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

VP89 said:
Jim White on Talksport at 3:06 says he heard Nassir Al Khalifi they had a 4bn bid received for PSG and the bidder was among the middle East.



They're out in Qatar and claim they heard that from him first hand. If we believe this I don't think there will be any issue selling United for 6bn among more than one interested party.
Click to expand...

There is no metric you an use to value PSG at £4bn. I am calling bullshit.
 
Adnan said:
I was a bit surprised to learn about someone from a Cycling background being made director of sport at OGC Nice. But I do expect Brailsford to accompany Ratcliffe if he does end up buying the club.
Click to expand...

Does that not worry you at all as Brailsford is a Cycling maestro not a Football one
 
Mercedes they only joined from 2021 though, not looking good with RB Verstappen looming now? Wiggins, Froome, Thomas were Team Sky era, weren't they? Is Ineos cycling ownership record actually that good? After the injury to Bernal they have not been able to compete against the likes of Roglic, Pogacar, Vingegaard and potentially Evenepoel soon as well. They have had to settle for lesser prizes while being also-rans at TdF for a few years.
phelans shorts said:
Is that the Mercedes formula one team (a period of dominance not seen since Ferrari with Michael Schumacher)? Or the cycling team (unprecedented levels of dominance)?
Click to expand...
 
Last edited:
croadyman said:
Really hope we are looking into what each interested party plans are for that side of things because getting it right is so important
Click to expand...
As long as the owners are prepared to invest in the club and make us competitive, then I think things will fall into place. And I'm confident that under new ownership, we'll see people being held accountable for their decisions on the football side of the club. Under the Glazers, Woodward was not held accountable for a string of poor decisions, and that creates a very poor culture at the club.

If new owners want to bring their own people in, then that's good and should be supported. But there has to be accountability. And if there's accountability, then the standards will naturally be high.

I'm not sure someone like Ratcliffe will get us on a level playing field with Man City. And I can understand people who don't want state ownership. But if we want United to go toe to toe with Man City, then a level playing field needs to be created. Newcastle will also come strong in the next few years, so I can see why there's many fans who would want a owner who could potentially create that level playing field. If there wasn't a Abu Dhabi or Saudi investment fund in the PL, then I'd be against such a ownership. But it's the governing bodies and the Government who have allowed this to happen.
 
I'm conflicted. State owned clubs are a blight on football imo. But I want the best for United, and that means being in a position to compete against the likes of City and Newcastle.

I'm just wary of the fact that Ratcliffe and INEOS will prioritise profitability over football. I know the argument is we've always operated as a business since the Edwards days and even before that, but it's a whole new different football landscape nowadays.
 
cyberman said:
But we have no idea of who’s better. We know who’s better at being a public face, that’s for sure.
Click to expand...

to me a known face is better than an unknown face. An unknown face/unknown consortium has less accountability - the so far mentioned candidates are either US based or oil-based. I’d take Sir Jim over that in a heartbeat. Not saying he’s great, but I’m not happy to see a new US owner who doesnt care for anything else than money (and doesnt understand the inner workings of the club/sport) or a sportswashing enterprise. Surely a known face in this regard is good.
 
croadyman said:
Really hope we are looking into what each interested party plans are for that side of things because getting it right is so important
Click to expand...

More detail on the selection process would be ideal. I really hope it is not a matter of the owners selling to the highest bidder without consideration of future plans for the footballing side.

If the past 17 years has taught us anything, it’s that the Glazers put profit before all else, every time. I can’t imagine they give two hoots as to what happens to United once they sell.
 
Last edited:
Gandalf said:
Kind of complicated. Initially I thought he was ideal when this was discussed a couple of months back but since then I have looked into him a little deeper and there is a fair amount of negativity from the fans of the clubs he already owns which is a red flag. It is also hard to get to the bottom of whether he is a fan or not due to the heavy Chelsea links, he may have liked United growing up but frankly I can't imagine an actual fan being a season ticket holder of a rival club.

With all of that being said he may actually be an ideal owner if it comes to pass, it is hard to know for sure until a serious offer is made and we get an idea of what his vision for the club is and how he plans to finance both the purchase and any investment. Ineos and Sir Jim are going to approach this as running a business so they will not pump a single penny into the club that they don't get back. This is not necassarily a bad thing, it can be done sustainably and the club can be placed on a solid financial footing where it is self sustaining with its own revenue but the intital cash injection has to come from somewhere and the devil will be in the details.

I will hope for the best if he comes in with a real offer provided it addresses the issue of clearing the debt and investing in much needed improvements to the club infrastructure. I doubt though that a bid will actually materialize. The stunt with the bid for Chelsea in the summer throws his credibility into serious doubt because it was literally a stunt, a bid made outside of the process and after the deadline designed to grab headlines. Sir Jim himself has stated he wants to buy United and has also categorically on the record said he has no interest in buying United in the space of a few months and is now interested again. I think he is a fraud and until proven otherwise I will hope for another bidder.
Click to expand...

A person like Jim thrives of megabusiness and image - his bid for Chelsea could also as well be a signal to the World (and United) that he’s interested in a big sports project. It might be a stunt as you say, but who’s been talking about him owning United ever since? We have. He’s now probably the most popular choice by fans of the suitors we know.

He might have been fully aware that his late bid would be rejected, and that it would give him an image of being a suitor for similar clubs. We can’t pr see say it was made in an unproffesional manner. So I wont judge him based on that. His dealings in other businesses should also weigh in, if you start characterizing him as doubtful as a suitor because of the Chelsea-bid.
 
ROFLUTION said:
to me a known face is better than an unknown face. An unknown face/unknown consortium has less accountability - the so far mentioned candidates are either US based or oil-based. I’d take Sir Jim over that in a heartbeat. Not saying he’s great, but I’m not happy to see a new US owner who doesnt care for anything else than money (and doesnt understand the inner workings of the club/sport) or a sportswashing enterprise. Surely a known face in this regard is good.
Click to expand...
Here we go... The magic sportswashing word. Because If you say it it must be true.

Manchester City group are owned by a golf state. Can you please cite some examples of how they have used thier ownership of City to" sportswash" ?
 
angak said:
Here we go... The magic sportswashing word. Because If you say it it must be true.

Manchester City group are owned by a golf state. Can you please cite some examples of how they have used thier ownership of City to" sportswash" ?
Click to expand...
Because it causes idiots like you to make silly statements like that and ignore what’s happening in the world
 
Adnan said:
As long as the owners are prepared to invest in the club and make us competitive, then I think things will fall into place. And I'm confident that under new ownership, we'll see people being held accountable for their decisions on the football side of the club. Under the Glazers, Woodward was not held accountable for a string of poor decisions, and that creates a very poor culture at the club.

If new owners want to bring their own people in, then that's good and should be supported. But there has to be accountability. And if there's accountability, then the standards will naturally be high.

I'm not sure someone like Ratcliffe will get us on a level playing field with Man City. And I can understand people who don't want state ownership. But if we want United to go toe to toe with Man City, then a level playing field needs to be created. Newcastle will also come strong in the next few years, so I can see why there's many fans who would want a owner who could potentially create that level playing field. If there wasn't a Abu Dhabi or Saudi investment fund in the PL, then I'd be against such a ownership. But it's the governing bodies and the Government who have allowed this to happen.
Click to expand...
I'd rather we were owned by Radcliffe than an Arab state. If challenging for titles in that scenario is not possible, so be it.
 
phelans shorts said:
Because it causes idiots like you to make silly statements like that and ignore what’s happening in the world
Click to expand...

That's exactly why the world ignores what's happening around the world. Your basic lack geopolitics knowledge is outstanding.
 
Last edited:
angak said:
Here we go... The magic sportswashing word. Because If you say it it must be true.

Manchester City group are owned by a golf state. Can you please cite some examples of how they have used thier ownership of City to" sportswash" ?
Click to expand...

Haha what??? Like literally everything they do is sportswashing.
 
angak said:
Here we go... The magic sportswashing word. Because If you say it it must be true.

Manchester City group are owned by a golf state. Can you please cite some examples of how they have used thier ownership of City to" sportswash" ?
Click to expand...

using tiger woods in their pitch was a masterstroke in sportswashing
 
NasiKandar said:
More detail on the selection process would be ideal. I really hope it is not a matter of the owners selling to the highest bidder without consideration of future plans for the footballing side. If the past 17 years has taught us anything it’s that the Glazers put profit before all else, every time. I can’t imagine they give two hoots as to what happens to United once they sell.
Click to expand...

They have a reserve price, if bidder surpass that price then Utd will be sold quickly. If nobody submit a price to their expectation then they will continue to milk the cow. Who would care how the future owner wants to do with it?
 
ROFLUTION said:
A person like Jim thrives of megabusiness and image - his bid for Chelsea could also as well be a signal to the World (and United) that he’s interested in a big sports project. It might be a stunt as you say, but who’s been talking about him owning United ever since? We have. He’s now probably the most popular choice by fans of the suitors we know.

He might have been fully aware that his late bid would be rejected, and that it would give him an image of being a suitor for similar clubs. We can’t pr see say it was made in an unproffesional manner. So I wont judge him based on that. His dealings in other businesses should also weigh in, if you start characterizing him as doubtful as a suitor because of the Chelsea-bid.
Click to expand...
It wasnt a stunt. he has been looking at a top premier league club for years. It was a last minute decision. United has always been his first choice. He is a United fan.
 
angak said:
Explain ?

I know you read it somewhere and believe everything you read in the papers but please elaborate?
Click to expand...

They're owned by the government of U.A.E. Their stadium is called Etihad, their shirt sponsor is Etihad. Almost everything about the club is made to portray Abu Dhabi in a better light. How is that not sportswashing?
 
angak said:
Explain ?

I know you read it somewhere and believe everything you read in the papers but please elaborate?
Click to expand...

Im glad some is asking because I find it ironic. If anything, buying a football team increases the scrutiny and magnifying glass on the state fund.

Nobody in the UK cared when then Qataris were buying up London real estate. But them owning PSG and the world cup has actually brought forward all the “issues” people have about their country/region.
 
Gordon Godot said:
It wasnt a stunt. he has been looking at a top premier league club for years. It was a last minute decision. United has always been his first choice. He is a United fan.
Click to expand...
He’s a Chelsea fan and it was a stunt. It was well over the deadline and was never going to be accepted. You don’t make 4b deals at the last minute. That process was designed to smoke out people like Jim.
Then he tells us The Glazers are good people and aren’t selling but it comes out they were looking for buyers when he said this. That tells me he didn’t approach the Glazers at all.
 
RedStarUnited said:
Im glad some is asking because I find it ironic. If anything, buying a football team increases the scrutiny and magnifying glass on the state fund.

Nobody in the UK cared when then Qataris were buying up London real estate. But them owning PSG and the world cup has actually brought forward all the “issues” people have about their country/region.
Click to expand...

To be fair London is a fairground for the international corrupt, and the elite don't care. It's all bollocks.
 
RedStarUnited said:
Im glad some is asking because I find it ironic. If anything, buying a football team increases the scrutiny and magnifying glass on the state fund.

Nobody in the UK cared when then Qataris were buying up London real estate. But them owning PSG and the world cup has actually brought forward all the “issues” people have about their country/region.
Click to expand...
Well I’ve heard several high profile people talk about how great the owners are beyond the football team ie improving the local around Etihad. Perhaps those people now have a better impression of the owners, and as a result a lot of the people that listen to them.
 
angak said:
Here we go... The magic sportswashing word. Because If you say it it must be true.

Manchester City group are owned by a golf state. Can you please cite some examples of how they have used thier ownership of City to" sportswash" ?
Click to expand...
It's far too hot to enjoy a round of golf there, I'd hardly call it a golf state.
 
lenny_1248 said:
Click to expand...

Billionaires are some the dumbest, most cowardly people you could ever hope to meet. Just uninspiring pen pushers and bean counters.

What's the point in being a billionaire if you can't just have fun and spunk a load of cash on something?

Honestly, seems like a melt.
 
angak said:
Explain ?

I know you read it somewhere and believe everything you read in the papers but please elaborate?
Click to expand...
You're right, these nation states with amazing human rights records just happen to adore Newcastle United since the days of Philippe Albert and want to give back to the local community of Tyneside some three thousand miles away.
 
He does seem like a bellend. Honestly got British Glazer vibes about him, sounds like a shite owner of Nice. If he bought Liverpool I wouldn’t be too bothered.

Saying that, if we can get a proper ownership in place that runs United at break even, we should be able to compete with anyone. We’ve managed to spunk our wad on players with the Glazers, only now we should be able to do the same AND invest in infrastructure, which is huge. Maybe Ratters can do it.
 
Godfather said:
Sounds like a bit of a bluffer to me
Click to expand...

Yeah, he made himself look a lot that way during the Chelsea episode. Blew a lot of hot air, but when it was time to put money on the table, he was a day late and a dollar short.

It's also noteable that the football teams he already owns aren't exactly pulling up trees, either. Lausanne have just been relegated, and Nice are dicking around in midtable after signing a bunch of past it big names... which all sounds a bit too familiar for me.
 
Anyone who buys from Glazers will overpay and lot of infrastructure change is up before them to payup. Anyone who thinks of making profit from United should stay away for their sake and for the club.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.