Club ownership | Senior management team talk

Red_toad said:
The Glazers would have been forced to sell or invest without Sir Jim’s investment, that’s my point. I don’t care Qatar if it was real or not. Club was being ran into the ground.
Click to expand...

No they wouldn't. They were also exploring other financial arrangements and instruments as they have in the past, but the recommendation was to sell a stake as its less financially risky to the business due to the higher cost of debt.

Even if it wasn't Ineos it would be a venture capital minority investor with no interest in running the club
 
Drainy said:
No they wouldn't. They were also exploring other financial arrangements and instruments as they have in the past, but the recommendation was to sell a stake as its less financially risky to the business due to the higher cost of debt.

Even if it wasn't Ineos it would be a venture capital minority investor with no interest in running the club
Click to expand...
I disagree. Club is struggling for cash even with all the job cuts and wage reductions that INEOS implemented.
 
Red_toad said:
The Glazers would have been forced to sell or invest without Sir Jim’s investment, that’s my point. I don’t care Qatar if it was real or not. Club was being ran into the ground.
Click to expand...

They’d never have sold the club in full unless someone met their completely unrealistic price.

The thing about the Glazers is whatever they make will never be enough. They’ll needed investment from outside that’s true but they’d have taken it from whenever they could of got it than sell for what they probably see as a cut price fee.

They are so desperate for even more than the billions they would have made that they’ve given up the full control they had. They aren’t going to go until they are satisfied there is no more meat on the bone, they’ll be terrified of selling and then the club going up significantly in value.
 
Red_toad said:
I disagree. Club is struggling for cash even with all the job cuts and wage reductions that INEOS implemented.
Click to expand...

It would have been an issue of new shares venture capital company then or whatever works within the ownership structure, and then the redundancies would have happened anyway.

Unless they were getting what they perceived as the ultimate price they think the club will be worth in a few years they weren't willing to give it up
 
343 said:
Their next permanent managerial appointment will speak volumes.

If they get Conte, Tuchel, Ancelloti, Nagelsmann, or someone like that, then they mean business.

If they go for another PL rookie like Amorim, or give the job on the back of a purple patch to one of the boys (Ole, Carrick, Fletcher etc.), or dip into the B group for a Iraola / Glasner type, then you know that all they want is a yes man who will not demand signings or challenge the entirety of the club to do better.

Manchester United need a big name manager.
Click to expand...
When you see them talking about looking at younger PL experienced managers that says B group to me
 
ErikElevenHag said:
Talk about having your cake and eating it.

Nagelsmann ain't done feck all except win a bundesliga with Bayern Munich (something which their last 11 managers all also achieved).

He's another hipster manager who everyone rates despite having very little substance to go with his supposed pedigree.

Nagelsmann is closer to Amorim than he his the ones you've listed him with.
Click to expand...
Fair enough, perhaps Nagelsmann shouldn't be part of that group.

The next permanent appointment has to be a unifying one where the immediate questions are not about the manager's pedigree. There might be questions about their playing style (Conte) but not about their ambition or their will to win.

Amorim was too willing to keep losing in the short-term to chase a mythical future where everything would come together. His attitude was enabled by senior management who, to be fair, are trying to correct years of abysmal recruitment. But the two things have to go together: get better players and still hold your manager to agreed standards like almost every other club does.
 
Top_Bins said:
Who are they demanding remove them?
Themselves? The government?
The whole league should be '51% fan owned' clubs but it's not.
Click to expand...
lets assume they have 8b in their backpocket

Glazers must get a warm chuckle with this stuff, its simply routine now
 
KiD MoYeS said:
Click to expand...


From the outside looking in, our fans must look like such idiots.

Imagine being silent for a whole year only to start protest again because the manager got sacked for failing to change a failing system.

This is why they believe the can feed us rubbish an we will just accept it.

Those planning this best hope we don’t sign two players.. or even one! It will be an empty protest.
 
The drag along and pre-emption rights in the ineos deal (or trawler FC as it was....) will come into play next year.

Ineos does not currently have the cash to buy the club outright (well, that's not quite true as it could get it very easily) and it is selling lots of businesses which it owns to consolidate.

Usually that is done prior to a big purchase or to a sale.

Either way, it is likely that ineos/sir Jim (if he has sold/floated ineos) will be buying more of the club in the short term.

It will likely be alongside other investors - like class of 92 backed by outside capital. So Jim has 51% (at least), outside capital has 40% and maybe float some shares openly to generate cash, or delist it if the money is available.

So hopefully the glazers won't be around much longer.....
 
You have to give it to the glazers. Unbelievably slimy fecks.

I’d say they could barely stop sniggering as Ratcliffe gave them over a billion to effectively clean up the club and take all the flack for their mess.

Im not saying Jim doesn’t deserve grief , he absolutely f**king does, but those yanks are as sneaky as the slimiest politician.
 
robthered89 said:
The drag along and pre-emption rights in the ineos deal (or trawler FC as it was....) will come into play next year.

Ineos does not currently have the cash to buy the club outright (well, that's not quite true as it could get it very easily) and it is selling lots of businesses which it owns to consolidate.

Usually that is done prior to a big purchase or to a sale.

Either way, it is likely that ineos/sir Jim (if he has sold/floated ineos) will be buying more of the club in the short term.

It will likely be alongside other investors - like class of 92 backed by outside capital. So Jim has 51% (at least), outside capital has 40% and maybe float some shares openly to generate cash, or delist it if the money is available.

So hopefully the glazers won't be around much longer.....
Click to expand...
I want INEOS gone too
 
croadyman said:
I want INEOS gone too
Click to expand...

Who is there out there who is interested and can realistically afford the price the Glazers would ask for the club without borrowing funds? We know some state investment funds would be interested (the PIF would probably sell Newcastle tomorrow if it meant they could buy our club) but other than that there isnt really anyone.
 
Yes there are very few individuals around who can buy the club.

Realistically it would be 8bn+. 5-6bn for the shares, 1bn for the debt and 2bn for the stadium.

Ok some of that could be structured but either way, it is a colossal amount of money.

Sir Jim could afford it on paper. Perhaps he would want it as his legacy, as with respect he is getting older so maybe this is his last thing!

Several dodgy states could afford it. Would we want them? Personally, and it's just my opinion, I would rather not be a sportswashed club like those down the road.
 
Adz_99 said:
A vote of no confidence?

If only we'd known, we could have voted the Glazers out all along!
Click to expand...
It's a very silly statement. I've had a few pints with a few members last year when the new stadium was unveiled and they're as miserable as you'd think.
 
This was good timing by The 1958. If they had done it whilst Amorim was here, it would have been all about him or perceived to be about him, rather than the management above him.
This is long overdue and I’m heading down to support this.
SJR seems to think he has a grip on United but he and his team are doing more damage than good - and they have done some good, I grant them that.
 
Chumpsbechumps said:
You have to give it to the glazers. Unbelievably slimy fecks.

I’d say they could barely stop sniggering as Ratcliffe gave them over a billion to effectively clean up the club and take all the flack for their mess.

Im not saying Jim doesn’t deserve grief , he absolutely f**king does, but those yanks are as sneaky as the slimiest politician.
Click to expand...
Yeah they knew Ratcliffe would take the bait and thought perfect solution as we can stay majority owners
robthered89 said:
Yes there are very few individuals around who can buy the club.

Realistically it would be 8bn+. 5-6bn for the shares, 1bn for the debt and 2bn for the stadium.

Ok some of that could be structured but either way, it is a colossal amount of money.

Sir Jim could afford it on paper. Perhaps he would want it as his legacy, as with respect he is getting older so maybe this is his last thing!

Several dodgy states could afford it. Would we want them? Personally, and it's just my opinion, I would rather not be a sportswashed club like those down the road.
Click to expand...
Ideally one of the tech giants would want to get involved with Football, sadly that doesn't seem likely so sick as I feel about it would accept state ownership
 
spwd said:
What a stupid post. They've spent shit loads of our money.
Click to expand...

:confused: I’m getting old you have lost me.

My post was about the Glazers/INEOS being happy to get through another January without spending any money.

Your counter argument is…the Glazers have wasted millions over the years. So what, we should be happy they are spending nothing in Jan?

Strange logic if you ask me.
 
The fact that Fletcher's performance on Wednesday/Sunday could have any bearing on the interim appointment is so stupid.

The club is so fecking reactive.
 
Posted my thoughts in the next manager thread:

Berbaclass said:
You know we are already fecked when the names linked don't have a consistent theme.

Glasner
Iraola
Tuchel
De Zerbi
McKenna
Silva
Poch

Some of these names have similarities but it quite is concerning to me that it's just yet again 'scattergun' type approach instead of honing in on a specific type of coach.

Even Ole, Carrick and Fletcher would probably all play 3 different ways/types of football.

Under these guys we're just fecked until there is a consistency in the club from top to bottom in terms of approach and way of thinking.
Click to expand...

Berbaclass said:
I would be shocked if we taste any level of success under these clowns.

Ole/Carrick is a blatant PR move from them to get fans on board but it's not going to work.

If we don't qualify for Europe then Wilcox and the rest of the sporting department need to be shown the door (probably should have already)

They need to decide what the feck they want to do with the club, make a plan and fecking follow it because going for Amorim, taking half measures and then backing out is just ridiculous.
Click to expand...
 
“Demand INEOS and the Glazers removal” ?…..how ridiculous could you get.

All such a protest will achieve, just like the previous protests, is to give the press and all the leaching, hangers on (pundits and journo’s), lots of material to waffle on about, to make more mischief and ultimately to ridicule the clubs and the wider fan base.
It’s a massive shot in both feet by the protesters.
Looking from the outside, everybody will be laughing at the protesters and the futility of their confused and muddled outrage

The last thing we need now is to undermine, or even destroy any chance of a caretaker manager steadying the ship and getting us to a reasonable place by the end of the season.
Nor do we need people ramping up the toxicity levels to a point that will seriously damage team moral and act as a disincentive in attracting new players, or the right sort of managerial candidates for the full time job.


…
 
Whilst I fully endorse people's right to protest, this seems a little short sighted given the context of what is going on.

But each to their own. I think all fans agree the glazers should leave and there is a debate over the pefromance of ineos (I am personally reserving judgement until they are 5 years in).
 
Banana Republic said:
“Demand INEOS and the Glazers removal” ?…..how ridiculous could you get.

All such a protest will achieve, just like the previous protests, is to give the press and all the leaching, hangers on (pundits and journo’s), lots of material to waffle on about, to make more mischief and ultimately to ridicule the clubs and the wider fan base.
It’s a massive shot in both feet by the protesters.
Looking from the outside, everybody will be laughing at the protesters and the futility of their confused and muddled outrage

The last thing we need now is to undermine, or even destroy any chance of a caretaker manager steadying the ship and getting us to a reasonable place by the end of the season.
Nor do we need people ramping up the toxicity levels to a point that will seriously damage team moral and act as a disincentive in attracting new players, or the right sort of managerial candidates for the full time job.


…
Click to expand...
I kind of agree with this. Hearts are in the right place but our support lacks leadership compared to 20+ years ago when we had the likes of Andy Walsh and IMUSA. Ultimately aswell, the alternatives from this current model are hardly ideal.

1. Another interfering billionaire. Same as now.
2. Some kind of US Hedge Fund where the goal is to extract not add
3. A sportswashing state. Obvious reasons for concern, but considering global events could get very messy.
4. Ratcliffe finds a path to control. Best of a very bad bunch.
 
Didn't Jim say if the public weren't happy and started protesting he would just give it up?
 
LordSpud said:
Didn't Jim say if the public weren't happy and started protesting he would just give it up?
Click to expand...
In fairness he also said the club were a few months away from going bust and Amorim would only be judged after 3 years, he's said a lot of things that are bullshit.
 
RORY65 said:
In fairness he also said the club were a few months away from going bust and Amorim would only be judged after 3 years, he's said a lot of things that are bullshit.
Click to expand...

He didn’t say the club would go bust.
He said they would run out of cash, which is an entirely different thing.

Publically stating you were backing the manager/head coach was an entirely reasonable assertion at the point it was made, but nobody is sensibly going to stick to such a commitment if all the evidence shows things are rapidly getting out of hand or failing badly.


.
 
With INEOS and the Glazers, it's like we have two bad parents. But at least one's trying. All these protests will do is scare Ratcliffe off so we're back with just the Glazers. The Glazer's don't have the ego/legacy motivations. Money is the only language they speak and our best hope is to either - 1) trust INEOS to eventually buy the Glazers out fully and hopefully improve the club or 2) attract a 'good' billionaire (some would say this is an oxymoron) to buy the club fully off the Glazers. A moral argument won't make the Glazers step down and just looks silly, frankly.
 
LordSpud said:
Didn't Jim say if the public weren't happy and started protesting he would just give it up?
Click to expand...

He said something about it not being worth it for him. But let's be honest, what is the likelihood that he's not a horrible psychopathic cnut?
 
SparkedIntoLife said:
With INEOS and the Glazers, it's like we have two bad parents. But at least one's trying. All these protests will do is scare Ratcliffe off so we're back with just the Glazers. The Glazer's don't have the ego/legacy motivations. Money is the only language they speak and our best hope is to either - 1) trust INEOS to eventually buy the Glazers out fully and hopefully improve the club or 2) attract a 'good' billionaire (some would say this is an oxymoron) to buy the club fully off the Glazers. A moral argument won't make the Glazers step down and just looks silly, frankly.
Click to expand...
Judging by their recent financial situation, I don’t think that’s happening anytime soon and if they wanted that then they would have done it originally.

Ineos have been a disaster. First league season under them we have finished 15th. They extended ETH and then sacked him. Then hired Amorim and kept him on too long. I don’t think many people will care if Ratcliffe backs off. They haven’t exactly done a great job at Nice too.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.