Club Sale | It’s done!
- Thread starter JB08
- Start date
- Status
“Change of manager has to be run past INEOS”
Eh?
I thought they were taking over football decisions altogether? To the point of hiring a new CEO.
I don't have an account. Can anyone summarise what this "pre-agreed transfer plan" is?
As inept as Woodward and Arnold are I’d love for them to put a tell all book out based on their runs under the parasites, Jose would be good as he hates United now and LVG would be good if he wasn’t such a lunatic.
Possibly but it is no doubt about maintaining control.
Under this proposed agreement the Glazers aren't ceding control.
A rough calculation (very rough) Class B shares = 67%
Class A 33 %
They sell SJR 1/4 of the Class B,( 16.75% )
Class B have x10 weighting voting power.
So Glazers have, say, 50.25 of the shares
Total voting power (B shares have x10 power) is as follows:
Glazers 502.50
SJR 167.50
Class A 33
Total voting power being 703.
Glazers therefore retain over 70% of the voting power - control requiring 67%
Even if they give SJR shares for the extra 300 million investment it still leaves the Glazers in complete control.
What the Glazers do not want is an effective opposition to them and therefore no class A sales by them to SJR.
The figures are rough but just to pad out some thoughts.
Just that United had to submit a plan to INEOS of any transfer ins/outs and contract renewals between now and the sale.
Cheers.
That's once regulatory approval has been given. The change of manager clause and transfer signings consultation clauses are there to stop the Glazers taking unilateral action in the meantime.
Quite late to post here obviously. But wanted to say that I am relieved and feeling very positive about INEOS buying into the club. Ceding control of the Sporting side is clearly an admission by the Glazers of their absolute failure and incompetence even if they don't outright state it in public.
The next few months would be interesting and hopefully we bring some professionalism, competence and apply a strategy in the recruitment and move away from the current approach of only signing only specific players the manager fancies.
The next few months would be interesting and hopefully we bring some professionalism, competence and apply a strategy in the recruitment and move away from the current approach of only signing only specific players the manager fancies.
That makes sense. My gratitude for explaining it. It kind of show that the siblings do not trust one another either
So Jim has control of the club, and it's cost him 25%. The man's a genius.
Seems that way to me as well.
Its somewhat amusing/pathetic that the Glazers felt the need to add a non disparagement clause in the agreement.
Ratcliffe has also added a non disparagement clause.
This is while they wait for Ratcliffe to pass the PL owners and directors test. After that they have full control.
Cheers - makes sense.
I mean, if I was going to defend the Glazer's business acumen (and I really don't want to) I'd say that they're still in control of commerical partnerships etc.. But yeah, in terms of the actual football club (rather than the 'commercial brand's) Ratcliffe appears to now be fully in control, which has to be a positive step
Will be interesting to see what happens 18 months after the deal is signed and glazers can essentially put up the club for auction again.
I bet the Glazers will start a company that will seek partnerships for United and charge United a fee/commission on those deals.
Ratcliffe and his team best get the footballing decisions right now. The glazers will be the ones having the last laugh. They’re still raking it in whilst passing on duties to other people which means they can’t be blamed for footballing stuff.
It means in the next 4-6 weeks while the deal is ratified. InEOS/trawlers can official have any control until then.
Once officially in control the glazers won’t have a say in Footballing matters.
Tbf Ratcliffe could double his investment within that time period when the Glazers find a buyer or he buys the rest of the shares at a super-premium.
Good feeling about this.
Yep, which instantly makes me worry. Not used to feeling optimistic
If true, this just shows how badly run this club has been run by useless people especially with transfer negotations and cost us Bellingham i think:
It doesn't specify, just says that the club had to submit a plan to INEOS outlining their intentions regarding transfers and new contracts between now and whenever the sale is ratified, and if they need to deviate from that plan for any reason they need to run it by INEOS first.
Jk we're buying Mbappe and Bellingham get ready
Thank you for that reply.
How has that presenter never heard the Bellingham/SAF story before?
It’s been used loads of times but plenty of people who know Bellingham and his family have said it was never really an option and he always saw Dortmund as the place he could grow and get guaranteed minutes (and he probably wasn’t wrong).
With Blanc involved… who’s a Sir Jim man.
The more I read about the deal, the more (cautiously) optimistic I am. Seems that the Glazers could be gone in three years.
Yes, it’s fecking annoying that they put feck all in, have taken a Bn out, just got a load more money now, get to piggyback financially on ‘proper’ people involved in major club decisions and will get a TON more money down the line (grrrrr), but feels like we can see some daylight and hopefully the start of another journey. After following for so many years in Liverpools (and others) shadows, ‘93 was all the sweeter… so will the next one be.
https://x.com/justafootyfan_/status/1740342968710509034?s=61&t=ZvGzfV2Qafn11jKrPfufuA
You have to admire the business acumen of the Glazers.
For a relatively small bribe they got ownership of the most valuable football club in the world.
And they made billions.
Now they are going to make a lot more by selling the club.
For a relatively small bribe they got ownership of the most valuable football club in the world.
And they made billions.
Now they are going to make a lot more by selling the club.
Last edited:
So, if basically any transfer decision has to go through INEOS, but the conclusion of the deal still takes time, does that mean we could sign Todibo and/or Thuram from Nice on the cheap, without facing the problem of being under the same owner? 
Surely that's just for the sake of parity? I can't imagine the Glazers suddenly becoming communicative now.
It's a pretty standard, boilerplate part of any transaction like this
Not sure it's been answeres so apologies in advance.
After this sale has gone through, my undertanding is that B Class shares can only be sold if all 6 Glazers are in agreement. But, is there anything stoping SJR buying any more A Class shares which are publicly traded or is it simply not worth it as they don't carry any voting rights?
After this sale has gone through, my undertanding is that B Class shares can only be sold if all 6 Glazers are in agreement. But, is there anything stoping SJR buying any more A Class shares which are publicly traded or is it simply not worth it as they don't carry any voting rights?
Let me preface this by saying that I am happy that Glazers are not in charge of the sporting side any more.
However, I am not so excited with Ineos taking over, and let me explain why. In fact, I am quite nervous and somewhat apprehensive.
I'm an avid fan of another sport and specifically a team in which Ineos took over, back in 2019. The sport in question is cycling and the team in particular was Team Sky (now known as Team Ineos). Since their takeover, things have kind of collapsed for that team.
For context, in 2019 Team Sky were by far the most prestigious and dominant cycling team in the world, for the past decade. They had a conveyor belt of winners, nurtured talent (and other...more dubious things) and a winning mentality. From 2012 to 2019, they won 7/8 tour de frances and at one point, won 4 grand tours in a row. They did it with different riders, time after time. Nothing exemplified this more than 2019, when Chris Froome, Sky's best rider broke his leg 1 month before the tour de france. They ended up winning the tour de france with their 2nd best rider (Egan Bernal), and their 3rd best rider finished runner up (Geraint Thomas). The sporting side was run almost exclusively by David Brailsford and in co-operation with Sky, who in particular had a vested interest with James Murdoch having a huge personal love for cycling races.
After Comcast took over Sky, and James Murdoch was sidelined from the Sky leadership structure, Sky pulled their sponsorship and ownership of the team. In stepped Ratcliffe and Ineos. Since then, the team has fallen hugely from its heights.
1) Previously Sky had a huge transfer budget but use it very well. They were meticulous in their scouting, signing rather unknown riders and turning them into superstars. They used their vast budget to build a team, not a collection of superstars but couldn't ride together in a team. Under Ineos, this changed entirely. In one season they signed four GC GT riders (think, Galaticos basically) and tried to shove them into the same teams at Grand tours. It worked for smaller races but in the big races they crumbled. Riders started infighting, one rider wouldnt work for another and it kind of fell apart.
Now Ineos transfer strategy is "is he's doing amazingly well at youth levels, sign him". Cycling as a sport doesn't quite work like that, because the physiology of a rider peaks at different ages for different people. Someone dominating at U-21 and U-23's may not transition at all at World Tour level. Some of Ineos' signings like Magnus Sheffield, Tom Pidcock with that method have worked out well, but others like Lucas Plapp, Ben Tulett, Arensman etc have been a flop.
2) The meticulous of training and equipment and modern scientific methods and infrastructure have fallen a lot under Ineos. Peak sky were the masters of Time trialling, wind tunnel procedures, equipment calibration and innovation. Now they have fallen behind to the likes of Jumbo Visma, Quickstep, Team UAE etc. Their solution is to throw money at the problem but without a proper structure they've been unable to do so. Nothing was more apparent than the hiring of Dan Bigham. Bigham was seen as the Time trialing guru based on his knowledge of bikes, aerodynamics and positioning. He was hired...and then didnt have the power to actually implement anything within Team Ineos. He was hired as the marquee TT coach and then marginalized because Ineos thought he was a bit crazy and eccentric. Bear in mind this guy masterminded the Danish Track team to multiple world champions and olympic medals.
3) Ineos' coaching staff has been a revolving door hire and fire and rehire. Roger Hammond, hired in 2021, fired in 2023. Rod Ellingworth, fired in 2019, rehired in 2022, refired in 2023. Servais Knaven was let go end of 2022 for reasons unknown. All in all, there has been no stability in coaching and management at Team Ineos.
4) Scouting quality has collapsed under Ineos management. They missed out on the likes of Pogacar (although that was more a sky problem), Ayuso, Vingegaard, Gloag and instead banked on riders with better youth results like Carlos Rodriguez, Ethan Hayter, Luke Plapp. The latter riders are not bad, just not the generational talents of the former. As mentioned, Ineos' scouting culture is to look at results of U19 and U23 race results and just go "Yep, he won, he must be good."
Recently their strategy has been almost entirely that. Kim Heiduk, Michel Leonard etc are signings of "Their power numbers at such a young age is really good, they must be incredible!" Only for them to do nothing at the top level. Josh Tarling has been a revelation but he was so dominant that he was hard to miss. Same with Tom Pidcock.
5) Coaching quality has really suffered. Peaks aren't timed properly and riders are out of form / out of shape for the biggest races of the year. Take for example, Dani Martinez. At his best he is one of the worlds best, but at the Tour he was completely undercooked and didn't perform. The same can be said for the likes of Richard Carapaz back when he was at Ineos, Pavel Sivakov, Tao Geogeghan Hart (although constantly crashing doesn't help). Tom Pidcock, who is currently their best overall rider, is still very young and is doing a full Cyclocross season in Winter, The tour de france, the entire spring classics season, 1 week stage races and World champions AND Mountain bike racing mid Road season. He is going to burn out.
Compare and contrast to pre-Ineos, where the entire Sky Tour de france team was in peak form and nobody ever went into the big races under cooked or over cooked.
I know that cycling isn't transferable to Football but I don't have much optimism given that the above problems highlighted are all a result of incompetent Ineos management and their lack of coaching/sporting nous. The above highlights a misunderstanding of sporting structure and instead trying to throw money at the problem.
Under Sky management, there were forum/reddit threads of, "What can we do to stop Sky dominance of the sport." There were famous quotes on the cycling subreddit of things like "Cycling is a simple sport. It is a race where 160 riders toil for 21 days in the French summer through the Alps and Pyrennes and at the end of the race, Sky always win."
Now, Team Ineos are a meme.
Ultimately, I pray that Ineos succeed and bring us back to where we were but i am not optimistic.
However, I am not so excited with Ineos taking over, and let me explain why. In fact, I am quite nervous and somewhat apprehensive.
I'm an avid fan of another sport and specifically a team in which Ineos took over, back in 2019. The sport in question is cycling and the team in particular was Team Sky (now known as Team Ineos). Since their takeover, things have kind of collapsed for that team.
For context, in 2019 Team Sky were by far the most prestigious and dominant cycling team in the world, for the past decade. They had a conveyor belt of winners, nurtured talent (and other...more dubious things) and a winning mentality. From 2012 to 2019, they won 7/8 tour de frances and at one point, won 4 grand tours in a row. They did it with different riders, time after time. Nothing exemplified this more than 2019, when Chris Froome, Sky's best rider broke his leg 1 month before the tour de france. They ended up winning the tour de france with their 2nd best rider (Egan Bernal), and their 3rd best rider finished runner up (Geraint Thomas). The sporting side was run almost exclusively by David Brailsford and in co-operation with Sky, who in particular had a vested interest with James Murdoch having a huge personal love for cycling races.
After Comcast took over Sky, and James Murdoch was sidelined from the Sky leadership structure, Sky pulled their sponsorship and ownership of the team. In stepped Ratcliffe and Ineos. Since then, the team has fallen hugely from its heights.
1) Previously Sky had a huge transfer budget but use it very well. They were meticulous in their scouting, signing rather unknown riders and turning them into superstars. They used their vast budget to build a team, not a collection of superstars but couldn't ride together in a team. Under Ineos, this changed entirely. In one season they signed four GC GT riders (think, Galaticos basically) and tried to shove them into the same teams at Grand tours. It worked for smaller races but in the big races they crumbled. Riders started infighting, one rider wouldnt work for another and it kind of fell apart.
Now Ineos transfer strategy is "is he's doing amazingly well at youth levels, sign him". Cycling as a sport doesn't quite work like that, because the physiology of a rider peaks at different ages for different people. Someone dominating at U-21 and U-23's may not transition at all at World Tour level. Some of Ineos' signings like Magnus Sheffield, Tom Pidcock with that method have worked out well, but others like Lucas Plapp, Ben Tulett, Arensman etc have been a flop.
2) The meticulous of training and equipment and modern scientific methods and infrastructure have fallen a lot under Ineos. Peak sky were the masters of Time trialling, wind tunnel procedures, equipment calibration and innovation. Now they have fallen behind to the likes of Jumbo Visma, Quickstep, Team UAE etc. Their solution is to throw money at the problem but without a proper structure they've been unable to do so. Nothing was more apparent than the hiring of Dan Bigham. Bigham was seen as the Time trialing guru based on his knowledge of bikes, aerodynamics and positioning. He was hired...and then didnt have the power to actually implement anything within Team Ineos. He was hired as the marquee TT coach and then marginalized because Ineos thought he was a bit crazy and eccentric. Bear in mind this guy masterminded the Danish Track team to multiple world champions and olympic medals.
3) Ineos' coaching staff has been a revolving door hire and fire and rehire. Roger Hammond, hired in 2021, fired in 2023. Rod Ellingworth, fired in 2019, rehired in 2022, refired in 2023. Servais Knaven was let go end of 2022 for reasons unknown. All in all, there has been no stability in coaching and management at Team Ineos.
4) Scouting quality has collapsed under Ineos management. They missed out on the likes of Pogacar (although that was more a sky problem), Ayuso, Vingegaard, Gloag and instead banked on riders with better youth results like Carlos Rodriguez, Ethan Hayter, Luke Plapp. The latter riders are not bad, just not the generational talents of the former. As mentioned, Ineos' scouting culture is to look at results of U19 and U23 race results and just go "Yep, he won, he must be good."
Recently their strategy has been almost entirely that. Kim Heiduk, Michel Leonard etc are signings of "Their power numbers at such a young age is really good, they must be incredible!" Only for them to do nothing at the top level. Josh Tarling has been a revelation but he was so dominant that he was hard to miss. Same with Tom Pidcock.
5) Coaching quality has really suffered. Peaks aren't timed properly and riders are out of form / out of shape for the biggest races of the year. Take for example, Dani Martinez. At his best he is one of the worlds best, but at the Tour he was completely undercooked and didn't perform. The same can be said for the likes of Richard Carapaz back when he was at Ineos, Pavel Sivakov, Tao Geogeghan Hart (although constantly crashing doesn't help). Tom Pidcock, who is currently their best overall rider, is still very young and is doing a full Cyclocross season in Winter, The tour de france, the entire spring classics season, 1 week stage races and World champions AND Mountain bike racing mid Road season. He is going to burn out.
Compare and contrast to pre-Ineos, where the entire Sky Tour de france team was in peak form and nobody ever went into the big races under cooked or over cooked.
I know that cycling isn't transferable to Football but I don't have much optimism given that the above problems highlighted are all a result of incompetent Ineos management and their lack of coaching/sporting nous. The above highlights a misunderstanding of sporting structure and instead trying to throw money at the problem.
Under Sky management, there were forum/reddit threads of, "What can we do to stop Sky dominance of the sport." There were famous quotes on the cycling subreddit of things like "Cycling is a simple sport. It is a race where 160 riders toil for 21 days in the French summer through the Alps and Pyrennes and at the end of the race, Sky always win."
Now, Team Ineos are a meme.
Ultimately, I pray that Ineos succeed and bring us back to where we were but i am not optimistic.
You’re welcome
Looking forward to hearing Ratcliffe speak more. Read the SEC filings yesterday evening and they are very promising.
So basically the complete opposite of what they are taking over at United then, which has to be position of strength for them early on at least, as I don't see there is any way they can make things worse than have been for the last 10 years, and stand a very good chance of making things alot better by just doing what seem like very basic changes.
They also could have learnt alot from all these mistakes I keeping hearing about.
Last edited:
Thanks for that. Great post.
I'm still hugely optimistic and looking forward to what will hopefully end up a new and brighter era, but it's nice to see a really well reasoned and insightful take on why there could be some cause for concern.
Judging by the reports over the last few months, I doubt we'll be attempting a galacticos-style policy. One of the first little bits we had on Ratcliffe related to the current squad was his questioning of the Casemiro deal. And as you point out yourself, going for players who do well at youth levels could (arguably) be more fruitful in football than in cycling.
The whole of INEOS' involvement in cycling strikes me as a bit out of character in some way. Ratcliffe has always seemed to be more at home reversing the fortunes of struggling companies, which you'd say would pretty much fits us. Maybe Team Sky, a smoothly-run operation that seemingly only needed carrying on, was just a really poor fit for somebody who wants to be more hands on and keen to mark a mark with changes?
That’s true, but he’s also putting in 100% of the work for 25% of the profit. For now.
- Status