Can you post it? Its behind a paywall.
Club Sale | It’s done!
- Thread starter JB08
- Start date
- Status
Can you post it? Its behind a paywall.
Would a D.O.F. accept working for the Rat pack, with them interfering and arguing amongst themselves. Management by committee doomed.
We think that the Glazers is bringing the Club down. But all they see is they've raised their investment from zero to 6-8 billion. If i were them, why would i give up the foolproof system?
I will go with option 3 - apologies this is coming late. 70 year old super rich guy, sees an opportunity to increase his net-work in the short to medium and long term. This is for him and his legacy. He goes for it. I'm not sure if he has an interest on how the club fares. People seem to believe he is a Man UTD fan. I think he is a business man first. We have ourselves an investor. I always assumed INEOS is buying in not Jim. I might be wrong though. Now i personally think this wont turn into a fully blown full ownership but this is just me. A new shareholder comes in and potentially has some different objectives from the current shareholders. But ultimately, yes, he is doing it for the growth potential. the appointed CEO reports to both. The CEO can be from the minority shareholder. The board ratifies spending and change. They dont ratify the purchase of Di Maria. the CEO delivers the common 'vision'.
I really believe the Glazers needed a cash injection and an opportunity to increase their cash position. Not sure if this is down to capex through Man UTD and what's coming (interest rates are messing a lot of uber rich people) or down to other ventures. They're getting one. the growth is just a finger in the air value. but we've seen extreme growth in sports teams recently and the potential for a closed league for the super rich is extremely attractive for some of these groups.
Because that's the only way for them to make substantial money from this venture , They have already done that when United was listed and once they dilute their equity further next stop more likely than not would be full sale .
Totally makes sense!
Yes, but this is the very thing I have a problem with.
He could easily increase his money in the short, medium and long term in all sorts of other ways (than buying shares in a football club, which simply isn't a very profitable investment for someone in his category).
If you want to, you can replace "him" (personally) with "INEOS" (the company). The same thing applies: someone with that investment potential (literally billions, at least a billion and a half)...it doesn't make a whole lot of sense to invest that kind money in a football club if all you're interested in is making a relatively measly profit, does it?
You can make a measly * profit from investing a bit of money here and there in all kinds of other businesses - without the potential hassle of being associated with what the Glazers are currently associated with...namely a massive football club that's an abject failure.
Logically, it follows that if you (whether it's "him" or "INEOS") decide to invest a billion and a half...you have to have a considerable interest in something beyond that measly profit (which you could easily get in any number of other ways).
* And more, if you don't invest in a football club specifically.
Last edited:
Club was worth 700M when purchased in 2005. Ignoring the Glazers pie in the sky numbers from the sale process the pure market value right now is in excess of 3 billion. That represents an excellent return on investment and there is no reason to believe the clubs value will not continue to grow in the coming years with the ever increasing commercial opportunities and the continually increasing TV deals. The idea that philanthropy or fandom has anything to do with this deal is just fantasy, INEOS are investing here for the same reason that Clearlake invested in Chelsea and Dynasty invested in Liverpool.
Chelsea has been a shit show under Boehly, but this chaotic sale is a oppo dream. Misery loves company I guess.
Maybe they're insane
You can't compare INEOS to the Glazers, though - that's the whole point.
The Glazers didn't spend a penny of their own money on the original takeover. For them it's been an excellent "investment". For a company like INEOS (or for that matter, a private billionaire like Jimbo), I don't see how you can possibly foresee an "excellent return on investment" (the investment being a billion and a half) when you factor in what other investment opportunities are available to someone with that sort of capital.
United generate more money than most football clubs, but it's still not a lot of money for a company like INEOS.
It's not about philanthropy or him being a die-hard United fan who just wants to splash some cash on the club he loves - obviously not.
It's about ego, legacy, being associated with a great narrative (United's return to glory). To me, at least, that sounds far more likely than the idea that it's all about a profit he/they could have easily attained in any number of other ways.
Again, football clubs - even the biggest ones - simply don't generate profit on a scale that is remotely comparable to what INEOS generates. Peanuts in the grand scheme of things.
ETA United's highest ever annual profit, which was a complete outlier, represents around 5% of INEOS' profit last year (and that profit was low for them).
Over the last decade, United's average annual profit represents considerably less than 1% of INEOS'.
Considerably less than one single percent.
That's the context here.
Last edited:
The reason our team is in a shambles and performs so badly is because there’s no plan no continuity and mix of players signed by different managers for their long term plan.
So now we are going to solve this by adding another group of individuals who have a different vision but ultimately have to bow down to whatever the glazers say.
What could go wrong?
So now we are going to solve this by adding another group of individuals who have a different vision but ultimately have to bow down to whatever the glazers say.
What could go wrong?
Would it make any difference to our plans in January if it was?
Chelsea are at least gambling on (a) the judgement of proven SD/high-end recruitment people; (b) spending serious money above and beyond that's extracted out of the club (as an investment, obviously) and (c) investing that money based on judgement of the former AND into top-bracket players for the medium to long term. It could have been handled more smoothly and seems overly haphazard right now as a squad for this season, but they're targeting very specific profiles and right across the team. In 3-4 years, if City start to dip post-Guardiola and no-one else steps up, they could be a serious force and into the 2030s.
Boehly may seem slightly clownish but strategically it's well above what the Glazers have done with the resources they inherited and cultivating the brand. They've made some many unforced errors or worst possible calculations, even taking into account the drive to 'capitalize on the brand', that it could almost seem malicious. There's been no project there aside from marketing an hoping for the super league dividends , not even in the sense of a 'club strategy' to invest in younger, less costly talent and money-ball it or move into untapped markets with recruitment and marketing. I'm not exaggerating when I say half the people on tis forum, given a trading-places style speed-induction into the niceties of liaising with advisors and the CEO ( which is where most of the action happens, except for overall 'strategic direction' and whatever, invariably counterproductive bits of micromanagement Joel has engaged in) would do a better job. The only equivalent in the English game would be Blackpool; even Leeds was a more coherent project that ad their club punching above their weight for a while until combination of bad luck, fine margins and some over-leveraging caused them issues.
There's no reason why United shouldn't have been cruising at worst at 3rd place or higher and at least pushing City ala Liverpool, given fan base, prestige, ability to source investment etc, even with the Glazer debt. They' might have been able to pass whatever business school daddy's money got them into and hot-housed them through, and play the part of a competent functioning business-person when giving a boardroom speech or amongst their friends in the country clubs and gatherings, but when it comes to United, they're genuinely stupid, and no amount of justificatory contortions can fully obfuscate that.
It is not so much about profits in the short term such as dividends but what your investment can grow into when you are ready to cash out. The club was worth 700M when purchased by the Glazers and is now conservatively worth 3B with evidence to suggest there was a bidder willing to pay close to 5B during this process.
Investment companies are flocking to sports teams at the moment because of the growth potential they see in the overall valuation of franchises. One of the major factors driving this is declining market share for traditional TV networks who are losing eyeballs to streaming and struggling to sell advertising when people are binge watching on demand. The only product that still gets massive ratings and a captive audience for advertisers is live sports and so broadcast deals for the most popular leagues are skyrocketing. There is also a view that a lot of potential revenue streams for sports teams have not been tapped as yet and this too could drive valuations higher, it is a big part of why Joel and Avram are reluctant to leave.
If 25% of United is worth 2.5B in a few years time then paying 1.5B now will have been an excellent investment.
IT’S NOT A SALE!
What sale?
What needs to happen for Premier League and Man Utd value to increase sizeably in the next 5-10 years is what people ignore.
All matches shown on TV, streaming services buying rights, Man Utd becoming competitive and winning etc. but don’t forget for this the premier league will be competing with other leagues too.
Next… and most likely the Super League, or some type of world club cup expansion.
Not in any way, shape or form.
Thread title should be changed ASAP to -
‘Glazers make investment deal with Jim Ratcliffe’.
It’s too huge an issue to keep referring to it as something it doesn’t even remotely resemble.
Thank you.
INEOS being associated with a United that competes for major honours each season is good for business, plus the prestige of being able to say they contributed to us competing again.
Not to mention the influence they would have over UEFA, in the PL and building a football group from a position of strength - if they want to go down the City Football Group route. Man Utd is a pretty significant name in world football - even though we may suck right now.
You seem like an angry chap - don't blame others for your bad mood just because Qatar wouldn't stump up the cash for United.
Yes, that is something I can believe.
And they're probably right too - I can easily see things moving in that direction.
There's still a ceiling to how much money can be generated from TV/streaming, though - even in a scenario where United can effectively sell a streaming product directly to fans.
Anyway, fine - let's say Jim's plan is to buy 25% in order to sell that same 25% some years down the line, and make a tidy profit (a billion, you suggest) somewhere down the line.
(And what is "somewhere down the line"? Five years? Ten years? Fifteen years?)
I still don't see why he would do this rather than doing...something else to make as much money, or more money, by investing in something else. Is investing a billion and a half in Manchester United really the best/most obvious thing to do with that kind of money if what you're after is simply profit (short, mid or long term)?
ETA And bear in mind here that being associated with Manchester United is not a great thing in itself for a huge company (like INEOS). There's a saying that all PR is good PR, but that doesn't really apply here. If the Glazers had been a company, their company would have been mainly associated with owning a once great football club that is now not great largely because of their ownership.
INEOS is a giant compared to United in terms of money. But United is a giant compared to INEOS in terms of world wide profile, brand recognition, etc. Being directly associated with a brand that is known by billions of people and constantly mentioned in all kinds of media - is a double edged sword, no?
To the Glazers (whose only interest is seemingly to just make a profit, any kind of profit, from an asset that effectively didn't cost them a penny in the first place), the negative media coverage is evidently something they can live with.
I doubt very much that Jim (who has a far more direct connection to United and the city of Manchester than the Glazers ever did) wants to replace the ponytailed one as the number one hate figure for United fans across the planet for the sake of...what? Making some money? Money that he could have - again - made in any number of other ways. At the age of 70?
I just don't buy it.
Again, I don't believe for a second that he's a grand old dude whose sole motive is to bring joy to United fans. It's ego, it's legacy, it's getting himself and his company associated with a nice story. But purely and simply profit - nah, don't see it.
Last edited:
More pee arrrr.
Th sentence compared United turnover to INEOS turnover. They then mentioned profits after.
Obviously PR!!!! (btw everything Jassim said was facts and he was going to be the dream owner; the best ever!!; absolutely 100% fact!!)
I would guess for the same reasons that Clearlake felt that investing in Chelsea was the best/most obvious thing to do. There is clearly a view that is shared by a lot of Invesment firms at present that prestige sports teams are a good bet, I am nowhere near qualified to know if they are right in that assumption but enough of them are buying into clubs to suggest there is some credible research behind it.
Where Jim and INEOS are concerned I am not trying to claim this is definitely why they want to buy a stake in United, I am just pushing back against the notion that they must be doing it for philanthropic reasons or because he is a fan. It does seem inevitable that some sort of minority deal will be struck inside the next few months and his true intentions for the club will become apparant in due course. I am just going to err on the side of viewing him with suspicion until he proves he really is different than the Glazers.
Uh huh
Couldn’t win either way really though right?
Sadly agree on your Chelsea assessment. I'd take their situation over ours right now (not saying it's great over there)
Nope. If its in a good light it's PR. If its in a bad light they lose their tits. It's the same posters too
Ultimately regardless of the Glazers, Jim or Qatar the debt will remain with seemingly no promises in writing to pay it off. Jim has no incentive to pay it off while he only owns 25%. That's why the club is fecked. Once the new FFP rules come into play we are going to be seriously hampered by it. Regardless of what outcome you wanted this is simply a fact.
Pretty much
at least I was being sarcastic (if it wasn't obvious) but yeah
This is a clusterfeck
Too much bureaucracy and too many stakeholders, efficient organisations are lean and agile.
Doomed to fail this.
Too much bureaucracy and too many stakeholders, efficient organisations are lean and agile.
Doomed to fail this.
I’m fine with Jim, reckon he’s got good intentions, experience of running a football club, appointing the right people etc but the Glazers will definitely feck this up
- Status