Club Sale | It’s done!

Status
Not open for further replies.
Rightnr said:
Mercedes dominated F1 for nearly 10 years and in that time Ratcliffe was nowhere to be seen.
Click to expand...
And before that Renault dominated and before that Ferrari, just like in football teams go through periods of success, if you understood F1 you would know that the FIA cost cap for 2021 is the biggest influence on Mercedes relative lack of success in the last 2 seasons, and the lack of that cost cap being the major reason for their success over the previous 10.

In addition I doubt very much that Ratcliffe had anything to do with Red Bull switching to a Honda engine or James Vowles switching to Team Williams or to be honest Merc deciding against sidepods and sticking to the idea for 2 seasons despite the evidence that they were significantly beneficial.

Merc designed a bad car when the rule changes came in, in F1 you have to live with that, there is only so much you can do in season to make changes, you are effectively working on your next seasons car not this seasons, there is a tremendous amount of inertia.

Ineos (Petronas) is a 1/3 shareholder and have no day to day influence over the running of the club, or financial management of Mercedes, one of the reasons the Merc dominated for so long is that they had unrivalled finances, and the FIA introduced a cost cap to level the playing field, all the F1 teams max if not exceed their cost cap.... why wouldn't they Red Bull do and get zero punishment!

But yeah blame Ratcliffe if it makes you happy, BTW I have some magic beans for sale if you are interested!
 
stevoc said:
Jassim's bid if it wasn't state backed was always going to be based on borrowing.
Click to expand...

Obviously.

But that part never seemed to be mentioned much by the (very vocal) posters who claimed that the bid had nothing to do with Qatar (the state): "It's not Qatar, it's just a random bloke who happens to be from Qatar."

(The obvious response to that would be: Why would a random bloke from Qatar we know feck all about, without state funding, be a particularly desirable candidate for taking over United?)

ETA To be clear, I don't think Jassim is/was a random bloke from Qatar. Until someone provides me with some very solid evidence, I'll still think he was a front figure for an actual Qatari attempt to buy United. An attempt that hopefully failed - for various possible reasons.
 
Last edited:
Wheato said:
Augmented Reality

They are going to stick little cameras on players shirts, and people around the world will be able to be Marcus Rashford in an actual match and they will pay money for it. They have already trailed it in the US.

It will make the clubs a lot of money.
Click to expand...

golden_blunder said:
Augmented reality I presume. VR
Click to expand...

Ah yeah. Can see that being a good earner tbh.

They definitely need to do the one they trialled in the friendlies this year for the referees at least.
 
Chesterlestreet said:
Obviously.

But that part never seemed to be mentioned much by the (very vocal) posters who claimed that the bid had nothing to do with Qatar (the state): "It's not Qatar, it's just a random bloke who happens to be from Qatar."
Click to expand...

Yeah probably because most of them pretended to live in cloud cuckoo land where some guy just has £5-6b sitting in a savings account to spend on a football club, then buy Mbappe, then build a new stadium etc.

I think most of them knew it was probably state backed but didn't want to admit it. For a start it didn't make sense to maintain Jassim's bid was independent but then criticise Jim Ratcliffe's bid for borrowing money.
 
stevoc said:
Jassim's bid if it wasn't state backed was always going to be based on borrowing. No one has the type of money to buy United sitting in a bank account.
Click to expand...

Correct

And even state investment funds use debt sometimes

Bank Of America representatives showed up at Old Trafford as part of the 92F group so not sure why anyone is surprised - the important point is that the debt would not be placed on the club as it is at the moment
 
matherto said:
Even someone like Musk or Bezos?
Click to expand...

I'd be surprised if those guys even have hundreds of millions in the bank never mind billions. They'll probably have most of their cash tied up in stocks and investments, and then just borrow whenever they need cash.
 
To be honest, isn't there a remote chance that the current geopolitical situation in the Middle East has also contributed to the Qatar side being out? The Glazers are Jewish immigrants. The Emir of Qatar most likely supports the other side. It made sense before but right now, with the US siding on one side, it may not be a good idea for the Glazers to even consider working with Qatar.
 
Wheato said:
I'm hearing rumours that Sheikh Jassim's bid was not as bona fide as they made out. He only had direct access to 3bn and the rest was going to be from lenders. Ineos had 4.5bn in their bank account to spend right now.

This also tallies with the due diligence from their bid for Chelsea. Same amount of money.

This is why the Glazers needed PSG president Nasser Al-Khelaifi to vouch for Sheikh Jassim, because his numbers didn't stack up.

Obviously, they are going to spin a different story to save face, but their bid now seems to be a bit pie in the sky.

Ineos are still intent on full control of the club, but it will be in stages and the reason for that will become apparent when we see the 3pm blackout scrapped and AR introduced to football.
Click to expand...
What's AR? The 3pm blackout scrapped could mean what exactly? That the domestic TV deal would go up?

Edit: Ah Augmented Reality. I mean, sure, but what would that mean? That we go to a stadium in NYC to see players from OT? That sounds a bit silly to be fair.
 
gaffs said:
INEOS are a part owner and sponsor.

They are not involved in the day to day at Mercedes F1.

Not sure why this is even a conversation.
Click to expand...
People are desperate to prove he's some sort of sports business guru when, at best, the evidence is mixed.

Doesn't mean he won't do well for us but he's no FSG where you can point to competent (even if somewhat stingy) past management
 
Zed 101 said:
And before that Renault dominated and before that Ferrari, just like in football teams go through periods of success, if you understood F1 you would know that the FIA cost cap for 2021 is the biggest influence on Mercedes relative lack of success in the last 2 seasons, and the lack of that cost cap being the major reason for their success over the previous 10.

In addition I doubt very much that Ratcliffe had anything to do with Red Bull switching to a Honda engine or James Vowles switching to Team Williams or to be honest Merc deciding against sidepods and sticking to the idea for 2 seasons despite the evidence that they were significantly beneficial.

Merc designed a bad car when the rule changes came in, in F1 you have to live with that, there is only so much you can do in season to make changes, you are effectively working on your next seasons car not this seasons, there is a tremendous amount of inertia.

Ineos (Petronas) is a 1/3 shareholder and have no day to day influence over the running of the club, or financial management of Mercedes, one of the reasons the Merc dominated for so long is that they had unrivalled finances, and the FIA introduced a cost cap to level the playing field, all the F1 teams max if not exceed their cost cap.... why wouldn't they Red Bull do and get zero punishment!

But yeah blame Ratcliffe if it makes you happy, BTW I have some magic beans for sale if you are interested!
Click to expand...
I never said he failed FFS. I questioned the assertion he's some kind of sports team management hero because he invested in a business (Mercedes F1 team) which had already dominated the sport for nearly 10 years.

It's like crediting the Glazers for United winning titles between 2005 and 2013. They bought into a successful institution and have ruined that past success by all accounts.

Ratcliffe's management of Nice would be a much better comparison in the same sport, similar level of league where he has full control and has miserably failed so far although there are signs he might have finally got it right.

But you apparently cannot read and went ahead with writing a whole essay instead. Congratulations.
 
stevoc said:
Jassim's bid if it wasn't state backed was always going to be based on borrowing. No one has the type of money to buy United sitting in a bank account.
Click to expand...

Accept Jim Ratcliffe and his partners.
Gasolin said:
What's AR? The 3pm blackout scrapped could mean what exactly? That the domestic TV deal would go up?

Edit: Ah Augmented Reality. I mean, sure, but what would that mean? That we go to a stadium in NYC to see players from OT? That sounds a bit silly to be fair.
Click to expand...

More like kids in Asia, logging into United matches and becoming the player of their choice and living the game through the player.
 
Gasolin said:
To be honest, isn't there a remote chance that the current geopolitical situation in the Middle East has also contributed to the Qatar side being out? The Glazers are Jewish immigrants. The Emir of Qatar most likely supports the other side. It made sense before but right now, with the US siding on one side, it may not be a good idea for the Glazers to even consider working with Qatar.
Click to expand...
Nah, behind closed doors they don't care at the slightest. Not when it's purely business.
 
Gasolin said:
To be honest, isn't there a remote chance that the current geopolitical situation in the Middle East has also contributed to the Qatar side being out? The Glazers are Jewish immigrants. The Emir of Qatar most likely supports the other side. It made sense before but right now, with the US siding on one side, it may not be a good idea for the Glazers to even consider working with Qatar.
Click to expand...

People that rich don’t let stupid shit like religion get in the way of doing business.
 
Gasolin said:
To be honest, isn't there a remote chance that the current geopolitical situation in the Middle East has also contributed to the Qatar side being out? The Glazers are Jewish immigrants. The Emir of Qatar most likely supports the other side. It made sense before but right now, with the US siding on one side, it may not be a good idea for the Glazers to even consider working with Qatar.
Click to expand...

"When its a question of money, we are all of the same religion." Voltaire.
 
Spoony said:
That doesn't appeal to me. That said a VR stadium experience could work.
Click to expand...
Similar to what I suggested when there was rumours of either Amazon or Apple purchasing United.
You could have VR stadium tours easy enough or be a virtual attendee at a live match. Imagine, today’s attendance is 80 thousand + 1.5 million watching on VR. It’s a huge money spinner idea
Gasolin said:
To be honest, isn't there a remote chance that the current geopolitical situation in the Middle East has also contributed to the Qatar side being out? The Glazers are Jewish immigrants. The Emir of Qatar most likely supports the other side. It made sense before but right now, with the US siding on one side, it may not be a good idea for the Glazers to even consider working with Qatar.
Click to expand...
I had the same thought a few days ago. Purely coincidental timing?
 
Rightnr said:
People are desperate to prove he's some sort of sports business guru when, at best, the evidence is mixed.

Doesn't mean he won't do well for us but he's no FSG where you can point to competent (even if somewhat stingy) past management
Click to expand...
Actually people in the thread are desperate to disprove his sporting competency by relying on the Mercedes performance in past years.
 
After 220 pages on this thread I have yet to see any evidence of Sir Jim’s genius as a football club operator — in terms of performance on the pitch. If it exists could someone post it? Thanks!
 
Ineos/Sir Jim can't and won't put any cash into the infrastructure or building up Man Utd. Why would they. All that does is makes the Glaziers richer and makes a complete buy out impossible. Sure his 25 percent worth will increase a bit but most of the gain is not his. Plus the dude is 71. He will never live long enough to see true change.
All he is doing is having a go at the football side. If he can transform us and win something then he will die happy. Its a dream and hobby for his last few years. Who wouldnt want to run the football side of Man Utd. But its the privilege of a billionaire and not the job going to the best man for the job.
That's how I see it. A rich dude having some shits and giggles in his old age
 
lex talionis said:
After 220 pages on this thread I have yet to see any evidence of Sir Jim’s genius as a football club operator — in terms of performance on the pitch. If it exists could someone post it? Thanks!
Click to expand...

There isn't but then could you say that about anyone else who tried to buy us?

All you can do is watch and wait, people are desperate to prove his lack of sporting nous by talking about F1 or Cycling like that has any impact in football, and yes Nice hasn't gone immediately to plan but then what were Nice doing under the previous owners pretty much the same as they have been and it looks like some hard lessons have been learned along the way but surely that's a good thing, you only have to look at Chelsea to see what an owner with no experience can look like.
 
sglowrider said:
That's the misnomer that everyone here keeps using. We can't spend based on our own earnings anymore. Folks are looking at selective line items in the spreadsheet only.

As economists would say, Ceteris paribus or if all things remain equal then we could spend what we earn. But unfortunately, there are two big elephants in the room.

If we didn't have the ever-increasing cost of the debt and the kicked-down-the-road capital expenditure spending then I would agree. If we had to borrow for the infra upgrades then there is no way our existing revenues can carry/support those expenditures.
Click to expand...

Spending what we earn without the glazers debt is not a misnomer. If true, Qatar was going to wipe out the debt and fund the stadium cap ex. The club would not have to take on borrowings to fund the stadium upgrade and the like. But I don’t disagree with you that in any event this is now moot and we will have to see if there will be any investment in our basic infrastructure. My point is that I very much doubt it, though I hope I’m wrong.
 
I think this drags on. The story that will start to emerge over the next week or so is division in the boardroom. The two Glazers that want to stay will have to start making deals with the 6 non glazer board members to get them to agree. Maybe get /make guarantees that jobs will stay.

Surprise they don’t invite Amazon in to make a documentary on it. Could probably cover half of the cost of the new stadium.
 
stevoc said:
Jassim's bid if it wasn't state backed was always going to be based on borrowing. No one has the type of money to buy United sitting in a bank account.
Click to expand...
I asked this question months ago and all I ever got was a steady stream of crickets. My best guess is nobody likes to admit their own cognitive dissonance.
 
Kaos said:
Nah, behind closed doors they don't care at the slightest. Not when it's purely business.
Click to expand...
They may not care themselves but sanctions are real in the business world and you don't want to be close to that in any fashion.
 
Wheato said:
I'm hearing rumours that Sheikh Jassim's bid was not as bona fide as they made out. He only had direct access to 3bn and the rest was going to be from lenders. Ineos had 4.5bn in their bank account to spend right now.

This also tallies with the due diligence from their bid for Chelsea. Same amount of money.

This is why the Glazers needed PSG president Nasser Al-Khelaifi to vouch for Sheikh Jassim, because his numbers didn't stack up.

Obviously, they are going to spin a different story to save face, but their bid now seems to be a bit pie in the sky.

Ineos are still intent on full control of the club, but it will be in stages and the reason for that will become apparent when we see the 3pm blackout scrapped and AR introduced to football.
Click to expand...
Blackout will be continued until 2028 at least it’s just been confirmed .
 
Wheato said:
I'm hearing rumours that Sheikh Jassim's bid was not as bona fide as they made out. He only had direct access to 3bn and the rest was going to be from lenders. Ineos had 4.5bn in their bank account to spend right now.

This also tallies with the due diligence from their bid for Chelsea. Same amount of money.

This is why the Glazers needed PSG president Nasser Al-Khelaifi to vouch for Sheikh Jassim, because his numbers didn't stack up.

Obviously, they are going to spin a different story to save face, but their bid now seems to be a bit pie in the sky.

Ineos are still intent on full control of the club, but it will be in stages and the reason for that will become apparent when we see the 3pm blackout scrapped and AR introduced to football.
Click to expand...
3pm blackout will change very little
 
Rightnr said:
People are desperate to prove he's some sort of sports business guru when, at best, the evidence is mixed.

Doesn't mean he won't do well for us but he's no FSG where you can point to competent (even if somewhat stingy) past management
Click to expand...

I would agree. Some good things seem to be happening now at Nice since Francesco Farioli came in, but the record prior is mixed - or at least at par, considering where Nice were prior.

Plus, even if there was a track record, good or bad, it doesn't mean that the same will apply at United. Even The Glazers won two Super Bowls in the last 20 years, which is a pretty good record.
 
Zed 101 said:
And before that Renault dominated and before that Ferrari, just like in football teams go through periods of success, if you understood F1 you would know that the FIA cost cap for 2021 is the biggest influence on Mercedes relative lack of success in the last 2 seasons, and the lack of that cost cap being the major reason for their success over the previous 10.

In addition I doubt very much that Ratcliffe had anything to do with Red Bull switching to a Honda engine or James Vowles switching to Team Williams or to be honest Merc deciding against sidepods and sticking to the idea for 2 seasons despite the evidence that they were significantly beneficial.

Merc designed a bad car when the rule changes came in, in F1 you have to live with that, there is only so much you can do in season to make changes, you are effectively working on your next seasons car not this seasons, there is a tremendous amount of inertia.

Ineos (Petronas) is a 1/3 shareholder and have no day to day influence over the running of the club, or financial management of Mercedes, one of the reasons the Merc dominated for so long is that they had unrivalled finances, and the FIA introduced a cost cap to level the playing field, all the F1 teams max if not exceed their cost cap.... why wouldn't they Red Bull do and get zero punishment!

But yeah blame Ratcliffe if it makes you happy, BTW I have some magic beans for sale if you are interested!
Click to expand...

Way to crush it with your F1 knowledge! Especially Red Bull getting away with it.... ;)
 
lex talionis said:
After 220 pages on this thread I have yet to see any evidence of Sir Jim’s genius as a football club operator — in terms of performance on the pitch. If it exists could someone post it? Thanks!
Click to expand...

He might not be, but the evidence at hand suggests he is willing to change structure, staff and responsibilities in pursuit of excellence. He's doesn't just sit idly by and wait for things to improve on their own- sometimes that is a detriment, but it's something we've been lacking. If the old way doesn't work, figure out why and come up with a better plan.
 
lex talionis said:
After 220 pages on this thread I have yet to see any evidence of Sir Jim’s genius as a football club operator — in terms of performance on the pitch. If it exists could someone post it? Thanks!
Click to expand...
Who knows if he's a genius. He's a smart guy and a good business man. The only key point that we should be confident with is that he actually wants to run the football side of things, and wants to focus on that. Which is a nice change, given the current situation is "football is secondary to actually being successful off the pitch" mindset from the current bosses. Right now there is a void where the whole football operations is basically just not prioritized, hope the manager can carry the load for everyone but no need to invest much time or effort into changing the structure properly because they don't actually care if that has an impact. So whoever runs it doesn't have that much pressure to actually do well.

Ratcliffe will pretty much focus on that. So it's different in that we have someone focusing it now.
 
Many thanks to the previous two posters. I suppose optimism is preferable to despair, but even though there’s no track record to support optimism it’s at least cause for hope that Sir Jim is telling us what we want to hear.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.