It fits your post exactly, as you wanted Ratcliffe's bid judged on its own merits. The point is, he is the only show in town. Apart from sticking only with the Glazers. And/or as others have pointed out already, them selling the club to some hedge fund in the States.
Club Sale | It’s done!
- Thread starter JB08
- Start date
- Status
It fits your post exactly, as you wanted Ratcliffe's bid judged on its own merits. The point is, he is the only show in town. Apart from sticking only with the Glazers. And/or as others have pointed out already, them selling the club to some hedge fund in the States.
Most people who have been knighted get called Sir or Dame *insert first name* though
Let's say you're correct. Then why is he buying 25% to 'take responsibility for the footballing side'?
I think its pretty clear that Sir Jim wouldn't get involved with this deal unless he had clear instruction that they would be the ones controlling the club in the medium/long term.
I can imagine we'll be left with Joel and Avram sticking on as board members but not with much power. I'd be satisfied with that outcome.
Ah. No last name needed anymore? Was not quite aware of that, I apologize and thanks for filling me in.
Some folks are still in the anger or denial phase of grieving Jassim's bid. The Glazers are not forced to sell the entire club right now. It is laughable that certain people have suggested hooliganism to "force their hands." Living in Cuckoo Land.
Would it be better if they sold fully now? Of course. That is not a realistic option at this point, and the more people who come to that realization, the more Jimbo will stop being dragged through the mud.
Is this normal? Thought the manager decides on the playing style?
To be fair, you are correct because most of time you would still use the last name as well. But I guess that's more to avoid confusion, and there's only one Jim trying to buy United this week
Does seem a little bit too friendly though, considering he is a tax dodging world polluter like you mention.
Calm down Karen
the 6bn was inclusive of his infrastructure money.
Last edited:
Because he was Knighted?
Do you complain about Alex Ferguson being called Sir Alex in the media too? What a weird thing to get worked up about.
I agree it's cringe as feck but it's the standard way to adress people with that title which itself is a joke.
I don't think it's that clear cut yet. Discussions still ongoing is what Kleinmann is reporting. We'll know in a couple of weeks i guess.
Can he bugger off already - not what we need
I would not be getting too bothered about calling him Sir Jim, a lot worse dudes got called Sir (the other Sir Jimmy springs to mind) and thats fairly standard practice for anyone with a knighthood. I'll stick to calling him the Jimster if that makes you feel any better and move on Sir Jim when we win the title.
I agree, the valuation is too high, even if you factor in the growth of the women's game as well, but that is what they believe.
For Ratcliffe that scenario sees him pay 4-5bn for a 6bn asset, and the Glazer scenario sees him pay 7-10bn for a 10-15Bn asset. It's win win for Ratcliffe, particularly if he gets to run the thing while he invests as well. He gets everything and the Glazers get their pay day without worrying they sold out before a golden age.
I agree, I think if Ratcliffe is banking on there being a lower future valuation, he has it right. Success on the pitch isn't guaranteed even we have a new set-up, and that's going to take time and money to put in place. One question I have though is why the Super League is still being mentioned. That's dead in the water isn't it? And for all the right reasons.
The entire point of the DoF setup is to have a set direction in terms of playing style, its implications for player profiles/attributes and have that permeate scouting, recruitment and the youth setup. The manager is just the most important and senior coach recruited with that in mind.
It stops you from wildly switching from Moyes to Van Gaal to Mourinho and winding up with a mess of a squad. Moyes also sacked all of SAFs staff, for instance. A massive cost for his year of abject failure.
In City's case, in 2012 they hired Txiki as a DoF to replicate Barca and only managed to get hold of Pep in 2016 or so, but the groundwork was well underway.
Which one makes more sense to you?
They will own 75% of the club… say it to yourself again - seventy five percent.
Obviously they will control the club despite whatever media tripe the fanbase is placidly swallowing at the moment.
That’s my exact question.
Why is he taking over an asset to guide it to a higher value - only to then have to pay FAR more for the asset due to his own investment.
And none of the half baked, paper thin explanations from armchair accountants cut the mustard.
People are clutching at straws because they don’t like the Occam’s Razor explanation of a minority investor getting into bed with the Glazers, helping them to remain at the club and propping the club up temporarily and then cashing in with the Glazers at a later date.
Well the idea is the DOF hires managers that suit the style of play the club wants to implement. For example Brighton already had De Zerbi scouted and ready to go before Potter was taken by Chelsea as the club knew he could hit the ground running with the players and playstyle they already had.
United on the other hand flip-flop between completely different managers and end up needing to sign a whole new team to suit the manager each time.
No DOF worth their salt ever wanted to join United as Joel wants final say on signings and the guy has no clue.
You realise they only own 69% currently? And that's split between six of them.
Would we notice?
Fine 69% vs 25%…
Who’s in charge? Who owns the fecking club?
Utd fans need to wake up ffs.
No, because they won't own 69% once Ratcliffe has 25%. And they aren't one person; there are six of them who current own around 12% each. This is likely why the sale is taking so long as they struggled to agree on the way forward.
So let them go find this hedge fund that will apparently value the club at $15mil by 2026 as the poster your alluding to claimed.
The Glazers have never acted in the interest of Manchester United, if there was a hedge fund so readily available that would yield such returns they wouldn’t be talking to Ratcliffe in the first place.
Ratcliffe doesn’t have to buy 25% of the club.
Simplest explanation is that he's going to be happy with the 25% stake.
Lot of "just what fans want to hear" news that media is aware of. We had seen the same with Jassim for many months.
I ll believe it when it happens.
I ll believe it when it happens.
They will still own the majority of the club. They will be the owners.
Ratcliffe will be a minority investor, nothing more.
No amount of spin can change that.
Nobody says it’s the final total though. Did anyone expect United to pony up 1b and get everything refurbished at once?
Edit Madrids costs are spiralling out of control to the point they need another 350m loan to cover yet more expenses. They can do that in Spain because they’re guaranteed top 4 every year but put them in England and it could sink them.
Your expectations are on the floor. The club came out what 2 years ago and hired the same company who built Spurs stadium to start drawing up plans. They even sent every member a questionnaire asking what the priority for a new/updated ground should be
The club is getting sold and we’re getting a 200m investment? its like throwing a pin in the ocean for the work that needs doing. I’m sorry but what a disappointment.
Ineos will own more than any singular Glazer. Together they will own more than him but he wouldn't be very far away from from being majority owner
Sky asking Toto Wolff if he will also invest. He didn't say much other than he'd help out if he could.
But based on how open the talking about it is this Ineos deal is certain it seems.
But based on how open the talking about it is this Ineos deal is certain it seems.
The Glazers are a unit, that’s why we pluralise their name.
The Glazers own Man Utd, Ratcliffe is a minority investor who is giving the Glazers a lifeline to remain at the club.
Everything else is spin.
Last edited:
For you to believe this you would have to first trust the story of the investment but choose to not believe the angle that it’s just an opening number?
Im not a fan of this takeover but he isn’t paying that much money to leave it in the wind.
But the they're not, Ratcliffe is now the only option. Ratcliffe is buying 25% of the club. I know you're anti this deal, on its merits, but there is nothing else.
It's called making the best of it, and with the Glazers being as they are that is all we were ever going to end up doing.
They are far from a Unit though, it's plain as day that only 2 of them wish to remain at United whilst the other 4 couldn't give a shit - It's Joel and Avi vs Ratcliffe.
It's not complicated. Buying piece-meal allows you to get in on the valuation growth and buy an asset for less than it is worth when you complete the buy out. Why wouldn't he want to pledge to pay 7bn for a 10bn asset? He might get it for less (he probably will). Why pay at a 10bn valuation now because the Glazers are crazy?
No one would have done that without considerable concessions. Ratcliffe wants sporting control, these US companies probably would have wanted media rights and future income guarantees. That would directly have impacted our ability to compete on the pitch. As you said, the Glazers don't care about the club, they would have sold off our future without a second thought.
Note, they wouldn't have valued the club at 15bn, but at 4.5bn. So they would have sold away our future for less than what Ratcliffe was offering.
It seems to me that having 75 is a larger number than 25, whether in terms of percentages or goals scored, so I'm struggling with the idea that an individual who will have 25% ownership stake would ever have more control than an group of individuals who together will have a 75% ownership stake. True, the 75% ownership stake group could agree that the 25% stakeholder than he will have full operational control of the club, but in the real world that will never, ever happen.
Perhaps Ratcliffe doesn't need full operational control of the club to dig us out of excrement we've been mired in over the last decade but there is nothing in Ratcliffe's professional record of sporting accomplishment that suggests that he's anything like a sporting performance turnaround master. What he has shown mastery of making money, but the Glazers have also mastered making money. Together they may well make more money for themselves and that's wonderful for them, but only hopes and dreams would allow any one of us to believe that Ratcliffe has the toolkit to propel United to competing for major trophies again.
If the others wanted a full sale they would simply vote against this daft Ratcliffe deal and prevent it.
They could easily force a full sale if they want out and every other shareholder would back them.
They are very much a unit and are in it together, albeit less visibly than the aforementioned Joel and Avram.
- Status