But it increases your chances of having relations with a grizzly bear. Happens most Fridays
Club Sale | It’s done!
- Thread starter JB08
- Start date
- Status
ffsThe Qataris do have the money to throw 6-10bn on the table out of the blue, to be fair. I think the process is too advanced at this point, but if anyone could just throw money at the problem, it would be the Qataris.
“Any port in a storm” as the saying goes
This is being repeated continually but why do you think so? Investors invest to get fractional stakes without being guaranteed full takeover, they don't have to be an idiot to do that.
The best bet in my view is still that some/all glazers will stick around for a long while, quite possibly in the majority stakeholding.
No one said anything about not having voting power attached to the shares, all shares have voting power.
However there is no way around the fact once he buys class B shares they become class A shares and thus have less voting power and so he is not going to have 25% voting power it will be far less
They've just had the last 12 months to do that.
It's humiliating, but Sir Jim has out thought them, out bid them, and beaten them.
The only conclusion is that they either don't have the money, were in it for publicity, or were never serious in the first place, ironically all the things Sir Jim was been accused of.
Here's my 5
1. Sign De Jong
2. Sign Mbappe
3. Sign Osimhen
4. Sign Bastoni
5. Sign Camavinga
1. Sign De Jong
2. Sign Mbappe
3. Sign Osimhen
4. Sign Bastoni
5. Sign Camavinga
#FakeJassim
Does he even want 100%? Where has he ever stated that? He’s invested recently in Mercedes F1 and took a massive dividend of 37m out. People presuming he wants full control when a billion will give him sporting control and 25% that will only rise in value.
He will take the 25% and hope his changes work keeping the fans quiet whilst himself and the Hills Have Eyes brothers reap the rewards
Id bet my house on the Glazers still running United in 10 years.
Actually there is a way around that. The board (read Glazers) can vote through changes that results in shares sold to Ratcliffe doesn't change into A shares, and that the shares he buys are classed as B-shares.
Nowhere, he’s never stated it.
He’s stated that the Glazers are ‘lovely people’, but communicated utterly nothing to the traumatised fanbase about what his intentions are.
His sole focus has been on appeasing the Glazers, nothing else.
Everything else is just people stating things they hope will happen and acting as though the things are facts.
I’m pretty sure that is not how it works
I just checked few reports from before he invested into ineos. Funnily, or rather worryingly, it was reported he was buying the whole F1 team/buying 70%, and ended up firmly settling for 33% and keeping the existing shareholders...
Guess we'll see the same here. Seventh Glazer.
Having the money and overpaying are two different things. Both parties value the club as an asset using future expected revenues. The future expected revenues are the bit that's uncertain and there's significant disagreement between the Glazers and the Qataris. Glazers think the club is worth 10bn in another 5-6 years and want a part of that growth. Ratcliffe bid offers them that where as Qatar wanted to buy the club outright.
Yeah with Mercedes he was apparently getting 70% but actually ended up with 33%. Took dividends too.
Six Glazer siblings could retain Manchester United stakes under Ratcliffe offer (ft.com)
Manchester United takeover: Sir Jim Ratcliffe’s bid – the key questions answered - The Athletic
Sir Jim Ratcliffe still wants Manchester United control - BBC Sport
How Sir Jim Ratcliffe plans to secure long-term takeover of Manchester United (90min.com) (bad source tbf)
Sir Jim Ratcliffe set to buy 25% stake in Man United - sources - ESPN (further down it says sources close to Ratcliffe confirm he wants majority ownership)
The strange thing is that basically everyone is talking as though Ratcliffe is some clued up owner who knows better than the Glazers…
But the reality is that even during the last 10 years of Utd’s decline, the Glazers have had more success in football than Ratcliffe has ever had.
People are talking like Ratcliffe is an immediate improvement… based on what? Seriously, based on what?
What has Ratcliffe ever won, or done in football?
In the last 10 years the Glazers have overseen multiple trophies and top 4 PL finishes - Ratcliffe has never achieved this, at any point.
If he took over a different PL club, would you be scared…?
Food for thought…
But the reality is that even during the last 10 years of Utd’s decline, the Glazers have had more success in football than Ratcliffe has ever had.
People are talking like Ratcliffe is an immediate improvement… based on what? Seriously, based on what?
What has Ratcliffe ever won, or done in football?
In the last 10 years the Glazers have overseen multiple trophies and top 4 PL finishes - Ratcliffe has never achieved this, at any point.
If he took over a different PL club, would you be scared…?
Food for thought…
Last edited:
Some X accounts that made money from the takeover keep his name trending for likes and views.
I think unless if Ratcliffe deal falls through or there’s an offer from out the blue and it comes from credible sources just ignore.
All this is pure speculation. Most arguments are on the lines of "Ratcliffe is a smart businessmen, hence xyz is what is gonna happen" and "it makes obvious sense that xyz is gonna happen, else Ratcliffe wouldn't buy the 25%"
Nobody really knows what Ratcliffe wants. Or what will be the terms of any agreements made with Glazers, until it is official.
Interesting. So the idea is that if Ratcliffe buys a 25% stake in the club that he’ll eventually have greater operating control of the club than the Glazers? But if that’s the case why wouldn’t Ratcliffe buy enough of the club to take control of it now? If the answer is that the Glazers would obviously refuse to give up control now, then why would they be willing yo give up control later?
More importantly, are we supporters actually going to be ok with the Glazers retaining control of the club for an indefinite period of time? I understand that there’s nothing we can do about it, but at the very least we should be under no false belief that anything will change so long as the Glazers remain in control of the club. I’m just not interested in waiting another 15-20 years to see the Glazers off.
Get the occasional big money transfer right.
We've got two 70/80million pound wingers who can barely create a chance or score a goal.
An 80m defender who became a national meme.
A 50m keeper who can barely save a shot.
A 50m attacking mid who can't get on the pitch, a year or 2 after a 40m attacking mid who could barely get on the pitch.
A 70m rookie striker who might be good one day, but it's ridiculous to both pay that fee anyway, and to have him as your main striker.
That's an outrageous cast of fees. Sobering.
We've got two 70/80million pound wingers who can barely create a chance or score a goal.
An 80m defender who became a national meme.
A 50m keeper who can barely save a shot.
A 50m attacking mid who can't get on the pitch, a year or 2 after a 40m attacking mid who could barely get on the pitch.
A 70m rookie striker who might be good one day, but it's ridiculous to both pay that fee anyway, and to have him as your main striker.
That's an outrageous cast of fees. Sobering.
I was wondering why people seem to think he's the answer. Just because he's a fan and has made a lot of money in business!?
Dividends paid to the Glazers are not in line with those public investors, they hold a different class of shares and thus can pay whatever the hell they like on their Class B shares, regardless of what may or may not be paid on the Class A shares.
This is irrelevant to the point though, which is the one of the things most hated about the Glazers is the money they bleed out of the club, so to see people now being absolutely fine with the idea of Ratcliffe taking them is the pretty wild.
There seem to be a large number of people who have gone “all in” on Ratcliffe, and are taking the ostrich approach to the various red flags.
The year is 2047. Sheikh Jassim stories are still being peddled by Twitter no marks, even though by now he is literally a preserved head in a jar. Rumours of a 368th bid swirl. Sir Jim Ratcliffe (junior) continues to outsmart him, by offering the Glazers the only thing they cannot buy: being genuinely physically attractive to a human woman (He is lying. He is after all, a billionaire, not a magician). Ben Jacobs continues to look like a wonky-eyed Stephen Merchant, if such a thing can be imagined, though he now works selling pagers door-to-door. He has a Japanese girlfriend, though no one has ever met her.
The best thing he can do to win me over is feck off
Because people are so blinded by hatred of the Glazers they see any alternative as a positive, even when the alternative is literally still the Glazers apparently
He's not taking about staff, not the players. You can get best in class sports / data science departments going for not that much money. It's possible to hire some of the best DOFs for not too much money as well but it's not easy to judge who's the "best" here.
Why football? It's not hard to own Man Utd, spend a feckton of money and win the league cup / EL. The Glazer kids have never had to earn an honest wage. Look at Joel Glazer's wiki. His big achievement in career is buying a sports club for his dad.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Joel_Glazer
He is the very definition of a trust fund baby.
Jim is a self-made billionaire. They could not be more different.
Jim's also doing this for fun / passion. The Glazers couldn't care less about the sport. As long as it results in money in their pockets they're fine.
Then they probably turned around and asked him why he signed Ross Barkley, Kasper Schmeichael and Aaron Ramsay last summer for Nice
This is where I get a bit lost with the Qatar thing, buying United isn't like buying a normal business where a value is set by 'future expected revenues', the value to them is just owning us, and putting the money in getting us back to the top again, it would be a sportswashing exercise afterall, so I don't know how you put a cost on that.
£5 billion or £6 billion, does it really matter when it comes to purchases like this.
I think we should wait until we get some kind of confirmation from an official source before discussing what he might or might not do, we have not had anything official yet so for all we know this alledged 25% buy-in deal might not even exist.
Chicharito will shortly be available on a free. Bring him back for cover and you'll win me over
Ah, I see the misunderstanding. No I 'm not fine with the Glazers in any shape or form. Nor am I fine about them maintaining majority control. However, the Qataris offered a valuation they wouldn't accept. Would I have been fine with them? Not sure, I haven't explored that. I was planning to consider that more deeply if they took control - which I honestly thought they would. I was more or less resigned to being state-owned. That never happened though.
The problem is that the Glazers were exploring alternatives to a sale in the form of minority investment. Or let's call it what it really was, a plan to sell away our future through their own version of Barca's "levers" to US media companies and hedgefunds. The Glazers have an insane valuation - and they clearly don't want to fully sell right now. Reports from the US suggest they were scared of becoming laughing stocks for having sold out of football right before a golden age of football valuation. Everything points to them having after the WC in 2026 as their "exit-date". They needed minority investment to get there, and we all know they would gladly have sold away our future to make an extra billion.
With that in mind I think Ratcliffe's offer is a million times better than the US option. There have been numerous reports that suggest Ratcliffe wants control of the company, and that he wants a path to majority ownership. He's paid a premium for the 25% he's getting - far more than they would get from anywhere else, which suggest it's not just a normal minority investment. People are free to disagree on this, but that's what I see as most likely with the reports from reputable sources. He seems to be getting considerable influence over sporting control. He's reportedly getting to appoint the entire management team, which is huge, and sources close to the Glazers in the US suggest Joel is quite happy to be running the commercial aspect (which he supposedly thinks he's very good at).
Add to that the news that Ratcliffe is making 300M available for investment, with the majority of the funds being available within the year, for infrastructure projects, that none of it increases the debt burden of the club, and that he wants to invest considerably more at a later date - but that they are playing it close to the chest how much and when - are quite positve news in my eyes.
My concerns with the deal are how does the Joel/Ratcliffe partnership work in terms of transfers and major sporting decisions, how long are the Glazers going to be sitting on majority ownership, and how will the debt + stadium be handled. Absorbing the debt makes sense, but building something like a stadium without debt is probably a fantasy without state backing and 0 interest loans.
Last edited:
I guess we’ll see then
- Status