Club Sale | It’s done!

Status
Not open for further replies.
19Dan81 said:
Who was the CEO of PSG? Oh...

Full sale, complete removal of the Glazers and their associated debts is entirely the best thing for the club and all fans. Celebrating an outcome of the last 12 months that means the Glazers stay adding another partner on the board is a smack in the face and no amount of positive PR spin will change that. Last season was a great season with all things considered. However, 20+ injuries and takeover uncertainty causing a toxic working atmosphere and non stop Ratcliffe PR and his wonderful football structure has caused certain sections of the fanbase to be desperate for this deal to go through so Jimbo can be the saviour.

Hook, line and sinker. People have been played and they can't see it. “problem-reaction-solution” (create a problem, escalate fear, then offer a pre-planned solution).
Click to expand...

Well said.
Well summarised.
I think that the addition of Sir Jim will make very little difference to our on-pitch results, while at the same time The Glazers now have additional investment which allows them to continue being in charge of MUFC without using their own money. This was a master stroke from the Glazers.
 
sunama said:
Well said.
Well summarised.
I think that the addition of Sir Jim will make very little difference to our on-pitch results, while at the same time The Glazers now have additional investment which allows them to continue being in charge of MUFC without using their own money. This was a master stroke from the Glazers.
Click to expand...

Bit hard to believe an experienced businessman would plow £1.25b into a business without having contractual obligations signed. Nor would he have likely handed over a further £250m. I know nothing about business, but to believe the Glazers will have carte blanche to do as they please from this point on is probably not a true reflection of what will happen.
 
Last edited:
sunama said:
Well said.
Well summarised.
I think that the addition of Sir Jim will make very little difference to our on-pitch results, while at the same time The Glazers now have additional investment which allows them to continue being in charge of MUFC without using their own money. This was a master stroke from the Glazers.
Click to expand...
I didn't want Ratcliffe, but on-pitch results can definitely improve, even under the glazers alone, if we have the right people in charge who know what they're doing. The money spent over the past decade could've resulted in plenty of success under a different CEO and football structure. The fact that the Glazers are happy to let someone else run the club is a positive step. The question here is, can Jim do it right or not?
 
AFC NimbleThumb said:
I can categorically say you’re talking out your arse here. We already spend more than 99.9% of the footballing world, this Ineos deal isn’t some poverty play.

Why is it that with such a great deal on the table you & countless other posters can’t talk about it without creating a fictitious group of fans to be morally superior to.

I don’t see the positives in this deal. I was never ‘pro-Qatar’. There are more than 2 sides here.

The Qatar deal is gone yet a large number of posters talking up this SJR deal can only do so with ‘it’s better than state ownership’ which in itself doesn’t make it a good deal.

This fanbase truly do hate each other.
Click to expand...

Have a read of the highlighted part of my post again and tell me how on earth are you are me that I’m talking out of my arse.

I said that those negative to this deal would have been negative to a full sale to Ineos, we know this is true for you because you’ve been calling it Brexit FC and have been categorically negative about anything to do with SJR from the very start. So no I’m absolutely not talking out of my arse with that.
The second part where I said many of them think that Middle Eastern/state investment is the only way absolutely is the truth, I never said all of those negative and maybe you’re someone who believes we can do well without it, but many people do believe that state funding is the only way to compete. I would add that right now in the current environment, the only way to be the the best is with state money, but hopefully with this Everton decision that will lead to something much bigger with the likes of City .

As for fans hating each other, I actually said I can fully understand the stance of those fans wanting state ownership in that fecking post, so you’re certainly talking out of your arse there in regards to me.
 
Loon said:
Bit hard to believe an experienced businessman would plow £1.25b into a business without having contractual obligations signed. Nor would he have likely handed over a further £250m. I know nothing about business, but to believe the Glazers will have carte blanch to do as they please from this point on is probably not a true reflection of what will happen.
Click to expand...

Couple things on this very common misconception by those that are supportive of Ratcliffe in any and everything he does in this process. The first thing is, this isn't primarily a business deal for him as it would be a bad one I'm sure you'd agree. It's obvious that this is some sort of personal vanity project that has the huge added benefit of having Manchester United added to his portfolio (a big deal for any business) and not only that, he gets to play with it in the form of being a Super CEO where he has a degree of control over who's employed in the football department. He gets to play with his partial investment and take credit for any success that might come our way. It's almost like Make a Wish and multi-billionaire-bucket-list kind of scenario where the guy gets his wish in the form of an extremely expensive, unnecessary opulent purchase because why not - he has everything else and you can only enjoy so many super yachts. He's buying a play thing that he can play with.

As for the Glazers? They own the asset so of course they have carte blanche - it's theirs to do with as they please as long as it's in the best interests of all shareholders and not just themselves. They will continue to operate the way they always have been and in no way will they ever sign on to selling the club in its entirety to Ratcliffe at it's current valuation much less Ratcliffe buying them all out at some ridiculous future valuation because why not pay it now? They just want a useful idiot that's willing to provide investment to enable them to stay and continue to open personal credit lines against their shares and take dividends.

In order to understand this process you have to really look at the psychological aspect of all individuals and their motivations. I still think, even now that a full sale is an option despite the media smashing me over the head on an hour-by-hour basis that Ratcliffe will be announced. They may be right, but Darcie, Edward, Kevin and Bryan all want out at a premium, the other shareholders want out of this sinking financial ship at a premium also. Joel on the other hand is working tirelessly to get everyone else on board with his plan so I think this process has some way to go yet and nowhere near as close as the media would have us believe. The process has been a farce and with it so many opportunities for litigation. Glazers are blinded by their own greed and it's starting to catch up with them.
 
Loon said:
Bit hard to believe an experienced businessman would plow £1.25b into a business without having contractual obligations signed. Nor would he have likely handed over a further £250m. I know nothing about business, but to believe the Glazers will have carte blanch to do as they please from this point on is probably not a true reflection of what will happen.
Click to expand...
Especially his own money for infrastructure. There is no way he invests that and let the Glazers benefit without investing a single penny
 
TrueRed79 said:
No oil fuelled, sports washing buyout. Glazers power diluted. Sacked an unqualified CEO. Appointing a more than qualified CEO. Appointing a new Sporting Director. Investing £250M of his own money for upgrading facilities. This is an ok start for me. Yes we would all prefer the Glazers fcuk off forever, but it's not happening right now. It will happen in the near future. I would be sick to my stomach if we ended up like, City, PSG and Newcastle. Too bad if that upsets you. We are better off than we were a year ago, for me.
Click to expand...
Pretty much. I didn't want state ownership.

Absolutely terrible decision making and management of the football side of the club from top to bottom has been the biggest issue in the last 10+ years. If this is a step in the right direction in improving that then I'm all for it.
 
19Dan81 said:
Couple things on this very common misconception by those that are supportive of Ratcliffe in any and everything he does in this process. The first thing is, this isn't primarily a business deal for him as it would be a bad one I'm sure you'd agree. It's obvious that this is some sort of personal vanity project that has the huge added benefit of having Manchester United added to his portfolio (a big deal for any business) and not only that, he gets to play with it in the form of being a Super CEO where he has a degree of control over who's employed in the football department. He gets to play with his partial investment and take credit for any success that might come our way. It's almost like Make a Wish and multi-billionaire-bucket-list kind of scenario where the guy gets his wish in the form of an extremely expensive, unnecessary opulent purchase because why not - he has everything else and you can only enjoy so many super yachts. He's buying a play thing that he can play with.

As for the Glazers? They own the asset so of course they have carte blanche - it's theirs to do with as they please as long as it's in the best interests of all shareholders and not just themselves. They will continue to operate the way they always have been and in no way will they ever sign on to selling the club in its entirety to Ratcliffe at it's current valuation much less Ratcliffe buying them all out at some ridiculous future valuation because why not pay it now? They just want a useful idiot that's willing to provide investment to enable them to stay and continue to open personal credit lines against their shares and take dividends.

In order to understand this process you have to really look at the psychological aspect of all individuals and their motivations. I still think, even now that a full sale is an option despite the media smashing me over the head on an hour-by-hour basis that Ratcliffe will be announced. They may be right, but Darcie, Edward, Kevin and Bryan all want out at a premium, the other shareholders want out of this sinking financial ship at a premium also. Joel on the other hand is working tirelessly to get everyone else on board with his plan so I think this process has some way to go yet and nowhere near as close as the media would have us believe. The process has been a farce and with it so many opportunities for litigation. Glazers are blinded by their own greed and it's starting to catch up with them.
Click to expand...

I think it's dangerous to make assumptions that anyone is supportive of any particular party based upon what they are saying as an outside observer and, like most on here, know absolutely nothing about the terms and conditions of a private deal, nor the psychology of those involved, so we must refrain in speaking in absolutes, but to say the Glazers can do as they please after what is essentially a bailout cannot be a true reflection of what will happen when going forward and I personally have a healthy slice of scepticism about Ratcliffe (and Jassim), but to suggest he's a useful idiot enabling the Glazers seems churlish.
 
Another week goes by and it's not done. So much for all the know YouTubers that keep saying 'It's this week'. 'It's imminent'. Well any purchase will have to be announced by the New York Stock Exchange which doesn't open until Monday. Only then will we know the details of the deal, the rest is speculation. One thing is clear, the Glazers will make money out of this and continue to take money out of the club. Sir Jim will possibly take out money too. At least he will shake the pathetic bunch that have been culpable in the demise of our great club.
 
We have gone toe to toe with City in transfer spend for the past decade, we had an even bigger wage bill but we lacked direction. Sir Jim seems to have identified this as a major flaw and the Glazers by handing him control seem to agree too. That he is willing to put in 250m into infrastructure is an added boon.

Over the years we haven't needed a phenom CEO, the guy we are getting is light years ahead of Woodward and Anorld, we have needed a CEO with the duty of care to demand the best from those making the decisions on some of the huge spends we have seen come in and flop. We needed a CEO in 2016 who could recognize that a change in direction was needed before wasting another 400m on Jose's nonsense, hell if we had a decent DOF we wouldn't have brought in Jose after he crushed at Chelsea. These are the nuances a proper football man would recognize and thats why I like the links with this Blanc guy.

If we can sort out the mess on the recruitment then in three years time the clamour for the Glazers to leave won't be as strong. From what I have seen they are amongst the most supportive owners towards what their managers needed, they have never been able to grasp the importance of having the right executives in to identify the right managers and bring the right players.
 
Offsideagain said:
Another week goes by and it's not done. So much for all the know YouTubers that keep saying 'It's this week'. 'It's imminent'. Well any purchase will have to be announced by the New York Stock Exchange which doesn't open until Monday. Only then will we know the details of the deal, the rest is speculation. One thing is clear, the Glazers will make money out of this and continue to take money out of the club. Sir Jim will possibly take out money too. At least he will shake the pathetic bunch that have been culpable in the demise of our great club.
Click to expand...

I genuinely believe nobody knows anything.
 
AneRu said:
We have gone toe to toe with City in transfer spend for the past decade, we had an even bigger wage bill but we lacked direction. Sir Jim seems to have identified this as a major flaw and the Glazers by handing him control seem to agree too. That he is willing to put in 250m into infrastructure is an added boon.

Over the years we haven't needed a phenom CEO, the guy we are getting is light years ahead of Woodward and Anorld, we have needed a CEO with the duty of care to demand the best from those making the decisions on some of the huge spends we have seen come in and flop. We needed a CEO in 2016 who could recognize that a change in direction was needed before wasting another 400m on Jose's nonsense, hell if we had a decent DOF we wouldn't have brought in Jose after he crushed at Chelsea. These are the nuances a proper football man would recognize and thats why I like the links with this Blanc guy.

If we can sort out the mess on the recruitment then in three years time the clamour for the Glazers to leave won't be as strong. From what I have seen they are amongst the most supportive owners towards what their managers needed, they have never been able to grasp the importance of having the right executives in to identify the right managers and bring the right players.
Click to expand...

As much as I despise the Glazers, this is about accurate.
 
AneRu said:
We have gone toe to toe with City in transfer spend for the past decade, we had an even bigger wage bill but we lacked direction. Sir Jim seems to have identified this as a major flaw and the Glazers by handing him control seem to agree too. That he is willing to put in 250m into infrastructure is an added boon.

Over the years we haven't needed a phenom CEO, the guy we are getting is light years ahead of Woodward and Anorld, we have needed a CEO with the duty of care to demand the best from those making the decisions on some of the huge spends we have seen come in and flop. We needed a CEO in 2016 who could recognize that a change in direction was needed before wasting another 400m on Jose's nonsense, hell if we had a decent DOF we wouldn't have brought in Jose after he crushed at Chelsea. These are the nuances a proper football man would recognize and thats why I like the links with this Blanc guy.

If we can sort out the mess on the recruitment then in three years time the clamour for the Glazers to leave won't be as strong. From what I have seen they are amongst the most supportive owners towards what their managers needed, they have never been able to grasp the importance of having the right executives in to identify the right managers and bring the right players.
Click to expand...

Well said. The hope was whoever won the battle would get the club going in the right direction. Let's hope that's the case.
 
Regulus Arcturus Black said:
Have a read of the highlighted part of my post again and tell me how on earth are you are me that I’m talking out of my arse.

I said that those negative to this deal would have been negative to a full sale to Ineos, we know this is true for you because you’ve been calling it Brexit FC and have been categorically negative about anything to do with SJR from the very start. So no I’m absolutely not talking out of my arse with that.
The second part where I said many of them think that Middle Eastern/state investment is the only way absolutely is the truth, I never said all of those negative and maybe you’re someone who believes we can do well without it, but many people do believe that state funding is the only way to compete. I would add that right now in the current environment, the only way to be the the best is with state money, but hopefully with this Everton decision that will lead to something much bigger with the likes of City .

As for fans hating each other, I actually said I can fully understand the stance of those fans wanting state ownership in that fecking post, so you’re certainly talking out of your arse there in regards to me.
Click to expand...

Tbf nobody here wanted 'state-funded/owned' model.

What they want is 100% removal of the Glazers, 100% clearing of the debt and serious investment of the infrastructure. And of course an improvement in both footballing management and performance.

If he was from Mars, Grimsby or Timbuktu we would have still have supported that specific bid.

It just happens that the only favourable bid from our view happens to come from a qatari -- who I think isn't really state (financial ) backed
 
It's interesting to me that the same people who have been heavily critical of PSG and how they have operated as a club since Qatari ownership are the same people who can't wait to take their CEO under Ratcliffe at Utd.

Are they saying the ownership is the problem? If so, our ownership doesn't change with Jean-Claude Blanc either. So what are you expecting exactly and what is the argument? Fact is, PSG has been an unmitigated success for all their criticism since the Qatari takeover in everything but winning the Champions League (not easy is it) and Jean-Claude Blanc is a genius when he has full reign to do what needs to be done. PSG net worth now is the result of owners that want to heavily invest and the dedication of a CEO that knows what he's doing. You need owners that are in-line with the CEO, sporting department and Manager to be successful and you're delusional if you think the Glazers are like Nasser Al-Khalaifi and the Agnelli's.

Glazers out.
 
TrueRed79 said:
No oil fuelled, sports washing buyout. Glazers power diluted. Sacked an unqualified CEO. Appointing a more than qualified CEO. Appointing a new Sporting Director. Investing £250M of his own money for upgrading facilities. This is an ok start for me. Yes we would all prefer the Glazers fcuk off forever, but it's not happening right now. It will happen in the near future. I would be sick to my stomach if we ended up like, City, PSG and Newcastle. Too bad if that upsets you. We are better off than we were a year ago, for me.
Click to expand...

Strongly agreed.
 
Regulus Arcturus Black said:
Have a read of the highlighted part of my post again and tell me how on earth are you are me that I’m talking out of my arse.

I said that those negative to this deal would have been negative to a full sale to Ineos, we know this is true for you because you’ve been calling it Brexit FC and have been categorically negative about anything to do with SJR from the very start. So no I’m absolutely not talking out of my arse with that.
The second part where I said many of them think that Middle Eastern/state investment is the only way absolutely is the truth, I never said all of those negative and maybe you’re someone who believes we can do well without it, but many people do believe that state funding is the only way to compete. I would add that right now in the current environment, the only way to be the the best is with state money, but hopefully with this Everton decision that will lead to something much bigger with the likes of City .

As for fans hating each other, I actually said I can fully understand the stance of those fans wanting state ownership in that fecking post, so you’re certainly talking out of your arse there in regards to me.
Click to expand...

Lots of assumptions here that I don't believe are true for the majority - the major issue most have with the SJR/INEOS bid is undoubtedly that it's just 25%, which means the Glazers and their debts are here to stay. Definitely in the short term and no guarantees for the long term either.

I preferred the 92F bid but would absolutely welcome INEOS if it was a full sale, I'd even accept the debt staying. It's not ideal but it can be managed with more sensible spending on the squad. The major question mark now is about where the finance for a new stadium comes from, that was the big bonus of the 92F deal.

Also will remind you and others that there was no state bid for Man Utd, it's officially a private Qatari group (you might choose not to believe this but these are the facts) - completely different to officially state backed ownership at PSG or Newcastle for example.

I don't think many who backed the Qatari bid (including me) think that state funding is the only way to compete either. We are not a small time club like City or PSG who needed a massive cash injection to have any hope of reaching the Champions League, we already spend ridiculous amounts in the transfer market so we don't need anymore investment on that, we just need to spend it better with more competent people in the boardroom.

On that point, I'm hopeful that SJR can bring some positive change and I'm willing to give him a chance, but I absolutely won't accept incorrect takes about what issues fans have with the SJR minority investment bid nor wanting state ownership when there is hardly anyone here who actually holds these positions.
 
Anyone read the book “The world’s biggest cash machine”?

Been listening to UWS podcast and the guy who wrote it was a pretty good listen.
 
Rood said:
He's a poster on here - can't remember his username

Don't always agree with his analysis but interesting nonetheless
Click to expand...
I’ll be honest. I don’t have a clue if the analysis is good or feasible. But thought I’d link it because it got recommended and the logic for recommending it made sense when compared to other tweets about the share structure. Then hopefully others with a better understanding of these things can give their thoughts.
 
JediSith said:
I’ll be honest. I don’t have a clue if the analysis is good or feasible. But thought I’d link it because it got recommended and the logic for recommending it made sense when compared to other tweets about the share structure. Then hopefully others with a better understanding of these things can give their thoughts.
Click to expand...

There is nothing there that hasnt been discussed in the last few pages of this thread already but I totally agree with his general conclusions that:
- the details of the SJR offer are unclear
- media reports are conflicting anyway

There are big unanswered questions about the deal structure and value that will only become clear when the deal is done and details announced to the stock market
 
TrueRed79 said:
No oil fuelled, sports washing buyout. Glazers power diluted. Sacked an unqualified CEO. Appointing a more than qualified CEO. Appointing a new Sporting Director. Investing £250M of his own money for upgrading facilities. This is an ok start for me. Yes we would all prefer the Glazers fcuk off forever, but it's not happening right now. It will happen in the near future. I would be sick to my stomach if we ended up like, City, PSG and Newcastle. Too bad if that upsets you. We are better off than we were a year ago, for me.
Click to expand...
I personally have nothing against oil and gas, but this bit is just patently untrue. Are you familiar with INEOS's business model?
 
TrueRed79 said:
No oil fuelled, sports washing buyout. Glazers power diluted. Sacked an unqualified CEO. Appointing a more than qualified CEO. Appointing a new Sporting Director. Investing £250M of his own money for upgrading facilities. This is an ok start for me. Yes we would all prefer the Glazers fcuk off forever, but it's not happening right now. It will happen in the near future. I would be sick to my stomach if we ended up like, City, PSG and Newcastle. Too bad if that upsets you. We are better off than we were a year ago, for me.
Click to expand...
Good post.
 
cyberman said:
He once claimed in a show that a 15k odd increase in OT attendance would bring in an extra 50m per year. Maths isn’t his strongpoint
Click to expand...

Presumably that'd be 50m pounds rather than people?
 
Status
Not open for further replies.