This is where we differ i guess. I can see a scenario where Jim is only 25% in and with some sporting control, with neither glazers nor Jim wanting to alter that setup.
Club Sale | It’s done!
- Thread starter JB08
- Start date
- Status
I don't think there is any doubt there. If they don't guarantee him a route to a full-takeover then he'd be absolutely crazy to give them any money.
That's my fear with this entire deal. The Glazers clearly had no intention to sell, they just wanted to prolong their gravy train and stranglehold over the club. Ratcliffe is providing them with precisely that. Call me a cynic, but all this talk of eventual full takeover (despite the fact he couldn't afford to bid for a full takeover) is just PR lip service to get the fans on board. Take away with the romanticism of Ratcliffe being an alleged United fan, as well as the paper talk of him bringing in proper footballing personnel, and its not an entirely different offering to what the likes of Elliot are proposing.
Exactly. If he can’t afford to buy the club now, why will he be able to buy it 2-3 years from now when the Glazers will value it even higher?
None of this makes any sense at all.
100% spot.
Ornstein and Athletic have been like everyone else in this matter. They know fcuking nothing.
Only Mark Kleinman knows what's going on. Even the aspect of Qatari walking away has NOT been reported by Mark.
Mark broke 2 news only regarding this issue.
1. Glazers are planning to start a strategic review process.
2. Ratcliffe is planning a 25% minority takeover with footballing control.
He has never said anything else regarding this issue.
And you can confirm those 2 news have been pretty accurate and crucially, NOTHING else has ever happened out of those 2 developments. Meaning he doesn't say opinion, rumor or what he thinks but what is probably facts.
Until Mark speaks treat everything else as pure rumors. Because if they were genuine news regarding this issue he will be first person to break it, same way he has done previously.
All in all. We need Glazers completely off United. Whatever it takes, it must.
lets pray. If he goes then we have 3-4 difficult years and then the Glazers are forced to sell. I can take that.
My thoughts too.
Why though? It's a decent investment, no different to what some of the American funds would be offering.
Fair enough - I understand your caution. I'd be pretty shocked if Ratcliffe didn't buy without call options to get to a majority. Also these sources are rarely wrong twice.
Mark Kleinman didn't break the strategic review bit first. Bloomberg did.
Personally, I have little faith in that happening. I think they are here for another 10-20 years.
Long after Jimbo has departed this mortal coil.
Whatever it is that happens next, at least we'll get to know the full details i suppose @VP89? Given the club is listed on the markets?
Honestly I don't think that does Jim any good from a business nor a reputational sense. And whatever we think of him as a footballing owner from Nice or him as a person, we can all collectively agree he's not some mug that wants to give Glazers 25% for bants.
I'm sure the full details will be revealed after the 25% stake is confirmed at the board meeting etc. They can't really reveal anything before then anyway.
there are no American funds offering it, because it's not a decent investment
it's well above market value, and you pay a premium to gain control of the asset, not to give the current owners a pay-day
Difficult to follow multiquote stuff but firstly to correct your inaccuracies - QIB is not majority state owned, it's a listed public company and QIA are one of many shareholders.
I personally don't believe that the only interest for 92F in buying United was as a marketing tool, much cheaper clubs available if that is the only aim.
I do agree that Sheikh Jassim would need approval from the Emir for this kind of deal, but that is not the same as being state owned as the likes of PSG and Newcastle openly are.
More important is the discussion about which is the best bid. Although there is no guarantee that 92F would have run the club successfully, the fact that they were ready to clear all the debts, remove the Glazers (who have mismanaged the club for years) and invest in the stadium put that bid far ahead of all the rest for me.
I have issues with Sir Jim for greenwashing, Brexit etc but if he could commit to the same with debts, stadium etc then I'd happily back him too because the moral arguments are less important to me than the future of my football club.
Clearly if I welcome an INEOS takeover them I'm not condoning their environmental atrocities or suddenly becoming a Brexiteer, so not sure why anyone would suggest that preferring the Qatari bid is some kind of acceptance or lack of care for any human rights issues in that country.
Last edited:
Whatever his plan is I still think every Man Utd fan should be backing Shiekh Jassims bid as thats the only one that guarentees a full sale.
This Sir Jim/Glazer agreement is like a divorce in reverse.
They are probably arguing over every single thing. How much, when, control of this that and the other. Even if one party is reasonable it means nothing if the other is intransigent.
If the outcome is successful ( ie a workable agreement towards a full sale) that will take a long time to agree, our clue has been the bidding process.
They are probably arguing over every single thing. How much, when, control of this that and the other. Even if one party is reasonable it means nothing if the other is intransigent.
If the outcome is successful ( ie a workable agreement towards a full sale) that will take a long time to agree, our clue has been the bidding process.
"A path to majority" would have to be better defined at some point as it sounds very vague at face value. Right into "a path to sleeping with Margot Robbie" territory.
Trying to summarize all the alleged scenarios:
1. Full Sale - Not feasible as the Glazers don't really want out unless they're offered crazy money, which neither Jim nor Jassim will do.
2. 51% Sale - Not feasible due to minority investors immediately suing the Glazers if they choose this path.
3. 25% Investment - Good enough for the Glazers, it'd work for Sir Jim only if he gets control of football decisions plus a path to majority (which could be contested by minority investors anyway). Allegedly as this could also be good enough for both and therefore the final outcome.
4. No deal - Not really an option as the Glazers need fresh cash to renegotiate the terms of the debt and their other options (Elliott and such) would see them risk losing control of the club. The fact this is still on the table baffles the mind. It's like the Glazers knew they had to sell but had no idea how would that work in real life. One year later they're still woefully unprepared to do so.
Trying to summarize all the alleged scenarios:
1. Full Sale - Not feasible as the Glazers don't really want out unless they're offered crazy money, which neither Jim nor Jassim will do.
2. 51% Sale - Not feasible due to minority investors immediately suing the Glazers if they choose this path.
3. 25% Investment - Good enough for the Glazers, it'd work for Sir Jim only if he gets control of football decisions plus a path to majority (which could be contested by minority investors anyway). Allegedly as this could also be good enough for both and therefore the final outcome.
4. No deal - Not really an option as the Glazers need fresh cash to renegotiate the terms of the debt and their other options (Elliott and such) would see them risk losing control of the club. The fact this is still on the table baffles the mind. It's like the Glazers knew they had to sell but had no idea how would that work in real life. One year later they're still woefully unprepared to do so.
New high commercial revenues, multiple parties prepared to pay over £5bn - sounds like a great way to get new finance investment based on valuation.
Wouldn’t be surprised if they announce a stadium plan soon with some outside investment funding just after Ineos pull out.
Not sure there is any/has ever intention to sell. There is certainly no urgency.
Wouldn’t be surprised if they announce a stadium plan soon with some outside investment funding just after Ineos pull out.
Not sure there is any/has ever intention to sell. There is certainly no urgency.
"Why won't the Glazers leave?" cry those lapping up season tickets, merchandise and showing their dissatisfaction by coming into games a few minutes late 
Your problem is you usually like to argue a lot. More so when you're on the wrong.
Just check the FIRST page of this SAME SAME thread you're arguing on.
Click on it. You will see an Exclusive article, look at the name of the writer.
Should I paste the link here for you?
Bloomberg have zero info about this saga. They said Qatari are winning, yet it's evident Glazers have never wanted to sell the whole club. So what was Qatari winning? Pure guess work. Same as Reuters article, Rio's post. They all knew nothing.
When Mark will say, we have a new owner believe it, till then treat everything as pure speculation.
You're a bit ignorant if you think bloomberg weren't among the first on it (they've been reporting minority sale at least since last August).
You're being even more obtuse if you think bloomberg don't know anything. The fact that you claim they said Qatar is winning and nothing else shows you have trouble with comprehension and didn't read their full article.
David Hillier himself came out and clarified further saying the only way this changes is if Ratcliffe structures his bid differently or switches to a minority offer. Which he did.
Read articles better. Then talk about "arguing".
Last edited:
Yeah. It's hard to see how any sensible investors would tie themselves to the Glazers. They've, objectively speaking, completely mismanaged the asset for more than a decade. They've squandered every single competitive advantage that the club had built up over decades before. And that's before even mentioning the fact that the club's position is under further threat by others backed by investors with far deeper pockets and, seemingly, a willingness to do what it takes to claim even bigger pieces of the cake.
Even if investors see the sector growing, there will surely be far better options than throwing in with the most incompetent owners out there.
I can't imagine Ratcliffe, or any other seasoned business operator, sees it any other way.
Possibly, however a stadium/rebuild costs 1 billion plus, it takes at least 3/4 years plus to complete.
You have increased revenue and attention, but for these Glazers that is a minimum of 3/4 years of interest payments then a fractional return over many years.
They haven't shown any ambition to make that type of investment, even if it was available.
Their last (prior to the sale circus) search for investment was, apparently, to buy out other members of the family that wanted to move on.
I see a difference because INEOS have bought up a lot of organisations and often have taken over them incrementally. They don't do part ownership long term so I think full takeover is certainly the aim for them.
Some seem to be conflating David Hellier's prediction of Sheikh Jassim raising his offer and winning with the actual content of these articles. From the perspective of breaking the news of the developments of negotiations, Bloomberg have been all over this.
Absolutely spot on.
I’ve felt for some time that if you step outside the emotional lens of fandom, and just look objectively at how the Glazers have squandered - by their own decisions - literally every single advantageous position they were gifted with the club, it’s quite clear that something is very, very wrong with them and their ability to operate at this level…
Most successful club of last 20 years - Squandered
Competitive advantage on pitch -Squandered
Celebrated, revered stadium - Squandered
Coveted training facilities - Squandered
Most respected PL club - Squandered
All of these advantages were gifted to them - all they had to do was maintain them, not achieve them for themselves, just maintain them to a respectable level.
Yet, in every possible case, each advantageous point they inherited has been squandered - unforced - to the point of ruin, and they now find themselves with unmanageable debt, a footballing laughing stock, with a stadium falling to pieces and a need to grovel for money - publicly - from outside sources…
Thus, for me, the notion that they’re structuring a highly convoluted, needlessly complicated ‘multi year takeover’ with a 71 year old man, that’s propped up by bizarre, pie in the sky valuations of their own and the belief that they’ll get 8-10b in a few years is very hard to take seriously.
I would imagine, like literally all of their decisions and moves regarding Utd, that it’ll end up in ruin, with yet another golden opportunity… squandered.
If he pulls out they will need to sell and any deals will be in favour of investors because they know the glagiiors have pissed everyone else off!
But have INEOS worked on acquiring an asset as big as MUFC? And if Ratcliffe is a genuine United fan, who's to say this isn't some sentimental, late-life treat for himself, owning a part of the club?
Right now as fans on the outside we have no assurances that this deal will result in an eventual ousting of the Glazers. All we know for sure is Ratcliffe is pushing for a 25% stake at the club, everything else is papertalk and speculation. So as far as what we know, its essentially no different to any other investor like Elliot.
I find that uncertainty uneasy, especially if it gives the Glazers a way to temporarily dig themselves out of the hole they've dug through their tepid ownership of the club. I find it hard to stomach that reality based on some journos speculating that Ratcliffe will eventually take the reigns. Thats not going to be enough to convince me of this deal being a good idea. I'd much rather the whole thing collapses and the Glazers are back at stage one, sweating and perhaps more desperate than ever.
The only deal I can get behind is one where they feck off back to Tampa, indefinitely, with the debt cleared, and our managers/sporting directors not having to wait for Joel Glazer to wake up and greenlight any transfers.
In the world of business MUFC are a small asset
Edited because the URL is not working due to the '$'
https://www.ineos.com/inch-magazine/articles/issue-9/the-$9-billion-deal/
Last edited:
Hmm fair enough, in truth I don't know a huge deal about INEOS and their dealings.
It can be an extremely complicated deal to strike, both want to protect themselves and Jim wants to steer the club as much as possible earlier. He could inadvertently make the club worse and reduce the club and Glazers value. There's so much to cover and areas of fallout that can happen with what entity does what.
Neither do I TBH although they're much bigger than United as a business
No worries mate. As a privately held company, I was not too familiar with them beyond seeing their name plastered on the Spuds benches.
This would hardly be the first go-around at M&A for Ratcliffe/INEOS, and they have at least one deal worth more than what Man Utd will reportedly be valued at.
On the off chance anyone reads the article I shared, I am sure some will love reading:
“Employees were operating in a cloud of uncertainty but that uncertainty shifted from going public to being acquired by a largely unknown chemical company on the back of 100% debt finance”
It certainly does calm the nerves knowing that Ineos can play the debt market with such expertise.
Acquiring companies is central to they way they operate - on the order of 35 since 1998. From the public records, Innovene was their biggest one, acquired from BP for about $9bn, but they are making these acquisitions all the time (eg BP’s aromatics and acetyls business for $5bn in 2020 and Chesapeake Energy's Texas oil and gas business for $1.4bn in February this year). Innovene may not be as famous as Manchester United, but they had an annual turnover of $25bn a few years before Ineos acquired them, while United boast about reaching £650m.
@Infra-red @putzmcgee123 @Red in STL , appreciate the explanations. I'm still a little uneasy with the idea of this deal keeping the Glazers in pole position, but interesting nonetheless to learn about INEOS' history of acquisitions.
The Glaziers are the type of people that would buy an orange, let it rot, try to sell it for 5x the price and find a buyer. But then convince themselves that their rotting orange must have magical powers and continue raising the price until all bidders drop out.
They’ll be sitting there right now, smug that they turned down ludicrous amounts of money whilst expecting 10x the amount they paid for it next year, all whilst rotting it further.
They’ll be sitting there right now, smug that they turned down ludicrous amounts of money whilst expecting 10x the amount they paid for it next year, all whilst rotting it further.
Yeah, those lumping Ratcliffe together with the Glazer trust fund babies really lack an appreciation for the disparity in business acumen between the two. Now, that far from assures he will restore the product on the pitch to where it ought to be, but it's still more than we've got currently.
To be clear, I wanted Jassim's bid to win, but this is where we are now and I have no doubt in my mind that the club under INEOS/Ratcliffe would be markedly better than the current state. The primary concern is whether he is able to get a majority stake. If he's happy with 25% and no assurances of future control, that is just not good enough. However, I have not seen anything besides fear mongering to suggest he will do that and we just have to wait for a deal to be announced before we can really even begin to judge.
- Status