Qatar or Ineos - which owners would you prefer? | Vote now Private

[Rozay]

I’m not Oil Money At All Costs - however, I do struggle to see the difference between Ratcliffe and the Glazers at this point. Unless I have missed it, I have seen nothing in any pitch from Ratcliffe where he promises to run the club in a different way. The things that people dislike about the Glazers are likely to be just as present.

We will still be a debt saddled club, there has been no pledge of large scale squad/infrastructure investment and pretty sure Ratcliffe is on record as wanting a more ‘slow, steady evolution rather than revolution’. With that in mind, is the appeal simply that his surname is not Glazer?

 

[Lyng]

Unless they’re selling arms, embezzling money, handing suitcases of cash, running countries accused of human rights abuses, I doubt it compares.

The Brexit thing is such a red herring. I hate Brexit, people were lied to etc. but they made personal choices (however stupid) in a democratic vote…

When someone who is a successful business man tells you that Brexit is a good thing then that might sway a lot of people to vote no? Also the fact that he was pro brexit at all is a red flag.

There are plenty of report of workers being treated terrible, and enviroment suffering from Ineos actions.
But we will never agree on this so no reason to debate this further.

Either way if it ends up being Ineos I hope they prove me wrong, I sincerely do.

 

[bosnian_red]

I don't think City and PSG are above board but also, there has been nothing done by Newcastle yet, that is having questionable, you are stereotyping they are not above board because of ME owners. In the future they might not be but, currently, you cannot point to anything that says its not.

Ethical issues are a concern from not just Qatar, every rich owner, you simply chose to ignore all of the INEOS ones, plus where are INEOS getting this money? JP Morgan and others, do you think they are all above board?

Why don't you take your own advice and own that neither owner is 100% above board.

It is simply different the scale of what they are all doing. I fundamentally disagree with a state owning a club regardless of human rights issues, but while we are there, it's not great if you then become the sports washing tool of a state.

As for Newcastle, well they've been pumping them with cash, they didn't improve by magic. They're at like a 99% wages to turnover ratio which is wild. I'm not stereotyping, it is very clear that it is the state who owns them.

Where did a company get all their money? From doing smart business?

 

[bosnian_red]

I’m not Oil Money At All Costs - however, I do struggle to see the difference between Ratcliffe and the Glazers at this point. Unless I have missed it, I have seen nothing in any pitch from Ratcliffe where he promises to run the club in a different way. The things that people dislike about the Glazers are likely to be just as present.

We will still be a debt saddled club, there has been no pledge of large scale squad/infrastructure investment and pretty sure Ratcliffe is on record as wanting a more ‘slow, steady evolution rather than revolution’. With that in mind, is the appeal simply that his surname is not Glazer?

The biggest problem with the Glazers is that as owners, they have completely neglected the club. We don't need a sugar daddy, the majority of clubs have just standard owners who try to do things smartly. The Glazers didn't try that - all they saw it as was a way to just bleed us and ignore the club completely. Complete neglect while loading us with debt.

Ineos, who knows what they'll do. Just trying to do things smartly is a huge mprovement though.

 

[Rood]

I don’t think it’s daft at all to worry about where the money comes from. If it’s not a state bid, the money has to come from HBJ right? You accept that is your best case scenario. The money HBJ has gathered is not clean in the slightest, at least Ineos are manufacturing products that we all use. For me, there is no comparison in manufacturing plastic products and selling arms, being caught up in scandals around fraud, also tax evasion by the way, which you seem to be concerned about with Jim.

Jim is no angel but yes, I think morally I can stack them up and be at peace with having Ineos as owner. If you want to call that virtue signalling you can, but I’m telling you there’s a good chance I stop supporting the club if Qatar come in, so it’s not. HBJ may not be the face, but if it’s his money that’s unforgivable. Almost worse than a straight up state bid - which is something that maybe some fans who support Qatar might want to do some research on.

I don’t think it’s right that an owner just comes in and spends a billion on a new stadium. It’s a massive competitive advantage that no other team has had. I would rather the Glazers were forced to clear their own debt but unfortunately that’s not the way it works. I would rather we had to manage the debt than sold out to a state/HBJ.

Well actually there also other options than the money coming from HBJ - Sheikh Jassim himself is a very experienced financial operator; a decade as manager of Al Mirqab Capital, many years on the board of Credit Sussie Bank, currently chairman of QIB. I am sure he would have a network of other High Net Worth Investors to put together a private consortium if needed.
The main point is that looking at the private wealth of the family and connections to various financial institutions, it is absolutely clear to me that he would be able to put together a deal of this size without needing the state and potentially without even needing his dad.

Seems to me that you are tying yourself in knots trying to find links to get morally outraged about, and again most of it is based on rumours. Lets remember that there is no actual proof of embezzlement, arms deals or any of the other speculation you have presented which is connected to Sheikh Jassim.
Whereas INEOS' environmental destruction is well documented plus Jim is a massive Tory party donor and Brexiteer - these are facts, not speculation so that's a much bigger issue for me than anything you have mentioned.

As I said, Im not actually bothered by any of it anyway - there are no ethical billionaires bidding so Im only interested in assessing who would be the best owner for my football club.

Your last paragraph is just plain bizarre and makes no sense to me - quite clear that you are not thinking about what is the best for Manchester United, someone offers to clear our debts and refurb the stadium but you prefer to stay with the Glazers, utter madness.

 

[Rozay]

The biggest problem with the Glazers is that as owners, they have completely neglected the club. We don't need a sugar daddy, the majority of clubs have just standard owners who try to do things smartly. The Glazers didn't try that - all they saw it as was a way to just bleed us and ignore the club completely. Complete neglect while loading us with debt.

Ineos, who knows what they'll do. Just trying to do things smartly is a huge mprovement though.

So if I’m correct, the absolute extreme level of vitriol towards the Glazers is down to us not having a state of the art stadium? One that fans are still currently undecided as to whether they want us to replace or not?

The Glazers have spent as much money as anyone in the transfer market, and from what I can, have generally been hands off owners and just let their employees run the club. Things haven’t gone well on the pitch in recent years, but Jim’s model, at least as currently pitched doesn’t sound like much beyond ‘trust me, I’ll do it better than them’.

I have nothing against Jim, however, it is difficult to get behind his offer. As far as I’m concerned, anyone backing Jim is not actually backing Jim, they are simply backing anyone other than the other guys. Jim’s bid in its own right is without detail, without any sort of romance to inspire fans and by far the biggest thing it has going for it amongst sections of the fans is that it is not Arab. Nobody could have heard anything Ratcliffe has said and been inspired. This is simply a case of taking a position of not wanting state ownership, which makes you a Ratcliffe supporter by default.

 

[Dan_F]

Well actually there also other options than the money coming from HBJ - Sheikh Jassim himself is a very experienced financial operator; a decade as manager of Al Mirqab Capital, many years on the board of Credit Sussie Bank, currently chairman of QIB. I am sure he would have a network of other High Net Worth Investors to put together a private consortium if needed.
The main point is that looking at the private wealth of the family and connections to various financial institutions, it is absolutely clear to me that he would be able to put together a deal of this size without needing the state and potentially without even needing his dad.

Seems to me that you are tying yourself in knots trying to find links to get morally outraged about, and again most of it is based on rumours. Lets remember that there is no actual proof of embezzlement, arms deals or any of the other speculation you have presented which is connected to Sheikh Jassim.
Whereas INEOS' environmental destruction is well documented plus Jim is a massive Tory party donor and Brexiteer - these are facts, not speculation so that's a much bigger issue for me than anything you have mentioned.

As I said, Im not actually bothered by any of it anyway - there are no ethical billionaires bidding so Im only interested in assessing who would be the best owner for my football club.

Your last paragraph is just plain bizarre and makes no sense to me - quite clear that you are not thinking about what is the best for Manchester United, someone offers to clear our debts and refurb the stadium but you prefer to stay with the Glazers, utter madness.

Oh right. I thought his dad being one of the richest men in the world was a selling point here. It’s a pointless conversation, you’re unwilling to accept anything that isn’t black and white, and very purposely, there is next to no information in black and white about the source of the funding.

The idea of him just going around and getting contacts to invest in his foundation is interesting. I suggest if this was an American, people would be up in arms.

I think my last paragraph is quite clear, away from the morals. Of course I want what’s best for United, but I don’t think an owner should be able to just come in and invest a billion to buy a new stadium from nowhere. It’s literally no different to an owner coming in and investing a billion in transfers, expect UEFA decided one is wrong and one is right.

 

[bosnian_red]

So if I’m correct, the absolute extreme level of vitriol towards the Glazers is down to us not having a state of the art stadium? One that fans are still currently undecided as to whether they want us to replace or not?

The Glazers have spent as much money as anyone in the transfer market, and from what I can, have generally been hands off owners and just let their employees run the club. Things haven’t gone well on the pitch in recent years, but Jim’s model, at least as currently pitched doesn’t sound like much beyond ‘trust me, I’ll do it better than them’.

I have nothing against Jim, however, it is difficult to get behind his offer. As far as I’m concerned, anyone backing Jim is not actually backing Jim, they are simply backing anyone other than the other guys. Jim’s bid in its own right is without detail, without any sort of romance to inspire fans and by far the biggest thing it has going for it amongst sections of the fans is that it is not Arab. Nobody could have heard anything Ratcliffe has said and been inspired. This is simply a case of taking a position of not wanting state ownership, which makes you a Ratcliffe supporter by default.

Nah not just the stadium, that's just an example of neglect. It's saddling the club with existential debt, having no desire to ever clear it, taking money out of the club endlessly, failing to implement any sort of football structure, hiring the wrong people to oversee football operations and not acting on failures or caring about failures, and totally ignoring all the infrastructure, ignoring facility renovations, etc. Like I said - complete neglect about the club as a whole.

Simply putting effort into doing things correctly would lead to learning from your mistakes, replacing people who aren't succeeding, changing approach, trying to modernize structures. It takes quite a bit of time for an owner to leave a true impact imo, and they've had almost 20 years.

An owner who comes in and just tried to follow modern trends and keeps the money within the club, hires the right people (or keeps trying to), and reinvests the money throughout the whole club, not just players, is really not a lot to ask for. It's what the majority of owners would do. Investing their own money isn't even some massive requirement, even though most owners do that. The Glazers never did any. Any United spending has been purely our own earning, but it's been under the control of the wrong people with way too complicated of a process where it's been just wasted. It is unlikely that Ratcliffe would be as bad, because it is genuinely hard to just fail on almost every single level to the extent that they glazers have.

 

[romufc]

It is simply different the scale of what they are all doing. I fundamentally disagree with a state owning a club regardless of human rights issues, but while we are there, it's not great if you then become the sports washing tool of a state.

As for Newcastle, well they've been pumping them with cash, they didn't improve by magic. They're at like a 99% wages to turnover ratio which is wild. I'm not stereotyping, it is very clear that it is the state who owns them.

Where did a company get all their money? From doing smart business?

Its quite funny seeing these arguments.

In 19/20 Villa had a 97& wages to turnover and in 2019 it was 175% but because its American ownership its fine.

Newcastle have actually spent well and got a coach, which is why they have improved.

 

[Rozay]

Nah not just the stadium, that's just an example of neglect. It's saddling the club with existential debt, having no desire to ever clear it, taking money out of the club endlessly, failing to implement any sort of football structure, hiring the wrong people to oversee football operations and not acting on failures or caring about failures, and totally ignoring all the infrastructure, ignoring facility renovations, etc. Like I said - complete neglect about the club as a whole.

Simply putting effort into doing things correctly would lead to learning from your mistakes, replacing people who aren't succeeding, changing approach, trying to modernize structures. It takes quite a bit of time for an owner to leave a true impact imo, and they've had almost 20 years.

An owner who comes in and just tried to follow modern trends and keeps the money within the club, hires the right people (or keeps trying to), and reinvests the money throughout the whole club, not just players, is really not a lot to ask for. It's what the majority of owners would do. Investing their own money isn't even some massive requirement, even though most owners do that. The Glazers never did any. Any United spending has been purely our own earning, but it's been under the control of the wrong people with way too complicated of a process where it's been just wasted. It is unlikely that Ratcliffe would be as bad, because it is genuinely hard to just fail on almost every single level to the extent that they glazers have.

Well stadium aside, we have:

Debt - well the debt is now there, and we have one bidder clearly stating he will clear it and the other simply not saying that. And besides, almost all non-state backed clubs are loaded with debt to my knowledge.

Structure/Personnel - forgive me as I’ve been on record for quite a while in seeing that as one of football’s latest buzzwords but even then, half of the Glazer’s tenure has been hugely successful so I think it’s fair to say they would have seen no immediate need to overhaul the structure. Other clubs were doing so to try and catch us. We were on top.

In terms of personnel, again, they had successful personnel at first, and quite simply, their replacements have not yielded results. I wouldn’t say they haven’t made changes, they changed managers who failed, but Woodward got too long in the eyes of many. They have made both structural and personnel changes in the last 18 months that most seem to be pleased with.

Again, I cannot see any argument that Ratcliffe is better placed to hire brilliant and effective football people, at least not more so than Sheikh Jassim. So while I appreciate the yearn and optimism of something new, I cannot see how this lends any particular credibility to Jim’s bid over the other.

Infrastructure - again, I think there has been a clear pitch by one bidder of an intention to invest heavily in this, and not so much from the other.

In summary, the hope or expectation of Jim Ratcliffe doing a better job than the Glazers seems to be based solely on the fact that him being a different person offers him the opportunity to do so. Beyond that, no citing of either a track record or promise of anything in particular. Just ‘newness’. I think we can assume that the Glazers hoped and expected that their managerial, executive and player recruitment would have been more successful than it has been in the last decade - but we have seen that offers no guarantee. How does Jim differ here?

Again, anyone backing Ratcliffe’s bid is, to me, more anti-Qatar than pro-Ratcliffe. His pitch has so far inspired nothing at all. His two biggest positives are being not Glazer and not Arab. That may be enough for many to want him by default, and anyone is entitled to feel like that. But that is what it is.

This thread asks the question of who is preferred between Ratcliffe and Jassim. Not Ratcliffe and Glazer. I struggle to see a strong case for Ratcliffe other than a strong case against Jassim. If it is Ratcliffe over Jassim for you, I can only assume it would also be Glazers over Jassim.

 

[lsd]

I don't think City and PSG are above board but also, there has been nothing done by Newcastle yet, that is having questionable, you are stereotyping they are not above board because of ME owners. In the future they might not be but, currently, you cannot point to anything that says its not.

Ethical issues are a concern from not just Qatar, every rich owner, you simply chose to ignore all of the INEOS ones, plus where are INEOS getting this money? JP Morgan and others, do you think they are all above board?

Why don't you take your own advice and own that neither owner is 100% above board.

INEOS has a turnover of over 60 billion annually. We don't have to question where they are getting the money from

 

[romufc]

INEOS has a turnover of over 60 billion annually. We don't have to question where they are getting the money from

Thats nice, because INEOS are a UK based company we shouldn't question where the money comes from but because people dont like ME states, the money should be questioned? Do you not see the hypocrisy in that?

 

[Rood]

Oh right. I thought his dad being one of the richest men in the world was a selling point here. It’s a pointless conversation, you’re unwilling to accept anything that isn’t black and white, and very purposely, there is next to no information in black and white about the source of the funding.

The idea of him just going around and getting contacts to invest in his foundation is interesting. I suggest if this was an American, people would be up in arms.

I think my last paragraph is quite clear, away from the morals. Of course I want what’s best for United, but I don’t think an owner should be able to just come in and invest a billion to buy a new stadium from nowhere. It’s literally no different to an owner coming in and investing a billion in transfers, expect UEFA decided one is wrong and one is right.

Why would they? Its pretty standard business practice for HNWI to get a few contacts together to form a consortium. Todd Boehly at Chelsea is just the lead guy for a consortium of investors.

On the stadium thing, I dont agree at all - its very different but we can agree to disagree on that one.

 

[Member 125352]

Well I hope it is not going to be Qatar. It would be very hypocritical considering the flack City gets

 

[Lecland07]

Thats nice, because INEOS are a UK based company we shouldn't question where the money comes from but because people dont like ME states, the money should be questioned? Do you not see the hypocrisy in that?

Well, we don't need to question where the money is coming from with Ineos because we know how they generate that money.

Jassim, we actually have no idea where the money is being sourced. He is an unknown quantity and does not have the financial strength to purchase Manutd himself. The other members of team Qatar (or whatever they are called) are not even known, so there are massive question marks over where the money is actually being drawn from.

With Ineos it is all on show; with Jassim it is all rather secretive.

 

[bosnian_red]

Well stadium aside, we have:

Debt - well the debt is now there, and we have one bidder clearly stating he will clear it and the other simply not saying that. And besides, almost all non-state backed clubs are loaded with debt to my knowledge.

Structure/Personnel - forgive me as I’ve been on record for quite a while in seeing that as one of football’s latest buzzwords but even then, half of the Glazer’s tenure has been hugely successful so I think it’s fair to say they would have seen no immediate need to overhaul the structure. Other clubs were doing so to try and catch us. We were on top.

In terms of personnel, again, they had successful personnel at first, and quite simply, their replacements have not yielded results. I wouldn’t say they haven’t made changes, they changed managers who failed, but Woodward got too long in the eyes of many. They have made both structural and personnel changes in the last 18 months that most seem to be pleased with.

Again, I cannot see any argument that Ratcliffe is better placed to hire brilliant and effective football people, at least not more so than Sheikh Jassim. So while I appreciate the yearn and optimism of something new, I cannot see how this lends any particular credibility to Jim’s bid over the other.

Infrastructure - again, I think there has been a clear pitch by one bidder of an intention to invest heavily in this, and not so much from the other.

In summary, the hope or expectation of Jim Ratcliffe doing a better job than the Glazers seems to be based solely on the fact that him being a different person offers him the opportunity to do so. Beyond that, no citing of either a track record or promise of anything in particular. Just ‘newness’. I think we can assume that the Glazers hoped and expected that their managerial, executive and player recruitment would have been more successful than it has been in the last decade - but we have seen that offers no guarantee. How does Jim differ here?

Again, anyone backing Ratcliffe’s bid is, to me, more anti-Qatar than pro-Ratcliffe. His pitch has so far inspired nothing at all. His two biggest positives are being not Glazer and not Arab. That may be enough for many to want him by default, and anyone is entitled to feel like that. But that is what it is.

This thread asks the question of who is preferred between Ratcliffe and Jassim. Not Ratcliffe and Glazer. I struggle to see a strong case for Ratcliffe other than a strong case against Jassim. If it is Ratcliffe over Jassim for you, I can only assume it would also be Glazers over Jassim.

You aren't wrong on most of that. Aside from the debt, let's not ignore the scale of the debt and the reason of the debt. Debt taken out to invest in the club is normal. Debt taken out to build a stadium, invest in infrastructure, etc is all normal. Significant debt taken out (or selling future assets) to fund player signings is just dumb, the Barca route. Debt taken out to line the pockets of the owners is just shit. There's a huge difference there, very obviously.

We don't know Ratcliffes plans. We don't know how he'll do. That's all true. I also think pointless promises to win fans over are just that - pointless. There is a long history of owners failing to follow through on promises. But it's fair to assume they would, because they wouldn't be using the club to run it smartly, or to make money, or anything normal... They'd be using it to win fans over as a sports washing tool, which as you say, I fundamentally disagree with and don't want an owner like that and think that is worse than the Glazers in the overall picture.

Also - as I said. It takes a while for an owner to have a real impact. It's not seen instantly unless they're a sugar daddy. The Glazers were obviously shit from the start, and weren't even allowing us to spend our own money properly. They took over a club at the top of the world with state of the art everything, and oversaw the collapse of it all. Now they can be forgiven (IMO) for underestimating Sir Alex's impact, but they should have acted quickly (well, at all would've been nice) to improve matters when we kept making mistake after mistake, and wasting the clubs money. But they straight up neglected the club even while Sir Alex was here and restricted spending on the team (let's not forget the famous summer of 09, losing Ronaldo and Tevez and bringing in Valencia, Owen and Obertan despite being the dominant team in the world over the previous 3 years) while we all know now how they ignored all the facilities. And in terms of personnel, it's that they refused to set up a modern football structure after 10 years of failure post Sir Alex, while all around, all clubs have long since surpassed us with very obviously better functioning structures. It's not just "oh Woodward stayed a bit too long". He oversaw a decade of failure! Nobody gets that many chances in charge of an organization the size of United.

Yes - the biggest benefit of Ratcliffe is that he is not the Glazers and he is not a state funded bid. Anybody who pretends to have a clue how a new random billionaire owner will run the club is talking out of their ass. We can only assume they'll be "average", do "normal" things. And normal, average things would be a lot better than what we've had, as we've had very bad owners who neglected all aspects of the club, and to top it off just took money out of the club without putting anything in it. Its been a death by 1000 cuts with the Glazers as owners.

 

[Rozay]

Are there any pro-Ratcliffe arguments as opposed to just anti-Jassim ones?

The second INEOS win Jassim is no longer relevant and you will then need to start looking at whatever the feck it is that INEOS intend to do with us, rather than how terrible it would be to be owned by Jassim. I’d like to hear more of this argument/discussion - rather than a 10 reasons I hate you letter for anything Qatari.

 

[bosnian_red]

Its quite funny seeing these arguments.

In 19/20 Villa had a 97& wages to turnover and in 2019 it was 175% but because its American ownership its fine.

Newcastle have actually spent well and got a coach, which is why they have improved.

Yes Newcastle have spent well (my other side point is that just because Saudi have done a good job with Newcastle and Abu Dhabi has with City, doesn't mean that Qatar would with United. It's not a guarantee like some think, especially as Qatari ownership around Europe hasn't proven to actually be very good). They also have a bottomless pit of money to ensure they don't have to worry a whole lot about getting things wrong, which really destroys competition. I mean Newcastle did spend big money on Anthony Gordon FFS, it just gets swept aside because it's irrelevant cash relative to how much they can spend. City got plenty of things wrong over the years. They just had a bottomless pit which meant they could keep spending 50m on full backs. They have a bottomless pit to spend on the club and around the club. I disagree with having that style owner for my club, I don't think we need it. I also disagree with a state/country owning a club, because obviously the motives are very different. I especially disagree with that state or country being one with archaic principles, with a long record of human rights violations (which is a pretty big deal, let's not understate that?).

 

[Rozay]

You aren't wrong on most of that. Aside from the debt, let's not ignore the scale of the debt and the reason of the debt. Debt taken out to invest in the club is normal. Debt taken out to build a stadium, invest in infrastructure, etc is all normal. Significant debt taken out (or selling future assets) to fund player signings is just dumb, the Barca route. Debt taken out to line the pockets of the owners is just shit. There's a huge difference there, very obviously.

We don't know Ratcliffes plans. We don't know how he'll do. That's all true. I also think pointless promises to win fans over are just that - pointless. There is a long history of owners failing to follow through on promises. But it's fair to assume they would, because they wouldn't be using the club to run it smartly, or to make money, or anything normal... They'd be using it to win fans over as a sports washing tool, which as you say, I fundamentally disagree with and don't want an owner like that and think that is worse than the Glazers in the overall picture.

Also - as I said. It takes a while for an owner to have a real impact. It's not seen instantly unless they're a sugar daddy. The Glazers were obviously shit from the start, and weren't even allowing us to spend our own money properly. They took over a club at the top of the world with state of the art everything, and oversaw the collapse of it all. Now they can be forgiven (IMO) for underestimating Sir Alex's impact, but they should have acted quickly (well, at all would've been nice) to improve matters when we kept making mistake after mistake, and wasting the clubs money. But they straight up neglected the club even while Sir Alex was here and restricted spending on the team (let's not forget the famous summer of 09, losing Ronaldo and Tevez and bringing in Valencia, Owen and Obertan despite being the dominant team in the world over the previous 3 years) while we all know now how they ignored all the facilities. And in terms of personnel, it's that they refused to set up a modern football structure after 10 years of failure post Sir Alex, while all around, all clubs have long since surpassed us with very obviously better functioning structures. It's not just "oh Woodward stayed a bit too long". He oversaw a decade of failure! Nobody gets that many chances in charge of an organization the size of United.

Yes - the biggest benefit of Ratcliffe is that he is not the Glazers and he is not a state funded bid. Anybody who pretends to have a clue how a new random billionaire owner will run the club is talking out of their ass. We can only assume they'll be "average", do "normal" things. And normal, average things would be a lot better than what we've had, as we've had very bad owners who neglected all aspects of the club, and to top it off just took money out of the club without putting anything in it. Its been a death by 1000 cuts with the Glazers as owners.

That’s a fair response, or at least an honest one. I’m personally not convinced it answers my initial question/concern of how Ratcliffe is any or much different from the Glazers, except that the Glazer regime has already demonstrated failure and Ratcliffe’s hasn’t. Everything else is all very possible to repeat itself.

And I think it’s just a little convenient due to the fact that he’s up against Jassim to now take a position that pledges and promises don’t matter. Of course they do, certainly in a conversation like this where fans are asked to choose which bid they support. Ratcliffe’s sounds incredibly mediocre. I’m not anti-Ratcliffe at all, but he has hardly romanced me. There is zero there to make me go to sleep at night yearning for a better day under his stewardship. He’s not even tried on that front, and the noises that have been made only suggest frugality to me. Why on earth would that excite anybody, in its own right? He’s only attractive because his position in this fight is being ‘the last woman on Earth’ to some.

 

[bosnian_red]

Are there any pro-Ratcliffe arguments as opposed to just anti-Jassim ones?

The second INEOS win Jassim is no longer relevant and you will then need to start looking at whatever the feck it is that INEOS intend to do with us, rather than how terrible it would be to be owned by Jassim. I’d like to hear more of this argument/discussion - rather than a 10 reasons I hate you letter for anything Qatari.

As I said above - nobody knows how any random billionaire will run a football club. There's no use to having any "pro person A" views because none of us know anything about them and we aren't involved in any of the planning. So yes, you'll only get anti certain ownership for whatever reason they have.

 

[Rozay]

As I said above - nobody knows how any random billionaire will run a football club. There's no use to having any "pro person A" views because none of us know anything about them and we aren't involved in any of the planning. So yes, you'll only get anti certain ownership for whatever reason they have.

Well that isn’t true, there are clear pro-Jassim/F92 views simply based on nothing more than the pledges he has made. These are tangible things that fans can decide they would like at their club. Ratcliffe has had just as much opportunity to build support for his own bid, and the best he has come up with is ‘putting the Manchester back in Manchester United’. It’s not even that he has said nothing. He has said some things, they have just been largely uninspiring.

Once he defeats Jassim does the battle for a new owner to defeat him then begin?

 

[bosnian_red]

That’s a fair response, or at least an honest one. I’m personally not convinced it answers my initial question/concern of how Ratcliffe is any or much different from the Glazers, except that the Glazer regime has already demonstrated failure and Ratcliffe’s hasn’t.

And I think it’s just a little convenient due to the fact that he’s up against Jassim to now take a position that pledges and promises don’t matter. Of course they do, certainly in a conversation like this where fans are asked to choose which bid they support. Ratcliffe’s sounds incredibly mediocre. I’m not anti-Ratcliffe at all, but he has hardly romanced me. There is zero there to make me go to sleep at night yearning for a better day under his stewardship. He’s not even tried on that front, and the noises that have been made only suggest frugality to me. Why on earth would that excite anybody, in its own right? He’s only attractive because he’s position in this fight is being ‘the last woman on Earth’ to some.

I guess it's a fundamental opposition to one owner and nothing but a random hope/assumption that the new owner will at least be some sort of positive change (which I do expect, given just how incompetent the current owner is). I don't go into it assuming that someone will be horrible at their job, I go assuming they'll be average until proven otherwise.

In terms of pledges and promises, I dunno. I don't follow most takeovers normally, so can't say what is normal when buying from an owner who doesn't care. I don't see the relevance in owners being public about much, because thats irrelevant for the transaction, the fans have 0 say in the matter, so somebody being quiet about it to me doesn't mean they plan on doing nothing.

And generally, I guess I went into this just wanting some change and with the knowledge that there is a very limited pool for who can afford us. I half expected it to be state funded ownership, because it's hard to see anybody else affording us. So not having state ownership (at least yet) is a win for me. Beyond that, who knows. We'll see how it goes.

 

[Rozay]

I guess it's a fundamental opposition to one owner and nothing but a random hope/assumption that the new owner will at least be some sort of positive change (which I do expect, given just how incompetent the current owner is). I don't go into it assuming that someone will be horrible at their job, I go assuming they'll be average until proven otherwise.

In terms of pledges and promises, I dunno. I don't follow most takeovers normally, so can't say what is normal when buying from an owner who doesn't care. I don't see the relevance in owners being public about much, because thats irrelevant for the transaction, the fans have 0 say in the matter, so somebody being quiet about it to me doesn't mean they plan on doing nothing.

And generally, I guess I went into this just wanting some change and with the knowledge that there is a very limited pool for who can afford us. I half expected it to be state funded ownership, because it's hard to see anybody else affording us. So not having state ownership (at least yet) is a win for me. Beyond that, who knows. We'll see how it goes.

Very honest, and from what I’ve heard from Jim throughout this process - I can’t imagine that anyone who wants him could possibly feel any differently to you. He has hardly enchanted United fans so anyone who wants him must not really want him, they just really don’t want Jassim.

 

[RORY65]

Very honest, and from what I’ve heard from Jim throughout this process - I can’t imagine that anyone who wants him could possibly feel any differently to you. He has hardly enchanted United fans so anyone who wants him must not really want him, they just really don’t want Jassim.

My feeling is that nobody should be supportive or happy with either option, it's why I've found the strong support for Jassim by people on here and the accounts with Qatar flags on social media to be offputting. The only reason I've leaned towards Ratcliffe, who I think is a piece of shit, and INEOS is because the 2 options with the Qatari offer are that it's a state bid, which to me is my admittedly arbitrary line in the sand, or it genuinely is a private bid in which case we have no idea about the guy or where the funding is coming from (I know his dad is extremely wealthy but he's not officially the bidder and has said he doesn't like the bid and that's ignoring HBJ's links to terrorism) which makes it difficult to root for that bid in anyway. If the 92 Foundation bid was genuinely a private bid but there was greater transparency about the source of the funds then I would feel about it.

I think either party would likely be better as owners than the Glazer's although INEOS haven't shown themselves to be particularly competent and I don't imagine them taking over will be the dramatic change that we've seen other clubs experience after takeovers but I don't think anyone should be supporting or particularly positive about whichever billionaire arsehole buys the club.

 

[roonster09]

Very honest, and from what I’ve heard from Jim throughout this process - I can’t imagine that anyone who wants him could possibly feel any differently to you. He has hardly enchanted United fans so anyone who wants him must not really want him, they just really don’t want Jassim.

We are hardly spoiled with choices isn't it. It's either SJR, SJ or Glazers.

It's been 17-18 years under Glazers and we all know how shit they are. Jassim for all the talk didn't make a bid that should blow away potential opponent. I was under the impression that it was a non-contest but looks like they are not loaded. On top of that, I felt his 1 billion pledge is just a PR guff and to win the fans. I mean how does that help him to win his bid when Glazers don't care about the club once they sell it off. It made sense for Chelsea as it was a forced take over and potential owner should show the roadmap of what they are planning and how much they are investing. It looked more like driven by Govt and sold to the people with best interests of the club.

This is different, Glazers are owners and this is the sale that is completely handled by them. So what happens to the club once they sell it off doesn't bother them. So all the reports about 1 billion investment to upgrade facilities is to appease fans, does nothing to win the bid.

We are left with only one option, SJR. His record is also average and sketchy but that's how it is. Some clubs win jackpot, some don't.

 

[Member 117152]

its also deluded to think the club can service a 5bn debt

truth is nobody knows what they’ll do but id love someone to show me how the numbers work with Ineos putting the debt repayments on the club..because the math just doesn’t add up

Jim said he he wants to make a legacy. He made around 10 billion in just 5 years extra just for himself. Imagine how much his company made in that time extra.

Spending half that to get United is basically like paying a mortgage off in 2 years for an average person. It’s not exactly out of the question he might just want a new challenge so happy to pay it.

The staggered ownership idea is probably a way he can make another 5bn in the next couple of years and it’s barely dented his finances. He still has a potential growing asset and cash in the bank regardless.

 

[Rozay]

We are hardly spoiled with choices isn't it. It's either SJR, SJ or Glazers.

It's been 17-18 years under Glazers and we all know how shit they are. Jassim for all the talk didn't make a bid that should blow away potential opponent. I was under the impression that it was a non-contest but looks like they are not loaded. On top of that, I felt his 1 billion pledge is just a PR guff and to win the fans. I mean how does that help him to win his bid when Glazers don't care about the club once they sell it off. It made sense for Chelsea as it was a forced take over and potential owner should show the roadmap of what they are planning and how much they are investing. It looked more like driven by Govt and sold to the people with best interests of the club.

This is different, Glazers are owners and this is the sale that is completely handled by them. So what happens to the club once they sell it off doesn't bother them. So all the reports about 1 billion investment to upgrade facilities is to appease fans, does nothing to win the bid.

We are left with only one option, SJR. His record is also average and sketchy but that's how it is. Some clubs win jackpot, some don't.

True as all/some of this may be - I don’t think it answers the simple question of this thread in ‘who do you want to takeover?’.

Saying ‘Jim’s record is average and sketchy but that’s how it is, some clubs win jackpot and others don’t’ is hardly inspirational. And you may say that Jassim’s 1b pledge is meaningless to the Glazers, bit this conversation doesn’t ask who the Glazers want. You admitted the pledge is PR guff for the fans so, in a question to the fans - who do you want?

As for the mere numbers, nobody knows what they are anyway. Your comments are perhaps a little misleading as this is clearly not a simple case of Jim putting a higher bid on the table than Jassim - it seems more a case of Jim wanting to keep the Glazers on board and Jassim not.

 

[roonster09]

True as all/some of this may be - I don’t think it answers the simple question of this thread in ‘who do you want to takeover?’.

Saying ‘Jim’s record is average and sketchy but that’s how it is, some clubs win jackpot and others don’t’ is hardly inspirational. And you may say that Jassim’s 1b pledge is meaningless to the Glazers, bit this conversation doesn’t ask who the Glazers want. You admitted the pledge is PR guff for the fans so, in a question to the fans - who do you want?

As for the mere numbers, nobody knows what they are anyway. Your comments are perhaps a little misleading as this is clearly not a simple case of Jim putting a higher bid on the table than Jassim - it seems more a case of Jim wanting to keep the Glazers on board and Jassim not.

For me I don't really care who the owners are. Just want them to do the right job. This is like the usual "Who is more shit" comparison we had on caf.

Also SJR is not keeping Glazers, from what I read it's a forced exit in 3 years.

Btw I haven't read previous posts, which owner do you want?

 

[Dan_F]

its also deluded to think the club can service a 5bn debt

truth is nobody knows what they’ll do but id love someone to show me how the numbers work with Ineos putting the debt repayments on the club..because the math just doesn’t add up

I’m not even sure what this discussion is about, this isn’t a leveraged buy out where the club is going to be saddled with £5 billion debt. It’s been made clear the debt will be with Ineos.

 

[mu4c_20le]

its also deluded to think the club can service a 5bn debt

truth is nobody knows what they’ll do but id love someone to show me how the numbers work with Ineos putting the debt repayments on the club..because the math just doesn’t add up

It's delusional to assume Ineos can't handle a debt that size. Just food for thought.

 

[Dan_F]

Why would they? Its pretty standard business practice for HNWI to get a few contacts together to form a consortium. Todd Boehly at Chelsea is just the lead guy for a consortium of investors.

On the stadium thing, I dont agree at all - its very different but we can agree to disagree on that one.

But now you’re equating the Qatar bid to being no different to a US investment company, which is the thing that everyone seemly wants to avoid. Can’t you see how you’re going round in circles and just moving the goalposts every time you’re challenged on Qatar.

We know where the ninety-two foundation can get draw their funding from, if you want to believe he’s getting it from investors rather than the state, I’ll leave you to it. I need to do some work

 

[JustinC00]

Sheikh Jassim and his dad alone do not have the money to be doing what people want to believe

Neither does Brexit Jim. Which is why he is taking loans from JP Morgan and Goldman Sachs and putting that debt on Ineos. Which the club will eventually be used to pay.

Also Brexit Jim buying the club could mean a lengthy court battle

One hedge fund with a large stake in the club is making legal preparations in case Ratcliffe launches an offer that involves only buying the Glazers’ super-voting Class B shares, a person familiar with the matter told Breakingviews. Such an approach would effectively exclude minority investors from the takeover. A separate person familiar with the situation told Breakingviews that hedge funds were already studying past precedents under Cayman Islands law, where Man Utd is incorporated, to figure out how they might build a case against any manoeuvres by the Glazers or Ratcliffe.

https://www.breakingviews.com/considered-view/man-united-takeover-drama-may-end-up-in-court/

 

[romufc]

Yes Newcastle have spent well (my other side point is that just because Saudi have done a good job with Newcastle and Abu Dhabi has with City, doesn't mean that Qatar would with United. It's not a guarantee like some think, especially as Qatari ownership around Europe hasn't proven to actually be very good). They also have a bottomless pit of money to ensure they don't have to worry a whole lot about getting things wrong, which really destroys competition. I mean Newcastle did spend big money on Anthony Gordon FFS, it just gets swept aside because it's irrelevant cash relative to how much they can spend. City got plenty of things wrong over the years. They just had a bottomless pit which meant they could keep spending 50m on full backs. They have a bottomless pit to spend on the club and around the club. I disagree with having that style owner for my club, I don't think we need it. I also disagree with a state/country owning a club, because obviously the motives are very different. I especially disagree with that state or country being one with archaic principles, with a long record of human rights violations (which is a pretty big deal, let's not understate that?).

I totally understand having the opinion that you dont want a state controlling football clubs, I totally get that. However; picking turnover to wages ratios saying, it happens because of state ownership is where I have an issue with, we have seen alot of clubs who have that, Villa for one.

You go on about spending big, how many consecutive years have we bought a CB? Licha, Varane, none, Maguire, Lindelof, Bailly? We spend big on players too.. Donny, Sancho, Antony, Lukaku, Fred.

The issue with state owned I have is how they will operate in terms of the books. Obviously in those countries, it works differently, brown envelope talks more.

 

[Rozay]

For me I don't really care who the owners are. Just want them to do the right job. This is like the usual "Who is more shit" comparison we had on caf.

Also SJR is not keeping Glazers, from what I read it's a forced exit in 3 years.

Btw I haven't read previous posts, which owner do you want?

I’m philosophically indifferent to either owner, however, I want Jassim simply because he has given me something to at least imagine, and get excited about. Ratcliffe has made it possible for only those with strong disposition against state ownership to support his bid. There’s nothing else of interest to it from what we have heard. All it has going for it is that it is not a Glazer bid nor a state bid. For someone like myself who is indifferent regarding state ownership, that isn’t enough.

By the sound of things, Ratcliffe is playing directly on the desires of the Glazers to stay. You may say that it guarantees them going in 3 years, well Jassim isn’t giving them 3 years so that doesn’t change the fact. With regards to the fans though, he has made little to no effort at all to enchant us as to what a brighter tomorrow might look like, so how could I possibly want him to win if not only for the fact that I don’t want state owners? He’s made no effort to court us at all, so he cannot be surprised if we are not all begging for him. That is before you consider his, as you put it, average and sketchy track record. He is simply hard to vigorously pine for unless you hate Qatar. He’s given fans like myself absolutely nothing to believe in. Jassim has at least given us the promise of a new stadium, considerable squad and community investment and there’s also the fact that his ownership profile comes with similar examples of success, so fans can begin to imagine what tomorrow could look like.

Basically, unless you hate state ownership, Jassim’s bid should be preferred by default as there is nothing on the other side, with the real threat of continuity of what you hate so much. If you do hate state ownership then Jim by default as it isn’t state ownership. That said, Jim could have made it more competitive for fans like myself if he simply came with a bit more.

 

[lsd]

Neither does Brexit Jim. Which is why he is taking loans from JP Morgan and Goldman Sachs and putting that debt on Ineos. Which the club will eventually be used to pay.

Also Brexit Jim buying the club could mean a lengthy court battle




https://www.breakingviews.com/considered-view/man-united-takeover-drama-may-end-up-in-court/

He can buy and sell shiekh Jassim and his dad for breakfast.

No idea where your getting information from but seriously do same proper research

 

[Rood]

But now you’re equating the Qatar bid to being no different to a US investment company, which is the thing that everyone seemly wants to avoid. Can’t you see how you’re going round in circles and just moving the goalposts every time you’re challenged on Qatar.

We know where the ninety-two foundation can get draw their funding from, if you want to believe he’s getting it from investors rather than the state, I’ll leave you to it. I need to do some work

I haven't moved any goalposts, I've been saying exactly the same thing on here for months already

Once you do some research and understand the high profile roles Sheikh Jassim has had in financial institutions plus look at HBJ's history of investments then it's absolutely clear that they could do this deal privately

However I'm still open to the possibility of state involvement, it's actually you and those who are convinced it's a state deal who are closed minded to the possibilities despite the lack of evidence.

 

[roonster09]

I’m philosophically indifferent to either owner, however, I want Jassim simply because he has given me something to at least imagine, and get excited about. Ratcliffe has made it possible for only those with strong disposition against state ownership to support his bid. There’s nothing else of interest to it from what we have heard. All it has going for it is that it is not a Glazer bid nor a state bid. For someone like myself who is indifferent regarding state ownership, that isn’t enough.

By the sound of things, Ratcliffe is playing directly on the desires of the Glazers to stay. You may say that it guarantees them going in 3 years, well Jassim isn’t giving them 3 years so that doesn’t change the fact. With regards to the fans though, he has made little to no effort at all to enchant us as to what a brighter tomorrow might look like, so how could I possibly want him to win if not only for the fact that I don’t want state owners? He’s made no effort to court us at all, so he cannot be surprised if we are not all begging for him. That is before you consider his, as you put it, average and sketchy track record. He is simply hard to vigorously pine for unless you hate Qatar. He’s given fans like myself absolutely nothing to believe in. Jassim has at least given us the promise of a new stadium, considerable squad and community investment and there’s also the fact that his ownership profile comes with similar examples of success, so fans can begin to imagine what tomorrow could look like.

Basically, unless you hate state ownership, Jassim’s bid should be preferred by default as there is nothing on the other side, with the real threat of continuity of what you hate so much. If you do hate state ownership then Jim by default as it isn’t state ownership. That said, Jim could have made it more competitive for fans like myself if he simply came with a bit more.

Fair enough.

 

[Rood]

He can buy and sell shiekh Jassim and his dad for breakfast.

No idea where your getting information from but seriously do same proper research

It's actually you who needs to do the research - yes Jim can absolutely afford this deal but so can Jassim

HBJ is one of the richest men on the planet but unlike Jim his wealth is mostly private

 

[JustinC00]

He can buy and sell shiekh Jassim and his dad for breakfast.

No idea where your getting information from but seriously do same proper research

It was in his bid proposal that that the debt taken to purchase the club would be on Ineos. If Brexit Jim was fronting it himself why they hell would he need to be getting loans and putting that debt on Ineos? Because he can't afford it. Just like how his other 2 football clubs he owns have been run like absolute shite and he gives no money to. Guy isn't even paying down any of the debt the money sucking Glazers put on us but keep fooling yourself into thinking Brexit Jim is putting a single pound of his or Ineos' money into this. It's all coming from loans through Goldman Sachs and Ed Woodward's former employer and the one that helped the Glazers feck us JP Morgan.

 

[sullydnl]

It was in his bid proposal that that the debt taken to purchase the club would be on Ineos. If Brexit Jim was fronting it himself why they hell would he need to be getting loans and putting that debt on Ineos? Because he can't afford it. Just like how his other 2 football clubs he owns have been run like absolute shite and he gives no money to. Guy isn't even paying down any of the debt the money sucking Glazers put on us but keep fooling yourself into thinking Brexit Jim is putting a single pound of his or Ineos' money into this. It's all coming from loans through Goldman Sachs and Ed Woodward's former employer and the one that helped the Glazers feck us JP Morgan.

The idea someone would in all cases avoid financing if they could afford to purchase something without it is financially illiterate. There are benefits to purchasing via financing even if you theoretically have the resources to purchase assets without it, which is why it is so common for even mega-profitable institutions.