Is Jim Ratcliffe still interested in buying Manchester United? Yes

The Irish Connection said:
I think his offer and interview around the Chelsea sale is encouraging. He clearly sees the likes of Chelsea as a national institution with a lot of responsibility involved, United would obviously be even bigger in his estimation. He doesn't see it as a profit making enterprise.
Click to expand...
Anyone can say the right words. He’s a businessman, he sees everything as a profit making exercise.
 
red thru&thru said:
Fair enough. Get those steps in.
Click to expand...

:lol: :lol:

I have said almost exactly what you said.

Pointless protesting unless there is an end goal and a plan so that people can get behind it. All that crap about it being in the media? Whats the point? Great their the individual egos but will it be even newsworthy beyond a 24-48hrs cycle unless it escalates to something violent?

Otherwise, it's an organised venting session or a social-validation feedback loop event.
 
davidmichael said:
The thing with people saying the club isn’t for sale is that until someone shows a genuine interest and firms it up with an actual offer no one knows if the Glazer’s would sell, I guarantee that if they were offered £4 billion they’d sell as it’s all 100% profit to them seeing as they never paid a penny of their own money to purchase the club just like all transfers and loan repayments are paid by the club too.

If Jim Radcliffe got together with 3 other billionaires and offered £1 billion each of their money in then the Glazer’s would go for it, our value is only decreasing as we’re performing piss poorly on the pitch which means our commercial appeal is waning as well.

There’s also the fact that the Glazer’s know how hated they are by the fans so £4 billion to sell up and invest in Tampa Bay Buccaneers or a new franchise would surely be too tempting, what is it they get from United in dividends yearly ? £15 million each ? They’d have to do 20 more years each to make £300 million when they’d make double or treble depending on who gets what in one hit.
Click to expand...

They would not sell for 4 billion. Chelsea went for around that, with investment pledges, and some financial analysts believe major English clubs could be worth as much as 8 billion pounds in the near future (5-6 years).

The Glazers have been working for years to get a super league/franchise cup going, and in one form or another they will succeed. That would further increase the value and price. If they were to sell right now, I'd expect them to want 6-7 billion for it. However it is perfectly reasonable to assume that they will sit on it for years - try to fix their mess a bit - and sell it after the American TV deal money really starts flowing in.

If everything falls into place for them we could be looking at an astronomical value in excess of 8-10bn pounds which would make selling the club for 4 billion at this point foolish. Considering it doesn't cost them a single cent to keep owning the club, mainly because of how they bought it, they have very little reason to sell.
 
Laurencio said:
They would not sell for 4 billion. Chelsea went for around that, with investment pledges, and some financial analysts believe major English clubs could be worth as much as 8 billion pounds in the near future (5-6 years).

The Glazers have been working for years to get a super league/franchise cup going, and in one form or another they will succeed. That would further increase the value and price. If they were to sell right now, I'd expect them to want 6-7 billion for it. However it is perfectly reasonable to assume that they will sit on it for years - try to fix their mess a bit - and sell it after the American TV deal money really starts flowing in.

If everything falls into place for them we could be looking at an astronomical value in excess of 8-10bn pounds which would make selling the club for 4 billion at this point foolish. Considering it doesn't cost them a single cent to keep owning the club, mainly because of how they bought it, they have very little reason to sell.
Click to expand...

100% agree.
 
Even if he would treat us purely as a business venture to make profit, the hope is he'd at least be 100 times more competent at it than the Glazer trust fund dolts. If the debt could be wiped and the club could go back to operating using all of its own income, with some competent people put in place, that would leave us in a pretty fine position.
 
Laurencio said:
They would not sell for 4 billion. Chelsea went for around that, with investment pledges, and some financial analysts believe major English clubs could be worth as much as 8 billion pounds in the near future (5-6 years).

The Glazers have been working for years to get a super league/franchise cup going, and in one form or another they will succeed. That would further increase the value and price. If they were to sell right now, I'd expect them to want 6-7 billion for it. However it is perfectly reasonable to assume that they will sit on it for years - try to fix their mess a bit - and sell it after the American TV deal money really starts flowing in.

If everything falls into place for them we could be looking at an astronomical value in excess of 8-10bn pounds which would make selling the club for 4 billion at this point foolish. Considering it doesn't cost them a single cent to keep owning the club, mainly because of how they bought it, they have very little reason to sell.
Click to expand...

I don't think this is correct....Chelsea was not sold for 4b pounds...club was valued was paid for 2.5b and rest of 1.5-1.7b was a commitment to be spent for the benefit of the club... e.g. redevelopment of the stadium, womens team, academy etc etc....Now I am not sure of the timelines of that 1.5b commitment but I am sure it was over number of years...may be 10 years?

So the real valuation of chelsea was 2.5b and I think 4b is a very fair reflection of our value given where we are and only expected to go down from here on as EPL is getting stronger with Newcastle being bought up, Spurs in better position etc...

Second thing is with interest rates going up, I am not sure on the impact on our financial debt..

For the new owners, If we sell our stadium rights on our existing stadium, I am sure we can easily fetch 30-40m pounds a year.....do a 10 year deal and bloody sell it and invest 1b in the stadium and training facilities...

Without debt and assuming we are back to success under new ownership with no debt or dividend payouts, we generate enough money to compete with even oil funded teams.....
 
Gurtej said:
I don't think this is correct....Chelsea was not sold for 4b pounds...club was valued was paid for 2.5b and rest of 1.5-1.7b was a commitment to be spent for the benefit of the club... e.g. redevelopment of the stadium, womens team, academy etc etc....Now I am not sure of the timelines of that 1.5b commitment but I am sure it was over number of years...may be 10 years?

So the real valuation of chelsea was 2.5b and I think 4b is a very fair reflection of our value given where we are and only expected to go down from here on as EPL is getting stronger with Newcastle being bought up, Spurs in better position etc...

Second thing is with interest rates going up, I am not sure on the impact on our financial debt..

For the new owners, If we sell our stadium rights on our existing stadium, I am sure we can easily fetch 30-40m pounds a year.....do a 10 year deal and bloody sell it and invest 1b in the stadium and training facilities...

Without debt and assuming we are back to success under new ownership with no debt or dividend payouts, we generate enough money to compete with even oil funded teams.....
Click to expand...
Good post this
 
sglowrider said:
:lol: :lol:

I have said almost exactly what you said.

Pointless protesting unless there is an end goal and a plan so that people can get behind it. All that crap about it being in the media? Whats the point? Great their the individual egos but will it be even newsworthy beyond a 24-48hrs cycle unless it escalates to something violent?

Otherwise, it's an organised venting session or a social-validation feedback loop event.
Click to expand...

Agreed. Either you get games postponed...which I wouldn't expect anyone to risk getting banned or being impacted with criminal records.

Or, we get behind a tangible person we believe that will buy the club, such as Ratcliffe.
 
They shut the megastore last match because of the protests. If they did that every home game, it would makeca difference.
 
Empty stadiums for a year even though they make match day revenue will bring huge scrutiny and pressure from our sponsors….. I have no doubt that glazers will sell given it’s a constant stress!!

We should not STOP
 
Gurtej said:
Empty stadiums for a year even though they make match day revenue will bring huge scrutiny and pressure from our sponsors….. I have no doubt that glazers will sell given it’s a constant stress!!

We should not STOP
Click to expand...

Right. This is realistic. :lol: :lol: :rolleyes: :rolleyes:

No wonder these protests are going nowhere since the 2010s.
 
Gurtej said:
I don't think this is correct....Chelsea was not sold for 4b pounds...club was valued was paid for 2.5b and rest of 1.5-1.7b was a commitment to be spent for the benefit of the club... e.g. redevelopment of the stadium, womens team, academy etc etc....Now I am not sure of the timelines of that 1.5b commitment but I am sure it was over number of years...may be 10 years?

So the real valuation of chelsea was 2.5b and I think 4b is a very fair reflection of our value given where we are and only expected to go down from here on as EPL is getting stronger with Newcastle being bought up, Spurs in better position etc...

Second thing is with interest rates going up, I am not sure on the impact on our financial debt..

For the new owners, If we sell our stadium rights on our existing stadium, I am sure we can easily fetch 30-40m pounds a year.....do a 10 year deal and bloody sell it and invest 1b in the stadium and training facilities...

Without debt and assuming we are back to success under new ownership with no debt or dividend payouts, we generate enough money to compete with even oil funded teams.....
Click to expand...

Which is why I said 4bn, with investment pledges. And that was on a club that was practically put on sale by force. Man Utd would require its valuation + debt clearance and on top of that whatever the Glazers would want for potentially lost profits. When that is all well and done there would also be a need for significant investment into the stadium and fascilities of the club.

At 3.7 bn valuation, the minimum price is 4bn - given that the club could be valued significantly higher in 5 years time - there is no way they are accepting a low ball offer of 4 bn. The brand is still very strong, the club's revenues are not dropping significantly and we remain one of the richest clubs in the world - despite being unsuccessful on the pitch. With the new TV deals in the US coming into play, an increasing market presence globally. The club's valuation will only go up.

The debt is a red herring as well. 500M debt on an asset currently valued at 3.7bn is not a lot. Most of the debt is on fixed interest, so interest changes are irrelevant. We're not over-leveraged.

The Glazers reportedly believed a 7bn valuation was well within the club's potential just a year ago - the Chelsea sale will have increased that belief. They flat out rejected the Saudis offer of 3.8bn. Negotiations went no further, likely because the Glazers at the time wanted closer to their prospective 6-7bn valuation. After the Chelsea sale, it could well be higher.
 
Bluelion7 said:
Don’t you have to convince all 6 of them to sell? The biggest hurdle as I understand it is your team is basically a trust fund for all 6 of Malcolm’s children, and all 6 have an equal share

Now … if that’s still true it’s also a potential way forward. You in theory only need enough of them to sell to get the new owner to over 50 % control and then you could force the others to sell later (Like the Glazers did it).

Im sure two or three of those kids would like a massive check AND the opportunity to annoy the one or two siblings that actually want the club.

All of this six children are getting older in their own right. How would it be divided then? Are you going to have 30 or so odd grandchildren meeting in a room to decide things?

It’s ridiculous really. United deserve a big pockets owner who has ambitions to match the scope of the team.
Click to expand...
True… but Joel I think is the influential one and when he decides to sell the others will agree.
 
Coops73 said:
Could you give us a quick synopsis of what it says please
Click to expand...

Talks about how Ratcliffe has the funds to purchase the club but Glazers wouldn't necessarily sell. The Glazer family also turned down a 50% stake in the club.

Basically, Glazers would want big money to sell.
 
Bluelion7 said:
Don’t you have to convince all 6 of them to sell? The biggest hurdle as I understand it is your team is basically a trust fund for all 6 of Malcolm’s children, and all 6 have an equal share

Now … if that’s still true it’s also a potential way forward. You in theory only need enough of them to sell to get the new owner to over 50 % control and then you could force the others to sell later (Like the Glazers did it).

Im sure two or three of those kids would like a massive check AND the opportunity to annoy the one or two siblings that actually want the club.

All of this six children are getting older in their own right. How would it be divided then? Are you going to have 30 or so odd grandchildren meeting in a room to decide things?

It’s ridiculous really. United deserve a big pockets owner who has ambitions to match the scope of the team.
Click to expand...

We were bought by daddy Malcolm to provide his progeny with a guaranteed source of income after he was gone. Most billionaire owners buy clubs because they're already stinking rich and want the prestige.

There's a reason why this kind of leveraged buyout wouldn't be allowed now, which is great, but it's a shame United had to be the martyr.
 
red thru&thru said:
Talks about how Ratcliffe has the funds to purchase the club but Glazers wouldn't necessarily sell. The Glazer family also turned down a 50% stake in the club.

Basically, Glazers would want big money to sell.
Click to expand...
cnuts. Ok cheers.
 
Crimson King said:
We were bought by daddy Malcolm to provide his progeny with a guaranteed source of income after he was gone. Most billionaire owners buy clubs because they're already stinking rich and want the prestige.

There's a reason why this kind of leveraged buyout wouldn't be allowed now, which is great, but it's a shame United had to be the martyr.
Click to expand...

Yeah it's a shambles that it took us being a guinea pig for leveraged buyouts to be banned
 
I have seen a few posts and articles claiming that the Glazers wouldn't have been allowed to own the club with a leveraged buy-out under current rules.
Isn't there a way we could get the FA to act retrospectively, and designate the Glazers as unfit owners?
 
justboy68 said:
Even if he would treat us purely as a business venture to make profit, the hope is he'd at least be 100 times more competent at it than the Glazer trust fund dolts. If the debt could be wiped and the club could go back to operating using all of its own income, with some competent people put in place, that would leave us in a pretty fine position.
Click to expand...

We currently do this

All transfer fees are paid for using the clubs own revenue. Which is how the club should be run.

Issue is the dividends and taking money out of the club instead of putting money into it to clear off the debt (though in business debt is totally normal and not all as bad as it is if it were for you or I on a personal level. Debt is kind of encouraged it I remember correctly in business. Massive billion dollar businesses have debt, even Google has debt. 14B!)

Google/Alphabet being in debt source: https://www.macrotrends.net/stocks/charts/GOOG/alphabet/long-term-debt

So we are running as smoothly as we can and it is a very positive thing. It’s the other side which sours it. Dividends and not putting any or hardly any money in to help solve issues that need solving.

Old Trafford and Training Facilities are the two biggest one. In my personal opinion I think Old Trafford should be knocked down and a multi-million state of the art, best in country stadium be built in it’s place. We’re being left behind. But that’s a discussion for another day.
 
UnitedSofa said:
We currently do this

All transfer fees are paid for using the clubs own revenue. Which is how the club should be run.

Issue is the dividends and taking money out of the club instead of putting money into it to clear off the debt (though in business debt is totally normal and not all as bad as it is if it were for you or I on a personal level. Debt is kind of encouraged it I remember correctly in business. Massive billion dollar businesses have debt, even Google has debt. 14B!)

Google/Alphabet being in debt source: https://www.macrotrends.net/stocks/charts/GOOG/alphabet/long-term-debt

So we are running as smoothly as we can and it is a very positive thing. It’s the other side which sours it. Dividends and not putting any or hardly any money in to help solve issues that need solving.

Old Trafford and Training Facilities are the two biggest one. In my personal opinion I think Old Trafford should be knocked down and a multi-million state of the art, best in country stadium be built in it’s place. We’re being left behind. But that’s a discussion for another day.
Click to expand...

Exactly, we can generate enough money by ourselves, we just need competent owners who can steer that money in the right direction. Ideally without much having to be siphoned off for debt repayments and dividends. Really hope we will see it happen in the next few years.
 
Chief123 said:
I’m not sure what motivation Glazers would have to sell. They are making money every single year from the club.

Fans kicking off isn’t going to affect them sat in the US.
Click to expand...

This made me think about another potential route to hit the Glazers.

We’re said to have around 35 million fans in the US. If our American cousins really want to help, surely protests on the other side of the pond will have a bigger visual impact. For example, what if their was a big protest at a Tampa game? Pretty sure that would be covered far more by US media than a protest at Old Trafford.

This pincer movement from both sides of the Atlantic will get far more global exposure. Not saying it will make a blind bit of difference, but we don’t know until we try. At the very least it will make them uncomfortable and reduce their ability to ride out the flak on their own turf
 
Laurencio said:
They would not sell for 4 billion. Chelsea went for around that, with investment pledges, and some financial analysts believe major English clubs could be worth as much as 8 billion pounds in the near future (5-6 years).

The Glazers have been working for years to get a super league/franchise cup going, and in one form or another they will succeed. That would further increase the value and price. If they were to sell right now, I'd expect them to want 6-7 billion for it. However it is perfectly reasonable to assume that they will sit on it for years - try to fix their mess a bit - and sell it after the American TV deal money really starts flowing in.

If everything falls into place for them we could be looking at an astronomical value in excess of 8-10bn pounds which would make selling the club for 4 billion at this point foolish. Considering it doesn't cost them a single cent to keep owning the club, mainly because of how they bought it, they have very little reason to sell.
Click to expand...
This. Everyone knows they want the Amazon streaming deal and our club could be worth double what it is currently if that happens.

That is their end game and we aren’t there yet. They know United can underperform for another 10 years but easily get into any new platform as a front runner.
 
If he’s interested surely now is the best time to lodge a bid

Even if he knows it’ll be rejected.

It’ll get fans behind it and apply extra pressure to the Glazers to sell
 
Son said:
This. Everyone knows they want the Amazon streaming deal and our club could be worth double what it is currently if that happens.

That is their end game and we aren’t there yet. They know United can underperform for another 10 years but easily get into any new platform as a front runner.
Click to expand...

They do that and I won't be
 
AaronRedDevil said:
Sad to say. But only a Sheik could buy United.
Click to expand...
Yeah I don't think any sane billionare will meet the asking price as we all know it will be over valued, who ever buys the club will need to chuck another £1.5B at fix the issues with the ground, infrastructure, players etc...

Keep in mind it's going to piss off a portion of the fanbase as well as it will be seen as sports washing.
 
VanHaal'sRedArmy said:
Or someone like a Jerry Jones/Robert Kraft. Jeff Bezos is interested in buying an NFL club, he might be turned at the opportunity to buy us.
Click to expand...
Being an NFL owner is still a big thing in the US; infact it might still be more prestigious than owning an NBA team. They are more insular there and really don’t care about actual football, despite the wider appeal and global status.
 
hp88 said:
Yeah I don't think any sane billionare will meet the asking price as we all know it will be over valued, who ever buys the club will need to chuck another £1.5B at fix the issues with the ground, infrastructure, players etc...

Keep in mind it's going to piss off a portion of the fanbase as well as it will be seen as sports washing.
Click to expand...

Right now I don't care about doing that, if you can't beat em then join them. Feel awful saying it but this ownership has pushed me to it
 
Come on Jim, we need you to fix it.
Jingle jingle, jangle jangle…
 
You must log in or register to reply here.