Utter lunacy right?
Club Sale | It’s done!
- Thread starter JB08
- Start date
- Status
I hope he puts ralf ragnick in charge as head of football.
And gives him total control of the transfers and guard keeper of the football philosophy at the club.
And gives him total control of the transfers and guard keeper of the football philosophy at the club.
The usual suspects with their clear agendas don't want to admit that the initial 300m investment is clearly not the only one that Ratcliffe will make, just the first of many...not surprising. Their "won't ever put money in" argument was defeated on day 1...
Wading in with strawman arguments has always been a great way to move forward the discussion.
Just like discussing investment certainties you know sweet f all about.
He’s putting in $200mil woth a further $100mil to come, that’s what we know as fact. So if you’d like to discuss facts instead of being the usual suspect that talks about things we’ve no clue about then join the party.
Doubt that's the reason, as one of INEOS' other two co-owners will reportedly be appointed to the United PLC board. Between him and Ratcliffe that's 80% of INEOS' ownership directly involved, with INEOS themselves taking control of the football operations. I doubt the opinion/influence of the third co-owner would be such an issue at that point as to prompt Ratcliffe to make the purchase instead.
No proof or even suggestion of that happening what so ever but ok. The money he’s ’putting in’ is hilarious he’s getting shares for that 300m investment he’s committed nothing without some sort of return
Jim gets his shares OT gets a coat of paint and the roof repaired…..amazing
Last edited:
Poor, deluded child.
Try to be positive, it might do you good.
the other 2 of them? Doubt it.
trawler has been setup to muddy the waters so to speak, so that INEOS won’t be linked to United because of Nice but you bet INEOS is involved somehow.
Can someone up to date on ffp tell me if a cash injection by a shareholder via issuance of shares be used on player transfers? Or is thay disallowed as well
Here’s a fact, he has put in $300m more than those feckers ever have.
Good to hear.
Yes indeed. We simply can not carry on as we were.
So you yourself realize that the deal is structured in a way that there's heavy incentive for him to keep investing big amounts...?
Itl be easy to follow the flow of the money. Is the money deposited to trawler Ltd a director loan or not
This. I interpreted it as a way to circumvent the multi-club ownership restrictions.
So the only way to talk up this deal is by setting the bar in the basement that was sole Glazer ownership. Thanks for further confirmation.
Why don't you Google PL FFP Rules.
Thanks for this, I guess as Ratcliffe is the majority owner of INEOS, he can loan Trawlers a low interest debt if in the future Trawlers wants to buy more equity in the club.
I presume this will overcome any sort of UEFA issues with NICE.
I think many people are neglecting to acknowledge how significant these changes will be.
No that’s not been announced what so ever. Again you’re completely jumping the gun. This 300m will go to the club for a return of shares that’s been negotiated and agreed as part of the deal.
If the Glazers are selling more shares next year, in 2 years or whenever there’s absolutely nothing in place for money to go to the club in fact I’m 99.9% sure they’re taking out every penny possible
This ‘initial’ 300m ‘investment’ is an absolute farce I’m amazed by how many people think this is a good thing
Do you not have questions about the debt or the future of OT and its refurbishment? this deal on the face of it outside of hiring a DoF which by the way even clubs in the fecking Championship have in place is completely bollocks
That is in the past and unfortunately was perfectly legal.
We should not keep looking back. You can only change the future.
Why? They’ll just be waiting on Jim instead of Joel. There’s nothing streamlined here.
Plus extending budget is because they know the squad needs more, seemingly having that flexibility taken away isn’t a positive
So 300m Euros into the club is a farce. Goodness me.
Can’t see this tweet, what does it say?
We’ve been ran so badly that ‘football structure’, which as you point out clubs in the lower league have, is being championed.
The six siblings aren't a single bloc though.
The same people from the past are still majority shareholders
I assume this is you suggesting they could sell seperately.
Do you have any concrete evidence to support such an assertion or is it wishful thinking in order to justify this deal?
People are overlooking the fact that Ratcliffe is buying the club and not INEOS. However, he is using INEOS’s resources as he is majority owner. This is the best scenario as this secures the club for a generation/s if for whatever reason in the future INEOS goes public or Ratcliffe’s shares in INEOS are diluted etc. The club can be self sustaining, and I feel Ratcliffe has put extra ‘security’ on his prized asset.
I don’t know his plans, maybe this will change and INEOS buys Trawlers shares once the UEFA rule changes on owning for than one European club. I would like to see his vision.
I don’t know his plans, maybe this will change and INEOS buys Trawlers shares once the UEFA rule changes on owning for than one European club. I would like to see his vision.
In the grand scheme of things? it absolutely is.
Actually $300m US.
It's not enough to completely revolutionise things, but it's hardly just 'a coat of paint'. It's a very significant amount to inject into the club in a 12 month time frame. How much more is to come in later years, we'll just have to wait and see.
I have no preference in who owns the club, am not anti Jim or anti Qatar. Only anti Glazers.
So in that sense I'm happy someone else is in charge of football.
Having said that, I'm very pessimistic about the future anyway, I feel we are cursed for the immediate future. It's not like INEOS has a brilliant track record. Even if there is understandably some hope for a lot of the fans, I'm not one of them.
So in that sense I'm happy someone else is in charge of football.
Having said that, I'm very pessimistic about the future anyway, I feel we are cursed for the immediate future. It's not like INEOS has a brilliant track record. Even if there is understandably some hope for a lot of the fans, I'm not one of them.
Why aggressive/defensive?
There is no narrative, I speak as I find and at the time credible sources were reporting the plan involved a roadmap to a majority and subsequent possibility of 100% and taking the club off the stock exchange. It was reasonable to assume this was the plan given Sir Jim’s desire to buy a majority from the get go. I still hope this is the end goal, although I’m willing to admit it seems a whole lot more sketchy now. We are all just gonna have to suck it and see.
Maybe I got a little carried away, after all we had months of Jassim this and Jassim that and it was only a matter of time. To find out that it was actually Sir Jim getting a deal done was a blessed relief, but generally yeah - don’t hang your hat on what journos looking for clicks are saying. You can consider this example a cautionary tale!!
For what it’s worth, Sir Jim and INEOS have never been a perfect scenario. Even purchasing the Glazers whole 69% and having majority control as per the first bid was fraught with complications and compromises. But I have favoured this bid because I believe it to be the best for the club going forward.
The whole mystique and subterfuge of the Qatar bid was a huge turn off. Just put your cards on the table and play it straight. Are you a front for a state bid or a private citizen? How are you funding the bid? If you want 100% then why won’t you pay the asking price? Why didn’t you turn up in person? Do you understand that it’s the Glazers you have to impress, not the fans? I understood the whole allure of endless cash and glitzy transfers, state of the art stadiums and training centres but at the end of the day their bid was only about money, and without wanting to sound corny United means more to me than that. That’s before we get into the whole state ownership/sportwashing thing that has been done to death.
If their was a third credible way, which appealed more I would have backed it, indeed if Jassim didn’t seem too good to be true I could have backed him, but in the end it was a straight choice between Qatar and ineos and the rest is history now.
I’ve never claimed to be ITK either, I’m certainly definitely no better informed than any caftard, but I do get my hair off with all the opinion, half truths and lies that gather traction and get banded around as fact which is why Ive banged on in the thread as much as I have. I only ever wanted fellow fans to have correct information to make their judgement on, and if they have a different opinion to me then so be it. I hope you’d agree with the little information and misleading reports we’ve all had to go on in the last 12 months that there has been a fair amount of arse-chat on both sides of the debate.
I too hope this goes well and we start to see attractive winning football because ultimately hope is all we have as fans. I’d like to think now we have an outcome the fan base can unite behind a new way, but I’m not naive or deluded enough to think we actually will.
Merry Christmas to you too mate, I hope you’re having a better day than it seems from the tone of your posts!
Still waiting for the details of the governance rule changes to see if this is true, but one of the sources yesterday said B shares will no longer convert to A shares once sold.
Logically, that would make sense. The other four siblings were said to prefer the Qatar bid as they wanted out entirely. This would provide them an eventual exit path and enable SJR to build up his stake over time.
So how much has been invested in Old Trafford stadium recently.
Thank you for correcting me. Too much wine with Christmas lunch.
- Status