INEOS trying to sell OGC NICE

The Irish Connection said:
I’d be more comfortable with this to be honest. Hopefully they can use some of the funds for a new stadium for us.
Click to expand...

Economically speaking. Why should they?

That's a several billion (at least a billion) invesment with little return. Having a run down old Trafford and a brand new old Trafford would probably net them roughly the same amount of income.

A new stadium doesnt mean you can charge the fans double.
 
Brighton and Union SG manage it despite Bloom being the majority shareholder of both by 'transferring' control of Union to some other guy. Why does Ineos have to sell Nice when they're not even the majority shareholder in United?

I'm not a fan of the multi club model but since no effort is being made to ban it, you have to join in. It offers distinct advantages and those that don't get in on it will be left behind.
 
So if Red Bull Salzburg qualify for the champions league, which they could well do, I presume UEFA will give Red Bull a year to sell them or Leipzig will they?
 
astracrazy said:
So if Red Bull Salzburg qualify for the champions league, which they could well do, I presume UEFA will give Red Bull a year to sell them or Leipzig will they?
Click to expand...

The UEFA already reviewed that years ago, Leipzig and Salzburg have independent managements according to UEFA, so both can play in the same competition. Delaney is just making things up.
 
Are we sure they’re not just selling because they want to? It’s been theorised that Nice is their dry run into what they really want to do (United).
 
The Mitcher said:
Which clubs are hundred percent owned by fans?
Click to expand...

None of the professional clubs. The clubs that people are thinking about are owned by themselves but they have paying members of the association, these members don't own the club.
 
Maybe they got encouragement from the glazers to buy a majority share of United.
 
Sky1981 said:
Economically speaking. Why should they?

That's a several billion (at least a billion) invesment with little return. Having a run down old Trafford and a brand new old Trafford would probably net them roughly the same amount of income.

A new stadium doesnt mean you can charge the fans double.
Click to expand...
Ah yeah, but they could certainly charge a little more, plus extra capacity.
Ratcliffe has been talking about it anyway.
 
marktan said:
Brighton and Union SG manage it despite Bloom being the majority shareholder of both by 'transferring' control of Union to some other guy. Why does Ineos have to sell Nice when they're not even the majority shareholder in United?

I'm not a fan of the multi club model but since no effort is being made to ban it, you have to join in. It offers distinct advantages and those that don't get in on it will be left behind.
Click to expand...

The threshold is 30 %, not majority. Ineos doesn't have to sell, just like City Group doesn't have to sell Girona. It's just one of the options.
 
MrMarcello said:
Wiki cites that City own 47% of Girona. Is the threshold 50.1% then?
Click to expand...

No, 30 %. The options they have been presented with is to relegate Girona to the Europa League, sell some shares to below 30, or transfer the shares of one club to a blind trust overseen by UEFA. RedBird did that last thing with Toulouse last season, because they own Milan as well.
 
NotThatSoph said:
The threshold is 30 %, not majority. Ineos doesn't have to sell, just like City Group doesn't have to sell Girona. It's just one of the options.
Click to expand...

It doesnt mention any 30% threshold anywhere in the official UEFA rules on this, INEOS allegedly being in control of the football side of Man Utd as well as Nice puts us in breach of these regulations which is why we shouldnt both ne in the Europa League.

https://documents.uefa.com/r/Regula...f-the-competition/multi-club-ownership-Online
 
Last edited:
RedRocket9908 said:
It doesnt mention any 30% threshold anywhere in the official UEFA rules on this, INEOS allegedly being in control of the football side of Man Utd as well as Nice puts us in breach of these regulations which is why we shouldnt both ne in the Europa League.

https://documents.uefa.com/r/Regula...f-the-competition/multi-club-ownership-Online
Click to expand...

No, but "decisive influence" is mentioned, and 30 % has been decided to be the threshold for that. There are other requirements, you have to actually be independently ran, so it wouldn't be enough for City/Girona and United/Ineos would have to make some changes as well. V Sports, who own Aston Villa, reduced their ownership of Vitoria from 46 % to 29 % and were fine.
 
It's not the best look that their sporting director recently left after 18 months because he felt that the plan he'd been sold when taking over no longer existed and the manager has left at the first opportunity for an Ajax side who've had their worst season in years.

But maybe this news points to them losing a bit of interest in Nice recently, which is slightly more encouraging than the alternative of them just being incompetent.
 
That kills off any chance of getting todibo from nice then.

Would probably run afoul of UEFA if todibo was sold to Utd and INEOS are trying to sell their stake in Nice.
 
antohan said:
He said United would be a mess if owned by our fans and he isn't wrong if the average caf thread is anything to go by.
Click to expand...
It doesn’t work like that, the fans wouldn’t run the club, much like a large company the members vote in directors and a president for a term to run the club. It would work perfectly fine at Utd, it’s how things were when we were listed and don’t affect us negatively.
 
redNATION said:
It doesn’t work like that, the fans wouldn’t run the club, much like a large company the members vote in directors and a president for a term to run the club. It would work perfectly fine at Utd, it’s how things were when we were listed and don’t affect us negatively.
Click to expand...
I know how it works. Of course you won't be run day-to-day by a General Assembly of fans. The voting could be quite shite and kneejerk though, more so because the most insane and vociferous are usually the ones that actually mobilise and show up to vote.

This doesn't just happen with football, see Brexit passing by a million votes with about a dozen million not bothering to turn up.
 
IRN-BRUno said:
It's not the best look that their sporting director recently left after 18 months because he felt that the plan he'd been sold when taking over no longer existed and the manager has left at the first opportunity for an Ajax side who've had their worst season in years.

But maybe this news points to them losing a bit of interest in Nice recently, which is slightly more encouraging than the alternative of them just being incompetent.
Click to expand...

Radcliffe is competent at making money for himself and at buying fast bicycles.

I don't think there's any real parameters around his/INEOS and their competence at running a football club prior to coming to United. Nice weren't a successful team when he bought them and they aren't a successful team now. Which you can't exactly mark down as a success...although fair to say also hard to mark down as a failure given how difficult it would be to make them competitive with PSG.

Its not really a good sign that we're weeks into the off season and we don't even know if our manager is going to be sacked or not.
 
OleGunnar20 said:
Great stuff. Feck multi club setups, they're one of the many cancers eating away at the game.
Click to expand...

I agree but i would like Manchester United to be part of a multi club setup if it is allowed. Manchester City does it. Red Bull does it. It offers huge benefits that i want Manchester United to have if the competition has those benefits too.

Best case situation would be that it isnt allowed at all though.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.