People like to cry.
I'm very positive about this. No state ownership, first time money is being put in the club in over a decade, new football structure.
Club Sale | It’s done!
- Thread starter JB08
- Start date
- Status
People like to cry.
I'm very positive about this. No state ownership, first time money is being put in the club in over a decade, new football structure.
The fact that all reports indicate that transfers are slow, poor org structure, board sign off is slow indicates that it’s very difficult for Joel Glazer to achieve consensus.
It's because of the size of United the Glazers were not 'on their knees'. They're billionaires with other interests. Had United somehow folded it'd have hurt them, yes, but not cripple them.
The 'show' is 'not going on', either, the football side of the club (the side we care about) now has a new administration - which is desperately needed.
It's been suggested the Glazers did not take kindly to being tacitly criticised by them, but considering they attempted to get PSG's crowd involved into upping their state bid, I can't say it was much of a factor.
SJR read the room right. Spotted the schism within the family and found the correct bid. Qatar just got too cocky.
Kirkby, Liverpools brand new training ground finished in 2021, cost them £50 mill. In other words, 1/6 of that amount would get us a brand new training ground. The rest for the stadium is a great start.
Still increases his percentage holding
It’s entirely possible the initial $300m will be spent on the structure and football set-up.
if they were on their knees they would have walked away with 5billion in their pockets
Capital injections are usually handled by the issuance of new shares. Since the money is used by the club, no individual sells their shares. It means everyone will be diluted equally.
He is obligated to inject 300m. The board may approve additional capital injections. He isn’t obligated, but he could inject more if he wanted to and the board agrees.
Also, people are looking at the 300m and laughing, but it’s possible that the 300m will be used as equity for OT renovation and the rest will be financed with loans. Typically, in commercial real estate, 30/70 is common split, they might spend up to 1b on OT.
If that does happen it will still have the result of diluting the Glazers overall holding tbf.
What part of that tweet do I not understand? Do other clubs get millions signed off without asking the owners?
Please explain
INEOS won’t own any B shares, just Glazers and Trawlers (Sir Jim)
INEOS has been given board seats, so I'm thinking this ownership structure with Trawlers may have been done to circumvent multi-club ownership rules and/or sponsorship rules (e.g., if INEOS legally owned us there may have been some restrictions around them also being a sponsor).
So a completely different scenario then. I mean, Jim and Joel are definitely two different people, right?
Sure, but from the Glazers' perspective accepting a dilution of shares is quite different than selling. In both scenarios they lose some control, but with a capital injection they'll keep their investment intact. That's pretty relevant for any of the siblings whose reason for not selling is a belief that the value of the club will keep increasing, so it should be much easier to accept.
https://www.thetimes.co.uk/article/jim-ratcliffe-manchester-united-takeover-explained-76ng05jzh
Somebody posted a breakdown of the article on reddit.
Interesting bits:
- It is understood that director of football John Murtough will leave his position, following recently departed chief executive Richard Arnold, as Ratcliffe brings in people he believes are capable of turning things around.
- it is expected Ratcliffe will bring in a new structure with the aim of improving their strategy.
- Ratcliffe is expected to bring a number of his trusted people into the club though the billionaire is likely to have the final sign-off on any major football decisions.
- A new director of football is a key appointment. Michael Edwards, the former Liverpool recruitment chief, and Paul Mitchell, sporting director at Monaco with experience across a number of European clubs, are among the many names who have been considered. Iain Moody, former sporting director at Crystal Palace, has worked as a consultant to Ineos at Nice and may have a role in the new set-up.
- Sir David Brailsford is expected to be involved at Old Trafford overseeing a transformed performance and recruitment department.
- He wants to renovate and potentially expand the stadium but more investment would be needed if the stadium were to be fully modernised.
- But as a source told The Times in October, “There is no point having a stadium as magnificent as Tottenham’s if you haven’t got the team”. So the main project is sorting out the club’s recruitment and structure behind the scenes.
- Ratcliffe wants to have full ownership and there is an expectation that this purchase of a partial stake is the first move towards full control.
Somebody posted a breakdown of the article on reddit.
Interesting bits:
- It is understood that director of football John Murtough will leave his position, following recently departed chief executive Richard Arnold, as Ratcliffe brings in people he believes are capable of turning things around.
- it is expected Ratcliffe will bring in a new structure with the aim of improving their strategy.
- Ratcliffe is expected to bring a number of his trusted people into the club though the billionaire is likely to have the final sign-off on any major football decisions.
- A new director of football is a key appointment. Michael Edwards, the former Liverpool recruitment chief, and Paul Mitchell, sporting director at Monaco with experience across a number of European clubs, are among the many names who have been considered. Iain Moody, former sporting director at Crystal Palace, has worked as a consultant to Ineos at Nice and may have a role in the new set-up.
- Sir David Brailsford is expected to be involved at Old Trafford overseeing a transformed performance and recruitment department.
- He wants to renovate and potentially expand the stadium but more investment would be needed if the stadium were to be fully modernised.
- But as a source told The Times in October, “There is no point having a stadium as magnificent as Tottenham’s if you haven’t got the team”. So the main project is sorting out the club’s recruitment and structure behind the scenes.
- Ratcliffe wants to have full ownership and there is an expectation that this purchase of a partial stake is the first move towards full control.
I’d usually go back & forth but I’m a few deep sat on the sofa. I can’t read all that today, sorry.What is even the point?!
We’ll go again in 2024 I’m sure.
Thanks.
I didn’t say it wouldn’t be different?
But every year we've had stories saying that our budget is £xm for the summer. Are the press now admitting they had no clue all along?
You’ve a very strange debating style. Willing to completely contradict yourself in consecutive posts. Re-read the post of yours I responded to. Pay particular attention to the question you open it with.
And they've done a phased redevelopment of two stands at Anfield, with the first two phases costing £190m.
We would only need to redevelop the South stand and renovate the remainder of OT for the time being, which puts the infrastructure in a good place.
I'll wait to pass judgement fully on what's transpired but the early signs are promising.
We're such a divided fan base these days it's quite sad actually. I understand a lot of people wanted a full sale and a clean break I would've preferred it too,but absolutely no way did I want us to end up state owned that would've been too much.Most of my wife's family are blues who take great pleasure rubbing my nose in how bad we are at the moment, My reply is you've become everything you hated about us but worse with your cheating and everything else, one day it will all come crashing down.
Maybe I have an overly romantic view of my club borne out of my 40+ years supporting us, we should be the standard bearers, best in class that makes us the unique club that we are, the last decade has removed most if not all of that, but this deal whilst not perfect, is a Start on the path back to where we belong.We don't have a divine right to win trophies that has to be earned, but back challenging properly and playing great, exciting football.
I just cannot understand why it's being totally dismissed by so many, the Glazers clearly didn't want a full sale, this is a huge opportunity to start actually putting the team first bring it on I say.
Maybe I have an overly romantic view of my club borne out of my 40+ years supporting us, we should be the standard bearers, best in class that makes us the unique club that we are, the last decade has removed most if not all of that, but this deal whilst not perfect, is a Start on the path back to where we belong.We don't have a divine right to win trophies that has to be earned, but back challenging properly and playing great, exciting football.
I just cannot understand why it's being totally dismissed by so many, the Glazers clearly didn't want a full sale, this is a huge opportunity to start actually putting the team first bring it on I say.
What is even the point?!
Weird because they were so desperate to debate earlier on..
Sounds good to me.
It wasn't common sense; it was, in fact, the opposite of that. However, there is a path forward for majority control (more capital injections would give him more shares) but no explicit clause.
To pretend as if those who guessed correctly had some type of insider knowledge isn't worth entertaining.
Yeah you don't need to tell me.
What are you blathering on about? This is the post I quoted and asked the question of.
I didn’t ask how it was different, I was asking why it was significant.
Maybe you should reread my post before jumping in? It’s not even a debating style, I was asking a question. Who sets out here to debate?
By the way read the non answer I got back if you’re taking about nonsense posts
Most likely it was a stipulation for the 300M specifically. No way they would have been allowed to pocket that 300M.
If you read the athletic article, it seems like they approached every season with a budget and a price for every player. It also happens that everyone and their dog can bend Murtough and whichever class clown he hires that summer to lead negotiations over a barrel and a couple of defeats in the first two league games creates a circus where all sense goes out the window.
Yeah I read the article. Shambolic. I think the panic buying of Casemiro and Antony for £160m has actually set us back worse than this summer.
Ive said this every single summer. Not one source has ever got near the ballpark of our budget.
It wasn’t that we couldn’t afford a higher budget, it was always this is how much we are allowed to spend in terms of ffp. Thats not something that be fudged with a phone call to Joel Glazer
Yeah, it probably has.
If there's much truth to the article then Murtough has to go.
Too much wine with Christmas lunch.
- Status