Why have we continued to spend ridiculous amounts of money, transfer window after window?
But of course the debt is affecting us doing so ....
The debt means little/nothing when it comes to the footballing side of finances,
Club Sale | It’s done!
- Thread starter JB08
- Start date
- Status
But of course the debt is affecting us doing so ....
The debt means little/nothing when it comes to the footballing side of finances,
Not sure about that.
Brighton's ambition is to stay in the top half of the league, maybe get into Europe, and if they are lucky, win a domestic silverware, and then they are done for the decade.
Our objectives are vastly different from that, and therefore the financial and operational requirements are vastly different.
Also, Brighton is the current-day Southampton, who were lauded for being such a well-run club for being about to churn out players, i.e., a selling club and yet remain competitive... until they weren't.
That debt that's stopped us spending huge net spends yeah? That one?
I mean we basically use a credit card to buy players every year. The argument is that had we been debt free we would be in a much better position in the transfer market.
Your welcome to put me on ignore. infact, please do. cheers.
They would have got in bed with the hedge funds long before they got desperate enough to sell at a 'cut price'. Which is what would actually have been the worst case scenario. We know at least two were looking into the situation.
Genuine question - why would hedge funds invest and what kind of returns would they expect from a sporting club?
While we'd obviously have more money to spend (£20-30m a year), the odds are that the current management would only waste it on more bad transfers and a ridiculous wage bill.
There was no chance in getting them gone, they turned down 2 offers that were well above the share price, if there was a chance in getting them gone they would have gone and walked away with billions on an investment they paid little to nothing for, they ultimately didnt want to sell for a realistic offer
This would absolutely be the route they went down
They wouldn have leveraged whatever investment they made with covenants and if they weren't met they would take the club most likely in some way or gain a bigger stake in the club
That must have been uncomfortable for him.
Are you Radcliffes little anal-dwelling butt monkey?!
Glazers still have 75% of the club and they will still milk the club for money. The 25% takeover is a step in the right direction, but I am not as happy, as I can see that many United fans are.
Pretty much the way I see it playing out. Think he will have control of the club in the next 3/5 years.
Glazers had 69% of the club and Ratcliffe has taken around 19% of that - The rest was floated I believe.
Profit. Buy percentage, dump for profit in 5-10 years, or invest in exchange for a percentage of future guaranteed income.
Elliot group had a deal for the Glazers - used to own AC Milan. Carlyle Group were ready to bail them out - invested in a number of sports related businesses. A number of actors were ready to offer to pay a lump sum (likely part stadium costs) in return for future TV rights income.
Thanks. I actually thought they were up for refinance in 2024. And thus this need to look for either selling out or looking for a partner to tie them over.
He has to be selective in the number of games/days he can afford to be in the UK or HMRC will be knocking on his door soon.
The day after Utd floated on the stock exchange my late dad, a utd supporter since the 50s, overnight, stopped watching all football, saying the money would ruined it all.
I'm asking myself if this is my moment? 70 year old buys 25% of a club as a moonshot vanity end of life project.
I hope I'm wrong, I just don't see him having any actual influence, do we think the Glazers are going to give his 25% shareholding priority when it comes to the big decisions?
I'm asking myself if this is my moment? 70 year old buys 25% of a club as a moonshot vanity end of life project.
I hope I'm wrong, I just don't see him having any actual influence, do we think the Glazers are going to give his 25% shareholding priority when it comes to the big decisions?
Hopefully ol' Terry wasnt in one of those Occupy Wall Street protests!!!
Theres a chance Glazers will be the ones looking like an idiot out of this. Because they have always picked the wrong people to manage the footballing side, it wont be that hard for Jimmy to improve upon it. Then if the fans like it, the Glazers will be the marginalized one. Basically they gave Jimmy a chance to be the second coming of Jesus for United fans, for only ~1 billion. If they were so smart, they'd want in the footballing side too to be able to claim 'we did it together' if things goes really well.
It seems those who opposed the Qatar bid are now trying to convince themselves and others that this Ratcliffe deal was the only option because the Glazers would never have sold under any circumstances, but it simply isn't true. Before announcing this 'strategic review' in November '22 they spent at least 12 months trying to raise investment from other sources but failed.
There were 2 possibilities from this process, either they got the investment they were looking for or they sold the club. This deal with Ratcliffe gives them everything they could have hoped for, they got just enough investment to patch up OT and now have the financial headroom to refinance the debt. It'll mean reduced transfer budgets due to incresed interest payments and the club will fall further and further behind our rivals as they invest in new stadiums and training grounds, but at least we're not debt free with a new stadium under Qatari ownership.
Last edited:
You are aware our recent transfers were put on the credit card? So not sure how you figure it’s not affecting the “ football “ side.
Also I find this recent trend in breaking up the club into football vs non football categories rather concerning and naive. All the world’s top clubs are run professionally at all levels.
Brighton are great, but you're right that their stature just isn't the same and their goals aren't the same.
But the blueprint is really not that different to what it is at Liverpool or Arsenal, on a basic level. You have an idea for what the football should be like, then you sign players who can carry that out. Southampton and Brighton could have built on their success if they ever had the financial resources to do so, but they didn't. They always have to sell, whereas Liverpool and Arsenal don't.
Commercial loan… if you add, say 10,000 seats, your revenue increases… look, people think that if Sir Jim is “worth” 26b, then it’s a Scrouge McDuck situation where he is swimming in gold coins. No. His net worth is tied up in INEOS stock and various securities, real estate and other assets that aren’t very liquid.if you have £2b and you’re earning 7% in dividends and stock price increases year over year, but you can secure a construction loan for 4%, you’d do the construction loan instead of liquidating holdings.
Banks make money through loans. It’s what they do.
No, not necessarily. It could be part of a 5-10 year plan. If they were smart, they will wait until all roadblocks are removed (permits) and interest rates go down. Now is not the time to undertake large capital projects because interest rates are so high.
We know they want to sell. Why entertain Sheik Jessie’s bid for several rounds? Their target valuation wasn’t met. They are betting Sir Jim in charge plus injection of capital can move the needle and get the club valued between 6-7b.
Ha Ha - no, it's a crap hole though, which is why I don't live there anymore!Are you Radcliffes little anal-dwelling butt monkey?!
Are we saved or are we still screwed
The influence is in the footballing side and he has 100% control over that, if he succeeds at that then no United fan will give a feck about the Glazer's, as long as the team is in good shape
In the spirit of Smokie, Who the feck is Terry?
Do we, they have never actually said that to my knowledge
He's getting the shares with the more powerful voting rights though, somebody was saying he'll own 38% of the voting rights or something which would put him as the single largest shareholder, albeit not the majority shareholder.
Due to the club's size, I don't believe a full sale was ever actually viable. Because there aren't many single entities willing or able to entirely buyout United, this was always going to be the solution. Because our club is already listed on the stock exchange, the sale would have always been based on gaining majority ownership rather than just purchasing the club and delisting it. Given that the Glazers have been largely passive owners looking to profit from the club, a joint Glazer minority interest was always going to be the best choice, given their initial profit-driven motivations. Fans may not like it, but it's business; fan rage would never drive them to leave billions of dollars behind, but sound business that suited their goals would. I believe that this transaction provides a potential entry point for this, especially given that United is a PLC.
So for me, I'm very happy with Ratcliffe and Ineos coming in, as it spells a change in what our actual issues have been; the Glazer's being passive owners.
Passive owners can be good when an organization is already functioning properly.Under Fergie and Gill, this relationship worked really well because their lack of involvement allowed knowledgable footballing minds ( Fergie and Gill) have a complete hold of football operations with very little disturbance outside of availability of funds. However, when both left, and we needed active planning, strategy and activity from the Glazers, they weren't able and were unwilling to step out of that role. We hired a CEO who was as limited in football knowledge as the Glazers were, whilst also being quite passive, so we weren't able to sustain our good work in football operations. Woodward hired managers who didn't have a big picture mindset that Fergie had. Managers who were either self-serving or didn't have the knowledge or skillset to actually support him in the way Fergie did with Gill. Active owners would have spotted these issues and made immediate adjustments. A knowledgable CEO would have seen the tactical irregularities that were constantly apparent on the pitch and put pressure on these managers.
For example, LVG was able to waste six months failing tactically with the 352 and selling off half our squad in his first season. He had the complete trust and support of Woodward and never faced pressure to correct these issues, given that our on-field performances were not great. Where a manager at Real/Barca/Bayern would have been under pressure immediately when the experimental system wasn't working, LVG got the complete freedom to test this out all the way to December, with very little challenge. It's not surprising then that he didn't succeed, as he had not shown signs that he would succeed outside of a 4-week period in March 2015. More active owners and CEO's would have addressed these issues earlier and would not have entrusted him with the type of finances they did in the summer of 2015, particularly if they could spot the gaps in our tactics. We allowed him to get rid of decent players despite having little proof that he could succeed on the pitch, which left us with the weakest squad we've ever had by the end of the 2015/2016 season.
My argument here is that the Glazers' and our CEOs' passivity has given managers and players far too much leeway. This is because no one above them has the authority or football knowledge to effectively supervise proceedings They have been given free rein to do anything they want and are only restrained when their situations become utterly untenable and the team's season is in disarray. Both players and managers have lacked accountability since 2013, and this has resulted in consistently falling standards.
We have given managers much too much time at the start of their tenures, with no pressure from within the club. As a club seeking to return to the top, we must guarantee that our manager and players are driving us in that direction. For a team that hasn't had a manager do this in a long time, and given our size and financial standing, we should be more active in monitoring and checking in with managers without giving them 100% support until they prove their worth, rather than closing our eyes and giving the manager a full season automatically. Fans have the right to be forgiving and hopeful, but the club should always be meticulous in this regard, and unfortunately, that's something that has obviously not been the case in the last 10 years.
The manager at United has been determining when patterns should emerge, when a player isn't working out, and directing the resources they require to succeed. These statements are made by the manager both publicly and privately. These talks are then used by the club and the supporters to evaluate our progress as a team. With public and private briefings, interviews, and conversations, the manager is essentially authoring his own appraisal. As a result, the club has constantly echoed the manager's thoughts.When it should be the club that evaluates the team and the manager. As a result, there are no playing pattern timelines, poor squad management, and inconsistent/illogical transfer requests.
With Ratcliffe and his team taking a stake that provides them with complete control over football operations, this changes all of this. We may have a more active football operations department, with our manager in particular having people to answer to. This may not result in changes to preseason schedules or changes in branding/media, but it could lead to better squad management and on-pitch performances. Which, despite all the anger fans have displayed, is what all the anger is actually about. Fans are upset because the team has put out poor performances and results over the last ten years. Ratcliffe has essentially bought the division of the club putting out those poor performances and results and has taken full control with a promise to bring a new team and structure. This is exactly what people want.
So for me, I'm very happy with Ratcliffe and Ineos coming in, as it spells a change in what our actual issues have been; the Glazer's being passive owners.
Passive owners can be good when an organization is already functioning properly.Under Fergie and Gill, this relationship worked really well because their lack of involvement allowed knowledgable footballing minds ( Fergie and Gill) have a complete hold of football operations with very little disturbance outside of availability of funds. However, when both left, and we needed active planning, strategy and activity from the Glazers, they weren't able and were unwilling to step out of that role. We hired a CEO who was as limited in football knowledge as the Glazers were, whilst also being quite passive, so we weren't able to sustain our good work in football operations. Woodward hired managers who didn't have a big picture mindset that Fergie had. Managers who were either self-serving or didn't have the knowledge or skillset to actually support him in the way Fergie did with Gill. Active owners would have spotted these issues and made immediate adjustments. A knowledgable CEO would have seen the tactical irregularities that were constantly apparent on the pitch and put pressure on these managers.
For example, LVG was able to waste six months failing tactically with the 352 and selling off half our squad in his first season. He had the complete trust and support of Woodward and never faced pressure to correct these issues, given that our on-field performances were not great. Where a manager at Real/Barca/Bayern would have been under pressure immediately when the experimental system wasn't working, LVG got the complete freedom to test this out all the way to December, with very little challenge. It's not surprising then that he didn't succeed, as he had not shown signs that he would succeed outside of a 4-week period in March 2015. More active owners and CEO's would have addressed these issues earlier and would not have entrusted him with the type of finances they did in the summer of 2015, particularly if they could spot the gaps in our tactics. We allowed him to get rid of decent players despite having little proof that he could succeed on the pitch, which left us with the weakest squad we've ever had by the end of the 2015/2016 season.
My argument here is that the Glazers' and our CEOs' passivity has given managers and players far too much leeway. This is because no one above them has the authority or football knowledge to effectively supervise proceedings They have been given free rein to do anything they want and are only restrained when their situations become utterly untenable and the team's season is in disarray. Both players and managers have lacked accountability since 2013, and this has resulted in consistently falling standards.
We have given managers much too much time at the start of their tenures, with no pressure from within the club. As a club seeking to return to the top, we must guarantee that our manager and players are driving us in that direction. For a team that hasn't had a manager do this in a long time, and given our size and financial standing, we should be more active in monitoring and checking in with managers without giving them 100% support until they prove their worth, rather than closing our eyes and giving the manager a full season automatically. Fans have the right to be forgiving and hopeful, but the club should always be meticulous in this regard, and unfortunately, that's something that has obviously not been the case in the last 10 years.
The manager at United has been determining when patterns should emerge, when a player isn't working out, and directing the resources they require to succeed. These statements are made by the manager both publicly and privately. These talks are then used by the club and the supporters to evaluate our progress as a team. With public and private briefings, interviews, and conversations, the manager is essentially authoring his own appraisal. As a result, the club has constantly echoed the manager's thoughts.When it should be the club that evaluates the team and the manager. As a result, there are no playing pattern timelines, poor squad management, and inconsistent/illogical transfer requests.
With Ratcliffe and his team taking a stake that provides them with complete control over football operations, this changes all of this. We may have a more active football operations department, with our manager in particular having people to answer to. This may not result in changes to preseason schedules or changes in branding/media, but it could lead to better squad management and on-pitch performances. Which, despite all the anger fans have displayed, is what all the anger is actually about. Fans are upset because the team has put out poor performances and results over the last ten years. Ratcliffe has essentially bought the division of the club putting out those poor performances and results and has taken full control with a promise to bring a new team and structure. This is exactly what people want.
That was like 5 pages ago, my brain doesn't work that far back
Are you saying even with control of sporting matters he won't have any influence or you don't believe he will have control of sporting side?
That 70 year old was in Camp Nou that night.
Wait, who's spreading this disinformation?
Hopefully we can get some talented players from France now, with Nice connection.
- Status