Club Sale | It’s done!

Status
Not open for further replies.
pocco said:
Even if he doesn't do anything amazing, they'd have to give an excuse because half the fan base are deluded into thinking that he's still the best man for the job. And the poster you responded to did say 'whenever it happens' in regards to the sacking. Hell we might get top 4 and there's a big likelihood that he still isn't the man for the job. You think they wouldn't be questioned by half of the fan base that are happy to ignore performances and settle for a top 4 finish? If he achieved that, half of the muppets would be declaring him the best manager around, given that they do that now when it's total crap.
Click to expand...

Some United fans may be deluded but so are the posters who believe they hold any sway in how United management takes decisions or they are the ones responsible for Lowering of standards at United .

Fans influence is wildly exaggerated on functioning of the Club especially on here .
 
gajender said:
Some United fans may be deluded but so are the posters who believe they hold any sway in how United management takes decisions or they are the ones responsible for Lowering of standards at United .

Fans influence is wildly exaggerated on functioning of the Club especially on here .
Click to expand...

I don't know if I agree, though it may change under Ratcliffe. But I think the club have looked at fan sentiment a lot over the last few years. Recent examples are Greenwood and the aborted Arnautovic signing. I think they do the same with managers also, they stuck by Ole whilst he dragged us down, reluctantly sacking him when the fans had had enough.
 
UpWithRivers said:
The Glazers put Ineos in place and let them run the club for them. Why is everyone pretending Ineos/Sir Jim runs the show now. They dont. Its still the Glazers. If Sir Jim is successful its because of the Glazers. I know its hard to hear but truth is truth.
Click to expand...
Seriously?

It would have been a requirement from Ratcliffe when he made the bid that he would get sporting power. A requirement that the Glazers (or at least enough of them to form a majority) agreed with, which isn't surprising considering four of them have no interest whatsoever in the club or sport and simply care about money (which a successful club will make more of). If they didn't agree with that, he'd walk and they wouldn't get the money that they desperately wanted.

Let's not pretend that they've gone to Ratcliffe and asked him to take sporting control. He demanded it, he made a case for it, and they agreed because they couldn't care less. That's not being successful because of them, it's being successful despite them.
 
MadDogg said:
Seriously?

It would have been a requirement from Ratcliffe when he made the bid that he would get sporting power. A requirement that the Glazers (or at least enough of them to form a majority) agreed with, which isn't surprising considering four of them have no interest whatsoever in the club or sport and simply care about money (which a successful club will make more of). If they didn't agree with that, he'd walk and they wouldn't get the money that they desperately wanted.

Let's not pretend that they've gone to Ratcliffe and asked him to take sporting control. He demanded it, he made a case for it, and they agreed because they couldn't care less. That's not being successful because of them, it's being successful despite them.
Click to expand...
They could have just got an investment elsewhere or no investment at all. Sure maybe it was Ratcliffe that proposed it. But its them who allowed it. They are in control. They own Utd. Just like the take the blame for 10 years of shite. Why? It wasn't them who decided on the players and the managers. But they take responsibility as the owners. They allowed it. I cant believe people now think the Glazers hold no sway or power anymore and its all Ratcliffe pulling the strings. If thats the case why does everyone want Ratcliffe to own Utd if he controls everything anyway?
 
UpWithRivers said:
They could have just got an investment elsewhere or no investment at all. Sure maybe it was Ratcliffe that proposed it. But its them who allowed it. They are in control. They own Utd. Just like the take the blame for 10 years of shite. Why? It wasn't them who decided on the players and the managers. But they take responsibility as the owners. They allowed it. I cant believe people now think the Glazers hold no sway or power anymore and its all Ratcliffe pulling the strings. If thats the case why does everyone want Ratcliffe to own Utd if he controls everything anyway?
Click to expand...
Ratcliffe was offering the highest sums they could get. Sure they 'could' have got money from others, but it would have been a smaller amount which obviously doesn't suit them.

Obviously the Glazer's do have power still. They will still have a say on the economic side of things. I expect there is some kind of clause in the documents that if things go badly over a certain period of time they can vote to revoke INEOS having sporting power.

They took the blame for the last 10 years because they enabled all the failure. They were the ones who put Woodward in place, and then allowed him to stay in his role with no desire to modernise our system despite systematic failure throughout the club for a decade. If they'd sacked him after three or four years and showed some competence to hire people with suitable qualifications, and that person just unfortunately failed through his own fault, then the blame on the Glazer's would be lessened. Certainly not completely negated seeing as we'd still have been going along with one hand tied behind their back through the debt that they've put us under, but lessened. But they showed complete and utter incompetence by allowing the person who was making the football decisions to be completely incompetent for so long, plus the rumours that Joel was making things a lot harder than things needed to be by wanting to be part of the decision making himself. So it does come back 100% on them.

Them selling to the highest bidder, with part of that bid being control of the football decisions, in no way gives them any credit for any future success that we hopefully have. Not unless you seriously think they went out of their way to get a buyer that would take control of the football side of things. Even then any success wouldn't be 'because of them', unless you add 'for staying the hell out of the way' to the end of that sentence.
 
MadDogg said:
Ratcliffe was offering the highest sums they could get. Sure they 'could' have got money from others, but it would have been a smaller amount which obviously doesn't suit them.

Obviously the Glazer's do have power still. They will still have a say on the economic side of things. I expect there is some kind of clause in the documents that if things go badly over a certain period of time they can vote to revoke INEOS having sporting power.

They took the blame for the last 10 years because they enabled all the failure. They were the ones who put Woodward in place, and then allowed him to stay in his role with no desire to modernise our system despite systematic failure throughout the club for a decade. If they'd sacked him after three or four years and showed some competence to hire people with suitable qualifications, and that person just unfortunately failed through his own fault, then the blame on the Glazer's would be lessened. Certainly not completely negated seeing as we'd still have been going along with one hand tied behind their back through the debt that they've put us under, but lessened. But they showed complete and utter incompetence by allowing the person who was making the football decisions to be completely incompetent for so long, plus the rumours that Joel was making things a lot harder than things needed to be by wanting to be part of the decision making himself. So it does come back 100% on them.

Them selling to the highest bidder, with part of that bid being control of the football decisions, in no way gives them any credit for any future success that we hopefully have. Not unless you seriously think they went out of their way to get a buyer that would take control of the football side of things. Even then any success wouldn't be 'because of them', unless you add 'for staying the hell out of the way' to the end of that sentence.
Click to expand...
You are making assumptions, The Glazers decided that they needed investment, opened up for bids and secured Ineos. They bid with them and believed in their proposed project and allowed them to take charge of the sporting side. Allowed. They still control the sporting side in so much as they can just get rid of Sir Jim if they want to. They are still the boss. Ineos is just running it. Just like Woodward was running things or Murtough. If they so wish they can get rid of them. They are the owners. They are not fking idiots. In your scenario they just saw the better bid and just let Sir Jim control their company for a few extra mill! Come on. I don't believe that for a second.
 
UpWithRivers said:
You are making assumptions, The Glazers decided that they needed investment, opened up for bids and secured Ineos. They bid with them and believed in their proposed project and allowed them to take charge of the sporting side. Allowed. They still control the sporting side in so much as they can just get rid of Sir Jim if they want to. They are still the boss. Ineos is just running it. Just like Woodward was running things or Murtough. If they so wish they can get rid of them. They are the owners. They are not fking idiots. In your scenario they just saw the better bid and just let Sir Jim control their company for a few extra mill! Come on. I don't believe that for a second.
Click to expand...
Ratcliffe's bid probably makes them significantly more money in the long-term. They get the short-term income that they wanted/needed, AND they then get more in the future as the clubs value likely continues to rise. It almost certainly ends up the best of both worlds for them. It's why Ratcliffe had to dial back his full purchase that he originally wanted, and went with this instead.

And they can't just get rid of Ratcliffe if they want to. He's not just another Woodward or Murtough. He's easily the single biggest share-holder of the company (once the extra 300m investment goes through he'll be well over double any of the others), and him having sporting control is part of that transaction. I'm sure there are clauses that can break that, but those clauses would only be able to be activated in certain scenarios, not something that they can just enact if they feel like it. Plus the way it's all set up, it does seem likely that Ratcliffe will be taking more and more control as time goes on.

Am I making assumptions here? Technically I guess so. But do you seriously think that Ratcliffe would spend significantly over the book value for a quarter of the company, and it's just a case of the Glazers going "Oh by the way, we'd like you to take over sporting control as well. But we can take it back anytime we want and there's nothing you can do about it."? That would make Ratcliffe the 'fking idiot' as you put it.
 
UpWithRivers said:
You are making assumptions, The Glazers decided that they needed investment, opened up for bids and secured Ineos. They bid with them and believed in their proposed project and allowed them to take charge of the sporting side. Allowed. They still control the sporting side in so much as they can just get rid of Sir Jim if they want to. They are still the boss. Ineos is just running it. Just like Woodward was running things or Murtough. If they so wish they can get rid of them. They are the owners. They are not fking idiots. In your scenario they just saw the better bid and just let Sir Jim control their company for a few extra mill! Come on. I don't believe that for a second.
Click to expand...
Which clause in the recent contract allows the Glazers to just get rid of him when they want?
 
UpWithRivers said:
You are making assumptions, The Glazers decided that they needed investment, opened up for bids and secured Ineos. They bid with them and believed in their proposed project and allowed them to take charge of the sporting side. Allowed. They still control the sporting side in so much as they can just get rid of Sir Jim if they want to. They are still the boss. Ineos is just running it. Just like Woodward was running things or Murtough. If they so wish they can get rid of them. They are the owners. They are not fking idiots. In your scenario they just saw the better bid and just let Sir Jim control their company for a few extra mill! Come on. I don't believe that for a second.
Click to expand...
Get rid of him :lol:
 
MadDogg said:
Ratcliffe's bid probably makes them significantly more money in the long-term. They get the short-term income that they wanted/needed, AND they then get more in the future as the clubs value likely continues to rise. It almost certainly ends up the best of both worlds for them. It's why Ratcliffe had to dial back his full purchase that he originally wanted, and went with this instead.

And they can't just get rid of Ratcliffe if they want to. He's not just another Woodward or Murtough. He's easily the single biggest share-holder of the company (once the extra 300m investment goes through he'll be well over double any of the others), and him having sporting control is part of that transaction. I'm sure there are clauses that can break that, but those clauses would only be able to be activated in certain scenarios, not something that they can just enact if they feel like it. Plus the way it's all set up, it does seem likely that Ratcliffe will be taking more and more control as time goes on.

Am I making assumptions here? Technically I guess so. But do you seriously think that Ratcliffe would spend significantly over the book value for a quarter of the company, and it's just a case of the Glazers going "Oh by the way, we'd like you to take over sporting control as well. But we can take it back anytime we want and there's nothing you can do about it."? That would make Ratcliffe the 'fking idiot' as you put it.
Click to expand...
BeforeKeanetherewasRobson said:
Which clause in the recent contract allows the Glazers to just get rid of him when they want?
Click to expand...
UnitedSofa said:
Get rid of him :lol:
Click to expand...
Sure the Glazers can't just make a phone call and tell Sir Jim to piss off. But there must be clauses and legal structures put in place if they need to. I don't know why that's so hard to believe? It's much harder to believe the 25 percent owner is running the ship and the major owner is just bent over and taking it no matter what. What happens if Sir Jim starts running us into the ground? The Glazers just gonna sit there and say 'oh well that's our asset devalued. Shucks.' Are the silent partners now? What are they? And if they are nothing why does everyone want them gone.
 
UpWithRivers said:
Sure the Glazers can't just make a phone call and tell Sir Jim to piss off. But there must be clauses and legal structures put in place if they need to. I don't know why that's so hard to believe? It's much harder to believe the 25 percent owner is running the ship and the major owner is just bent over and taking it no matter what. What happens if Sir Jim starts running us into the ground? The Glazers just gonna sit there and say 'oh well that's our asset devalued. Shucks.' Are the silent partners now? What are they? And if they are nothing why does everyone want them gone.
Click to expand...
As I've said multiple times, there probably are clauses where that control can be revoked. But having very specific terms where they can do that on the basis of things going very badly wrong is very different than them just being able to 'get rid of INEOS if they wish', as you put it.

Having the Glazers here is still us effectively fighting with one hand tied behind our back. The huge debt that they've put on us is always going to be an issue. Plus there are two scenarios for Ratcliffe investing more money in the future - either he will continue to get more shares while doing so, leading him to then slowly getting closer and closer to an outright majority, negating your point of Glazers being in control and being able to get rid of him. Or he won't get more shares for further investments, in which case he has little reason to make those investments which negate your point of 'why does everyone want them gone?'. Not to mention simply the entire negativity of their ownership of the club; it'd just be a significant morale boost throughout the fanbase and most likely inside the club itself to see them feck off.

The Glazers are not a single entity. There is no 'major owner'. There are six Glazers, four of whom have no interest whatsoever in the club bar the amount of money that it can make them. Ratcliffe is going to have comfortably more voting power than the two Glazers who are interested in the club put together. There were strong reports that some of the others preferred to sell entirely, and some of the terms in the 25% sale do indicate that this is likely the start of the Glazers exiting entirely over the next few years (most likely with Ratcliffe taking over, but leaving it open to some other super-rich buyer to come in and take it all if Ratcliffe can't match him).

Honestly, some of your posts in this last page or two almost seem like a troll. Saying that if INEOS does succeed in turning us back around it'll be thanks to the Glazers, and asking why do we want them gone if they are going to allow INEOS to have sporting control.
 
MadDogg said:
As I've said multiple times, there probably are clauses where that control can be revoked. But having very specific terms where they can do that on the basis of things going very badly wrong is very different than them just being able to 'get rid of INEOS if they wish', as you put it.

Having the Glazers here is still us effectively fighting with one hand tied behind our back. The huge debt that they've put on us is always going to be an issue. Plus there are two scenarios for Ratcliffe investing more money in the future - either he will continue to get more shares while doing so, leading him to then slowly getting closer and closer to an outright majority, negating your point of Glazers being in control and being able to get rid of him. Or he won't get more shares for further investments, in which case he has little reason to make those investments which negate your point of 'why does everyone want them gone?'. Not to mention simply the entire negativity of their ownership of the club; it'd just be a significant morale boost throughout the fanbase and most likely inside the club itself to see them feck off.

The Glazers are not a single entity. There is no 'major owner'. There are six Glazers, four of whom have no interest whatsoever in the club bar the amount of money that it can make them. Ratcliffe is going to have comfortably more voting power than the two Glazers who are interested in the club put together. There were strong reports that some of the others preferred to sell entirely, and some of the terms in the 25% sale do indicate that this is likely the start of the Glazers exiting entirely over the next few years (most likely with Ratcliffe taking over, but leaving it open to some other super-rich buyer to come in and take it all if Ratcliffe can't match him).

Honestly, some of your posts in this last page or two almost seem like a troll. Saying that if INEOS does succeed in turning us back around it'll be thanks to the Glazers, and asking why do we want them gone if they are going to allow INEOS to have sporting control.
Click to expand...
As I've said multiple times, there probably are clauses where that control can be revoked. But having very specific terms where they can do that on the basis of things going very badly wrong is very different than them just being able to 'get rid of INEOS if they wish', as you put it.

What's the difference? I never said they can do it easily. I just said they still have control. In fact no one knows the details of the merger. Everyone is presuming that Ratcliffe can do anything he wants. I'm saying he cant because he doesn't own Utd. The Glazers do. Its proving my point.

Having the Glazers here is still us effectively fighting with one hand tied behind our back. The huge debt that they've put on us is always going to be an issue. Plus there are two scenarios for Ratcliffe investing more money in the future - either he will continue to get more shares while doing so, leading him to then slowly getting closer and closer to an outright majority, negating your point of Glazers being in control and being able to get rid of him. Or he won't get more shares for further investments, in which case he has little reason to make those investments which negate your point of 'why does everyone want them gone?'. Not to mention simply the entire negativity of their ownership of the club; it'd just be a significant morale boost throughout the fanbase and most likely inside the club itself to see them feck off.

This is just saying the Glazers are shit and a load of presumptions that Ratcliffe will get more shares. It adds nothing to my premise that its the Glazers that are in charge.

The Glazers are not a single entity. There is no 'major owner'. There are six Glazers, four of whom have no interest whatsoever in the club bar the amount of money that it can make them. Ratcliffe is going to have comfortably more voting power than the two Glazers who are interested in the club put together. There were strong reports that some of the others preferred to sell entirely, and some of the terms in the 25% sale do indicate that this is likely the start of the Glazers exiting entirely over the next few years (most likely with Ratcliffe taking over, but leaving it open to some other super-rich buyer to come in and take it all if Ratcliffe can't match him).

More presumptions.

Honestly, some of your posts in this last page or two almost seem like a troll. Saying that if INEOS does succeed in turning us back around it'll be thanks to the Glazers, and asking why do we want them gone if they are going to allow INEOS to have sporting control.

What are the facts? The Glazers sought investment, sold 25 percent to Ineos and let them run the football side. Who did that? The Glazers. We can all go in a hippy trippy world where Ratcliffe wears a cape, took down the Glazers and rescued us all in spite of the majority owners but its a load of nonsense and you know it. Call me what you want. Facts are facts. And don't start writing another 1000 words about how Ratcliffe will get more shares and he has more veto power etc. He has sht that the Glazers didnt or wont give him.
 
UpWithRivers said:
Sure the Glazers can't just make a phone call and tell Sir Jim to piss off. But there must be clauses and legal structures put in place if they need to. I don't know why that's so hard to believe? It's much harder to believe the 25 percent owner is running the ship and the major owner is just bent over and taking it no matter what. What happens if Sir Jim starts running us into the ground? The Glazers just gonna sit there and say 'oh well that's our asset devalued. Shucks.' Are the silent partners now? What are they? And if they are nothing why does everyone want them gone.
Click to expand...
My understanding is the only route would be if there’s a buyer for the lot at $33 a share.. at that point, Ratcliffe HAS to sell.

UNLESS he says “I’ll match that offer”… which the contract gives him first refusal to do so.

This thread is useful… I don’t think Glazers have the control/longevity suggested.

Yes, I think they’ll piggy back off any success Ratcliffe brings and Yes, if they sell, they make billions the w@nkers.

https://x.com/ole_was_right/status/1740043630356627854?s=20
 
golden_blunder said:
Waiting for the cries of “move on”, “we need to modernise not hark back to Fergie”
Unless the wind has changed again and it’s ok to do that now
Click to expand...
"David, what do you recommend we do based on your own experience?"
"I used to let the manager decide."
"........oh."
 
Mr Pigeon said:
"David, what do you recommend we do based on your own experience?"
"I used to let the manager decide."
"........oh."
Click to expand...

"oh and what did you do when that manager decided to retire?"
"erm, erm, basically I fled"
"fled?"
"yep, left the job. People like SAF comes maybe once in a club's career. So when he left I joined him"
 
devilish said:
"oh and what did you do when that manager decided to retire?"
"erm, erm, basically I fled"
"fled?"
"yep, left the job. People like SAF comes maybe once in a club's career. So when he left I joined him"
Click to expand...
:lol:
 
vanderpants said:
I am keeping my mouth shut from now on, we had an internal email saying they are watching a number of people who continue to leak stories to the press...
Click to expand...

It'd be funny if after all these last few years, all the leaks turned out to be our very own Vanderpants. :lol:

Lingard, Pogba, Rashford, Sancho, etc, all getting grilled by the Caf for allegedly spilling the beans, but sure enough the culprit was in our midst.
 
vanderpants said:
I am keeping my mouth shut from now on, we had an internal email saying they are watching a number of people who continue to leak stories to the press...
Click to expand...
Plot twist: they sent this email to only one employee and you took the bait
 
This seems a little bit odd but we'll see what happens I guess.

Not fully convinced about this but it will take some time to show results on the pitch. At the very least it's nice to actually have some hope, and change, in how the club is being restructured.
 
INEOS: "I'll buy all the club and I'll take all the debt"
Fans: "yay"
Ineos "actually its just 69%, I'll take the debt I created so the old debt stays but Glazers are out"
Fans "yay"
Ineos "actually its going to be 51% but the Glazers will be minority shareholders"
Fans "erm ya"
Ineos "erm its going to be 25%, the Glazers will remain majority shareholders but there will be a clear route to kick the Glazers out in 3 years"
Fans "hmm"
Ineos "its still 25% but the clear route is gone. Glazers might stay forever but look there's Blanc as CEO and we'll spend in Janaury"
Fans"erm"
INEOS "no transfers in January and erm, Blanc, well..."
 
devilish said:
INEOS: "I'll buy all the club and I'll take all the debt"
Fans: "yay"
Ineos "actually its just 69%, I'll take the debt I created so the old debt stays but Glazers are out"
Fans "yay"
Ineos "actually its going to be 51% but the Glazers will be minority shareholders"
Fans "erm ya"
Ineos "erm its going to be 25%, the Glazers will remain majority shareholders but there will be a clear route to kick the Glazers out in 3 years"
Fans "hmm"
Ineos "its still 25% but the clear route is gone. Glazers might stay forever but look there's Blanc as CEO and we'll spend in Janaury"
Fans"erm"
INEOS "no transfers in January and erm, Blanc, well..."
Click to expand...

They've obviously never said any of this, all paper talk. Some of it may have been true intentions but that's how making a deal works. It's still less of the club the Glazers own and they no longer have sporting control. Better than a year ago.
 
Blanc has a seat on the PLC board. Maybe he's just happy in his current role and working behind the scenes rather than being one of the faces of the club.
 
This compounds a bit of confusion in my mind related to the talk around INEOS appointing the CEO.
The press release from INEOS was quite clear: “As part of the transaction, INEOS has accepted a request by the Board to be delegated responsibility for the management of the Club’s football operations. This will include all aspects of the men's and women's football operations and Academies, alongside two seats on the Manchester United PLC board and the Manchester United Football Club boards”

Based on the press release, INEOS is only responsible for managing football operations. My understanding is that the commercial operations are still being managed by the PLC board. The CEO of a football club such as Man United, is ideally responsible for both football as well as commercial operations. Why then, are we hearing rumours about INEOS appointing the CEO? Won’t this be done by the board (of which Ineos is a part as a minority shareholder with 2 seats)?
 
Solius said:
They've obviously never said any of this, all paper talk. Some of it may have been true intentions but that's how making a deal works. It's still less of the club the Glazers own and they no longer have sporting control. Better than a year ago.
Click to expand...

When good journalists play the same tune you'll know that its at least the club's or INEOS PR. I hope that this new partnership will not end up a hot potato exercise were INEOS and the Glazers will shift the blame to one another while the ship is sinking
 
They're talking about entrusting a headhunting firm to appoint a new CEO, which I think is probably a good move unless they decide to promote one of Baty or Stewart. For the sanity of the casual observer, I hope they go with the headhunting firm and bring in a external candidate. This also doesn't mean that INEOS won't have sporting control, but there is a difference between who the board of directors are, and the people who direct the football side of the club. The Glazers will for sure have a say on who the CEO is.



 
Last edited:
Status
Not open for further replies.