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

devilish said:
I don't recall the Glazers or one of its firms had released caustic soda into the Manchester ship canal though. That doesn't mean he's not a true red though. Ok he might be the kind who has a Chelsea season ticket, who tried to buy a rival club and who prefer to live in Monaco to avoid paying taxes in the UK. But a true red nevertheless.
Click to expand...
Wow. :lol:

Did Ratcliffe himself release the toxins? What does it matter if he has a season ticket elsewhere? I'm sure most owners of their respective clubs weren't fans before they brought them!

As I mentioned before, United were actually based in the Cayman Islands for a period under the Glazers ....and why do you think that was??

So yeah, play morality regarding taxes and Ratcliffe but United have done the same recently.

Good luck finding a perfect rich person with absolute perfect morality, because let me tell you, they are very very heard to come by.
In fact as is any human when it comes to money.
 
crossy1686 said:
Because Nice will mostly likely look to sell on young prospects and get big money for them, not because they want to break a monopoly on the league.
Click to expand...
Well yeah.

That's the idea with the clubs INEOs have brought, they've even said that themselves.

That's the reason they want a bigger/premiership team. They are creating a group of clubs, similar to City's owners.
It's no secret, they've stated it many times over!
 
Champ said:
Wow. :lol:

Did Ratcliffe himself release the toxins? What does it matter if he has a season ticket elsewhere? I'm sure most owners of their respective clubs weren't fans before they brought them!

As I mentioned before, United were actually based in the Cayman Islands for a period under the Glazers ....and why do you think that was??

So yeah, play morality regarding taxes and Ratcliffe but United have done the same recently.

Good luck finding a perfect rich person with absolute perfect morality, because let me tell you, they are very very heard to come by.
In fact as is any human when it comes to money.
Click to expand...

So the morality card is better discarded which basically narrow things to two key issues ie club investment and investment into the Manchester community. ME owners have more money then Jimmy Brexit and they actually add value to the Manchester community (rather then caustic soda)
 
devilish said:
So the morality card is better discarded which basically narrow things to two key issues ie club investment and investment into the Manchester community. ME owners have more money then Jimmy Brexit and they actually add value to the Manchester community (rather then caustic soda)
Click to expand...
Ah, so despite going on about morality, you now wish to discard that.

Yet in the very next sentence talk about environmental issues, which the Middle Eastern regions are well known to completely ignore.

United already invest heavily into the community, don't need ME owners to do that.

You can't have your cake and eat it.
 
Adam-Utd said:
Chelsea haven't been?

I don't think they're being sucked dry of their profit either. Why should we be different?

I know Boehly has acted like a bit of a spoilt child since taking over but that'll settle once the novelty wears off.
Click to expand...
I dont think we have enough details of the source of the Chelsea sale. The money he is spending is part of the commitment he made when he signed up for this. We don't know if he Can continue doing this year. We won't know till next year though.
 
bond19821982 said:
See that's the problem. No one except state owned firms are going to spend 4-6 billions from their personal account. Every prospective buyer (again unless owned by state) will need lending for which the collateral will be the club itself. The moment you are lending, the debt is back on and we will have huge amount to pay back every year.

Basically only one of the below options will work

Get ready to be owned by a state . Feck values .
Or
Be ready for the process of debt again ,probably by a Glazer mk 2. But we will still have the moral values.
Click to expand...

Fairly certain that leveraged buyouts are no longer legal for football clubs, so the collateral for any loan will not be the club.
 
Regulus Arcturus Black said:
Fairly certain that leveraged buyouts are no longer legal for football clubs, so the collateral for any loan will not be the club.
Click to expand...
Ofcourse not on the paper but we are deluded if we think owner won't take the part of the profits to pay up some of the lending.
 
bond19821982 said:
I dont think we have enough details of the source of the Chelsea sale. The money he is spending is part of the commitment he made when he signed up for this. We don't know if he Can continue doing this year. We won't know till next year though.
Click to expand...
we don’t need billionaire money though, we have our own. we spend 90m on debt payments on top of our usual transfers every year! add that to the warchest and we’re fine
 
phelans shorts said:
As evidenced by City’s owners most of what is brought to the Manchester community is council corruption, but don’t let local knowledge get in the way of a terrible point.
Click to expand...

Fair enough. Is it worse that caustic soda? Cause that's what the Mancunian Brexit Jimmy had brought to the city. It won't hurt him though as he currently live in Monaco
 
phelans shorts said:
Significantly, but I don’t reckon you understand the science.
Click to expand...

What I do understand is that your allegations are quite serious. Throwing such allegations in here is dangerous for the CAF. If you have proof than you should go straight to the police rather then discussing them here.
 
Champ said:
Ah, so despite going on about morality, you now wish to discard that.

Yet in the very next sentence talk about environmental issues, which the Middle Eastern regions are well known to completely ignore.

United already invest heavily into the community, don't need ME owners to do that.

You can't have your cake and eat it.
Click to expand...

I am no Brexiter. ;)

My point is very simple to understand. There aren't many billionaires who happen to be decent. A simple background search on most prospective candidates so far kind to reinforce that argument. In such circumstances we should go for wealth and the positive contribution such organization/person had done within the community. In my opinion United need 2B investment on top of the 6b-8b the Glazers are valuing the club. Someone whose wealth rotate around 10b dollars doesn't seem the right candidate to me.
 
Adam-Utd said:
we don’t need billionaire money though, we have our own. we spend 90m on debt payments on top of our usual transfers every year! add that to the warchest and we’re fine
Click to expand...
We still need that person to put 4 billions just to buy the club, right ? We are expecting that to come from his own account and not banks .
Why would anyone who knows business, do that ? No one is spending 4 billion because he is a huge fan of the club.
 
bond19821982 said:
We still need that person to put 4 billions just to buy the club, right ? We are expecting that to come from his own account and not banks .
Why would anyone who knows business, do that ? No one is spending 4 billion because he is a huge fan of the club.
Click to expand...
it’s the prestige of buying it.

You don’t buy a ferrari or an expensive watch in the hope it makes you profit.

in a billionaires circle it’s something i’ve got that you don’t
 
devilish said:
I am no Brexiter. ;)

My point is very simple to understand. There aren't many billionaires who happen to be decent. A simple background search on most prospective candidates so far kind to reinforce that argument. In such circumstances we should go for wealth and the positive contribution such organization/person had done within the community. In my opinion United need 2B investment on top of the 6b-8b the Glazers are valuing the club. Someone whose wealth rotate around 10b dollars doesn't seem the right candidate to me.
Click to expand...
Again, you've changed your whole outlook on this.

You've gone from morality, to whose best for the club, to whose wealthiest.

Personally, I would rather have Ratcliffe than a Saudi prince or subsidiary of the government.
I'd rather have someone who is looking to grow their businesses rather than a rich persons plaything to wash their dirty past/money.

No billionaire is going to be perfect, we have to accept that, we have to look at whose the lesser of multiple evils realistically, in my mind that's Ratcliffe so far.
 
Oil money is infinite. Sir Jim is 13 billon only and limited resources.

Don't expect Sir Jim to rebuild or repair the facilities of United and invest in youth. changes will take a much longer time in order for United to be good again.

Oil money is different. They just throw a lot of money and expect results. Look at City. They got the state of the art youth academy and training ground. Their stadium is not leaking. Manager can change the whole team if he wants.
 
Swordsman said:
Oil money is infinite. Sir Jim is 13 billon only and limited resources.

Don't expect Sir Jim to rebuild or repair the facilities of United and invest in youth. changes will take a much longer time in order for United to be good again.

Oil money is different. They just throw a lot of money and expect results. Look at City. They got the state of the art youth academy and training ground. Their stadium is not leaking. Manager can change the whole team if he wants.
Click to expand...
Oil money seems infinite but it's not. However the amount of funds allocated for City and PSG are more than enough for them to have a top team.
13 billion is a lot and a percentage of that is enough to build a very good team. However of course he wouldn't use his own money. He will leverage it. Considering how bad the management and direction of the club are under Glazers, I'd welcome ownership change. As for Sir Jim, there's no better time to buy the club than now. When another big club is apparently also for sale (he has more option), a new manager is in charge who seems to know what he's doing (Ten Hag) and squad clearance of Ronaldo. This team is ready for the future. Just need an owner that facilitates it's growth. Can we compete with oil money if we keep making good decisions? yes, look at Liverpool before they crumbled.
 
Swordsman said:
Oil money is infinite. Sir Jim is 13 billon only and limited resources.

Don't expect Sir Jim to rebuild or repair the facilities of United and invest in youth. changes will take a much longer time in order for United to be good again.

Oil money is different. They just throw a lot of money and expect results. Look at City. They got the state of the art youth academy and training ground. Their stadium is not leaking. Manager can change the whole team if he wants.
Click to expand...

Yeah and proven at putting the right people in place,just wish these kind of owners didn’t come from countries with human rights issues.
 
Champ said:
Again, you've changed your whole outlook on this.

You've gone from morality, to whose best for the club, to whose wealthiest.

Personally, I would rather have Ratcliffe than a Saudi prince or subsidiary of the government.
I'd rather have someone who is looking to grow their businesses rather than a rich persons plaything to wash their dirty past/money.

No billionaire is going to be perfect, we have to accept that, we have to look at whose the lesser of multiple evils realistically, in my mind that's Ratcliffe so far.
Click to expand...

I am not. My point is that since the billionaires being linked to our club are cnuts then we might as well go for someone who can inject some serious money into the club rather then someone whose aim is to raise share prices to then sell off at a later stage. I watched that video and apart from the debt part, I don't see much of a difference between him and the Glazers.
 
croadyman said:
Yeah and proven at putting the right people in place,just wish these kind of owners didn’t come from countries with human rights issues.
Click to expand...

Malta sits in the middle between the Arab world and Europe so we know a thing or two about the mentality there. Arabs tend to be insanely generous and insanely proud. You humiliate an Arab to your own peril. Thus why, once in the limelight, they'll spend insane money and they'll make sure that the best structure is in place because they can't see themselves ending up looking silly.
 
tenpoless said:
Oil money seems infinite but it's not. However the amount of funds allocated for City and PSG are more than enough for them to have a top team.
13 billion is a lot and a percentage of that is enough to build a very good team. However of course he wouldn't use his own money. He will leverage it. Considering how bad the management and direction of the club are under Glazers, I'd welcome ownership change. As for Sir Jim, there's no better time to buy the club than now. When another big club is apparently also for sale (he has more option), a new manager is in charge who seems to know what he's doing (Ten Hag) and squad clearance of Ronaldo. This team is ready for the future. Just need an owner that facilitates it's growth. Can we compete with oil money if we keep making good decisions? yes, look at Liverpool before they crumbled.
Click to expand...

Liverpool made some shrewd buys that ended up hitting above their weight. I think that they are selling out because the squad is ageing, they don't believe that lightening will stuck the same place twice and they can't afford spending the insane money needed to keep them competitive.
 
devilish said:
I am not. My point is that since the billionaires being linked to our club are cnuts then we might as well go for someone who can inject some serious money into the club rather then someone whose aim is to raise share prices to then sell off at a later stage. I watched that video and apart from the debt part, I don't see much of a difference between him and the Glazers.
Click to expand...
If you can't see the difference you're not looking hard enough.

You've proper done a U turn from your original posts on here, :lol:
 
Champ said:
If you can't see the difference you're not looking hard enough.

You've proper done a U turn from your original posts on here, :lol:
Click to expand...

I don't recall the Glazer polluting the country though or screwing an entire generation up by backing Brexit to keep racking profit. On football terms they both hire their mates in their business ahead of meritocracy. TBF I don't recall the Glazers hiring a bicycle guru as director of sport. I mean Brailsford's experience in football makes Murtough and Fletcher look like Clough and SAF respectively.

TBF towards Ratcliffe he kept Nice out of debt and he did invest some of his own money into the club. Not much but something. That's a plus for him. His aim with Nice is European qualification which is more or less what the Glazers aim with us. Both simply lack the funds to make United competitive and both pride of having a business approach of things ahead of passion. Ratcliffe does claim to be a United fan although he is a Chelsea season ticket holder and he tried to buy Chelsea as well. I guess this loyalty is within the lines of him being a proud UK citizen despite polluting it and avoiding paying taxes there.

Some people seem to minimise how much United will cost + how much investment it needs not only to put things right but also to keep competing with the Abu Dhabi/Dubai guys. Now if you say that you're happy to end up a top 6 club (or maybe even worse) as long as the club doesn't get owned by the ME sheiks then I respect that. I disagree with it but I respect that. But don't tell me that a guy who can't make Nice compete in a two horse race and can't even manage a Swiss team to success will be able to manage United. FFS the guy place a very late bid for Chelsea just hours before the preferred bidder was selected. His argument for Raine to consider his bid was 'we are British bla bla bla'. Very serious buyer indeed.
 
Last edited:
sglowrider said:
Just like when the EPL was introduced, it was a disruptive model that changed the way football was being presented to the world. That was 30years ago. Do you think that the current model will remain the same in 10 years time?

Why do you think the Project Big Picture and the Super League came about? There is movement to want to change the current model. This is whats driving the major players in the content market. The US, China and India markets are embryonic.

Its expensive to buy content from the movie houses -- whole take a big chuck of the revenues. So why not buy a unique property like Unted that has millions of eyeballs guaranteed every weekend and then sum. No need for costly customer acquisition at more. Its cheaper.

A bank spends an average of $200 to acquire a customer. Given that United has several hundred million very loyal fans/customers already... imagine how much that fan base is worth?
Click to expand...

It's impossible for companies to buy streaming rights for a single club separately. If United wants to force it the PL can simply kick us out of the league.

As Buffet says, focusing on things that can change is one way but focusing on things that will never change is where you can make big bets / strong statements. The PL, UEFA etc will simply not allow clubs to negotiate individual TV rights deals.

The model can obviously change but the PL is doing everything right so far - it's already dominating the other leagues and becoming the super league by itself, so I doubt anything will really change in 10 years.

The growth in revenue will come through more sponsorship deals (potentially tapped out for us already) and organic growth in overseas markets like India, China etc. leading to more lucrative TV deals.

Customer acquisition cost isn't the same as having some captive eyeballs. People use the United brand to push everything under the sun. I highly doubt we've sold 200M tractors and likewise 200M United fans won't open a HDFC bank account because the bank advertised a United branded savings account.
 
Swordsman said:
Oil money is infinite. Sir Jim is 13 billon only and limited resources.

Don't expect Sir Jim to rebuild or repair the facilities of United and invest in youth. changes will take a much longer time in order for United to be good again.

Oil money is different. They just throw a lot of money and expect results. Look at City. They got the state of the art youth academy and training ground. Their stadium is not leaking. Manager can change the whole team if he wants.
Click to expand...

The thing is with city is they put the structures in place. They had the stadium already but developed the campus and the facilities. They poached the team that made Barca so successful to run the club. They have also recruited much better than us. Grelish was their first player over 70 million. But you also gave to look at the prices that are selling players for. Even Haaland will net then a tidy profit even he inevitable goes to real.

We need owners to do the same, upgrade the training ground, and facilities, get the right people in and invest in youth development and recruitment departments. The only issue we have is that we don't have a brand new stadium to be handed on a plate to us.
 
Gandalf said:
He might be better than the Glazers but he is a businessman first and foremost and he won't buy the club unless he sees profit in it for himself.
Click to expand...

I never said he wasn't a businessman who will want the club to be financially successful, but that doesn't mean he's going to take dividends out every year. You seem to have realised that now by backtracking on your original statement that there's "nothing to suggest he'll be better than the Glazers".
 
Last edited:
devilish said:
I don't recall the Glazer polluting the country though or screwing an entire generation up by backing Brexit to keep racking profit. On football terms they both hire their mates in their business ahead of meritocracy. TBF I don't recall the Glazers hiring a bicycle guru as director of sport. I mean Brailsford's experience in football makes Murtough and Fletcher look like Clough and SAF respectively.

TBF towards Ratcliffe he kept Nice out of debt and he did invest some of his own money into the club. Not much but something. That's a plus for him. His aim with Nice is European qualification which is more or less what the Glazers aim with us. Both simply lack the funds to make United competitive and both pride of having a business approach of things ahead of passion. Ratcliffe does claim to be a United fan although he is a Chelsea season ticket holder and he tried to buy Chelsea as well. I guess this loyalty is within the lines of him being a proud UK citizen despite polluting it and avoiding paying taxes there.

Some people seem to minimise how much United will cost + how much investment it needs not only to put things right but also to keep competing with the Abu Dhabi/Dubai guys. Now if you say that you're happy to end up a top 6 club (or maybe even worse) as long as the club doesn't get owned by the ME sheiks then I respect that. I disagree with it but I respect that. But don't tell me that a guy who can't make Nice compete in a two horse race and can't even manage a Swiss team to success will be able to manage United. FFS the guy place a very late bid for Chelsea just hours before the preferred bidder was selected. His argument for Raine to consider his bid was 'we are British bla bla bla'. Very serious buyer indeed.
Click to expand...

Yeah Brailsford appointment and hearing Ratcliffe say he's his right hand man has totally put me off him buying the club
 
This guy is not our saviour. He and his company are using our name to further their reputation in the ga

He is using our brand to get some interest in his sporting project but can barely afford to not only buy us but also put in place a new stadium and everything else that goes with improving the club.

He won’t buy Manchester United so I don’t get why there is this huge clamouring. Is it because he’s English? He’s not a United fan either.
 
Son said:
This guy is not our saviour. He and his company are using our name to further their reputation in the ga

He is using our brand to get some interest in his sporting project but can barely afford to not only buy us but also put in place a new stadium and everything else that goes with improving the club.

He won’t buy Manchester United so I don’t get why there is this huge clamouring. Is it because he’s English? He’s not a United fan either.
Click to expand...

Yeah definitely not our saviour
 
Gabriel Djemba-Bebe said:
I never said he wasn't a businessman who will want the club to be financially successful, but that doesn't mean he's going to take dividends out every year. You seem to have realised that now by backtracking on your original statement that there's "nothing to suggest he'll be better than the Glazers".
Click to expand...

I backtracked on nothing, he could be better he could be worse. What is a fact is that he does not have 6bn in cash to buy the club which you said he did and he is not going to donate hundreds of millions of pounds of his own money to wipe out the debt which you also claimed he would. You are in love with a narrative that exists entirely in your head and you don't want to hear any negativity regardless of how tenous your grip on reality is.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.