Club Sale | It’s done!

Status
Not open for further replies.
Here’s hoping that the Glazers have shifted from collecting dividends to betting on club value going up. Surely they know at this stage they’re not good enough to handle it. Woodwards gone. Arnolds very likely gone when INEOS get in. Who else have they got left in their cabal? These people don’t network at all. Nobody in the football environment really knows who they are despite being in it for 20 years and they don’t trust anyone outside of their very small circle of trust.

Dream scenario is INEOS will pay Glazers for the entirety of club in time regardless. It’s just whether how much when it comes down to it once it’s fully in INEOS control. If the Glazers think they can get £10bn then INEOS pays for it whenever, but if it doesn’t go beyond £7bn then INEOS win out I guess.

INEOS gaining control of on-field stuff is a good start and if Ratcliffe is pledging £250m straightaway then even better. He clearly wants us to be better and as many have said before, it’s £250m more than what the Glazers have put in from their own pocket in 20 years.
 
AFC NimbleThumb said:
That question doesn’t really fit my post but I’ll play.

The Glazers aren’t willing to foot the upkeep for the club so we continue to see regression both on & off the pitch. Now with Qatar out of play if Ratcliffe proposed a full takeover take it or leave it & the Glazers said ‘no’ that’s when you ask them ‘So what's the alternative to Ratcliffe?’
Click to expand...

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.
 
FortunaUtd said:
What is it with the "Sir Jim" nonsense coming not only from posters, but from a professional journalist repeatedly calling Ratcliffe that in an official news article? Feels thoroughly embarrassing, and also very inappropriately endearing considering the guy is a petrochemical tycoon, mass polluter, political hasardeur and tax fugitive so by all standards a thoroughly horrible person.
Click to expand...
Most people who have been knighted get called Sir or Dame *insert first name* though
 
Rhyme Animal said:
So essentially, it’s better from Ratcliffe’s POV for the club to not be wildly successful before he has to buy the lot…

Any success he helps facilitate will add the Glazer’s wealth more than his own as they own vastly more of the club than he does, and further still, any success he facilitates will drive up the amount he has to pay for the club!

So he’ll - supposedly - be pumping his own money into an asset, in order to make that asset cost more for himself in the future.

It makes absolutely no sense, and anyone capable of free thought should really not be buying that this is what’s happening.

As I said, it’s a very sus deal.

Picture this -

‘Wanna buy my car?’

‘Yes, 5 grand?’

‘No, I want 8’

‘I can’t afford 8, and, it’s not worth 8’

‘Ok, you can buy a quarter of the car now, but I’ll still own 75% of it.’

‘Go on’

‘Yeah, so you give me 1.5k now, then you pay for the upkeep of the car, you pay to have it fixed up and keep it running, and then, in the future, once it’s actually worth 8k due to the money that you’ve pumped into it, I’ll let you buy it for 8’.

‘Yes, that sounds like a sound deal’.

It’s a completely laughable premise.
Click to expand...

Let's say you're correct. Then why is he buying 25% to 'take responsibility for the footballing side'?
 
Castia said:
It’s started but there’s no saying it will ever end. There’s absolutely no guarantee they go.
Click to expand...

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.
 
antohan said:
Anything other than carrying on 100% under the Glazers is progress.
Click to expand...
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.
 
JohnnyKills said:
This is encouraging.

The most important thing right now isn't the manager, or the DoF. It's the structure.

We need to establish a system where the DoF creates the style, signs the players and hires a coach to suit.

It doesn't actually matter, in the long-term at least, who we hire as DoF or manager. Eventually we'll hire the right ones.

But until we have the right structure in place, it doesn't matter who we hire. The cycle will just repeat itself over and over again.
Click to expand...
Is this normal? Thought the manager decides on the playing style?
 
FortunaUtd said:
Ah. No last name needed anymore? Was not quite aware of that, I apologize and thanks for filling me in.
Click to expand...
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.
 
FortunaUtd said:
What is it with the "Sir Jim" nonsense coming not only from posters, but from a professional journalist repeatedly calling Ratcliffe that in an official news article? Feels thoroughly embarrassing, and also very inappropriately endearing considering the guy is a petrochemical tycoon, mass polluter, political hasardeur and tax fugitive so by all standards a thoroughly horrible person.
Click to expand...
Because he was Knighted?
 
FortunaUtd said:
What is it with the "Sir Jim" nonsense coming not only from posters, but from a professional journalist repeatedly calling Ratcliffe that in an official news article? Feels thoroughly embarrassing, and also very inappropriately endearing considering the guy is a petrochemical tycoon, mass polluter, political hasardeur and tax fugitive so by all standards a thoroughly horrible person.
Click to expand...
I agree it's cringe as feck but it's the standard way to adress people with that title which itself is a joke.
 
RedSky said:
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.
Click to expand...
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.
 
FortunaUtd said:
What is it with the "Sir Jim" nonsense coming not only from posters, but from a professional journalist repeatedly calling Ratcliffe that in an official news article? Feels thoroughly embarrassing, and also very inappropriately endearing considering the guy is a petrochemical tycoon, mass polluter, political hasardeur and tax fugitive so by all standards a thoroughly horrible person.
Click to expand...

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.
 
Teja said:
I mostly agree but I think the reason they believe the valuation will go up is that there are untapped potential revenue sources (streaming, super league, more consistent CL, raising ticket prices, NFTs, United TV etc.). Their asset went 4x in 15 years? (1.5bn -> 6bn or so). They expect a similar multiple in the next 10 years.

I honestly don't think it's realistic. We had a boom in commercial revenue, amazing PL TV rights deals etc. in an era of free money. Now cost of capital is high, every commercial deal will be under extremely close scrutiny. Kit deals, whoever buys the PL TV rights, any licensing agreements - every single one will be nickel and dimed.

This is all assuming United continue to perform in the sporting department. All signs are that there's additional competition (Spurs, Newcastle) and that extra CL spot to England won't be enough to keep us in the CL.
Click to expand...

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.
 
Teja said:
I mostly agree but I think the reason they believe the valuation will go up is that there are untapped potential revenue sources (streaming, super league, more consistent CL, raising ticket prices, NFTs, United TV etc.). Their asset went 4x in 15 years? (1.5bn -> 6bn or so). They expect a similar multiple in the next 10 years.

I honestly don't think it's realistic. We had a boom in commercial revenue, amazing PL TV rights deals etc. in an era of free money. Now cost of capital is high, every commercial deal will be under extremely close scrutiny. Kit deals, whoever buys the PL TV rights, any licensing agreements - every single one will be nickel and dimed.

This is all assuming United continue to perform in the sporting department. All signs are that there's additional competition (Spurs, Newcastle) and that extra CL spot to England won't be enough to keep us in the CL.
Click to expand...

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.
 
Pscholes18 said:
Is this normal? Thought the manager decides on the playing style?
Click to expand...
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?
 
lex talionis said:
Will or will not the Glazers still retain control of United?
Click to expand...

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.

ScarleyUtd said:
Let's say you're correct. Then why is he buying 25% to 'take responsibility for the footballing side'?
Click to expand...

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.
 
Pscholes18 said:
Is this normal? Thought the manager decides on the playing style?
Click to expand...
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.
 
Rhyme Animal said:
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.
Click to expand...

You realise they only own 69% currently? And that's split between six of them.
 
stevoc said:
I keep reading this but how do you really think playing a team full of kids in the Premier League would go?

Would you be ok with getting relegated?

Because playing a team of Academy players for 6 months against senior professionals won't go well.
Click to expand...

Would we notice?
 
Rhyme Animal said:
Fine 69% vs 25%…

Who’s in charge? Who owns the fecking club?

Utd fans need to wake up ffs.
Click to expand...
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.
 
ScarleyUtd said:
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.
Click to expand...
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.
 
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.
 
TheGodsInRed said:
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.
Click to expand...

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.
 
Castia said:
240m really is nothing when we’re talking about a rebuild. Barce’s and Madrid's have cost well over a billion, the stadium needs rebuilding from the ground up

City’s training complex was 200m wasn’t it
Click to expand...
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.
 
cyberman said:
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.
Click to expand...

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.
 
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.

 
laughtersassassin said:
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
Click to expand...

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:
Castia said:
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.
Click to expand...
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.
 
AFC NimbleThumb said:
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.
Click to expand...

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.
 
Rhyme Animal said:
The Glazers are a unit, that’s 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.
Click to expand...

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.
 
Rhyme Animal said:
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.
Click to expand...

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?

AFC NimbleThumb said:
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.
Click to expand...

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.
 
Rhyme Animal said:
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.
Click to expand...

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.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.