Club Sale | It’s done!

Status
Not open for further replies.
cyberman said:
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
Click to expand...

You’re asking a question you seem to already know the answer to. It’s different (significantly different) because the Glazers will no longer need to be consulted in the way they were before this change. Just seems odd that you obviously know this, yet still push back when someone mentions this important change in the way the club will be run.

Although I guess it’s not all that strange when you consider your posting history on this topic. You’re doing that thing where people are irrationally negative about something they didn’t want to happen.
 
Pogue Mahone said:
You’re asking a question you seem to already know the answer to. It’s different (significantly different) because the Glazers will no longer need to be consulted in the way they were before this change. Just seems odd that you obviously know this, yet still push back when someone mentions this important change in the way the club will be run.

Although I guess it’s not all that strange when you consider your posting history on this topic. You’re doing that thing where people are irrationally negative about something they didn’t want to happen.
Click to expand...
And I’m asking why does answering to Jim matter that much more than answering to Joel? They’re still the money men that need to give the ok. Plus we have a pseudo budget every season anyway in terms of ffp restrictions.
The tweet being quoted doesn’t make much sense when the mistakes being quoted would be the work of those below Jim / Joel rather than the effect of answering to Jim instead of Joel in itself.
 
cyberman said:
And I’m asking why does answering to Jim matter that much more than answering to Joel? They’re still the money men that need to give the ok. Plus we have a pseudo budget every season anyway in terms of ffp restrictions.
The tweet being quoted doesn’t make much sense when the mistakes being quoted would be the work of those below Jim / Joel rather than the effect of answering to Jim instead of Joel in itself.
Click to expand...

Every transfer window for the last few years there’s been stories coming out about Joel’s indecision costing us opportunities. He’s notoriously cautious and slow to make big calls. So even if we follow an identical process (and I doubt we will) having someone more decisive with his finger on the trigger will make a huge difference.
 
cyberman said:
And I’m asking why does answering to Jim matter that much more than answering to Joel? They’re still the money men that need to give the ok. Plus we have a pseudo budget every season anyway in terms of ffp restrictions.
The tweet being quoted doesn’t make much sense when the mistakes being quoted would be the work of those below Jim / Joel rather than the effect of answering to Jim instead of Joel
Click to expand...
Every club/company/business has somebody who sets budgets and people who give OK's. It's about the structure within that is different. The Glazers didn't care to implement a modern one. Ratcliffe is prioritizing doing that right away, delegating responsibilities properly and empowering people in the right roles to make the decisions. Like any functional business.

Why does it make a difference who gives the ok? The Glazers have proven they don't care and weren't good at it and didn't bother changing. Ratcliffe is intentionally taking control of football, which clearly indicates he wants to actually do well. Which means that he'll keep making changes until they get it right. Then they keep pushing on
 
Pogue Mahone said:
Every transfer window for the last few years there’s been stories coming out about Joel’s indecision costing us opportunities. He’s notoriously cautious and slow to make big calls. So even if we follow an identical process (and I doubt we will) having someone more decisive with his finger on the trigger will make a huge difference.
Click to expand...

Pretty much this @cyberman

You got the answer you did from me as I felt you were being disingenuous rather than asking a genuine question. If I’m wrong say so and I’ll happily apologise?

The process will be different and it’s briefly explained how in the tweet. It won’t all rest on one person saying yes or no, the funds will be available within an agreed budget and the football team will be given the autonomy to utilise.
 
NWRed said:
The reason they started looking for investment a couple of years ago was because they desperately needed cash. The club owes nearly £1bn and needs investment in the stadium, the training facilities and the team. This deal is a sticking plaster on that allowing them to maintain their death grip.
Click to expand...
There is nothing special about 24 months with either of those issues. The debt has been astronomical and rising for 15 years and there was nothing stopping Glazers from keeping it that way for another decade. Same with team and infrastucture. They have been rotting for a long time and as unhealthy as it is, Glazers had the means to continue with it for as long as they believe that it might be worth it for them in the long run.
 
SAF is the GOAT said:
What the hell is this nonsense? We aren't mimicking Brighton, we're Man United FFS
Click to expand...
I think you’re taking this too literally. It’s more “those guys seemed like they were possessed of the sort of professional competence we haven’t seen at OT in a decade” rather than “let’s put OT on the back of a flatbed lorry and play our home games literally on Brighton pier”.
 
Leftback99 said:
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.
Click to expand...

Paying 65M for Mount seemed daft then and its much worse now. At least with Casemiro, there is a pedigree you can talk yourself into and with Antony, there was a hope of age and upside. Mount is a nothing player.
 
Just saw this graphic on the BBC.

For me it illustrates the absolute cut off between SAF running the club and identifying talent and the absolute waste of money ever since.

Granted I think most of the Lukaku money was regained. I understand inflation and the crazy spiral year by year but come on.

I'm still willing to give Hojlund a pass for another season or two.

 
The Cat said:
Just saw this graphic on the BBC.

For me it illustrates the absolute cut off between SAF running the club and identifying talent and the absolute waste of money ever since.

Granted I think most of the Lukaku money was regained. I understand inflation and the crazy spiral year by year but come on.

I'm still willing to give Hojlund a pass for another season or two.

Click to expand...

It’s fairly meaningless data though. There’s an excellent chance that if you plotted “median PL signing” over the same time period it would track what we’re seeing there.
 
Pogue Mahone said:
It’s fairly meaningless data though. There’s an excellent chance that if you plotted “median PL signing” over the same time period it would track what we’re seeing there.
Click to expand...
Yeah was just a quick indicator of how much cash has been splurged on wank.
 
SAF is the GOAT said:
What the hell is this nonsense? We aren't mimicking Brighton, we're Man United FFS
Click to expand...
big_jeffstar said:
“Excuse me Sit Jim, What sort of team do we want United to be?”

“Hmmmm who’s below us in the league right now?”

Worrying isn’t it
Click to expand...
Pound for pound, which club is better run? It's not rocket science. Brighton have significantly overperformed relative to their resources, while we have significantly underperformed relative to our resources.
 
Big Ben Foster said:
Pound for pound, which club is better run? It's not rocket science. Brighton have significantly overperformed relative to their resources, while we have significantly underperformed relative to our resources.
Click to expand...

Agreed. If we had the structure and transfer strategy of Brighton along with the brand of Manchester United it would be a winning formula on and off the pitch. Hopefully that’s what we’ll be looking at in a year or two.
 
Big Ben Foster said:
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).
Click to expand...
Quite possibly, but it’s very subtle. Sir Jim has nominated his employees for those Board seats, INEOS aren’t making those appointments.
 
Leftback99 said:
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.
Click to expand...

Our recruitment has been abysmal. No rhyme or reason to who was signed and for what specific purpose.
 
Big Ben Foster said:
Pound for pound, which club is better run? It's not rocket science. Brighton have significantly overperformed relative to their resources, while we have significantly underperformed relative to our resources.
Click to expand...

I reckon every team in the league is better run than United, but I still think we should have loftier ambitions than “like Brighton”
 
Would have preferred Qatar but buzzing that footballing opps are being handled outside the glazers. I have no idea what will happen but the sign of change makes me excited.

They need to address how we sign players, ethis of the club, style, infrastructure and so much more. If you was CEO at United, just coming in, this would be exciting.
 
AndySmith1990 said:
Spending the budget wisely would make us so much richer than simply upping the budget. £100m spent on a couple players who genuinely improve us is worth a lot more than £200m on Sancho, Antony and Hojlund (and the list goes on)
Click to expand...
Agreed.
 
DSG said:
I re-read the official statement. He’ll have 31% of the company and be the biggest individual shareholder by far. It’s an incredibly powerful position. The total outlay initially committed is more like 2b.

‘I think people are looking at the Glazers as a monolith, but I sincerely doubt that. When you have a billion worth of a large asset, there are all different kinds of voices in the room.
Click to expand...

Is this 31% including the initial 25 plus the $300 million in shares?
 
The Cat said:
Just saw this graphic on the BBC.

For me it illustrates the absolute cut off between SAF running the club and identifying talent and the absolute waste of money ever since.

Granted I think most of the Lukaku money was regained. I understand inflation and the crazy spiral year by year but come on.

I'm still willing to give Hojlund a pass for another season or two.

Click to expand...

Yet Bebe wasnt the worse signing on that list.
 
I'd love to be a fly on the wall when all these top guys come in and see the shite they have to rebuild. Probably like stepping back in time
 
TheReligion said:
No signs at all.

Other than selling 25% of the club along with relinquishing control of all football operations and stepping away. For the first time in 18 years.

No sign whatsoever. None.

At this stage do you even know what you’re writing? :lol:
Click to expand...

There’s no signs that they’ll sell anymore shares they’ve got a billion to shut the siblings up and there’s no option of future shares being available as it stands that’s the facts. Not sure what you’re writing honestly
 
DSG said:
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.
Click to expand...

Pretty sure if that was the case mate they’d be announcing those plans to show intent to the fans regarding the stadium. Let’s see but I wouldn’t hold my breath
 
Castia said:
There’s no signs that they’ll sell anymore shares they’ve got a billion to shut the siblings up and there’s no option of future shares being available as it stands that’s the facts. Not sure what you’re writing honestly
Click to expand...

Equally no signs they aren't willing to sell either.

Basically both sides of this argument are talking shite because simply put, nobody knows.
 
SAF is the GOAT said:
What the hell is this nonsense? We aren't mimicking Brighton, we're Man United FFS
Click to expand...
Probably a good idea to try and learn aspects from other clubs who consistently perform above their financial level, considering nobody is an outlier to the extent that we are in performing worse than our finances dictate.
 
I wonder if Ratcliffe will have a press conference in the NY and answer any of the questions we ask on here?
 
Status
Not open for further replies.