want as I am sure everyone bar the Glazers and everyone related to them, is Ratcliffe/INEOS investing in those things you have mentioned, I,e the stadiums infrastructure etc. Important factors that help the team and coaching staff become successful which results in the club growing it's value.

Meanwhile, Glazers do not invest, sitting on their arses doing Jack sprat, then turning round to Ratcliffe saying "our shares are more valuable, the next installment is $2 billion."

There must be an agreement in place where Ratcliffe prevents himself from effectively being conned?
 
Last edited:
Yorke to Cole said:
What I do not want as I am sure everyone bar the Glazers and everyone related to them, is Ratcliffe/INEOS investing in those things you have mentioned, I,e the stadiums infrastructure etc. Important factors that help the team and coaching staff become successful which results in the club growing it's value.

Meanwhile, Glazers do not invest, sitting on their arses doing Jack sprat, then turning round to Ratcliffe our shares are more valuable, the next installment is $2 billion.

There must be an agreement in place where Ratcliffe prevents himself from effectively being conned?
Click to expand...
If INEOS is contributing capital for investment and the other shareholders aren't, surely their stakes will be diluted accordingly? Otherwise they're just getting a free ride as you pointed out.
 
BluesJr said:
Injury time winner for Jassim.
Click to expand...

That BBC economist already said Qatar have gone "3-2 up in the 89th minute". You can't tell me Ratcliffe scored twice in stoppage time to make it 4-3, Jassim scored an equaliser and has now gone 5-4 up?
 
Yorke to Cole said:
That BBC economist already said Qatar have gone "3-2 up in the 89th minute". You can't tell me Ratcliffe scored twice in stoppage time to make it 4-3, Jassim scored an equaliser and has now gone 5-4 up?
Click to expand...
Absolute scenes on the pitch.
 
JediSith said:
I have feeling getting the votes is not as straight forward as people think. If we ignore the board members not named Glazer. Going by media reports 4 wanted to sell, only 2 wanted to stay.
Click to expand...
It will depend on what plans they all have for the money and whether they need huge sums now, seems odd that the 4 that wanted to sell are suddenly happy to stick it out for a few more years because the 2 brothers are throwing their toys about.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.