Club Sale | It’s done!

[Salt Bailly]

The times they are a-changin'.

I like the timing. As we all know, Santa is a Red and he'll have a proper spring in his step as he does his rounds this morning.

 

[Teja]

never gets old. Glazers would then be forced to sell.

Not really forced but a few years out of the CL finishing 8th or so would've done it I reckon. Do you want to endure that though?

 

[NK86]

This is precisely why it’s a good thing to have INEOS onboard and focused on the sporting aspect of the club. We’ve been neglected on the pitch for too long.

But that is assuming he will have control on the funds needed for a lot of this. Glazers still control the purse strings. I cannot believe people are fine with this arrangement!

 

[croadyman]

But that is assuming he will have control on the funds needed for a lot of this. Glazers still control the purse strings. I cannot believe people are fine with this arrangement!

I am not fine with this arrangement,just want to see them appoint a proper CEO also ideally Director of Football AND Head of Recruitment.

 

[Steve 007]

But that is assuming he will have control on the funds needed for a lot of this. Glazers still control the purse strings. I cannot believe people are fine with this arrangement!

When it comes to players the Glazers have always spent money. I’d be surprised if we aren’t in the top 3 spenders in the world over the last decade. Ok it’s not their money and never has been so it won’t be a problem to keep spending it. The problem since Fergie left was that the CEO was a business man not a football man, he didn’t prioritise football and we got left behind. The stadium and training ground sound like they will slowly get upgrades as part of each stage of the buyout. This can only be a good thing compared to where we are now.

 

[Dargonk]

Really mixed feelings on this one. While I'm glad that it is all finalized now, we haven't got rid of the major problem at the club. I really would have preferred for a proper takeover, but it wasn't to be. So I guess all I can hope for now, is that Jim can actually change the structure at the club in a manner that turns things around. Otherwise it is just going to be more of the same

 

[jeepers]

I was a Qatar supporter because it was the only way to rid ourselves of the Glazers. I didn’t think Sir Ratcliffe’s 25% would have done any good but it seems like it has since the Glazers have relinquished control of the football side. They were never poor at the commercial side (because they are bloodthirsty frothing-at-the-mouth predators), but were completely useless at the football side. Hopefully Ratcliffe and his team will be different and successful.

 

[AneRu]

But that is assuming he will have control on the funds needed for a lot of this. Glazers still control the purse strings. I cannot believe people are fine with this arrangement!

Getting the Glazers to sanction massive spending has never been a problem before this transaction, can't see it being a problem now with someone that's just rescued them financially and is willing to use his money to take them along for the ride. The only issue we are likely to encounter is the competence of the Ratcliffe/Ineos team and how serious their rumored 'buy British' policy was.

The Glazers know Jim has the finances to dig the club into and out of a hole. He seems willing to invest big money and they get to stay. They aren't people who were actively sabotaging the club, their methods and appointments just didn't work out so it's not like they will be plotting against Jim because they know the better we are on the pitch the easier it is to make money off it via commercial deals.

 

[WPMUFC]

Oh this is going to be a wonderful relationship. Glazers made 500m to allow someone else to take the blame.

Can't wait for the leaks to move from the players to the boardroom when the Ineos side requests 150m for a window and the other half goes "it'll be 75m actually".

I wish I could make half a billion to shift blame.

 

[sixdwarf]

So now people do not care that there is no defined path to majority ownership (let alone a 100% one), and they are happy with this outcome? Basically indifferent to the fact the Glazers can stay on indefinitely, no idea about what will happen to the crippling debt, how will new investment happen? All because we are now partially owned by a “local lad”?

I was fine with SJR beating Qatar as long as he had a defined path to at least majority ownership. However people treating this as a win and thinking since he has control of the footballing side would mean the whole Board will be focused on making us a footballing powerhouse again are just deluding themselves. Glazers will always put commercial over football and they still own 72% of the voting rights, thus can basically do as they please at the Board level, including deciding our transfer kitty every window.

Exactly.

 

[sixdwarf]

I noticed in the locked thread there was a suggestion for a poll on what people think of the minority stake. Maybe that's the best way forward for getting a proper indicator on views here.

I think some are so desperate for good news, they miss the top line. The Glazers remain in control and our crippling debt remains. We had a chance to shed the lot and have meaningful club investment with the Qataris. It didnt happen. I am preparing myself for more years of mediocrity. Ratcliffe = Glazers = Not messiah.

 

[tenpoless]

Oh this is going to be a wonderful relationship. Glazers made 500m to allow someone else to take the blame.

Can't wait for the leaks to move from the players to the boardroom when the Ineos side requests 150m for a window and the other half goes "it'll be 75m actually".

I wish I could make half a billion to shift blame.

The other way of looking at it: spending £1.3billion for a full footballing control (core business) at a football club you're interested having a full ownership in, is cheap. Because United is huge and you can use it as a very accurate tester, to gauge whether a full purchase is a good idea or not. If it fails spectacularly you can simply skip the opportunity to buy more shares, slow down the spending and then sell the shares to someone else. Of course I don't want that to happen but the case with billionaires is that they won't mind losing some of their investments for a bigger slice in the future. 1.3b is only ~10% of Jimmy's reported wealth.

 

[bosnian_red]

But that is assuming he will have control on the funds needed for a lot of this. Glazers still control the purse strings. I cannot believe people are fine with this arrangement!

The funds United have spent the past 10 years haven't been the issue. It has been how the money is spent, fees and wages.

 

[croadyman]

My message to any Qatari supporters was please don't blame Ratcliffe,wasn't his fault Jassim wouldn't meet that £6bn figure. That says to me he didn't have the funds to pay whatever it took.

 

[sixdwarf]

Oh this is going to be a wonderful relationship. Glazers made 500m to allow someone else to take the blame.

Can't wait for the leaks to move from the players to the boardroom when the Ineos side requests 150m for a window and the other half goes "it'll be 75m actually".

I wish I could make half a billion to shift blame.

Indeed. You have no control if no control of the finances. This all coincides with Financial Fair Play concerns. So less money and blame shifts.

 

[croadyman]

I think some are so desperate for good news, they miss the top line. The Glazers remain in control and our crippling debt remains. We had a chance to shed the lot and have meaningful club investment with the Qataris. It didnt happen. I am preparing myself for more years of mediocrity. Ratcliffe = Glazers = Not messiah.

I am aware the leeches remain in control and the debt remains,however surely a better structure is a tiny ray of light. From the tone of your post I guess that's not the case though.

 

[RedBanker]

My message to any Qatari supporters was please don't blame Ratcliffe,wasn't his fault Jassim wouldn't meet that £6bn figure. That says to me he didn't have the funds to pay whatever it took.

Or maybe he didn't want to pay further over the odds. What he was offering was a whole lot. Glazers didn't want to lose their cash cow and wanted to make a namesake "deal". There was only one person willing to shake their sullied hands over such a useless trade.

 

[Plant0x84]

But that is assuming he will have control on the funds needed for a lot of this. Glazers still control the purse strings. I cannot believe people are fine with this arrangement!

It’s far from a perfect situation, goes without saying, and I think those who are enthused by this deal see it as a positive step forwards rather than a utopia. Kind of a better than nothing deal.
The budgets will be agreed between ineos and the Glazers, so yes they will obviously have a say (at least while Sir Jim only has a minority share) but don’t forget if he wants he can invest his own funds, and he has his own people in key positions of the hierarchy and on both FC and PLC boards. INEOS will be free to do whatever they want within this agreed budget, I don’t think the Glazers will stand in his way - it’s not in their interest to do so really.

 

[NK86]

The funds United have spent the past 10 years haven't been the issue. It has been how the money is spent, fees and wages.

It’s slightly different now. We have been in the red last 4 quarters. We have a squad full of players who are not good or past their sell by date. Plus there is the small issue of FFP.
We will need to circumvent around all of this and that will need a lot of capital. The Glazers are still in complete control of the club, with nothing on the horizon on if they will give that up.

Personally feel this was the worst possible outcome, barring being bought by a hedge fund and then asset stripped, when this process started more than a year back. Everyone on here wanted a full sale and full sale only. Now we have all sorts of mental gymnastics to justify as this being a good deal.

 

[Bosws87]

A terrible deal with no future ownership set in stone it just extends the struggle for years more a sad day.

 

[Jeffthered]

Well at least this is done and it is important, as it represents a defining change in the clubs ownership structure. The Glazer's, it seems, retain majority ownership, but INEOS and partners have a significant stake and will influence the direction and administration of the club.

Good.

But, it would assist all stakeholders, fans, etc, to explain how the new structure will impact on the daily operations at Manchester United FC

 

[Plant0x84]

My message to any Qatari supporters was please don't blame Ratcliffe,wasn't his fault Jassim wouldn't meet that £6bn figure. That says to me he didn't have the funds to pay whatever it took.

Given your support for Jassims bid that’s a very fair and reasonable stance. I hope a few others can adopt a similar outlook and give INEOS a fair chance.

 

[Stack]

Sadly as much as I would love this to be great news my pessimism because of the last 10 years or so leads me to wonder exactly how this is going to change anything

 

[Bosws87]

Sir Jim’s not stupid he wouldn’t invest billion with no way to 100% ownership.

Well, well, this was one of the most rabbited lines of the whole deal and backing for Jim.

 

[Sky1981]

Is this totally his faults? He was not supposed to be the DOF.

At the end of the days he's in charge for seeing the players and "DECIDING" what's their best position and their potential. Failing to do so is a very big minus for any manager. You can't stay on top of the game without addressing the weakness and identifying the solution

 

[Sky1981]

The loan analogy doesn't make sense. Yes, there might be conflict of interest if Ratcliffe wants to buy a new stadium but we don't fund our transfers by borrowing beyond what we can spend (before the pedantic idiots jump in, lines of credit / other short term loans / creative financing stuff doesn't fall under the previous statement). FFP generally won't allow that, that's the reason for its existence.

We've spend 1bn+ on transfers, clearly having a guy who knows football in Europe as opposed to trust fund babies being in-charge is only going to help.

1Bn on transfer is roughly 150m average per season? Going north of that would require capital investment (ilegally by bogus endorsement, which is what most oil club are doing). So Unless INEOS are puting their own money, it's all back to square one.

NOw the question would be why would SJR wanted to invest hundreds of millions (beyond what's agreed) for no tangible increase in ownership. It's good to play good football but at the end of the day it's business

 

[DJ_21]

Glazers will be buzzing with this. They can now do what they’ve been doing for years but in a lot more peace. If things still don’t work out on the pitch then the glazers will know they can’t be blamed anymore, they can sit back and watch the blame go to Ratcliffe and his team. This suits them so much.

 

[DJ_21]

My message to any Qatari supporters was please don't blame Ratcliffe,wasn't his fault Jassim wouldn't meet that £6bn figure. That says to me he didn't have the funds to pay whatever it took.

Didn’t they keep putting a bid in but then the glazers kept upping it as they was being greedy? Ratcliffe and his team deserve a fair chance to sort this mess out.

 

[Wednesday at Stoke]

Oh this is going to be a wonderful relationship. Glazers made 500m to allow someone else to take the blame.

Can't wait for the leaks to move from the players to the boardroom when the Ineos side requests 150m for a window and the other half goes "it'll be 75m actually".

I wish I could make half a billion to shift blame.

Glazers might be disinterested in the day to day running of the club or improving the infrastructure but there’s hardly been an occasion where United haven’t been able to afford to compete for a player’s signature owing to transfer fees or salary. Even last summer they okayed a fortune only to see Murtough and Ten Hag squander it in the worst way possible.

It’s easy to create a boogeyman for all our failures but that only lets the real clowns like Murtough hide behind that facade. At least now, there’s more educated people asking the tough questions before they sanction the spending.

 

[sglowrider]

The times they are a-changin'.

I like the timing. As we all know, Santa is a Red and he'll have a proper spring in his step as he does his rounds this morning.

More like we needed/released some good news after the pathetic loss to West Ham

 

[AndySmith1990]

Oh this is going to be a wonderful relationship. Glazers made 500m to allow someone else to take the blame.

Can't wait for the leaks to move from the players to the boardroom when the Ineos side requests 150m for a window and the other half goes "it'll be 75m actually".

I wish I could make half a billion to shift blame.

Ratcliffe will have two seats on the PLC board, therefore he'll be involved in setting those budgets along with other stakeholders

 

[Marcelinho87]

Indeed. You have no control if no control of the finances. This all coincides with Financial Fair Play concerns. So less money and blame shifts.

technically he has control of 25% of the finances, seeing as he owns that much of the club.

Anyhow for as bad as the Glazers are from a fans point of view many many people within the game including Sir Alex himself have called them “wonderful people” so I don’t see them and Ratcliffe having issues or clashes.

cnuts to us but we don’t know them on a personal level like what Sir Jim or Blanc etc will get to.

 

[sglowrider]

Given your support for Jassims bid that’s a very fair and reasonable stance. I hope a few others can adopt a similar outlook and give INEOS a fair chance.

I know right? Everyone knows I have been the biggest Ratcliffe fan.

But I too, am hoping those sports-washing-loving fans will have an open mind when it comes to Sir Ratcliffe.

 

[Devil77]

Indeed. You have no control if no control of the finances. This all coincides with Financial Fair Play concerns. So less money and blame shifts.

True, but how the money is spent is equally important. No more 90 million Antonys or 50 million sub par keepers.

 

[AndySmith1990]

Indeed. You have no control if no control of the finances. This all coincides with Financial Fair Play concerns. So less money and blame shifts.

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)

 

[Gavinb33]

But that is assuming he will have control on the funds needed for a lot of this. Glazers still control the purse strings. I cannot believe people are fine with this arrangement!

The board will set the finances and they will be what they will be what they will be, spending on transfers the last 10 years hasn't been an issue it's how the money has been spent thats the issue

 

[Mubs]

The perfect Christmas gift, only thing I want more is a long extension for ETH.

We've finally got some ownership stability, let's create some manager stability, too, and really build something!!

 

[TrebleChamp99]

Merry Christmas everyone,

Just a reminder that the 300m being invested comes with more shares.

Jim knows the club needs more than 300m to turn it around and has a huge pot of gold.

As time goes on and they need more funds they can plug that into club for the exchange of more shares.

Its essentially a honey trap for the glazers,

“we need more budget for the transfer window so we’re investing 300m more, but that comes at a cost to shares”

Eventually they will have majority.

Merry Christmas one and all.

 

[Marcelinho87]

Merry Christmas everyone,

Just a reminder that the 300m being invested comes with more shares.

Jim knows the club needs more than 300m to turn it around and has a huge pot of gold.

As time goes on and they need more funds they can plug that into club for the exchange of more shares.

Its essentially a honey trap for the glazers,

“we need more budget for the transfer window so we’re investing 300m more, but that comes at a cost to shares”

Eventually they will have majority.

Merry Christmas one and all.

Exactly how it will go.

He’s not an idiot, much more about him than the Glazer idiots who inherited.

 

[InfiniteBoredom]

In these M&A getting a foot in the door was the hardest part, now that Sir Brexit is in he can work the individual Glazers behind the scene, and with 4 of them gagging to sell it’s only a matter of time until he gets a blocking minority, then a majority, provided the willingness is there.

He might be content with just 25% if we are back on the right track, and I can live with that even if it means profits for the Glazers. However, if the budgetary constraints or their continued ownership impedes the sporting side under INEOS, I have no doubt he will muscle thêm out. A self made capitalist doesn’t commit a tenth of his wealth just for shits and giggles.