Club Sale | It’s done!

[VP89]

Can you explain how that will work. Does Ratcliffe get to decide who to buy and sell and what the transfer budget is? Does he get to hire a new manager or DOF.
If so what stops him from siphoning money off to Nice and Lausanne by spending £100m of United’s money on a nothing player.
This is PR from Ratcliffe. If you believe that any sabe businessman will allow a minority investor to have total control over the business’ most important operations then i have a bridge to sell to you.

If you believe any sane businessman gives 25% to line pockets of incompetent owners then I have a bridge to sell you.

In this structure the Glazers get to sell 25% at a ridiculous share premium, keep a slice of the profits for the near term and then sell the remaining at another premium that may well be a bigger windfall than a full sale today.

Regarding how the committee would work, that's going to get divulged down the line, but again if the main credible sources say he has footballing control then I wouldn't cite it as PR. The times, FT, Ben Jacob's, The Athletic aren't just there to dance to a Ratcliffe tune. They will have better knowledge than that.

 

[George The Best]

Ah right. I’ll just ignore the Financial Times, Times, Ornstein, Crafton and the telegraph. Pexbo knows best. It’s all a myth. He’s giving them feck tons of cash for absolutely zero control because he’s a renowned moron. Makes perfect sense.

You need to understand you are only hearing one side of the story. INEOS is putting everything out there - despite the NDA’s.

 

[George The Best]

There is no 'side'.
There is only tier one articles saying that INEOS are structuring a deal that will have 25% ownership at the start and footballing control. One Glazer stays on a footballing committee that is 2/3rds run by INEOS.

Now whether that gets ratified or not will be confirmed at a board vote, but this is the current state of play. Qatar wouldn't withdraw from the process if this structure was not attractive to the Glazers.

Of course there is. The INEOS PR machine is cranking it up. Your own comment saying that ‘tier one articles saying that INEOS are structuring a deal’ just goes to prove it. Only one side is talking - and they don’t have a deal yet.

 

[VP89]

Of course there is. The INEOS PR machine is cranking it up. Your own comment saying that ‘tier one articles saying that INEOS are structuring a deal’ just goes to prove it. Only one side is talking - and they don’t have a deal yet.

When did I say they have a deal?
And no, there isn't a side. I named sources that give information, one of which cited sources close to the Glazers for fecksake

 

[George The Best]

When did I say they have a deal?
And no, there isn't a side. I named sources that give information, one of which cited sources close to the Glazers for fecksake

You’ve been saying this is not a handshake down the pub? Which is the source close to the Glazer’s?

 

[MackRobinson]

That is just patently untrue. It has been reported over the years that Joel is signing off on most incoming and outgoing transfer, amongst other things. He vetoed Martial's exit years ago, for example. I believe it was because he thought Martial is going to become Manchester United's Pele. God in heaven. Anyway, he is absolutely involved in the operations of the club. Richard Arnold, and his predecessor, have had to run most moves by him first. And what I told you was proven correct mere hours later.

What was proven correct? I already said it's fairly standard to run things by the owner. The original question was what is meant by he's involved day to day? Vetoing a single transfer doesn't constitute that.

If Ratcliffe didn't want to sit in a corner, he should have paid more. It is delusional to believe Joel and Avram will let him do as he pleases for a mere 25%. That's just not how it works. This would probably be the first enterprise in the world where a minority shareholder is calling the shots in any way. And you cannot separate football operations from financial operations in any meaningful way. Ratcliffe can appoint who he wants, but his appointees need money to do their jobs. And the ones holding the money are the owners of the club. What happens when Ratcliffe's Director-of-Football says he wants to sign Joe Schmoe for 80 million but Joel says "No", because that's too much or Joe's wage demands are too high? So, unless "football control" means Ratcliffe is going to come up with a new formation, coach the players, and prepare nutritional plans, it all remains window dressing when he doesn't control the funds. Well, unless he has decided to continue pumping hundreds of millions into the club each summer.

He's not going to sit in a corner, and he's not going to do as he pleases either. If you honestly think he's spent 1B to stand around, you haven't got the slightest clue. And yes, you can separate football and financial operations. It's called a transfer budget.

This is making my head hurt.

 

[VP89]

You’ve been saying this is not a handshake down the pub? Which is the source close to the Glazer’s?

Yes, if you read both posts clearly I said Ratcliffe wouldn't buy 25% and think hel get footballing control later down the line like it was some pub handshake.

I said he will make sure any deal includes the control he wants and it may take time to thrash that out in terms of how it looks by way of restructured shares.

Re the source it was the Times. Sounds like you haven't read the articles but just pawned it off as Ratcliffe PR for no reason.

 

[Pexbo]

And yes, you can separate football and financial operations. It's called a transfer budget.

This is making my head hurt.

A transfer budget, wow that covers all footballing decisions. Have a crack at these now:

What you seem to be wilfully ignoring is that footballing and commercial side is intrinsically linked.

Do you think Ratcliffe’s football decision to sell Rashford wouldn’t be met with resistance from Joel and co?

What if Ratcliffe decided that Carrington needed an overhall? You know, for footballing reasons? Is he going to be able to spend £300m of club money for that footballing decision with his footballing control?

United’s summer tours have been poor footballing preparation for years now, instead of a big tour of America or the far East he wants to keep it more local with matches against Leeds, Sunderland, Celtic and Nice. Football or commercial decision?

Transfers - let’s say his new DOF looks at the squad and decides an overhaul is needed. His approach is a massive clear out - doesn’t matter if we don’t get full value from sales, more important we clear players off the books and raise some funds. Then he thinks we should spend the next three years budget in one window and be frugal in the following windows. A high risk strategy and if it goes wrong you have a shit squad and no money in future windows to rescue it and could be left in a terrible state - essentially risking the clubs future. A footballing decision right? Nothing to do with the commercial side of the club.

 

[Red the Bear]

Do you honestly believe they couldn't have found small minority investors to keep themselves in control?


I bet the Qataris regret that now. 1-2bn in 2011 to 6bn in 2023 - and that's with the club being mismanaged. Imagine Man Utd being worth 18-36bn in 2035. Sounds utterly impossible.

To be fair it sounded equally impossible that we're worth what we are now back in 2011.

 

[bludsucker]

If you believe any sane businessman gives 25% to line pockets of incompetent owners then I have a bridge to sell you.

In this structure the Glazers get to sell 25% at a ridiculous share premium, keep a slice of the profits for the near term and then sell the remaining at another premium that may well be a bigger windfall than a full sale today.

Regarding how the committee would work, that's going to get divulged down the line, but again if the main credible sources say he has footballing control then I wouldn't cite it as PR. The times, FT, Ben Jacob's, The Athletic aren't just there to dance to a Ratcliffe tune. They will have better knowledge than that.

PR is what it is. And you are falling hook, line and sinker for it. How about you answer a couple of the questions being raised by me. Who decides on trf budgets? Who decides of hiring and firing of managers? Do you really think these are decisions which do not affect the commercial side of the business? Or do you believe that the glazers will do their best to earn money for the club just for someone who holds 25% of it to go and spend it without the glazers having any say in it.

 

[VP89]

PR is what it is. And you are falling hook, line and sinker for it. How about you answer a couple of the questions being raised by me. Who decides on trf budgets? Who decides of hiring and firing of managers? Do you really think these are decisions which do not affect the commercial side of the business? Or do you believe that the glazers will do their best to earn money for the club just for someone who holds 25% of it to go and spend it without the glazers having any say in it.

From what is being suggested, I'd gather Budget would be more influenced by Glazers. INEOS on managers. It's not PR, it's what credible outlets are insinuating. If you think any news is PR then you have a bit of a problem, no offence.

 

[bludsucker]

From what is being suggested, I'd gather Budget would be more influenced by Glazers. INEOS on managers. It's not PR, it's what credible outlets are insinuating. If you think any news is PR then you have a bit of a problem, no offence.

So do you think the glazers would be ok with ratcliffe firing ten hag and hiring alan pardew? How about hiring Joe kinnear as DOF or selling say Rashford and replacing him with andy carrol. If you seriously think this doesn’t affect the commercial side of the clubs operation then you have a problem.

 

[stevoc]

Do you honestly believe they couldn't have found small minority investors to keep themselves in control?


I bet the Qataris regret that now. 1-2bn in 2011 to 6bn in 2023 - and that's with the club being mismanaged. Imagine Man Utd being worth 18-36bn in 2035. Sounds utterly impossible.

I bet they do. Might be a high estimation but nothing is impossible.

Michael Knighton had agreed to buy the club for £20m in 1989, Murdoch was close to buying the club back in 1999 for £600m, the Glazers did buy the club for £800m in 2005. And now in 2023 the club is worth £5.2 Billion.

 

[Utd7]

Could you possibly post the article?

https://www.ft.com/content/80c1e6a8-4ce9-4016-8fc1-96dcc51f1a4b

 

[Laurencio]

What's with all the crazy scenarios?

Owners don't sit and calculate how much money they will spend each transfer window. It's a long process of battles, negotations and collaborations between different department heads which goes on for months, until it is presented to the board for final approval. The budget is the budget, and if you want to do something outside that budget - which our managers have been known to do - that requires board approval. Cristiano would have been a board-level discussion because he was outside the budget and likely exceeded the pe-defined wage-structure. That is the process regardless of who the majority or the minority shareholders are, or who sits on what comittee. Large scale projects, such as a training ground rebuild and/or stadium refurbishment, also requires board approval - and then someone in finance needs to find a way to make place in the budget for that. Minor investments are usually handled by the heads of the department in accordance with their budgets, if they want something outside of their budget they need approval from their boss. These are rarely brought up to ownership/board level.

If there is a real split between commercial and football it will be down to strategy and authority over structure. The club has considerable real-estate, an investment fund, a charity, a tv channel, a number of stores world wide and interactive media companies - these I imagine would all fall under the commercial/business side of the club. Football would be the club itself and its teams, and the academy.

Splitting those doesn't automatically take away the need for normal board approval processes.

 

[VP89]

So do you think the glazers would be ok with ratcliffe firing ten hag and hiring alan pardew? How about hiring Joe kinnear as DOF or selling say Rashford and replacing him with andy carrol. If you seriously think this doesn’t affect the commercial side of the clubs operation then you have a problem.

I think you let your imagination run a bit too wild there son

 

[MackRobinson]

A transfer budget, wow that covers all footballing decisions. Have a crack at these now:

Remove the word transfer. Every corporation operates under a budget. For any decisions that fall outside of the scope of previous budgets or change the original direction of the company, the board would likely vote on the measure. It's that simple.

 

[Nogbadthebad]

Can I just point out that arguing over who has control of a comittee of brailsford ratcliffe and joel fricking glazer is like bald men arguing over a comb.

There isnt a man there who should be anywhere near making strategic desicions for Manchester United, if we want to be anywhere near winning things. Because none of them know more about football than people here, and in joels case, less.

We are fecked, regardless of which billionaire wins the dick waving contest. We need football experts, we get the cycling doper, a cheslea season tickt holder and the billionaire hobo.

 

[Appletonred]

So the football committee will consist of a chemical engineer, a cycling coach, and an accountant, how did this club get to this point? unbelievable.

 

[Cassidy]

So the football committee will consist of a chemical engineer, a cycling coach, and an accountant, how did this club get to this point? unbelievable.

Not likely. It will quite obviously include who ever replaces Murtough etc and the manager.


However the fact Joel Glazer is there is a problem

 

[Pexbo]

Remove the word transfer. Every corporation operates under a budget. For any decisions that fall outside of the scope of previous budgets or change the original direction of the company, the board would likely vote on the measure. It's that simple.

Ya just going to ignore the post then?

 

[Cassidy]

What's with all the crazy scenarios?

Owners don't sit and calculate how much money they will spend each transfer window. It's a long process of battles, negotations and collaborations between different department heads which goes on for months, until it is presented to the board for final approval. The budget is the budget, and if you want to do something outside that budget - which our managers have been known to do - that requires board approval. Cristiano would have been a board-level discussion because he was outside the budget and likely exceeded the pe-defined wage-structure. That is the process regardless of who the majority or the minority shareholders are, or who sits on what comittee. Large scale projects, such as a training ground rebuild and/or stadium refurbishment, also requires board approval - and then someone in finance needs to find a way to make place in the budget for that. Minor investments are usually handled by the heads of the department in accordance with their budgets, if they want something outside of their budget they need approval from their boss. These are rarely brought up to ownership/board level.

If there is a real split between commercial and football it will be down to strategy and authority over structure. The club has considerable real-estate, an investment fund, a charity, a tv channel, a number of stores world wide and interactive media companies - these I imagine would all fall under the commercial/business side of the club. Football would be the club itself and its teams, and the academy.

Splitting those doesn't automatically take away the need for normal board approval processes.

Our board approval processes have quite obviously been a major issue.

 

[Laurencio]

So the football committee will consist of a chemical engineer, a cycling coach, and an accountant, how did this club get to this point? unbelievable.

Also known as The money (Jim), The day to day representative of INEOS (Brailsford) and the majority shareholder (Joel). The only three people needed to deliberate on strategic spending and with enough votes to force anything through. This isn't a transfer comittee, it's a slimmed down version of the board - hopefully designed to be able to make decisions quicker and more decisively than before.

Not likely. It will quite obviously include who ever replaces Murtough etc and the manager.


However the fact Joel Glazer is there is a problem

You don't need more than 3. The two largest shareholders and a representative of the club in some capacity - for now Brailsford apparently.

 

[Cassidy]

Also known as The money (Jim), The day to day representative of INEOS (Brailsford) and the majority shareholder (Joel). The only three people needed to deliberate on strategic spending and with enough votes to force anything through. This isn't a transfer comittee, it's a slimmed down version of the board - hopefully designed to be able to make decisions quicker and more decisively than before.



You don't need more than 3. The two largest shareholders and a representative of the club in some capacity - for now Brailsford apparently.

You obviously do, you need the Sporting Director to be there at the least ifs its a Sporting committee.

 

[Laurencio]

You obviously do, you need the Sporting Director to be there at the least ifs its a Sporting committee.

I think that depends entirely on what that comittee does, but I'll conceed that it might be helpful to have the sporting director involved instead of Brailsford.

 

[Coops73]

Jim Ratcliffe splitting the United fan base since 2023?

 

[USREDEVIL]

Adding another chef to cook the soup. Looks promising. At least it's Ratatouille i suppose.

 

[Rood]

If you believe any sane businessman gives 25% to line pockets of incompetent owners then I have a bridge to sell you.

In this structure the Glazers get to sell 25% at a ridiculous share premium, keep a slice of the profits for the near term and then sell the remaining at another premium that may well be a bigger windfall than a full sale today.

Regarding how the committee would work, that's going to get divulged down the line, but again if the main credible sources say he has footballing control then I wouldn't cite it as PR. The times, FT, Ben Jacob's, The Athletic aren't just there to dance to a Ratcliffe tune. They will have better knowledge than that.

There is no agreement for anything yet - those sources are just mentioning what Sir Jim is proposing to the Glazers, none are saying it's agreed already.

My reading of the situation is that there is a vague agreement on price for a 25% stake and now the exact details need to be agreed.

Initial reports that this deal would get done this week were clearly wide of the mark too.
If it's even done this year, I'd be surprised.

 

[Mr Pigeon]

What's with all the crazy scenarios?

Drama.

 

[DownRiver]

You know what’s sad about this?

Within 3 years of taking over Man Utd in 2005, under the Glazer’s reign we won a champions league (and many PL titles).

I do not think Jimbo will have this success as the club has fallen so short, and he will not take hold of the club via majority for another 3-5 years.

 

[MackRobinson]

Ya just going to ignore the post then?

I responded to the scenarios you outlined in that post.

 

[Fr. Todd Unctious]

Brailsford involved ffs

 

[Nogbadthebad]

I think that depends entirely on what that comittee does, but I'll conceed that it might be helpful to have the sporting director involved instead of Brailsford.

Brialsford will be the sporting director, that is what he is at Nice

 

[Cassidy]

Brialsford will be the sporting director, that is what he is at Nice

Except he isn’t

 

[RedDevilQuebecois]

Brailsford involved ffs

 

[Yorke to Cole]

FFP/FSP is reliant on the late accounts more than anything, the club sold £40m of homegrown players so that adds £150/180m to our original £120m budget we had set aside from FFP, and a €30m investment would need to be paid in January to offset the 3 year debt rule, that’s why the accounts are critical and without seeing them no one knows anything about January budget.

Remember from a FSP (financial
Sustainability policy) we are still in 2023/24 season and that means we are in the 90% window, so in other words if our accounts come out next week and revenue is £650m and losses reduce from the £115m lost in the previous year to a more manageable £40m.

Then , this season the club would be able to spend £585m on wages, transfer fees, expenses, financials, Agent fees, interest payments to service the debt!

This is why the accounts are so
Important plus we’ve already spent £125m net in the summer so we really don’t know, my guess is if INEOS pay sone money in help with Cashflow which is the real problem, the club is skint, it’s probably only got a budget £70-80m plus which ever player we sell.

We will become more restricted in the following two years where FSP reduces to 80% then 70% so unless we pay off the debt, the club will be hampered massively in the transfer market in the next few years however Ineos do have the money to turn that all around ?

I was thinking back, when in June there was the bloomberg article stating Qatar confident of takeover and then a week later, Ratcliffe's offer "dead in the water". I believe that is when the lawsuits came.

I also think that is when Jassim should have increased his offer (that he may hafe done last week) and really nailed down his intention.

 

[Kinsella]

People are having a mare in here.

 

[Acquire Me]

People are having a mare in here.

Indeed. Embarrassing.

 

[Garethw]

If Ratcliffe truly loves the club then he should walk away. Come back in 6-12 months when the financial situation is so dire that the Glazers will be open to selling their full stake.

 

[Widow]

Overly judgmental people in here