I know, there just seems to have been more noise this last week about it that usual though.
I know people don't like him but Ogden on SSN was saying the same last night, early this coming week.
Club Sale | It’s done!
- Thread starter JB08
- Start date
-
In the latest episode of the United Hour Podcast, Nik @Rood and Imran @Annihilate Now! start with the good news by celebrating Manchester United Women's emphatic FA Cup win over Spurs at Wembley and the future of manager Marc Skinner.
Then it's the bad news and the ever worsening form of our Men with losses to Arsenal and Palace.
Finally the main debate - ETH Out now or keep him until the end of the season - if not longer. Are you Team Nik or Team Imran?
- Status
I know people don't like him but Ogden on SSN was saying the same last night, early this coming week.
What the absolute feckin shite are you spouting?!
What a job ahead.
The state of your posts in here
The impatience of people needing the announcement of minority investment which keeps the Glazers in charge of this football club as opposed to keeping the pressure on them. The PR has been successful in that sense with its delusions of grandeur at a new sporting structure being the remedy for Glazer ownership and 18-years of entropy. If that minority deal goes through it'll be a dark day because it'll be on the Glazers terms and in no way guarantees they ever leave because they believe they don't have to sell anything. They allegedly refused 8x revenue from the Qatari's when Liverpool and PSG just sold stakes at 5% so why people think they're going to give Ratcliffe what he wants is a mystery.
All you do is post links to some American kid' unwavering, biased support of Ratcliffe like he's some top tier source of information despite having no credentials or sources. A self proclaimed ITK who charges insecure kids for info whilst he grabs Musk' impressions coin on the side. Excellent contribution. Unless of course, you are the American kid and you only use this place to help farm and promote those Musk impressions.The state of your posts in here
Last edited:
Nobody is or has claimed this to be the ‘remedy’, it’s simply the first step.
At the end of the day for most fans supporting United is about winning games, winning trophies, and being successful in a sporting sense rather than finances and what happens in the boardroom, so why shouldn’t people be excited by the prospect of a new sporting structure bringing new energy and new ideas, not to mention more expertise and experience which we have been badly lacking in for decades.
Factually incorrect.
He wanted the sportswashing regime and can't let it go.
Granted you came into this thread 3/4 of the way through but @Berbaclass was staunchly pro-
More spin incoming, watch this space.
Do you view all ME business ventures as sportswashing?
Genuine question.
Like if there was a billionaire who happened to hail from ME, and they decided to buy a club, would you always immediately decide that it’s sportswashing?
Additionally, do you ever think it’s possible for white / western people to possibly be sportswashing? Or no?
And if so, what type of circumstances would you entertain the notion a western business person was sportswashing?
Could be sponsored posts.
Either that or they accuse you of racism.
I firmly believe that you can't become a billionaire in Qatar without state connections and/or being part of the royal family.
Jassim is not only part of the family that rules over Qatar as an absolute monarchy, but his dad used to be Prime Minister as well. He's clearly not some distant relative of the most powerful family members.
Now whether he would buy for sportswashing purposes or Sheikh Jassim is a really big football fan and wants to play around with United, or both...I don't really care.
I don't believe that he has 6 billion to spend on the club at ~41 years of age having only been a chairman of the QIB these last few decades. So it's either daddy's fortune and/or state money...but it's not like HBJ's personal wealth wasn't built up by being a royal family member and government actor either.
It's also telling that they didn't even entertain the idea of the club staying on the NYSE in their hands. I bet that any further funding, be it for the club itself or developments around OT, would've come from the state itself and that's why they didn't want to be subject to US jurisdiction...which would've been the case if they didn't own 100% of all shares. This is why it wasn't an offer for all Glazer shares and the reason they couldn't amend their offer like Ratcliffe has done.
If a Western business person was looking to buy the club, my opinion would depend on a lot of things. Do you think the Glazers have any say in US politics or their money comes from the government? I don't think so. Same as Ratcliffe and the UK government. If one of Putin's oligarchs (I know Russia isn't in the Western world) wanted to buy the club, I'd be heavily against it...but I don't think the likes of Jassim, Abramovich or Sheikh Mansour can be compared to American or British businessmen..and please don't claim racism on this one, because you can clearly see what kind of ownership I'm sick of...and it has nothing to do with skin colour.
Last edited:
Sir Jim taking over football operations, putting quality football people in decision making positions, and developing a clear long term plan of strategic intent, would be the single most exciting and necessary thing this club has done in the modern era. You start by hiring an experienced CEO who understands both sides of the operation. You then separate the commercial from the football, in terms of day to day functionality, and appoint best in class people on both sides. On the football side:
1. Define a football structure e.g. Director of Football, Director of recruitment, technical director, Head of Data Analysis (already in place), Head Coach, etc.
2. Define decision making authority e.g. DoF has final say on head coach hiring. Recruitment is decided by equal inputs from DoF, Recruitment director and Head Coach, final word from DoF. This assigns accountability for each decision making tree.
3. Appoint best in class experts to each position, agreeing to the clear structure.
4. Develop a general tactical approach to inform the basic fundamentals of all your hiring and recruitment decisions. Head coaches must be hired according to a coherent and consistent strategy, and recruitment will therefore work seamlessly even if the head coach changes. E.g. Are we an attacking and pressing team? That’s a very different profile of player to playing a low block counter attacking approach. Which is why alternating between Managers like LVG and Mourinho is so stupid, because each requires completely different players. Coach transitions now become evolution not revolution. It also saves the club a lot of money.
5. Hire a new head coach, and start to build a conveyor belt of coaches by implementing coaching training throughout the ranks, to a defined style.
6. Identify a recruitment strategy not just around a consistent tactical approach, as mentioned above, but also to a profile of player in terms of age and career stage, etc. Player turnover should ultimately be low year on year. All available data suggests this is fundamental to success. Focus on signing a mix of young emerging talent, pre-prime/verge of stardom talent, and the odd prime player. Avoid expensive recruitment on any player over 28 year. So no Casemiro’s, Varane’s and Ronaldo’s. And generally avoid huge individual transfers that unbalance pay structures and budgets. They also concentrate risk too narrowly, whereby when a very expensive recruit fails, the impact is much more widely felt.
7. Integrate data heavily into decision making on recruitment and player performance, and take it all the way back to player development in the youth ranks.
8. Coach players from the youngest age groups, all the way through, in a style consistent with your dominant strategic master plan. So if we are to be an expansive attacking team with high pressing, then coach that methodology all the way through the ranks so we are developing players who have our playing style baked into their DNA. This is essentially what Barca do with La Masia. You also go further and coach your coaches, so you develop an internal conveyor belt of coaching talent, taking older players who have been at the club a while and having them do coaching course and hands on coaching in our system, during their twilight playing days.
The system should ultimately function the same no matter who is head coach. The success of the coach comes down to their man management, leadership skills, and their tactical sophistication and innovation.
We had a genius manager for three decades, who did it all. He’s the exception, not the rule. Coaches should be coaching, nothing more. We get their input on players, but not much else. Everyone in the structure is accountable for some part of the machine, and the coach is responsible for results and entertainment on the field. But for it to work you need football people throughout the structure, and you have to commit to an initial approach and philosophy. One that should be highly resistant to change, and evolve over time. We should NEVER be pressing the reset button like we basically do every time now we change manager.
A high pressing coach would never sign Maguire, because you can’t play a high line with him, but he’s ideal for a low block counter attacking coach. So he is essentially an 80m pound investment that can become a white elephant overnight if you radically change styles. From a basic investment risk mitigation standpoint, this is akin to shooting yourself in the foot.
It is unavoidable that you need to say from the very top that our philosophy is going to be towards hiring a specific profile of coach that plays football according to an inalienable common philosophy. For example, expansive attacking football with a high press, fast tempo and high work rate. Or Tiki-taka until we die. The importance is in the consistency of the approach. An approach that now dictates all your coach appointments and all your recruitment. So if for example we say, we are Manchester United, we play fast tempo, high press, attacking football, you don’t then hire Diego Simeone, even if he guides Atlético to the CL against all the odds, and your coach has just finished a disappointing 5th in the league, because it would require tearing up your blueprint. Signing Diego Simeoney players etc etc.
Any change to the master plan should be developed over time, with significant data analysis and strategic intent, and should be an evolution not a revolution. Revolution means something pretty fecking massive has gone wrong.
It’s the opposite of everything we do as a club, because Everything we do is knee jerk. I swear, running a football club isn’t complicated. Every club that is consistently successful runs the same sort of template. Brighton Hove and Albion have figured that out, and implemented it, and Manchester United can’t?
1. Define a football structure e.g. Director of Football, Director of recruitment, technical director, Head of Data Analysis (already in place), Head Coach, etc.
2. Define decision making authority e.g. DoF has final say on head coach hiring. Recruitment is decided by equal inputs from DoF, Recruitment director and Head Coach, final word from DoF. This assigns accountability for each decision making tree.
3. Appoint best in class experts to each position, agreeing to the clear structure.
4. Develop a general tactical approach to inform the basic fundamentals of all your hiring and recruitment decisions. Head coaches must be hired according to a coherent and consistent strategy, and recruitment will therefore work seamlessly even if the head coach changes. E.g. Are we an attacking and pressing team? That’s a very different profile of player to playing a low block counter attacking approach. Which is why alternating between Managers like LVG and Mourinho is so stupid, because each requires completely different players. Coach transitions now become evolution not revolution. It also saves the club a lot of money.
5. Hire a new head coach, and start to build a conveyor belt of coaches by implementing coaching training throughout the ranks, to a defined style.
6. Identify a recruitment strategy not just around a consistent tactical approach, as mentioned above, but also to a profile of player in terms of age and career stage, etc. Player turnover should ultimately be low year on year. All available data suggests this is fundamental to success. Focus on signing a mix of young emerging talent, pre-prime/verge of stardom talent, and the odd prime player. Avoid expensive recruitment on any player over 28 year. So no Casemiro’s, Varane’s and Ronaldo’s. And generally avoid huge individual transfers that unbalance pay structures and budgets. They also concentrate risk too narrowly, whereby when a very expensive recruit fails, the impact is much more widely felt.
7. Integrate data heavily into decision making on recruitment and player performance, and take it all the way back to player development in the youth ranks.
8. Coach players from the youngest age groups, all the way through, in a style consistent with your dominant strategic master plan. So if we are to be an expansive attacking team with high pressing, then coach that methodology all the way through the ranks so we are developing players who have our playing style baked into their DNA. This is essentially what Barca do with La Masia. You also go further and coach your coaches, so you develop an internal conveyor belt of coaching talent, taking older players who have been at the club a while and having them do coaching course and hands on coaching in our system, during their twilight playing days.
The system should ultimately function the same no matter who is head coach. The success of the coach comes down to their man management, leadership skills, and their tactical sophistication and innovation.
We had a genius manager for three decades, who did it all. He’s the exception, not the rule. Coaches should be coaching, nothing more. We get their input on players, but not much else. Everyone in the structure is accountable for some part of the machine, and the coach is responsible for results and entertainment on the field. But for it to work you need football people throughout the structure, and you have to commit to an initial approach and philosophy. One that should be highly resistant to change, and evolve over time. We should NEVER be pressing the reset button like we basically do every time now we change manager.
A high pressing coach would never sign Maguire, because you can’t play a high line with him, but he’s ideal for a low block counter attacking coach. So he is essentially an 80m pound investment that can become a white elephant overnight if you radically change styles. From a basic investment risk mitigation standpoint, this is akin to shooting yourself in the foot.
It is unavoidable that you need to say from the very top that our philosophy is going to be towards hiring a specific profile of coach that plays football according to an inalienable common philosophy. For example, expansive attacking football with a high press, fast tempo and high work rate. Or Tiki-taka until we die. The importance is in the consistency of the approach. An approach that now dictates all your coach appointments and all your recruitment. So if for example we say, we are Manchester United, we play fast tempo, high press, attacking football, you don’t then hire Diego Simeone, even if he guides Atlético to the CL against all the odds, and your coach has just finished a disappointing 5th in the league, because it would require tearing up your blueprint. Signing Diego Simeoney players etc etc.
Any change to the master plan should be developed over time, with significant data analysis and strategic intent, and should be an evolution not a revolution. Revolution means something pretty fecking massive has gone wrong.
It’s the opposite of everything we do as a club, because Everything we do is knee jerk. I swear, running a football club isn’t complicated. Every club that is consistently successful runs the same sort of template. Brighton Hove and Albion have figured that out, and implemented it, and Manchester United can’t?
Interesting thoughts, but can you elaborate a bit more please.
Excellent post. Let's hope this or a similar template is what our new owner has in store.
What makes you think the Glazer would want to give away virtually the command of the club for 25% cash value?
Any serious business would know that you dont hand that to others, the day you hand that you're finished and at the mercy of them.
You'll either sell shares for 25% or just sell everything and maintain 25% for keepsake.
This doesnt make one sense.
Any serious business would know that you dont hand that to others, the day you hand that you're finished and at the mercy of them.
You'll either sell shares for 25% or just sell everything and maintain 25% for keepsake.
This doesnt make one sense.
Happens all the time in business.
Last edited:
But it's not the whole business though is it? In fact it could be argued that the whole football wing is under Murtough's control, Jimmy is just getting to replace Murtough with his appointee. The football side also operates under strict guidelines like wage to turnover ratio and a fixed sum of transfer net spend per year. Those things won't change without the Glazers' approval.
In effect they are not giving away much and its a department that has bled the club dry and where they are struggling to get under control and back to growth. They wouldn't mind indulging Jim there cause if he succeeds the value of the brand grows which makes them more money and if he fails it is he who will feel the wrath of the fans.
Think the first test for him is already in motion with the decision to persist or not with Erik. A new structure is absolutely fundamental but I don't think a good hierarchy develops the competence with a manager tactically.
I don't think it's necessarily a regular occurrence but Jim is doing the Glazers a favour with initiating a staggered purchase because it gives them more time and accessibility to dividends.
There needs to be more specifics released to the public when it comes to the outright ownership. The lack of transparency makes me believe that it's inherently negative or that there's such a complexity the details are what's delaying the announcement (speculative).
However, assessing everything objectively it's a unique situation where the Glazers have a failing business in the sense of United being a competitive but the economics of football is helping ascend the clubs value commercially.
The Glazers being totally unwilling to invest both in the infrastructure and the football side of things, having someone give them these options, while taking more control helps them essentially kick back and play the waiting game on the commercial gains indicative of their prediction on the club's valuation for 2027.
This is such a unique situation with many moving parts, I don't think it's a normal practice for businesses at all but it's one where Jim gets ownership like status for a fractional investment and where the Glazers get the incentives previously mentioned. This is the best option for the Glazers outside of a ludicrous sale that is exponentially above the market cap.
Is this deal confirmed even? When will he take over?
Proof of this beyond messageboard rumourmongering…?
Solid proof that either the Glazers want to sell the whole club or even that Ratcliffe wants to buy it all…?
Confirmed he will be taking over nothing. Glazers still in total control.
Like everything with United early promise and hope fades to a state of mediocrity.
Tweet
— Twitter API (@user) date
Waiting for the Rat Pack to come in before deciding on this, perhaps?
This guy has his own PR team. I’m not convinced we are even considering him, he’s clearly desperate for the job though
I'm also skeptical of either and I've stated this when the deal was first mentioned. There's nowhere near enough information privy to the public domain to have an informed opinion. As said it's speculative, but a buyout which is the context of the post I referred too of this nature isn't a regular practice amongst businesses.
I have quite a bit of experience in this kind of thing as I have sold a company, I’ve been a general partner, a limited partner, a board member etc.
I think the disconnect with the fan base is that they are looking at the “minority stake” as a one-and-done deal, whereas the reality is that the Glazers have more than likely committed to selling to Sir Jim, or at least a true controlling stake, over a certain time period and this has been outlined in the acquisition docs. In one fell swoop, Sir Jim becomes the largest single shareholder. That’s an incredibly powerful position. Due to the structure of voting shares vs non-voting shares, he essentially has roughly 40% of the voting shares. Typically, minor board resolutions may only require 50.1% approval. However, important board resolutions, like hiring/firing CEO, injection of new capital, taking on new debt, paying off old debt, and probably, investment in new assets, such as players, training ground improvements etc, usually required 2/3 or 66.67% of voting shares approval to pass.
Looking at it this way, Sir Jim has veto power over pretty much every major decision, including football operations. Is he “running football operations” as the media continue to report? Well, it’s more like he’ll be running the club. Will the other voting shareholders have input? Absolutely. But they won’t be able to get much done without his consent / approval / buy in.
Secondly, ANY additional capital committed will most likely require newly issued voting shares. So let’s say Sir Jim wants to refurbish Old Trafford for 1billion. He agrees to inject the capital to do this. Well, the Glazers, who won’t / cannot / don’t want to match his capital contribution will be diluted. Joel, Avram will have a smaller percentage of voting shares and Sir Jim will have more, which means he’ll have a tighter control. The Glazers are betting that the injection of new capital will increase enterprise value to 7billion or whatever and perhaps there is an agreement that the remaining Glazer shares are sold to Sir Jim. He also most likely has right of first refusal for any voting share being offered.
Lastly, Sir Jim has probably done a hundred acquisitions in his business career by now. He’s not interested in spending 1.3b without a pathway to 100% control over operations. The Glazers may even have asked for a capital contribution schedule as part of the deal, which would obviously dilute them, but will also potentially allow the value of their shares to grow.
Those that are worried about the Glazers still being heavily involved, well, I don’t think it’s a concern. I do expect there to be delays on big decisions early on, like 50m+ transfers and structural changes, but it should be less than the delays we experience now because Joel needed to get somewhat of a consensus amongst his siblings, whereas now, Sir Jim is the key fella.
I hope this helps. Obviously, I’m not privy to the acquisition details, but by selling 25%, the Glazers, for all intents and purposes, have signaled that they eventually want out.
If what you say holds true, does it also not mean that SJR may not be able to get big decisions through if he is not able to convince other Shareholders. In case there is any kind of friction between the Glazers & SJR, we may see big decisions getting delayed or even put on hold?
Well, let me put it this way… Let’s say Sir Jim says, feck it, let’s go get Mbappe for 200m. It’s my money, and I don’t give a feck. There could be two reactions from the Glazers. One, they say, no, let’s not do that, I don’t want to win the league or more cups or the CL, I don’t want prize money, I don’t want more marketing revenue because we have Mbappe, I’d rather do nothing and watch my share value slowly recede (vs. inflation and enterprise value) and not get diluted because I’m a stupid fecking human being. Two, they could say feck yes, let’s do it. I know I’m going to have a smaller percentage of the pie, but the pie is going to be a lot bigger, and I’ll be richer.
Again, there are probably triggers and capital contributions that allow Sir Jim to acquire additional shares once certain valuation targets are met.
I am thinking more when capital decisions need to be made on certain projects versus the others. E.g. 100 mn on 36 yr old Benzema or 21 year old striker with less marketing value? Or 100mn on hypothetically installing new floodlights on the training pitch vs adding a few corporate seats? Or 10 million dividend vs capital investment?
It is more likely the tussle is on the capital being generated by the club rather than fresh capital injection
It does help thanks for explaining.
- Status