Club Sale | It’s done!

Status
Not open for further replies.
sglowrider said:
But let's not pretend he is doing all this for shits & giggles.
Click to expand...
Dude, the word you are looking for is ‘Legacy’. The point being it isn’t solely a financial investment seeking maximum return as per the current owners.
Ratcliffe himself has stated he wants the challenge of turning United around, seeing if they can run the club really well and bring success once more, and you can guarantee he will take great pleasure from and bask in any glory he achieves.
 
He's a very successful business man. If he wanted to solely make money, he wouldnt be investing 25% in Man United aged 70.
 
United will not make losses if run as a football club.
The profits will be plowed back into the club.

As for INEOS United will be an investment in their books which will grow in value over the years.

Without being privy to the agreement SJR has with the Glazer, I must make assumptions.
INEOS will charge the Glazers a Management Fee for their employees running the football activities of United.
This will be a receivable in INEOS books, which will be moved as part of further purchases of Glazer shares. Thus increasing INEOS holdings of the club.
I believe SJR will ultimately own all the shares the Glazers hold and thus have full control of the club.
 
FujiVice said:
He's a very successful business man. If he wanted to solely make money, he wouldnt be investing 25% in Man United aged 70.
Click to expand...

I doubt it's the sole reason too, but having United linked to INEOS is probably worth a lot for his dynasty, though it's impossible to fully calculate. Maybe he's paid more than others were willing to because he also has a soft spot for United and wants to see them do well, but I doubt United's success is the sole reason either. Leaving behind as strong a business empire as possible can't be written off as a reason for buying. There's a nuanced middle ground where I think he lies somewhere, but we can only guess where that is. Though, with him being a billionaire, I know which side of the spectrum I lean towards!
 
Last edited:
Red Dreams said:
United will not make losses if run as a football club.
The profits will be plowed back into the club.

As for INEOS United will be an investment in their books which will grow in value over the years.

Without being privy to the agreement SJR has with the Glazer, I must make assumptions.
INEOS will charge the Glazers a Management Fee for their employees running the football activities of United.
This will be a receivable in INEOS books, which will be moved as part of further purchases of Glazer shares. Thus increasing INEOS holdings of the club.
I believe SJR will ultimately own all the shares the Glazers hold and thus have full control of the club.
Click to expand...

This is naive and that's putting it lightly. Why would the Glazers agree to any such deal like this when they could have cashed out at 8x revenue and 2x market valuation? It's hard enough trying to find a reason as to why they would agree to this so far unexplained 25% investment as it is without going even further to say that they will give up shares in exchange for asset investment. They haven't put a penny in for 18-years - why do you think they want dilute their shares to spend on the club?

Honestly, it's comical that even now people aren't considering the Glazers, all 6 of them with all their differing wants and needs in any explanation to how this deal makes sense. So far, I don't see how a family in disunity are all in complete agreement at selling a partial stake for an at-risk earn-out in some undetermined time frame in the future, much less how they really just want to just dilute their collective £3.5b worth of shares so that it's reinvested into the club. They're parasites. They care about money and seemingly nothing else. Laughable.
 
Adnan said:
Click to expand...

A certain section of the fanbase will lap this up.

I fully understand supporting local kids coming through, I love seeing the Rashford, Kobbie types break through & I probably give our academy products more rope than I should do but things like The Class of 92 are anomalies, that’s a group of British players United produced. Take Rice at Arsenal (Chelsea supporting, West Ham product) or Grealish at City (United supporting Villa product), yes sign them for their talent but under no circums should we prioritise them because of their passports.

Club needs to get good at signing any players before it begins placing silly restrictions on itself. Hopefully this is just paper talk.
 
19Dan81 said:
This is naive and that's putting it lightly. Why would the Glazers agree to any such deal like this when they could have cashed out at 8x revenue and 2x market valuation? It's hard enough trying to find a reason as to why they would agree to this so far unexplained 25% investment as it is without going even further to say that they will give up shares in exchange for asset investment. They haven't put a penny in for 18-years - why do you think they want dilute their shares to spend on the club?

Honestly, it's comical that even now people aren't considering the Glazers, all 6 of them with all their differing wants and needs in any explanation to how this deal makes sense. So far, I don't see how a family in disunity are all in complete agreement at selling a partial stake for an at-risk earn-out in some undetermined time frame in the future, much less how they really just want to just dilute their collective £3.5b worth of shares so that it's reinvested into the club. They're parasites. They care about money and seemingly nothing else. Laughable.
Click to expand...
Were you called Harry in a previous life?! :wenger:
 
AFC NimbleThumb said:
A certain section of the fanbase will lap this up.

I fully understand supporting local kids coming through, I love seeing the Rashford, Kobbie types break through & I probably give our academy products more rope than I should do but things like The Class of 92 are anomalies, that’s a group of British players United produced. Take Rice at Arsenal (Chelsea supporting, West Ham product) or Grealish at City (United supporting Villa product), yes sign them for their talent but under no circums should we prioritise them because of their passports.

Club needs to get good at signing any players before it begins placing silly restrictions on itself. Hopefully this is just paper talk.
Click to expand...
I wouldn't read too much into this article. The journalists are truly scraping the bottom of the barrel now. This ownership saga has dragged on for so long that there is nothing left to say.
 
I think Jim wants to spend his legacy money, and spend it fairly wisely. He's in his 70s...why not. Certainly won't me making money forma.good while.
 
AFC NimbleThumb said:
A certain section of the fanbase will lap this up.

I fully understand supporting local kids coming through, I love seeing the Rashford, Kobbie types break through & I probably give our academy products more rope than I should do but things like The Class of 92 are anomalies, that’s a group of British players United produced. Take Rice at Arsenal (Chelsea supporting, West Ham product) or Grealish at City (United supporting Villa product), yes sign them for their talent but under no circums should we prioritise them because of their passports.

Club needs to get good at signing any players before it begins placing silly restrictions on itself. Hopefully this is just paper talk.
Click to expand...

Yeah this would give people even more fuel to nickname him Jimmy Brexit
 
19Dan81 said:
This is naive and that's putting it lightly. Why would the Glazers agree to any such deal like this when they could have cashed out at 8x revenue and 2x market valuation? It's hard enough trying to find a reason as to why they would agree to this so far unexplained 25% investment as it is without going even further to say that they will give up shares in exchange for asset investment. They haven't put a penny in for 18-years - why do you think they want dilute their shares to spend on the club?

Honestly, it's comical that even now people aren't considering the Glazers, all 6 of them with all their differing wants and needs in any explanation to how this deal makes sense. So far, I don't see how a family in disunity are all in complete agreement at selling a partial stake for an at-risk earn-out in some undetermined time frame in the future, much less how they really just want to just dilute their collective £3.5b worth of shares so that it's reinvested into the club. They're parasites. They care about money and seemingly nothing else. Laughable.
Click to expand...

I realize you do not understand any of this.

The debt, development of Old Trafford and Training facilities will all be in INEOS books with United as an asset.

The reason the Glazers are selling is because the stadium and facilities are falling apart and they cannot borrow any more.

If they could have got more money from Qatar, they would have ended up selling to them.
 
Beans said:
A brave stand, I'm going to have to disagree though.

United shouldn't buy British players that are good enough.
Click to expand...

All this hassle over one word. If enough wasn't present in the report things would be fine. We've had enough compromise duringbthe Glazer time. We want to hear we are buying top players that everyone are after - generational talents.

This centuries Rios and Rooneys
 
Rojofiam said:
I'm sure multi-billionaire Ratcliffe is after United so that he can take his 10-20 million yearly dividends out. :lol:

For United to be a profitable thing for him, he'll have to pour money into it for at least a decade and also make sure that we are successful on the pitch...and even this is a highly unlikely scenario, because there are way better investments he and Ineos can make for less money, less risk and higher returns in a shorter amount of time.

71 year old Ratcliffe wants to buy a 6 billion pound asset, so that he can sell it for 10 billion when he's 85? Or he's gonna take yearly dividends so that he can make 15% of his current net worth by the time he's 120 years old? Solid logic there, guys. Like I've said at least 5 times in this thread, you gotta be really dumb to assume Ratcliffe wants to "leech" off the club.
Click to expand...

Really really lazy argument there.

Not agreeing with the notion that he wants to "leech" off the club, but your arguments against are equally dumb.

Your arguments are essentially:

1) Because 10-20 million to Ratcliffe is an insignificant amount so that wouldn't entice him.
2) Because there are better investments out there which are better than buying a football club, so that's why this is more of a passion project for local lad Ratcliffe.
3) Because Ratcliffe is very old, so it's unlikely that he would even bother to venture into a long term investment. (Completely disregarding the idea of continuity and succession).

Look, I get you're Team Ratcliffe all the way, but let's not pretend to know the Ratcliffe's (or any other billionaire) mindset.
 
AFC NimbleThumb said:
A certain section of the fanbase will lap this up.

I fully understand supporting local kids coming through, I love seeing the Rashford, Kobbie types break through & I probably give our academy products more rope than I should do but things like The Class of 92 are anomalies, that’s a group of British players United produced. Take Rice at Arsenal (Chelsea supporting, West Ham product) or Grealish at City (United supporting Villa product), yes sign them for their talent but under no circums should we prioritise them because of their passports.

Club needs to get good at signing any players before it begins placing silly restrictions on itself. Hopefully this is just paper talk.
Click to expand...
Agreed, if there is top British talent out there we should look at them but based on their ability, nothing else. Our recent record of buying supposed top British talent is woeful (Maguire, Mount, Sancho, AWB). We will always significantly overpay for any British talent we go after.

Invest in the academy and look for our own British talent. Outside of that we'll need to compliment that with top talent from abroad.
 
Paul778 said:
All this hassle over one word. If enough wasn't present in the report things would be fine. We've had enough compromise duringbthe Glazer time. We want to hear we are buying top players that everyone are after - generational talents.

This centuries Rios and Rooneys
Click to expand...

And the Paul Parkers of the land.
 
Focusing on British players is what Roy Hodgson (another tory) did at Liverpool. He told Aquilani was free to leave, then promoted in the likes of Paul Konchesky.

Our scouting operation should be as worldwide as our fanbase, the only base priorities being quality and aptitude.

No prioritisation based on nationality.
 
People do realise that SJR is effectively allowing the Glazers to stay at MUFC by investing in the 25% stake right?

Without the investment, the Glazer ownership is no longer sustainable and within a matter of years they would have to sell. The club is no longer profitable with the debt and interest rates. Infrastructure needs huge investment that the Glazers could not fund. The squad is an absolute mess and CL football is unlikely for the foreseeable. It’s over for the them but SJR is effectively bailing them out.
 
Stuff like this should be handled at the FA level. There's no reason United should take it upon themselves to "buy British" and potentially give the competitive advantage to the rest of the league.
 
Micky Targaryen said:
Really really lazy argument there.

Not agreeing with the notion that he wants to "leech" off the club, but your arguments against are equally dumb.

Your arguments are essentially:

1) Because 10-20 million to Ratcliffe is an insignificant amount so that wouldn't entice him.
2) Because there are better investments out there which are better than buying a football club, so that's why this is more of a passion project for local lad Ratcliffe.
3) Because Ratcliffe is very old, so it's unlikely that he would even bother to venture into a long term investment. (Completely disregarding the idea of continuity and succession).

Look, I get you're Team Ratcliffe all the way, but let's not pretend to know the Ratcliffe's (or any other billionaire) mindset.
Click to expand...
Its not about being Team Jim or not. But he is not doing this for money. He doesn't make money out of his cycling, his America's cup sailing, or his other two football teams. He loves sport and I think loves United. He may or may not succeed but he will bring in experienced pros to run the club, something the Glazers were too dumb to do.
 
ddg01 said:
People do realise that SJR is effectively allowing the Glazers to stay at MUFC by investing in the 25% stake right?

Without the investment, the Glazer ownership is no longer sustainable and within a matter of years they would have to sell. The club is no longer profitable with the debt and interest rates. Infrastructure needs huge investment that the Glazers could not fund. The squad is an absolute mess and CL football is unlikely for the foreseeable. It’s over for the them but SJR is effectively bailing them out.
Click to expand...
You're right, but it doesn't matter at all if people realise it out not. Because, sadly, we have no say or influence at all in this.
 
Gordon Godot said:
Its not about being Team Jim or not. But he is not doing this for money. He doesn't make money out of his cycling, his America's cup sailing, or his other two football teams. He loves sport and I think loves United. He may or may not succeed but he will bring in experienced pros to run the club, something the Glazers were too dumb to do.
Click to expand...
You are either a businessman or you’re not. And I think we can all agree that Jim the billionaire is a pretty good businessman. And it is possible to love United while also earning money from it. Those two things are not mutually exclusive. This sweeping statement of Jim not doing it for money is weird to me. We all don’t know his intentions and it doesn’t matter. As long as he runs the club well, I don’t give two fecks if he’s profiting from the club.
 
Micky Targaryen said:
You are either a businessman or you’re not. And I think we can all agree that Jim the billionaire is a pretty good businessman. And it is possible to love United while also earning money from it. Those two things are not mutually exclusive. This sweeping statement of Jim not doing it for money is weird to me. We all don’t know his intentions and it doesn’t matter. As long as he runs the club well, I don’t give two fecks if he’s profiting from the club.
Click to expand...
No. Its not that simple. He has made a fortune from being a good businessman. Now he spends some of that on the things that are his passion. I agree it doesnt really matter if he runs club well, but I can assure you he is not expecting to make money from this.
 
Gordon Godot said:
No. Its not that simple. He has made a fortune from being a good businessman. Now he spends some of that on the things that are his passion. I agree it doesnt really matter if he runs club well, but I can assure you he is not expecting to make money from this.
Click to expand...

The only person who can assure us he doesn't expect to make money out of this is Jim.
 
Gordon Godot said:
Its not about being Team Jim or not. But he is not doing this for money. He doesn't make money out of his cycling, his America's cup sailing, or his other two football teams. He loves sport and I think loves United. He may or may not succeed but he will bring in experienced pros to run the club, something the Glazers were too dumb to do.
Click to expand...

Sounds like you know him very well.
 
Gordon Godot said:
No. Its not that simple. He has made a fortune from being a good businessman. Now he spends some of that on the things that are his passion. I agree it doesnt really matter if he runs club well, but I can assure you he is not expecting to make money from this.
Click to expand...

You clearly know Jimbo better than Dominic O'Connell then? Why are people idealising Ratcliffe like this, it's pathological. Like, you can have your favourite bidder and hope for the best outcome but to go way and beyond reality to support it is crazy. Ratcliffe has been trying to get a blue chip club attached to his INEOS empire for years now - he has both financial and brand reach as the driving reasons for it. This is about INEOS and what it does for him. Do people forget the Charity Watchdog commission investigation into Ratcliffe ripping off charity money and tax deductibles to build an exclusive luxury ski lodge that has been named "INEOS Club House" that charges £25k entry and £6k a year providing you can be vouched for by other members? This is not a philanthropic person and this offer isn't a vanity project - he's a money man who's dedicated his life to maximising investment and loopholes.
 
I think the big issue we have now is that a lot of United fans thought the Qatar/Jassim bid was a magical silver bullet/cheat code that would immediately bring success and change the entire culture of the club so its a winning machine again.

Now that's not happening, those same people view all the other options as a complete disaster. They might have a point that Ratcliffe has issues but its clearly better than we have now.

If you'd spoken to anyone after the Super League fiasco and said that there's potentially a future where someone else will own 25% of the club and remove some/all of the footballing decisions from the Glazers, I think many (if not all) would have been happy with that, at least in the short term.
 
MancunianAngels said:
I think the big issue we have now is that a lot of United fans thought the Qatar/Jassim bid was a magical silver bullet/cheat code that would immediately bring success and change the entire culture of the club so its a winning machine again.

Now that's not happening, those same people view all the other options as a complete disaster. They might have a point that Ratcliffe has issues but its clearly better than we have now.

If you'd spoken to anyone after the Super League fiasco and said that there's potentially a future where someone else will own 25% of the club and remove some/all of the footballing decisions from the Glazers, I think many (if not all) would have been happy with that, at least in the short term.
Click to expand...

Aye, that's about right.
 
19Dan81 said:
You clearly know Jimbo better than Dominic O'Connell then? Why are people idealising Ratcliffe like this, it's pathological. Like, you can have your favourite bidder and hope for the best outcome but to go way and beyond reality to support it is crazy. Ratcliffe has been trying to get a blue chip club attached to his INEOS empire for years now - he has both financial and brand reach as the driving reasons for it. This is about INEOS and what it does for him. Do people forget the Charity Watchdog commission investigation into Ratcliffe ripping off charity money and tax deductibles to build an exclusive luxury ski lodge that has been named "INEOS Club House" that charges £25k entry and £6k a year providing you can be vouched for by other members? This is not a philanthropic person and this offer isn't a vanity project - he's a money man who's dedicated his life to maximising investment and loopholes.
Click to expand...

Shock horror! Sir Jim trying to dodge tax? Surely not! He is as patriotic an Englishman as they come. And wants best for England.

He's 71y.o, a multi billionaire. Why would he do that? Surely he is honest as they come considering that he has a knighthood. And we all know they are honourable people!

You lie!
 
Ratcliffe 'Welcome to Manchester' posters spotted near Old Trafford.



 
Status
Not open for further replies.