I would be more skeptical had Jassim not called it quits. I don't think he walks unless it's a preemptive move to get ahead of simply losing out. It seems to me an agreement between INEOS and the Glazers is inevitable, but the two wildcards are the timeline and the response the deal will prompt from the Class A shareholders.
Club Sale | It’s done!
- Thread starter JB08
- Start date
- Status
Or he called it quits because it became clear to him they had no intention of a full sale from the beginning.
Rat might only be getting noise now because he's the only one willing to offer the Glazers valuation for a small chunk, but that will probably come at the price of an amount of control they are not willing to cede and will also fall apart over the next few months/years.
Could’ve just called it quits because of how shit glazers have been negotiating.
Did you just insinuate the PSG chairman and CEO is their owner
The ex cyclist you refer to isn't tipped to be our sporting director. Michael Edwards or Paul Mitchell is. Are you OK here?
Its there to make footballing decisions including who to hire as the footballing director below them etc.
But it's 2/3rds in favour of INEOS and hands control to them. That has been reported so stop pretending otherwise.
I think more that it will become clear they’ll give him a ceremonial role in ‘control’ of football that in reality can just get veto’d on everything by the Glazers.
Wish we were home tomorrow so we could voice our opinions. Copenhagen could get ugly.
Do you really believe the representative of the majority owners on a 3 person mini-board wouldnt be able to veto anything and everything....
I am not pretending anything. You need to read my posts better.
The leaks from what Qatar were planning filled me with feck all confidence outside of them having big money dicks and clearing debt. The fact their leaks included naming which players they would buy (really bizarre) and the people who turned up for the first rounds were reported to be key figures if they won the bid. They had feck all to do with football. And then you have how Qatar run PSG to know they don't know what the feck they're doing.
Yeah no one knows anything 100% but you're just being purposefully dim if you think Qatar were about to embed this amazing structure at United like City did
I'd imagine the City game will be worse.
I already said that in my post. They need a face to just act as a owner/chairman or whatever name you call him. Its a state backed club.So When they brought Mbappe and the whole state paid for Neymar… who made them decisions?
Fecking hell
So 3 incompetent peopple making transfer decisions instead of 1 oh joy..
You would hope someone below them is making those decisions
You would yes normally. But do not underestimate how poorly this club are being run.
Did you just insinuate the PSG chairman and CEO is their owner
The ex cyclist you refer to isn't tipped to be our sporting director. Michael Edwards or Paul Mitchell is. Are you OK here?
Its there to make footballing decisions including who to hire as the footballing director below them etc.
But it's 2/3rds in favour of INEOS and hands control to them. That has been reported so stop pretending otherwise.
Question is simple - why do you need a three man non-footballing committee when you have a sporting director to make decisions? Isn't what are going through that now ?
When are Glazers going out ? What's the plan for full takeover over ? He paid close to 2 billion for 25 %. So enlighten me that he will pay 8billion to take the full control ?
With Qatar, it was straightforward. They named a price way above the market and also had allocated money for infrastructure. Glazers out in no time and class A/B shares will be handled too.
If it was a full takeover by Jim, yes this would have made sense. This is all just bluff.
This is one of the areas where you are correct, and why the prospect of the same at United would be far worse than Ratcliffe in my opinion.
Qatar was a no-goer. It was Ineos or nothing.
There are a lot of things left to be answered but what we do know is Ratcliffe gets footballing control.
Your bizarre question around why we need a committee above the sporting director is a tad ignorant. Sporting directors don't run the roost all the time, they will have direct reports. The committee will need to agree who is the best sporting director to carry out the vision too. I'm sure budgetary conversations take place above the sporting director as well.
Just sit and be patient for your answers before making things up, that's all I'm saying.
The thread title needs to change now that you all know its not a sale.
Well one person has to be there to ask important details around each transfer, such as "Will this affect our dividend?"
Who was the 1 prior?
Two different arguments but again your getting lost in the detail.
The owners will always be in charge as they sign off the cheques. However the planning will be managed by those they employee beneath them. Sir Jim and Co aren’t getting lost in the details of what best RB to buy. However they will be/should be making sure they hire the right guys that when a business case is presented to them they aren‘t wasting their budget.
This is a simplified example but with better decision makers what you are hoping for is for more people asking the right questions like why are we paying £80m for a £50m right back and why are we increasing his wage by 200%
The sad thing is, I genuinely believe Joel wants to be, and thinks he’s a vital part of the club’s decision making.
He doesn’t understand that he’s a genuine nepo baby buffoon who slows our decision making to a snails pace, makes terrible decisions and harms us more with almost every decision he makes.
I think he's a guy that wants to feel included. Can see a scenario of equal votes but him being dicked on every time by Ratcliffe and the other guy. And he'd probably be ok with that because he still feel involved on football decisions.
United board - Glazer faction + Ineos faction + other interests
Mini sporting board - Rat, Doper, Joel. Major decisions will undoubtedly need full board approval (hirings, signings, infrastructure investment etc). Joel will also have a veto on everything.
Sporting director/DOF - Appointed by Ineos, maybe, but will have to be approved by and answer to the Glazers
Yeah what a great idea this is.
Mini sporting board - Rat, Doper, Joel. Major decisions will undoubtedly need full board approval (hirings, signings, infrastructure investment etc). Joel will also have a veto on everything.
Sporting director/DOF - Appointed by Ineos, maybe, but will have to be approved by and answer to the Glazers
Yeah what a great idea this is.
Disjointed FC
Where did you read Joel having a veto.
Big shit today.
I'm assuming our self-elected President, Joel Glazer.
There'd be no value in him being on a 3 man sporting board if he didnt have one. Otherwise he'd just be getting outvoted on every decision.
I dont buy this idea in the first place to be clear, it sounds like something a journalist made up from adding 2 and 2 and getting 5.
I'd expect the football side of things will end up being decided in a room with Joel Glazer, Brailsford, a new DoF, head of scouting etc. And their recommendations will still end up needing full Glazer approval.
Only as much as everything else any journalist has said on this subject, some of which you've been clinging to.
Journalists have sources. You don't, you're a poster on a forum making a punt.
Yeah just guzzled up all that sweet cash. The Robin to Joel's Batman.
From a glazers pov there is no guarantee that Sur Jim and his team will do any better, there’s a chance that they could do even worse. That will come back on the glazers in increased heat from fans. So why would they let him do whatever he wants without a say in it? I think it’s a bit naive to think he will be given so much control for a 25% stake
Pretty certain this nonsense is entirely down to Joel glazer not wanting to let go of the footy manager save he has been playing at the club the last 2 decades. Even the siblings want to move on.
What the hell kind of entitled arrangement has himself making key decisions while the other guy fronts 2 billion? Can they even retain the club without someone else's money? Fckin hell move on you spoilt twat
What the hell kind of entitled arrangement has himself making key decisions while the other guy fronts 2 billion? Can they even retain the club without someone else's money? Fckin hell move on you spoilt twat
Honestly it's already looking to be the exact sort of farce most people expected. The Jim, Glazers, Brailsford triangle of genius is going to be a thing of legend for other clubs.
Who was the 1 prior?
Did you just insinuate the PSG chairman and CEO is their owner
The ex cyclist you refer to isn't tipped to be our sporting director. Michael Edwards or Paul Mitchell is. Are you OK here?
Its there to make footballing decisions including who to hire as the footballing director below them etc.
But it's 2/3rds in favour of INEOS and hands control to them. That has been reported so stop pretending otherwise.
I just have one question. In reading this thread over the past few pages you have stated the bolded or variations of it in multiple replies as though whatever is being reported is gospel, presumably because it comes from what you have referred to as Tier 1 sources. Why are you so convinced that they are right this time when those same Tier 1 sources have been reporting on this process for 12 months and have at various times reported all manner of outcomes as certainties only to be proven wrong a few weeks later. Why should they be infallible now when they have been incompetent for the best part of a year?
Good article in the WSJ today about Ratcliffe, INEOS, and their involvement in sports.
https://www.wsj.com/world/uk/the-billionaire-tycoon-who-cant-stop-buying-sports-teams-a275860b
https://www.wsj.com/world/uk/the-billionaire-tycoon-who-cant-stop-buying-sports-teams-a275860b
I’m still laughing at the story of Jim telling the Glazers what to do with the money they’ll receive when it was reported by Ben Jacobs and TS that was phrased as some tier one sources
- Status