Sir Jim Ratcliffe: I want to buy Manchester United | Will make a bid for the club [Telegraph]

Mmxxii said:
I am ambivalent about the Glazers as I don't see how they're less competent than what we had before. I think we are overestimating how much a change in ownership will have an impact on the lack of success on the pitch. If you strip away the emotional outbursts, there is a clear lack of details as to what exactly a new owner will do different and how the club will finance big investments in facilities and players. What exactly are Jim Ratcliffe's plan other than being unlike those bloody foreigners in Florida! A lot of wishful thinking, not much rigorous thinking.

I feel like narratives have been constructed to explain what is going wrong. In football, as in a lot of difficult endeavors, we are effectively fooled by randomness. There is not much talk today of Liverpool's Fenway Group lack of "strategy and leadership" forgetting that these same chaps, if I am not mistaken, signed Andy Carroll for £35m, Benteke and appointed Rogers and Dalglish as managers before the present success under Klopp. Sometimes success materializes or is elusive without a clear causal relationship with a club's owners.

Without any clear idea of what a new owner has planned for us, I am not sure things will necessarily be better after the Glazers. I am agnostic as I see a lot emotive outbursts but not much by way a clearcut plan for success.
Click to expand...

The point of having new owners is hope!

As a supporter, you hope your team will do well. You hope to have a team that will represent the values of your club. You hope it will perform to its potential.

As a Manchester United supporter, you hope each season that you will compete for the top honours. We're not saying we should win the title each season but at least properly compete and be in the mix. These past 10 years, we have lost all hope.

It is also widely accepted that, in the years that SAF was here, as a club, we were successful in spite of the Glazers, not because of the Glazers.

With having someone like Sir Jim Ratcliffe take over, it gives us all hope again. From the interviews he has done, especially the one with the BBC after his bid for Chelsea, he talks about what he wanted to do for them. So, one would assume, he would have the same plans for United.

Also, in the past, he has spoken about the problems at United, such as the stadium etc, and the "dumb money" spent at United, etc.

Also, under the previous owners, we were a PLC. We were winning the top honours, there was investment in the stadium, the other facilities around the club that were making us cutting edge and at the forefront at the time.

We were earning record revenues, and spending record amounts on reinvesting in all areas of the playing squad, from the first team, down to the youth system. It was proving successful.

Post Glazers, most of the above stopped. The Glazers were no longer investing in the club, as was being done when we were a PLC, was because they couldn't afford to. The club had to service the debt that was bestowed onto it via the Glazers take over.

There is plenty more that could be said about why the fans are 'emotional' and how terrible the Glazers have been, and why Sir Jim Ratcliffe gives us hope. But, I believe the above gives a summary of why the fans want the Glazers out!
 
rpitroda said:
United’s value would take decades before it diminished materially. Businesses are valued based on what is POSSIBLE, not on what they ARE. It’d take a very long time for all the fundamental components to be damaged to such a degree that a turnaround wouldn’t bring them all back.
Click to expand...
Businesses are heavily impacted by their future potential, hence so many tech stocks went through the roof without breaking even. Now that this is obvious, they crashed. With United, it will be the same as we just wont improve under the Glazers and continue to go downhill. On top come all the required investments, will will make things worse
 
Escobar said:
Businesses are heavily impacted by their future potential, hence so many tech stocks went through the roof without breaking even. Now that this is obvious, they crashed. With United, it will be the same as we just wont improve under the Glazers and continue to go downhill. On top come all the required investments, will will make things worse
Click to expand...
I have no idea how you can genuinely try to compare United to tech stocks. They aren’t even remotely comparable.
 
Mmxxii said:
I am ambivalent about the Glazers as I don't see how they're less competent than what we had before. I think we are overestimating how much a change in ownership will have an impact on the lack of success on the pitch. If you strip away the emotional outbursts, there is a clear lack of details as to what exactly a new owner will do different and how the club will finance big investments in facilities and players. What exactly are Jim Ratcliffe's plan other than being unlike those bloody foreigners in Florida! A lot of wishful thinking, not much rigorous thinking.

I feel like narratives have been constructed to explain what is going wrong. In football, as in a lot of difficult endeavors, we are effectively fooled by randomness. There is not much talk today of Liverpool's Fenway Group lack of "strategy and leadership" forgetting that these same chaps, if I am not mistaken, signed Andy Carroll for £35m, Benteke and appointed Rogers and Dalglish as managers before the present success under Klopp. Sometimes success materializes or is elusive without a clear causal relationship with a club's owners.

Without any clear idea of what a new owner has planned for us, I am not sure things will necessarily be better after the Glazers. I am agnostic as I see a lot emotive outbursts but not much by way a clearcut plan for success.
Click to expand...
I don't really agree with you broader point, but this is a very good post
 
For what it’s worth I dreamt that the Glazers sold 8% of the shares for two stakeholders. None of them was Jim Ratcliffe.
 
Adnan said:
I hope we can drive these guys out because it's clear the pressure has got to them and they've made more funds available where we've gone from targeting players on the cheap to trying to sign the high calibre/ high potential players like Casemiro, Antony, Gakpo and possibly Frenkie de Jong.

It's clear that there was a lack of funds available for a long time during the transfer window and now that the pressure is on, the Glazers have made extra funds available to sustain/maintain their most valuable asset, which is something they have to do, or they risk compounding matters further and possibly losing even more value on the club.

The pressure on the Glazers has to be maintained because with them as owners we will face the same issues in future transfer windows. Running a transfer strategy is simple if the football department is backed up by the funds from the owners with out any form of interference/meddling. Michael Edwards wasn't a experienced DoF when he took on the role at Liverpool. But if a DoF has a experienced head of recruitment guiding him on recruitment then things are very simple. And Edwards at Liverpool who was widely ridiculed for years had the experienced Dave Fallows and Barry Hunter along with a team of 6 data scientists guiding him on the football side of the club. We've only recently got the ball rolling as far as having a data scientist on the football side of the club and sacked our equivalent of Dave Fallows and Barry Hunter.
Click to expand...

100%. We are almost guaranteed some barren years in the market, if we achieve the level of spending we are now attempting. Which is only happening now because they've realised the shit we are in. I believe it is to achieve their target of top 4 only, they will have no interest in continuing this path to get us back to the top. This spending is also more than likely leveraging more debt into the club in some way.

I think this is the only time the momentum of supporters anger and protest will build so much that they might leave. If they get away with it this time then they'll be here for more years until they run us back into the ground again and supporters have lived through those barren years of spending. It's like the perfect storm at the moment, for getting rid of them. Buyers circling, consortiums in the market after Chelsea being sold with lots of interest (over 100 interested consortiums apparently), part of their family want out.

I'll be there tonight and will play my part.
 
Wouldn’t surprise me if the Glazers, (Joel in particular), has given the consent to sign players as a diversionary tactic to hold on to the club. He thinks bringing in a few big names will placate the fans and everything will go back to normal.
 
RopersReturn said:
Wouldn’t surprise me if the Glazers, (Joel in particular), has given the consent to sign players as a diversionary tactic to hold on to the club. He thinks bringing in a few big names will placate the fans and everything will go back to normal.
Click to expand...
This is 100% hit. The fans are up in arms, ETH not happy, throw a bit of the club's money at the problem, hope it goes away. Of course this is part of the Glazers PR, that takes all fans for idiots (Sadly seems a good number are)
 
Kill3r7 said:
I agree for the most part. Short of Sir Ratcliffe placing the team in a trust that allows for fans control, it will most definitely be owned by a for profit entity which is to be expected given the price point.
Click to expand...

this makes no sense mate

for profit entities don’t spend 5bn on a sports team to earn 20m divs per year
 
Mmxxii said:
I am ambivalent about the Glazers as I don't see how they're less competent than what we had before. I think we are overestimating how much a change in ownership will have an impact on the lack of success on the pitch. If you strip away the emotional outbursts, there is a clear lack of details as to what exactly a new owner will do different and how the club will finance big investments in facilities and players. What exactly are Jim Ratcliffe's plan other than being unlike those bloody foreigners in Florida! A lot of wishful thinking, not much rigorous thinking.

I feel like narratives have been constructed to explain what is going wrong. In football, as in a lot of difficult endeavors, we are effectively fooled by randomness. There is not much talk today of Liverpool's Fenway Group lack of "strategy and leadership" forgetting that these same chaps, if I am not mistaken, signed Andy Carroll for £35m, Benteke and appointed Rogers and Dalglish as managers before the present success under Klopp. Sometimes success materializes or is elusive without a clear causal relationship with a club's owners.

Without any clear idea of what a new owner has planned for us, I am not sure things will necessarily be better after the Glazers. I am agnostic as I see a lot emotive outbursts but not much by way a clearcut plan for success.
Click to expand...
Tone from the top is very important in any organisation. The tone from the top is that the club is a cash cow to be milked. The Glazers are at the top getting paid. We bring in players and almost seem to go out of our way to make sure that wages are suitably huge, bigger than anywhere else for comparable players. You could say for the ‘stars’ that’s normal but it feeds all the way down to the bench or even younger players coming through.
So, the culture of the club is self enrichment and that spreads all the way through. Having owners who are there to win and who strive for everything to be best in class will make a difference.
 
Withnail said:
I mean they've taken out whatever they put in and more. Why would they refuse £5b?

It's an absolute travesty that these cnuts could walk away with that much money.
Click to expand...
Because their cnuts who actually want £6bn, that’s why ?
 
Whoever buys the club probably isn't going to be the person who leaks to the press they want to
 
Woziak said:
Because their cnuts who actually want £6bn, that’s why ?
Click to expand...

There's zero evidence they've ever been interested in selling beyond "We don't like them so I assumed this means they want to"

The whole exercise is bizarre. Like thinking the person who lives next door will be bound to want to sell up because you don't like them and thinking random rich strangers must somehow be interested in buying because you've assumed they can afford to move in


"That guy who owns the car show room. Why doesn't he buy the house next door? He can definitely afford it"
 
Last edited:
Mmxxii said:
I am ambivalent about the Glazers as I don't see how they're less competent than what we had before. I think we are overestimating how much a change in ownership will have an impact on the lack of success on the pitch. If you strip away the emotional outbursts, there is a clear lack of details as to what exactly a new owner will do different and how the club will finance big investments in facilities and players. What exactly are Jim Ratcliffe's plan other than being unlike those bloody foreigners in Florida! A lot of wishful thinking, not much rigorous thinking.

I feel like narratives have been constructed to explain what is going wrong. In football, as in a lot of difficult endeavors, we are effectively fooled by randomness. There is not much talk today of Liverpool's Fenway Group lack of "strategy and leadership" forgetting that these same chaps, if I am not mistaken, signed Andy Carroll for £35m, Benteke and appointed Rogers and Dalglish as managers before the present success under Klopp. Sometimes success materializes or is elusive without a clear causal relationship with a club's owners.

Without any clear idea of what a new owner has planned for us, I am not sure things will necessarily be better after the Glazers. I am agnostic as I see a lot emotive outbursts but not much by way a clearcut plan for success.
Click to expand...
Club's worth 6bil and scouting network can only think of 33 years old Arnautovic. Let face it, 10 years since Fergie retired and United still doesn't have a structure. We're way behind other top clubs in Europe and grinding down our fame and wealth. If Glazers were owners of Brighton, they would be in the championship right now.

The bottom line is even oppo fans get tired of laughing at United at this point and think there must be changes. The next owner must be a complete idiot to top current ones.
 
stw2022 said:
There's zero evidence they've ever been interested in selling beyond "We don't like them so I assumed this means they want to"

The whole exercise is bizarre. Like thinking the person who lives next door will be bound to want to sell up because you don't like them and thinking random rich strangers must somehow be interested in buying because you've assumed they can afford to move in


"That guy who owns the car show room. Why doesn't he buy the house next door? He can definitely afford it"
Click to expand...
It's not really like that though, is it, given Ratcliffe has actually expressed an interest in buying the club.
 
Last edited:
Mmxxii said:
I am ambivalent about the Glazers as I don't see how they're less competent than what we had before. I think we are overestimating how much a change in ownership will have an impact on the lack of success on the pitch. If you strip away the emotional outbursts, there is a clear lack of details as to what exactly a new owner will do different and how the club will finance big investments in facilities and players. What exactly are Jim Ratcliffe's plan other than being unlike those bloody foreigners in Florida! A lot of wishful thinking, not much rigorous thinking.

I feel like narratives have been constructed to explain what is going wrong. In football, as in a lot of difficult endeavors, we are effectively fooled by randomness. There is not much talk today of Liverpool's Fenway Group lack of "strategy and leadership" forgetting that these same chaps, if I am not mistaken, signed Andy Carroll for £35m, Benteke and appointed Rogers and Dalglish as managers before the present success under Klopp. Sometimes success materializes or is elusive without a clear causal relationship with a club's owners.

Without any clear idea of what a new owner has planned for us, I am not sure things will necessarily be better after the Glazers. I am agnostic as I see a lot emotive outbursts but not much by way a clearcut plan for success.
Click to expand...
Hiring a competent and experienced Director of Football who will make strategic decisions regarding future direction of the club, style of play, recruitment policy, youth policy, and choice of managers.
 
Escobar said:
The principle stays obviously the same
Click to expand...
It doesn’t. At all. Tech companies are materially different by nature, in a materially different industry, with materially different competitive forces. A much better example would be the slow diminishment of a retail company. And even that wouldn’t be a perfect example.
 
Mmxxii said:
I am ambivalent about the Glazers as I don't see how they're less competent than what we had before. I think we are overestimating how much a change in ownership will have an impact on the lack of success on the pitch. If you strip away the emotional outbursts, there is a clear lack of details as to what exactly a new owner will do different and how the club will finance big investments in facilities and players. What exactly are Jim Ratcliffe's plan other than being unlike those bloody foreigners in Florida! A lot of wishful thinking, not much rigorous thinking.

I feel like narratives have been constructed to explain what is going wrong. In football, as in a lot of difficult endeavors, we are effectively fooled by randomness. There is not much talk today of Liverpool's Fenway Group lack of "strategy and leadership" forgetting that these same chaps, if I am not mistaken, signed Andy Carroll for £35m, Benteke and appointed Rogers and Dalglish as managers before the present success under Klopp. Sometimes success materializes or is elusive without a clear causal relationship with a club's owners.

Without any clear idea of what a new owner has planned for us, I am not sure things will necessarily be better after the Glazers. I am agnostic as I see a lot emotive outbursts but not much by way a clearcut plan for success.
Click to expand...

the PL should take a lot more interest in who takes over next, at least..

lets say we do somehow manage to get owners equally or worse than the Glazers, it's really really bad for the PL product.. the PL needs a healthy United to continue selling itself around the world for the exorbitant fees it commands nowadays

the next owner is either gonna be a sports-washing nation state or someone with so much money they can do it for the fun of it.. either way, we're not going to be owned by a for-profit business as the Glazers have drained all the value out already
 
RopersReturn said:
Wouldn’t surprise me if the Glazers, (Joel in particular), has given the consent to sign players as a diversionary tactic to hold on to the club. He thinks bringing in a few big names will placate the fans and everything will go back to normal.
Click to expand...
I don’t see it. If we’re about to spend what I think we’re about to spend that isn’t the work of a business that cares about stock prices and balance sheets. It’s the total antithesis of their model which despite our high spend has until now been very prudently run. Joel and Avram alone may have suddenly decided to pump money in for the short term to try and keep ownership - I don’t see the other 4 going along with it though. Last few weeks has really smacked of “we want to sell, we don’t want to appear like we want to sell, if these protests keep gaining momentum we’ll look desperate to sell so short-term we need wins and signings to dampen them to sell from a position of strength” - remember we still need to invest in a stadium on top of this transfer spend without taking a loan against the club as that would cause riots and there’s no way they have the funds. I’m convinced they’re selling and everything from Ratcliffe briefs to the story about Joel wanting to stay and them valuing it at 10bn is all spin to get the price they all want.
 
Mmxxii said:
I am ambivalent about the Glazers as I don't see how they're less competent than what we had before.
Click to expand...

I think this is the first time I have ever heard a United fan say they are ambivalent about the Glazers.

Yes, new owners could be worse. We get it. However I’m convinced if we stick with the Glazers we will be fighting relegation within 5 years. So we are on the path with them anyway.

I can’t think of one single good thing the Glazers have done for United. If you can please point it out to me ? I’m all ears.

In your earlier post you alluded that people weren’t complaining about them when we were still winning things. Clearly a short memory, fans were protesting at OT on the very day their takeover was confirmed in 2005.

As for “emotional outbursts” we are football fans. By the very definition we are emotional. I’m not sure what else we are supposed to be.

Have a read of this full analysis and then come back and tell us how ambivalent you are….

 
Rooney24 said:
I think this is the first time I have ever heard a United fan say they are ambivalent about the Glazers.

Yes, new owners could be worse. We get it. However I’m convinced if we stick with the Glazers we will be fighting relegation within 5 years. So we are on the path with them anyway.

I can’t think of one single good thing the Glazers have done for United. If you can please point it out to me ? I’m all ears.

In your earlier post you alluded that people weren’t complaining about them when we were still winning things. Clearly a short memory, fans were protesting on at OT on the very day their takeover was confirmed in 2005.

as for “emotional outbursts” we are football fans. By the very definition we are emotional. I’m not sure what else we are supposed to be.

Have a read of this full analysis and then come back and tell us how ambivalent you are….

Click to expand...

It is staggering for any real United fan to be ambivalent. Above all else the Glazers dont care if Utd never win a trophy again. they never did and they dont know. I find it hard to see how another owner would be worse, and with tightened ownership rules a new owner would not be able to add more debt to the pile and would need to put money in. The club is being starved of investment in OT, training facilities etc.

THere were plenty of fans who left the club after the Glazers, and for many resentment was not far from the surface. I think the original poster shows his own superficial views when he seems happy to be bought off by a trophy or two.
 
rpitroda said:
It doesn’t. At all. Tech companies are materially different by nature, in a materially different industry, with materially different competitive forces. A much better example would be the slow diminishment of a retail company. And even that wouldn’t be a perfect example.
Click to expand...
Are you seriously here arguing stock valuations do not take into account future revenue and earnings? Talk about a waste of time.
 
Mmxxii said:
I am ambivalent about the Glazers as I don't see how they're less competent than what we had before. I think we are overestimating how much a change in ownership will have an impact on the lack of success on the pitch. If you strip away the emotional outbursts, there is a clear lack of details as to what exactly a new owner will do different and how the club will finance big investments in facilities and players. What exactly are Jim Ratcliffe's plan other than being unlike those bloody foreigners in Florida! A lot of wishful thinking, not much rigorous thinking.

I feel like narratives have been constructed to explain what is going wrong. In football, as in a lot of difficult endeavors, we are effectively fooled by randomness. There is not much talk today of Liverpool's Fenway Group lack of "strategy and leadership" forgetting that these same chaps, if I am not mistaken, signed Andy Carroll for £35m, Benteke and appointed Rogers and Dalglish as managers before the present success under Klopp. Sometimes success materializes or is elusive without a clear causal relationship with a club's owners.

Without any clear idea of what a new owner has planned for us, I am not sure things will necessarily be better after the Glazers. I am agnostic as I see a lot emotive outbursts but not much by way a clearcut plan for success.
Click to expand...
This is a perfect example of an Oxbridge debate club poster who apparently is getting loads of brownie points from the mods and argues for the sake of arguing while missing the forest for the trees.

Back on planet Earth, the Glazers have run this club/business/asset into the ground private equity style (except for splashing dumb money when fans get on their back every 3 years or so) and we haven't got a snowflake's chance in hell for success if this continues.
 
Rightnr said:
I've read enough and your comparison doesn't make sense. We're not a slowly declining retail shop by any means for one.
Click to expand...
You think a comparison to a tech company is a better comparison? And you obviously haven’t, if that is the point you think I’ve been making. Before you strike your patronising tone, at least do the courtesy of reading a conversation properly before interjecting.
 
rpitroda said:
You think a comparison to a tech company is a better comparison? And you obviously haven’t, if that is the point you think I’ve been making. Before you strike your patronising tone, at least do the courtesy of reading a conversation properly before interjecting.
Click to expand...
So because you (rightfully) have argued United is not a tech stock you think you can argue revenue and growth are not driving factors in stock valuation (fail) and that we are closer to a retail supermarket (even bigger fail).

Maybe if you made a logical point, I might engage but your whole basis of justification is all kinds of wrong.

For one, United is in a growing industry, even if the domestic rights are flat-lining. For two, customer loyalty way above what you'd see in retail supermarkets. For three, we stand to benefit from structural changes in the market i.e. clubs getting more over power over their streaming rights and making huge bank from this (this is what the rats are waiting for).

All in all, you think disproving a small aspect of a comparison allows you to discard the whole point and that's where the failure in logic lies.
 
Is there a coordinated approach to going after the sponsors? Can anyone post details please?
 
Rightnr said:
So because you (rightfully) have argued United is not a tech stock you think you can argue revenue and growth are not driving factors in stock valuation (fail) and that we are closer to a retail supermarket (even bigger fail).

Maybe if you made a logical point, I might engage but your whole basis of justification is all kinds of wrong.

For one, United is in a growing industry, even if the domestic rights are flat-lining. For two, customer loyalty way above what you'd see in retail supermarkets. For three, we stand to benefit from structural changes in the market i.e. clubs getting more over power over their streaming rights and making huge bank from this (this is what the rats are waiting for).

All in all, you think disproving a small aspect of a comparison allows you to discard the whole point and that's where the failure in logic lies.
Click to expand...
Firstly, go back and read again. When did I ever mention that revenue and growth are not relevant factors in stock valuation? Of course they are. But it’s not about what current growth rates are or current revenues are. It’s all about potential, albeit current does have some impact but insignificant.

Secondly, quit the patronising act. It’s immature and doesn’t make you argument any more compelling. The reason you can’t see a logical point is because you haven’t read the discussion properly. If you don’t want to engage with me then please don’t. I don’t care, honestly.

Thirdly, and links to point 1, I don’t know what “whole point” you’re going on about. My point was simply that it would take a significant amount of time before significant, and lasting, damage is done to the underlying valuation of United. For all of the reasons you say, regardless of how badly the Glazers mismanage us, it’ll take something serious before United’s valuation suddenly collapses. Something destructive to the brand as a whole. Something with significantly diminished fan base and global appeal. Something which permanently puts sponsors off. Something which significantly and permanently changes match day and commercial revenue. Something which diminishes TV and such returns. All of these things are feeling stress today, but for it to manifest in a significant decline in valuation, it would take a very long time.

My comparison to a retail shop (not supermarket) was not good - I accept that. But the point I was trying to make was that retail shops have seen a slow decline over time due to changing habits. Signs were there for a long time and those which adjusted, invested, and changed their ways have coped better. Those which didn’t didn’t suddenly just collapse, but it was as a result of a decade or two of poor planning. But yes, bad example other than that. Having said that, it is far more relatable than a tech stock. I don’t need to explain why, I would hope.
 
I always laugh when I see people say "we should be careful because the owners who replace the Glazers could be worse".

We are pound for pound, the worst run football club on the planet. You look at clubs like Brighton or Brentford or Lille or Dortmund and see how the get out more than they put in by being smart and efficient in how they are run - we are the polar opposite of that, with output so much less than the money spent and size and pull of the club.

How does anyone look around at the thousands of better run football clubs, all over the world, and come up with the opinion that we should stick with what we've got because there might be worse out there waiting? If I lived with that sort of pessimism in my heart, I wouldn't be able to leave the house for fear of pianos falling on my head.
 


Apologies if it's already been posted

Athletic link is old but the tweet itself is worth noting as it's another source saying Joel is the main one attached and suggesting the other siblings are open to selling
 
Rightnr said:
This is a perfect example of an Oxbridge debate club poster who apparently is getting loads of brownie points from the mods and argues for the sake of arguing while missing the forest for the trees.

Back on planet Earth, the Glazers have run this club/business/asset into the ground private equity style (except for splashing dumb money when fans get on their back every 3 years or so) and we haven't got a snowflake's chance in hell for success if this continues.
Click to expand...
Do us all a favor and get over yourself. Nothing he said warranted that reply. Your smartest person in the room syndrome is grating.
 
diarm said:
I always laugh when I see people say "we should be careful because the owners who replace the Glazers could be worse".

We are pound for pound, the worst run football club on the planet. You look at clubs like Brighton or Brentford or Lille or Dortmund and see how the get out more than they put in by being smart and efficient in how they are run - we are the polar opposite of that, with output so much less than the money spent and size and pull of the club.

How does anyone look around at the thousands of better run football clubs, all over the world, and come up with the opinion that we should stick with what we've got because there might be worse out there waiting? If I lived with that sort of pessimism in my heart, I wouldn't be able to leave the house for fear of pianos falling on my head.
Click to expand...

Well said. And that's without even addressing the huge amount they have cost us over the years.
 
rpitroda said:
It doesn’t. At all. Tech companies are materially different by nature, in a materially different industry, with materially different competitive forces. A much better example would be the slow diminishment of a retail company. And even that wouldn’t be a perfect example.
Click to expand...
You can take any company who is living on past merits or hype: at one point, the value will decrease drastically. And United is no exception. Or do you believe our reputation, potential or hype increased since 2013?
 
Escobar said:
You can take any company who is living on past merits or hype: at one point, the value will decrease drastically. And United is no exception. Or do you believe our reputation, potential or hype increased since 2013?
Click to expand...
If Ratcliffe bought the club tomorrow the entire feel around the club would be crazy. You’d have a huge fanbase and global media united behind owner and club - with massive growth opportunities. The Glazers are going to try to sell at that price whilst Ratcliffe will try to buy at the growth potential under the glazers.
 
LawCharltonBest said:


Apologies if it's already been posted

Athletic link is old but the tweet itself is worth noting as it's another source saying Joel is the main one attached and suggesting the other siblings are open to selling
Click to expand...


Surely just getting enough of them to sell should put Ratcliffe for example over the edge. If Joel is adamant on holding on, then he'll be a minor shareholder with little power.
 
Mickeza said:
If Ratcliffe bought the club tomorrow the entire feel around the club would be crazy. You’d have a huge fanbase and global media united behind owner and club - with massive growth opportunities. The Glazers are going to try to sell at that price whilst Ratcliffe will try to buy at the growth potential under the glazers.
Click to expand...
That is true but Ratcliffe would have to invest like crazy. Facilities, squad, stadium….
 
You must log in or register to reply here.