Club Sale | It’s done!

[The Boy]

Are you saying all Nice fans agree with you?

The clear problem with the sensationalist article you shared is that a) it ignores that the Nice it romanticises about was long gone 2 years before INEOS arrived and b) the claim that Nice and INEOS want to compete with PSG is mentioned due to them ”not coming close”, because it hasn’t been achieved in just 3 fecking years.
You surely realise how stupid it is for anyone to think that three years is any time at all for such a project, unless it’s a ME fund or a Russian oligarch.

No I'm saying alot of Nice fans are upset because the club has clearly been quite badly run since the take over. But you know best.

 

[Champ]

Yes. Because I’m not the one moral pedestaling about United’s next owners, I’m merely pointing out that INEOS could easily be demonised.

My objective to INEOS is simple. In a league where it would be very easy to turn a team into the second/third best team they have not. So what hope do they have in the Premier League.

What does this bolded parts even mean?

It's not easy to turn a team hampered by FFP into a top team, in a league that has generally been quite topsy turvy in terms of finishing positions.

At least that what I would have thought,

but you must know better, you eco warrior you.

 

[Messier1994]

Ineos/Ratcliffe is an investor. Nice is an investment. A investor has a goal with every investment. A business plan. Broadly, given the sums Ineos has invested in Nice -- I can have no objections against Nice's performance. I would have been more worried had Ineos pumped 500m into Nice to compete with PSG and they had failed. Their net spend on transfers the last 3 years is about 75m. For a club spending in the range of Lille, the Ligue 1 is not a walk in the park. Besides PSG you have Monaco, Marseille, and Olympic Lyon and a bunch of fairly well run club with good youth organizations. Its like someone takes over Crystal Palace and give them 50m extra transfer fees each year. Sure they should improve, but its not like you can guarantee to finish no worse than 7 in the PL every year. Reasonably, some years should be better, some years worse.

If Ineos had invested much more than it have in Nice -- would that have been better? Honestly, would not that be pretty dumb? Sure, there are money to make for a club that is very successful on the pitch -- but if you as an investor were interested in pumping 200m into a football club -- why on earth would you pick OGC Nice? I do not know what Ineos business plan is for its investment in OGC Nice. But the fact alone that it is a tiny Ligue 1 club tells me that its intentions has not been to compete toe to toe with PSG. If its to build up the club properly and to get into a position were you can compete for top 4 spots, become a steady top 3-5 club in Ligue 1, it seems like they are heading in the right direction from the perspective of the size of the funds made available to the club. Ultimately, it will be up to the executive management of the club to make use of those funds. A journey like this is never straight.

I am not saying that Ratcliffe would be a great or horrible owner of MUFC, or something inbetween, I don't know. But I am not worried looking at Nice. If anything, it seems like their approach is quite sensible. Another approach would to throw a lot of money at the club early, -- but like we all know, that can work but it can also fail. Having a long term approach is definitely not wrong.

 

[Regulus Arcturus Black]

No I'm saying alot of Nice fans are upset because the club has clearly been quite badly run since the take over. But you know best.

And 85% of redcafe fans wanted to sell Rashford.
About 95% of Arsenal fans wanted Arteta sacked.

Football fans are emotional souls, but two 5th place finishes, a sensible spend, a cup final and the recruitment of a promising DoF in 3 years of running a club isn’t proof of a club “being badly run” however you paint it. If you want an example of a badly run club, you need look no further than Everton.
There will be growing pains for sure with a sensible long term takeover, but football fans aren’t known for being a patient bunch for the long term project.

 

[Zippycup]

Ineos/Ratcliffe is an investor. Nice is an investment. A investor has a goal with every investment. A business plan. Broadly, given the sums Ineos has invested in Nice -- I can have no objections against Nice's performance. I would have been more worried had Ineos pumped 500m into Nice to compete with PSG and they had failed. Their net spend on transfers the last 3 years is about 75m. For a club spending in the range of Lille, the Ligue 1 is not a walk in the park. Besides PSG you have Monaco, Marseille, and Olympic Lyon and a bunch of fairly well run club with good youth organizations. Its like someone takes over Crystal Palace and give them 50m extra transfer fees each year. Sure they should improve, but its not like you can guarantee to finish no worse than 7 in the PL every year. Reasonably, some years should be better, some years worse.

If Ineos had invested much more than it have in Nice -- would that have been better? Honestly, would not that be pretty dumb? Sure, there are money to make for a club that is very successful on the pitch -- but if you as an investor were interested in pumping 200m into a football club -- why on earth would you pick OGC Nice? I do not know what Ineos business plan is for its investment in OGC Nice. But the fact alone that it is a tiny Ligue 1 club tells me that its intentions has not been to compete toe to toe with PSG. If its to build up the club properly and to get into a position were you can compete for top 4 spots, become a steady top 3-5 club in Ligue 1, it seems like they are heading in the right direction from the perspective of the size of the funds made available to the club. Ultimately, it will be up to the executive management of the club to make use of those funds. A journey like this is never straight.

I am not saying that Ratcliffe would be a great or horrible owner of MUFC, or something inbetween, I don't know. But I am not worried looking at Nice. If anything, it seems like their approach is quite sensible. Another approach would to throw a lot of money at the club early, -- but like we all know, that can work but it can also fail. Having a long term approach is definitely not wrong.

Fantastic post.

 

[red thru&thru]

Ineos/Ratcliffe is an investor. Nice is an investment. A investor has a goal with every investment. A business plan. Broadly, given the sums Ineos has invested in Nice -- I can have no objections against Nice's performance. I would have been more worried had Ineos pumped 500m into Nice to compete with PSG and they had failed. Their net spend on transfers the last 3 years is about 75m. For a club spending in the range of Lille, the Ligue 1 is not a walk in the park. Besides PSG you have Monaco, Marseille, and Olympic Lyon and a bunch of fairly well run club with good youth organizations. Its like someone takes over Crystal Palace and give them 50m extra transfer fees each year. Sure they should improve, but its not like you can guarantee to finish no worse than 7 in the PL every year. Reasonably, some years should be better, some years worse.

If Ineos had invested much more than it have in Nice -- would that have been better? Honestly, would not that be pretty dumb? Sure, there are money to make for a club that is very successful on the pitch -- but if you as an investor were interested in pumping 200m into a football club -- why on earth would you pick OGC Nice? I do not know what Ineos business plan is for its investment in OGC Nice. But the fact alone that it is a tiny Ligue 1 club tells me that its intentions has not been to compete toe to toe with PSG. If its to build up the club properly and to get into a position were you can compete for top 4 spots, become a steady top 3-5 club in Ligue 1, it seems like they are heading in the right direction from the perspective of the size of the funds made available to the club. Ultimately, it will be up to the executive management of the club to make use of those funds. A journey like this is never straight.

I am not saying that Ratcliffe would be a great or horrible owner of MUFC, or something inbetween, I don't know. But I am not worried looking at Nice. If anything, it seems like their approach is quite sensible. Another approach would to throw a lot of money at the club early, -- but like we all know, that can work but it can also fail. Having a long term approach is definitely not wrong.

As a business, that is fine.

However, it comes down to the main customers of the business...the fans. What vision was sold to the fans? What were the objectives to be achieved? And as United supporters, we are sick of being run like a business.

 

[Infra-red]

As a business, that is fine.

However, it comes down to the main customers of the business...the fans. What vision was sold to the fans? What were the objectives to be achieved? And as United supporters, we are sick of being run like a business.

That's not quite correct. There is no problem at all with United being run in a sustainable way, only spending money that the club actually earns and balancing the books each year.

Where fans quite rightly take issue is with things like the fact that we are the only Premier League club to pay dividends, or that we've wasted £742m in interest payments on the Glazer's leveraged buy-out, or that they have saddled the club with £590m of their acquisition debt. We've had to put up with chinless twats like Ed Woodward and little-to-no investment in Old Trafford or Carrington. This is not how you run a successful business and now, unsurprisingly, with gross debt of £1bn+ and crumbling infrastructure, they are looking to cash out.

 

[AlPistacho]

What does this bolded parts even mean?

It's not easy to turn a team hampered by FFP into a top team, in a league that has generally been quite topsy turvy in terms of finishing positions.

At least that what I would have thought,

but you must know better, you eco warrior you.

Yeah. I do know better.

 

[Messier1994]

As a business, that is fine.

However, it comes down to the main customers of the business...the fans. What vision was sold to the fans? What were the objectives to be achieved? And as United supporters, we are sick of being run like a business.

100% fair of course, and if Ratcliffe sold in his purchase in one way, and did not deliver, that is of course an issue. Didn't think of that aspect.

 

[Champ]

Yeah. I do know better.

Right you are.

 

[Champ]

As a business, that is fine.

However, it comes down to the main customers of the business...the fans. What vision was sold to the fans? What were the objectives to be achieved? And as United supporters, we are sick of being run like a business.

City's owners run the club as a business for example, they have sold shares repeatedly throughout their tenure as majority owners, in order to make money!

They way they have done that is by becoming successful (how they did that is another matter), but they grew the club into what it is now with the pretence of making money.

Every football club is a business, it's how that business is run which is the kicker.

 

[red thru&thru]

That's not quite correct. There is no problem at all with United being run in a sustainable way, only spending money that the club actually earns and balancing the books each year.

Where fans quite rightly take issue is with things like the fact that we are the only Premier League club to pay dividends, or that we've wasted £742m in interest payments on the Glazer's leveraged buy-out, or that they have saddled the club with £590m of their acquisition debt. We've had to put up with chinless twats like Ed Woodward and little-to-no investment in Old Trafford or Carrington. This is not how you run a successful business and now, unsurprisingly, with gross debt of £1bn+ and crumbling infrastructure, they are looking to cash out.

City's owners run the club as a business for example, they have sold shares repeatedly throughout their tenure as majority owners, in order to make money!

They way they have done that is by becoming successful (how they did that is another matter), but they grew the club into what it is now with the pretence of making money.

Every football club is a business, it's how that business is run which is the kicker.

I TOTALLY get that club's are needed to run in a self sustainable way. Totally get that. This is why I've called for the club to create the "Manchester United Village", so it generates extra revenue for the club.

However, there's a difference for running the club sustainably for the future of the club, and that for the owners. I'm sick of the club being run for the purpose of it's owners, rather than putting the success on the pitch first.

 

[Zed 101]

City's owners run the club as a business for example, they have sold shares repeatedly throughout their tenure as majority owners, in order to make money!

They way they have done that is by becoming successful (how they did that is another matter), but they grew the club into what it is now with the pretence of making money.

Every football club is a business, it's how that business is run which is the kicker.

Debt, dividends and lack of investment in infrastructure aside the Glazers (hate to admit it) actually ran the club successfully for many years, growing it.... with no little help from SAF into the worlds largest sporting franchise (at one point), if SAF had still be in charge and we had continued to have the level of success we enjoyed under his tenure then the Glazers would not be looking to sell and the club would still be turning a profit.

It was a business model with a limited lifespan, but it was effective for many years, look at Chelsea now, and other teams too they are gambling on success, which is ultimately doomed to failure at some point, I guess the hope is that they have enough time to evolve their financial strategy

 

[red thru&thru]

Debt, dividends and lack of investment in infrastructure aside the Glazers (hate to admit it) actually ran the club successfully for many years, growing it.... with no little help from SAF into the worlds largest sporting franchise (at one point), if SAF had still be in charge and we had continued to have the level of success we enjoyed under his tenure then the Glazers would not be looking to sell and the club would still be turning a profit.

It was a business model with a limited lifespan, but it was effective for many years, look at Chelsea now, and other teams too they are gambling on success, which is ultimately doomed to failure at some point, I guess the hope is that they have enough time to evolve their financial strategy

On top of the debt, dividends and lack of investment into the infrastructure, they lacked infrastructure in the people who ran their business. They stuck with an incompetent Ed Woodward.

Fergie basically covered up the deficiencies of the Glazers. However, they were exposed once he retired.

 

[AlPistacho]

And 85% of redcafe fans wanted to sell Rashford.
About 95% of Arsenal fans wanted Arteta sacked.

Football fans are emotional souls, but two 5th place finishes, a sensible spend, a cup final and the recruitment of a promising DoF in 3 years of running a club isn’t proof of a club “being badly run” however you paint it. If you want an example of a badly run club, you need look no further than Everton.
There will be growing pains for sure with a sensible long term takeover, but football fans aren’t known for being a patient bunch for the long term project.

pretty much 100% of United fans want the glazers out. Why didn’t you add that to your list?

 

[Regulus Arcturus Black]

pretty much 100% of United fans want the glazers out. Why didn’t you add that to your list?

The Glazers made a leveraged buyout and instantly turned a rich profitable football club into one riddled with hundreds of millions of debt. They’ve also now spent over a decade taking a club from champions to some really low places.
Compare that to INEOS and their short 3 year spell at Nice where they’ve twice beaten the league positions of the two seasons prior to them taking over. Nice average league positions for the 5 years prior to the takeover was 7th (6.6), in the 3 seasons since it’s 6th (6.3)
They haven’t taken them onwards yet, it’s still early days, but neither have they gone backwards, nor into debt. The Glazers though….


It’s not remotely similar.

 

[Red in STL]

If you want an example of a badly run club, you need look no further than Everton.

You don't need to look that far, Unied are the epitome of a badly run club, as it stands all ETH is doing is papering over the cracks by improving the current side, but there's a limit on how much he can do without a properly run club behind him

 

[SAF is the GOAT]

I wanted to know how's the debt is going to be paid ? because if we know that Manchester United have a debt worth more than 500m/p, The glazers haven't bothered to close this debt all these years and the new owner can come and rightly so say : you created that debt all those years and I'm not going to pay for that, what is going to happen ?

PS by the looks of things on SJR and Nice - I'm not that confident about him as an owner on any level - not with his managing, not with his appointments, not with his spending and unfortunately and someone has to say this - his age(do we really want a guy that is pretty elder to own the club ? and potentially give it to his sons that are Chelsea's season ticket holders ?). I really want to but I'm not that optimistic

 

[AdNani]

I've decided i'm all in on Ineos/Ratcliffe, feck being a sports washing project. At least Ratcliffe is aware of how big an institution we are and is somewhat of a fan.

 

[Devil_forever]

I've decided i'm all in on Ineos/Ratcliffe, feck being a sports washing project. At least Ratcliffe is aware of how big an institution we are and is somewhat of a fan.

He's would run us into the ground, he's shown he has no idea how to handle even a small club, let alone one our size!

 

[Tarrou]

Debt, dividends and lack of investment in infrastructure aside the Glazers (hate to admit it) actually ran the club successfully for many years, growing it.... with no little help from SAF into the worlds largest sporting franchise (at one point), if SAF had still be in charge and we had continued to have the level of success we enjoyed under his tenure then the Glazers would not be looking to sell and the club would still be turning a profit.

It was a business model with a limited lifespan, but it was effective for many years, look at Chelsea now, and other teams too they are gambling on success, which is ultimately doomed to failure at some point, I guess the hope is that they have enough time to evolve their financial strategy

what did they do that was so successful?

I can’t think of anything

we just rode the wave of the massive boom in football in general, and didn’t show any significant growth compared to our rivals

they didn’t invest in the team to begin with and just prayed that Fergie would still be competitive

didn’t improve the ground or facilities, didn’t invest more in youth development

didn’t modernise the club structure until 10 years too late

what did they do?

 

[AdNani]

He's would run us into the ground, he's shown he has no idea how to handle even a small club, let alone one our size!

They've hardly Ran Nice into the ground? They've performed pretty much as you would expect them to ? or do you expect them to win the league?

Also, the plan would surely be to have either Murtough or a new Director of Football run it and they would provide the money.

 

[Sir Erik ten Hag]

I've decided i'm all in on Ineos/Ratcliffe, feck being a sports washing project. At least Ratcliffe is aware of how big an institution we are and is somewhat of a fan.

I wouldn't trust our club in the hands of any Redcafe member. And most on here are fans who "get" United.
We need competent and strong owners, not sentiment.

 

[MDFC Manager]

what did they do?

I think, like a lot of rich people, they found a loophole plus got super lucky. Now they stand to make billions...

 

[Womp]

Do people honestly think an owner being a United fan will have feck all influence on their performance? Who gives a feck if they are fans or not, no-one is spending billions of dollars on an investment to feck around.

 

[red thru&thru]

Good interview with Matt Slater (Athletic journalist) on Stretford Paddock, which was aired yesterday, about SJR.

Basically, all the clubs that he's taken over at, haven't improved on the pitch. Whatever position he bought them in, they kind of stay there.

 

[Sviken]

Debt, dividends and lack of investment in infrastructure aside the Glazers (hate to admit it) actually ran the club successfully for many years, growing it....

In what way? We were the richest and most popular club in the world prior to them taking it and it only took them 2-3 years to fall behind Madrid and later Barcelona, and later Bayern and now we're neck and neck with fecking Liverpool. Virtually all clubs in the PL are growing, the question is - are we outpacing our rivals or are they outpacing us and I think we all know the answer to that question

 

[pascell]

Good interview with Matt Slater (Athletic journalist) on Stretford Paddock, which was aired yesterday, about SJR.

Basically, all the clubs that he's taken over at, haven't improved on the pitch. Whatever position he bought them in, they kind of stay there.

Which is fine for us, as long as money is there to be spent on transfers, our talent identification and negotiation teams are up to scratch, we'll keep progressing under ten Hag and he'll get us challenging.

 

[Flexdegea]

I wanted to know how's the debt is going to be paid ? because if we know that Manchester United have a debt worth more than 500m/p, The glazers haven't bothered to close this debt all these years and the new owner can come and rightly so say : you created that debt all those years and I'm not going to pay for that, what is going to happen ?

PS by the looks of things on SJR and Nice - I'm not that confident about him as an owner on any level - not with his managing, not with his appointments, not with his spending and unfortunately and someone has to say this - his age(do we really want a guy that is pretty elder to own the club ? and potentially give it to his sons that are Chelsea's season ticket holders ?). I really want to but I'm not that optimistic

Near sure it doesn't work like that, they aren't buying a 2nd hand car more then 10 year old for a grand and then kicking on it when their is no warranty provided after all the due diligence was done.


The debt is factored in the sale for the Glazers.

 

[Mainoldo]

In what way? We were the richest and most popular club in the world prior to them taking it and it only took them 2-3 years to fall behind Madrid and later Barcelona, and later Bayern and now we're neck and neck with fecking Liverpool. Virtually all clubs in the PL are growing, the question is - are we outpacing our rivals or are they outpacing us and I think we all know the answer to that question

That’s all I lie. Everyone acting like we was the biggest club in the world before they came. How many Champions League’s did we win? We couldn’t even sign Ronaldinho over a Europa league Barcelona.

 

[Tarrou]

That’s all I lie. Everyone acting like we was the biggest club in the world before they came. How many Champions League’s did we win? We couldn’t even sign Ronaldinho over a Europa league Barcelona.

I think Real have always been the biggest

but we were top of the revenue table before the Glazers took over so it's not like they progressed the club in that regard

 

[sglowrider]

Which is fine for us, as long as money is there to be spent on transfers, our talent identification and negotiation teams are up to scratch, we'll keep progressing under ten Hag and he'll get us challenging.

I don't understand your logic --- clearly, he isn't managing or investing enough in the smaller clubs that he owns & controls. Thus their stagnation.

What makes you think that he will have enough for something that is quite a few steps bigger in magnitude?

Also after spending £5-6Billion he will have an ROI target/baseline or at least a minimum return on his investment or he is some fool.
I would guess the basic t-bond rate. Go figure out the amount of return of t-bond worth 5-6billion quid and then see if the investment makes any sense? Then compare that with how much revenue United generates annually. Then see whats left after operational expanses for spending elsewehere.

I suspect you will come out with a sum that is impossible to reach any time in the short run and probably never will in the long run unless the Super League kicks in. This is why the Glazer's dividends of £15million bi-annually is peanuts in the scheme of things when they value the club upwards of 5billion quid.

 

[red thru&thru]

Which is fine for us, as long as money is there to be spent on transfers, our talent identification and negotiation teams are up to scratch, we'll keep progressing under ten Hag and he'll get us challenging.

I want any perspective owner to give us their mandate. How they plan to make us successful, both on and off the pitch.

How do they plan to reduce/wipe off the debt? How will improvements in OT, Carrington, ladies/youth team facilities be paid for? What impact this would have for investment in the first team squad?

The one thing that would attract to me to Dubai ownership is, they know how to build. Damn, they've built a central hub within a few decades, with just a desert as the starting base. Just imagine what knowhow they could bring in for the renovation of Old Trafford and Carrington.

 

[sglowrider]

I want any perspective owner to give us their mandate. How they plan to make us successful, both on and off the pitch.

How do they plan to reduce/wipe off the debt? How will improvements in OT, Carrington, ladies/youth team facilities be paid for? What impact this would have for investment in the first team squad?

The one thing that would attract to me to Dubai ownership is, they know how to build. Damn, they've built a central hub within a few decades, with just a desert as the starting base. Just imagine what knowhow they could bring in for the renovation of Old Trafford and Carrington.

A billionaire's never going to seek your approval after spending 5-6 billion quid. He will tell you some PR-driven plan/spin to keep you off his back.

If he invests the 5-6billion, it will buy up the debt i would imagine.

 

[Gavinb33]

The last time Nice won the league was 1959 the cup 1997, they were in Ligue 2 in 1994 he has hardly taken over PSG and taken them backwards, taking over a team with no history of winning during covid and maintaining a league position whilst getting to a cup final is bad ownership? I guess anything other than winning the league by 20 points would be enough for Redcafe, alongside PSG you have got some historical clubs with pedigree in that league to compete with also its not some cakewalk as some would have you believe

 

[DevilRed]

I want any perspective owner to give us their mandate. How they plan to make us successful, both on and off the pitch.

How do they plan to reduce/wipe off the debt? How will improvements in OT, Carrington, ladies/youth team facilities be paid for? What impact this would have for investment in the first team squad?

The one thing that would attract to me to Dubai ownership is, they know how to build. Damn, they've built a central hub within a few decades, with just a desert as the starting base. Just imagine what knowhow they could bring in for the renovation of Old Trafford and Carrington.

They would need to outline an ironclad investment amount similar to the other takeovers.

It would have to be in the billions.

Not sure if Ratcliffe can afford it.

 

[devilish]

Ineos/Ratcliffe is an investor. Nice is an investment. A investor has a goal with every investment. A business plan. Broadly, given the sums Ineos has invested in Nice -- I can have no objections against Nice's performance. I would have been more worried had Ineos pumped 500m into Nice to compete with PSG and they had failed. Their net spend on transfers the last 3 years is about 75m. For a club spending in the range of Lille, the Ligue 1 is not a walk in the park. Besides PSG you have Monaco, Marseille, and Olympic Lyon and a bunch of fairly well run club with good youth organizations. Its like someone takes over Crystal Palace and give them 50m extra transfer fees each year. Sure they should improve, but its not like you can guarantee to finish no worse than 7 in the PL every year. Reasonably, some years should be better, some years worse.

If Ineos had invested much more than it have in Nice -- would that have been better? Honestly, would not that be pretty dumb? Sure, there are money to make for a club that is very successful on the pitch -- but if you as an investor were interested in pumping 200m into a football club -- why on earth would you pick OGC Nice? I do not know what Ineos business plan is for its investment in OGC Nice. But the fact alone that it is a tiny Ligue 1 club tells me that its intentions has not been to compete toe to toe with PSG. If its to build up the club properly and to get into a position were you can compete for top 4 spots, become a steady top 3-5 club in Ligue 1, it seems like they are heading in the right direction from the perspective of the size of the funds made available to the club. Ultimately, it will be up to the executive management of the club to make use of those funds. A journey like this is never straight.

I am not saying that Ratcliffe would be a great or horrible owner of MUFC, or something inbetween, I don't know. But I am not worried looking at Nice. If anything, it seems like their approach is quite sensible. Another approach would to throw a lot of money at the club early, -- but like we all know, that can work but it can also fail. Having a long term approach is definitely not wrong.

That's fair enough. Although it kind of ignores that Ratcliffe did spend alot of money in Nice, far more then other owners and the result was that they remained pretty much at the same level. Not only that but there's a myriad number of bad signings (attitude wise). That doesn't inspire me as a person who knows how to own a football club or had surrounded with people who know how to manage it.

 

[Lyng]

The last time Nice won the league was 1959 the cup 1997, they were in Ligue 2 in 1994 he has hardly taken over PSG and taken them backwards, taking over a team with no history of winning during covid and maintaining a league position whilst getting to a cup final is bad ownership? I guess anything other than winning the league by 20 points would be enough for Redcafe, alongside PSG you have got some historical clubs with pedigree in that league to compete with also its not some cakewalk as some would have you believe

He promised the fans clear progress when he bought the club. He hasnt delivered that.
No Nice fan I have seen has slated him for not beating PSG, simply for bad signings, hiring bad people for the club and the club not being any better than before he bought it.

 

[sglowrider]

He promised the fans clear progress when he bought the club. He hasnt delivered that.
No Nice fan I have seen has slated him for not beating PSG, simply for bad signings, hiring bad people for the club and the club not being any better than before he bought it.

Tbf it's not ratcliffe that does the transfers. It's the people he delegated who made such ill advised decisions.
He does bad hires? Assume he will replace Arnold.

 

[devilish]

He promised the fans clear progress when he bought the club. He hasnt delivered that.
No Nice fan I have seen has slated him for not beating PSG, simply for bad signings, hiring bad people for the club and the club not being any better than before he bought it.

That's the key argument here. If we can't out finance the Saudis (and let's face it Ratcliffe can't do that) then we have to outsmart them. Ratcliffe seems to lack that even though he's been dabbling into football for quite some time now (INEOS bought their first football club in 2017). Then there's Ratcliffe (and INEOS) obsession with value which isn't that much different to that of the US investors, the fact that he is in his 70s and that he seem he can't stop hopping from one sports project to another which in turn means that his capital will have to be distributed to everyone. I wonder if his fans would still be hold their view if Ratcliffe was a 70 year old US citizen instead who claim to be a United fan despite being a Chelsea season ticket holder and had previously tried to buy Chelsea