Club Sale | It’s done!

[stw2022]

If it is SJ what will be the immediate impact? Presumably things people are waiting for, such as stadium renovation and facilities investment, will be something that isn't going to begin until (new) reports have been commissioned.

Even with existing stadium options they drew up, presumably an owner without Glazer's spending limitations will want to commission his own report into what can be done with Old Trafford

 

[Big Andy]

What is everyone's problem with the Ratcliffe takeover? IF you offered me a choice between a state backed, daddy's money, never heard of this bloke and seen about 4 pictures guy, or the local born bloke with a link to the club and area, who heads up a massive company with a dedicated sports team section, with a track record of investment in sports teams, and it's no contest.

If the Glazers stay on in a reduced, monetary only capacity, then so what? As long as they have zero say in the running of the club, then let them stay on. It's exactly the same as having the club floated on the stock market, like it is now, and them investing. The main thing is getting them out of the way in terms of the day to day running (and destroying) of the club.

All we as fans really want, is a debt free Man Utd that is able to compete with anyone in terms of the playing side and also facilities. As long as that happens, then every fan should back the new owner, regardless of if it's their favourite or not. After all this time with the Glazers, the last thing we need is MORE infighting between fans about Qatar/INEOS and mud slinging and protests because they didn't get who they wanted. The fan base is fractured enough over people like Pogba and Martial, let alone something this important.

We have zero control over it, so just let it take it's course and go from there.

 

[stw2022]

What is everyone's problem with the Ratcliffe takeover? IF you offered me a choice between a state backed, daddy's money, never heard of this bloke and seen about 4 pictures guy, or the local born bloke with a link to the club and area, who heads up a massive company with a dedicated sports team section, with a track record of investment in sports teams, and it's no contest.

If the Glazers stay on in a reduced, monetary only capacity, then so what? As long as they have zero say in the running of the club, then let them stay on. It's exactly the same as having the club floated on the stock market, like it is now, and them investing. The main thing is getting them out of the way in terms of the day to day running (and destroying) of the club.

All we as fans really want, is a debt free Man Utd that is able to compete with anyone in terms of the playing side and also facilities. As long as that happens, then every fan should back the new owner, regardless of if it's their favourite or not. After all this time with the Glazers, the last thing we need is MORE infighting between fans about Qatar/INEOS and mud slinging and protests because they didn't get who they wanted. The fan base is fractured enough over people like Pogba and Martial, let alone something this important.

We have zero control over it, so just let it take it's course and go from there.

I see absolutely no difference between Ratcliffe and the Glazers. Ratcliffe runs his companies with considerable debt he uses the revenues of those companies to service.

To buy Manchester United he's going to take on considerable debt. The idea he'll somehow treat us differently to every other business he owns, and leave all our revenue on the table for new players, wages and a new stadium, is fanciful.

As is the narrative that banks will finance a project based on a business plan of "legacy project I'm buying for the lolz that I don't expect to make any money from" to the tune of about £4bn. The fact that self-evident truths are blindly denied by some banging the pro-Ratcliffe drum, is also concerning.

 

[GreatDane]

What is everyone's problem with the Ratcliffe takeover?

All we as fans really want, is a debt free Man Utd

That's the main problem, Sir Jim hasn't promised to get rid of the debt.

 

[Ken Barlow]

If it is SJ what will be the immediate impact? Presumably things people are waiting for, such as stadium renovation and facilities investment, will be something that isn't going to begin until (new) reports have been commissioned.

Even with existing stadium options they drew up, presumably an owner without Glazer's spending limitations will want to commission his own report into what can be done with Old Trafford

Pretty sure it doesn't change the transfer window, since the takeover negotiations have massively overrun we're missed the opportunity now for a new owner to have any real impact on transfers. There's a lot more pressure to get rid of players this summer in prep for future windows.

Outside of player transfers, from what we're led to believe, these would be the improvements:

Immediate Impact -
- Debt cleared - reducing our current annual outgoings by £50m per year
- No longer the only club where the owners are taking dividends - reducing our current outgoings by £20m-£30m per year
- Owners that actually care about the footballing side of things, as oppose to the Glazers - . Now this part is an area of concern, and a bit of a lottery. Maybe the new orders care about the success of the football and entrust the manager, or maybe they get involved and start imposing things. Positive or negative, it will be a huge change for the club, but after such a long and horrid period under the Glazers I guess any change will be an improvement.

Year 1-3
- Stadium redevelopment and increasing the capacity - increasing our revenue by as much as £50m a year (depends obviously on what the capacity is increased to)
- Training facilities improved - more of a qualitative improvement, mindset shift from having players complain nothings changed in years to having modern facilities
- Ladies team will also benefit from this

4th year and beyond
- This is when we've maximised revenue, cut all the costs and will likely dwarf our competition in terms of numbers. This is when it could get silly, the PSG model on crack - if we were to go down that route. It doesn't mean we will take this path, but potentially we could - and this is where the fabric and soul of the club could be ripped out.

Football is now more business than football, it seems almost inevitable this is the way football is going.

 

[Ken Barlow]

That's the main problem, Sir Jim hasn't promised to get rid of the debt.

The main problem is we wouldn't be Glazer free. Debt free is secondary to being Glazer free.

 

[Solius]

Hitler has invaded Czechoslovakia.

 

[Simbo]

What is everyone's problem with the Ratcliffe takeover? IF you offered me a choice between a state backed, daddy's money, never heard of this bloke and seen about 4 pictures guy, or the local born bloke with a link to the club and area, who heads up a massive company with a dedicated sports team section, with a track record of investment in sports teams, and it's no contest.

If the Glazers stay on in a reduced, monetary only capacity, then so what? As long as they have zero say in the running of the club, then let them stay on. It's exactly the same as having the club floated on the stock market, like it is now, and them investing. The main thing is getting them out of the way in terms of the day to day running (and destroying) of the club.

All we as fans really want, is a debt free Man Utd that is able to compete with anyone in terms of the playing side and also facilities. As long as that happens, then every fan should back the new owner, regardless of if it's their favourite or not. After all this time with the Glazers, the last thing we need is MORE infighting between fans about Qatar/INEOS and mud slinging and protests because they didn't get who they wanted. The fan base is fractured enough over people like Pogba and Martial, let alone something this important.

We have zero control over it, so just let it take it's course and go from there.

It's City Jealousy, we want scummy owners with a bottomless pit of cash in the hope they'll pour it all into the club, breaking every FFP rule as they go.

 

[stevoc]

I see absolutely no difference between Ratcliffe and the Glazers. Ratcliffe runs his companies with considerable debt he uses the revenues of those companies to service.

To buy Manchester United he's going to take on considerable debt. The idea he'll somehow treat us differently to every other business he owns, and leave all our revenue on the table for new players, wages and a new stadium, is fanciful.

As is the narrative that banks will finance a project based on a business plan of "legacy project I'm buying for the lolz that I don't expect to make any money from" to the tune of about £4bn. The fact that self-evident truths are blindly denied by some banging the pro-Ratcliffe drum, is also concerning.

How much debt does each of his companies currently have vs their annual profits?

 

[stw2022]

How much debt does each of his companies currently have vs their annual profits?

Gross or net profits? Net profits vary.

£474m profit last year. £200m loss the year before.

Their total debt is around £9bn and they repay £273m a year on that.

 

[KiD MoYeS]

A second Hitler has hit the south tower.

 

[Big Andy]

That's the main problem, Sir Jim hasn't promised to get rid of the debt.

I thought I read that the debt would be shifted to INEOS and not against the club. That's a debt free United is it now?

 

[sglowrider]

Pretty sure it doesn't change the transfer window, since the takeover negotiations have massively overrun we're missed the opportunity now for a new owner to have any real impact on transfers. There's a lot more pressure to get rid of players this summer in prep for future windows.

Outside of player transfers, from what we're led to believe, these would be the improvements:

Immediate Impact -
- Debt cleared - reducing our current annual outgoings by £50m per year
- No longer the only club where the owners are taking dividends - reducing our current outgoings by £20m-£30m per year
- Owners that actually care about the footballing side of things, as oppose to the Glazers - . Now this part is an area of concern, and a bit of a lottery. Maybe the new orders care about the success of the football and entrust the manager, or maybe they get involved and start imposing things. Positive or negative, it will be a huge change for the club, but after such a long and horrid period under the Glazers I guess any change will be an improvement.

Year 1-3
- Stadium redevelopment and increasing the capacity - increasing our revenue by as much as £50m a year (depends obviously on what the capacity is increased to)
- Training facilities improved - more of a qualitative improvement, mindset shift from having players complain nothings changed in years to having modern facilities
- Ladies team will also benefit from this

4th year and beyond
- This is when we've maximised revenue, cut all the costs and will likely dwarf our competition in terms of numbers. This is when it could get silly, the PSG model on crack - if we were to go down that route. It doesn't mean we will take this path, but potentially we could - and this is where the fabric and soul of the club could be ripped out.

Football is now more business than football, it seems almost inevitable this is the way football is going.

Good projections -- the only thing I disagree with is I think most major ME investments nowadays tend to look at long-term viability and financial sustainability. If you look at PIC's approach at Newcastle, they have been quite incremental in their approach. If anything Chelsea's Boehley is acting like some ol' time Arab Shiekh.

 

[stevoc]

Gross or net profits? Net profits vary.

£474m profit last year. £200m loss the year before.

Their total debt is around £9bn and they repay £273m a year on that.

Net profits.

£9b? Even if that's just gross debt it's a lot.

 

[pocco]

I thought I read that the debt would be shifted to INEOS and not against the club. That's a debt free United is it now?

Yeah that's what they said, any new debt would be took on by INEOS. People were still concerned about him keeping the existing debt, but recent reports have said that it will be illegal to take the club on and keep the debt (correct me if I'm wrong), or something to that extent. So that probably wouldn't be an issue either. If that is all correct then we would be debt free under INEOS too.

 

[tenpoless]

Tweet

— Twitter API (@user) date

Michael Lindsell (UK based company) is the biggest class A shares owner. He is the one who is threatening to sue the Glazers if they decide to sell to Jim. If SJ fails, Lindsell will miss out on huge profit. Ariel investment (US based) the second largest class A shares holders.

His twitter name is no goal

 

[pocco]

Net profits.

£9b? Even if that's just gross debt it's a lot.

You're just clutching at straws now. People at INEOS with a much better knowledge of finance and their particular situation, finance agreements etc are obviously comfortable with it, so it is pointless us commenting on their debt really.

 

[stw2022]

Nobody argues Ratcliffe can't afford us. Simply that it'll be a heavily leveraged purchase. And the idea Ineos with its obligations, staff, investors, shareholders and responsibilities is just going to add on all of the additional debt incurred in buying us onto its books and fund stadiums, players and new training grounds for us, is completely ridiculous.

It's never even been promised or even suggested via a leak reported from a pro-Ratcliffe journalist. It's a work of complete fiction.

As is the idea financers are going to give billions to a business plan of "I'll throw money at it, and I won't use their revenues to help pay off any of this money you're giving me. I'll just add to the already considerable debt my companies have without explaininghow i intend to increase revenues to pay for it because #GLAZEROUTLUHG". At some point we have to admit the Emperor's naked and wrestling isn't real and that absolutely isn't his business plan .

 

[Syphon Wallet]

Net profits.

£9b? Even if that's just gross debt it's a lot.

In everyday business terms it's probably fine to be financed to be this much in debt, but yes it's certainly alot.
Such a heavily financed company will surely look to turn a profit on united.

 

[stw2022]

In everyday business terms it's probably fine to be financed to be this much in debt, but yes it's certainly alot.
Such a heavily financed company will surely look to turn a profit on united.

Definitely. How though is interesting. Our current revenues can't finance debt at that level. My guess is short term increase by selling stadium naming rights, long-term sponsorship deals that are heavily to entirely front-loaded and possibly looking at the Barcelona route of selling share of future, projected TV rights revenues.

 

[JagUTD]

Tweet

— Twitter API (@user) date

Michael Lindsell (UK based company) is the biggest class A shares owner. He is the one who is threatening to sue the Glazers if they decide to sell to Jim. If SJ fails, Lindsell will miss out on huge profit. Ariel investment (US based) the second largest class A shares holders.

Hope Ratters fracks him up

 

[mitchmouse]

Just sell the club, you f@cking f@cktards... they seem determined to f@ck up the season so they can say "see we did better"... to quote (supposedly) Oliver Cromwell:

"You have sat too long here for any good you have been doing. In the name of God, go."

 

[mitchmouse]

They're actually the poop that you gotta strain like hell to get out your ass in the first place

that was more my thought

 

[Pexbo]

Just sell the club, you f@cking f@cktards... they seem determined to f@ck up the season so they can say "see we did better"... to quote (supposedly) Oliver Cromwell:

"You have sat too long here for any good you have been doing. In the name of God, go."

You’re allowed to say fatcking on here

 

[KiD MoYeS]

Just sell the club, you f@cking f@cktards... they seem determined to f@ck up the season so they can say "see we did better"... to quote (supposedly) Oliver Cromwell:

"You have sat too long here for any good you have been doing. In the name of God, go."

First Hitler, now Cromwell. This thread really cannot get more evil.

 

[stw2022]

First Hitler, now Cromwell. This thread really cannot get more evil.

You wait, only got 39 pages to go before Thatcher's elected

 

[JagUTD]

The uproar will be huge if SJ/Al Thani lose the bidding in Qatar and Middle east. Abu Dhabi and Saudi Arabia will mock the shxt out of Qatar.

That would be a shame

 

[gorgonzola_viola]

I wonder what the numbers are like for the amount of warnings/infractions/bannings across the life time of this thread.

It really has brought out the worst in some fans.

 

[GreatDane]

I thought I read that the debt would be shifted to INEOS and not against the club. That's a debt free United is it now?

As far as I know he only promised that new debt will be shifted to INEOS, there has been nothing promised about our current debt - and I would think he would have mentioned it if he would be shifting the old debt as that would paint him in a better picture to the fans.

 

[horsechoker]

Hitler has invaded Czechoslovakia.

But he said he wouldn't!

A second Hitler has hit the south tower.

 

[davidmichael]

What is everyone's problem with the Ratcliffe takeover? IF you offered me a choice between a state backed, daddy's money, never heard of this bloke and seen about 4 pictures guy, or the local born bloke with a link to the club and area, who heads up a massive company with a dedicated sports team section, with a track record of investment in sports teams, and it's no contest.

If the Glazers stay on in a reduced, monetary only capacity, then so what? As long as they have zero say in the running of the club, then let them stay on. It's exactly the same as having the club floated on the stock market, like it is now, and them investing. The main thing is getting them out of the way in terms of the day to day running (and destroying) of the club.

All we as fans really want, is a debt free Man Utd that is able to compete with anyone in terms of the playing side and also facilities. As long as that happens, then every fan should back the new owner, regardless of if it's their favourite or not. After all this time with the Glazers, the last thing we need is MORE infighting between fans about Qatar/INEOS and mud slinging and protests because they didn't get who they wanted. The fan base is fractured enough over people like Pogba and Martial, let alone something this important.

We have zero control over it, so just let it take it's course and go from there.

I’d imagine the problem is that we’d be in exactly the same situation we’re in now seeing as Ratcliffe is having to borrow from multiple places in order to fund a move for us and that’s only 50.1%, then there’s the fact that Ratcliffe buying us means more in fighting and lawsuits from the Class A shareholders who would be done out of hundreds of millions due to Ratcliffe only offering a premium on the Glazer’s Class B shares which would see them club embroiled in a court battle that could further destabilise the club.

It’s not as if Ratcliffe or Ineos are skint but they simply don’t have the liquid funds to purchase United so are trying to acquire billions more of debt, risk a boardroom civil war between shareholders, keep the Glazer’s on in a paid capacity and don’t seem to be bothered about the outstanding debt which we’d still need to pay and with City being so far ahead added to Arsenal and Liverpool spending money as well as Newcastle being the richest club in the world we’d fall behind to the point the clubs revenue would keep decreasing to the point we’re even more skint than currently which the share price hints at every time we see Ratcliffe being in the lead or the Glazer’s staying pops up.

 

[stevoc]

You're just clutching at straws now. People at INEOS with a much better knowledge of finance and their particular situation, finance agreements etc are obviously comfortable with it, so it is pointless us commenting on their debt really.

All I said mate was that £9 Billion quid was a lot of money.

 

[stevoc]

In everyday business terms it's probably fine to be financed to be this much in debt, but yes it's certainly alot.
Such a heavily financed company will surely look to turn a profit on united.

I'm sure it is, Ineos is a successful company so I'm sure they're all right.

 

[JagUTD]

Ineos desperately need the average £20million profits United make. It's the only reason pesky Jim wants us. Slimey feck will have loads of fun with it no doubt.

 

[RedBanker]

How's the fight between the two factions going? Whys there no poll here?

 

[AneRu]

What is everyone's problem with the Ratcliffe takeover? IF you offered me a choice between a state backed, daddy's money, never heard of this bloke and seen about 4 pictures guy, or the local born bloke with a link to the club and area, who heads up a massive company with a dedicated sports team section, with a track record of investment in sports teams, and it's no contest.

If the Glazers stay on in a reduced, monetary only capacity, then so what? As long as they have zero say in the running of the club, then let them stay on. It's exactly the same as having the club floated on the stock market, like it is now, and them investing. The main thing is getting them out of the way in terms of the day to day running (and destroying) of the club.

All we as fans really want, is a debt free Man Utd that is able to compete with anyone in terms of the playing side and also facilities. As long as that happens, then every fan should back the new owner, regardless of if it's their favourite or not. After all this time with the Glazers, the last thing we need is MORE infighting between fans about Qatar/INEOS and mud slinging and protests because they didn't get who they wanted. The fan base is fractured enough over people like Pogba and Martial, let alone something this important.

We have zero control over it, so just let it take it's course and go from there.

You seem to forget one thing, A and J aren't just staying as nominal shareholders they will negotiate, doing so from a position of apparent strength and get privileges and veto rights on major decisions. Do you think they will allow Ineos to invest in the stadium, clear the debt and dilute their holdings in the process? Or do you think Sir Jim is gracious enough to increase the value of the club to benefit the Glazers and minority investors without them paying their way just for fun with the lads at the club?

If J and A are greedy enough to want to stay on then they will put mechanisms to protect their interests and those mechanisms will limit or be used by SJR as an excuse not to invest in the club. The club needs outside investment for stadium upgrades, player recruitment and debt clearance. I don't see how we can comfortably do that with a revenue of circa 600m and costs that reach 300m to 500m if you include player acquisitions.

 

[MackRobinson]

First Hitler, now Cromwell. This thread really cannot get more evil.

Only Pol Pot, Son of Sam, and Cruella de Vil left to complete my bingo card.

 

[Fox outside the box]

Ineos desperately need the average £20million profits United make. It's the only reason pesky Jim wants us. Slimey feck will have loads of fun with it no doubt.

So funny how the narrative around him a couple of years ago was pretty much all positive, people were pretty much begging and pleading for him to try and buy the club.

To go from that to "slimey feck" really just highlights how little thought people actually put into their opinions. Shame that most opinions in football are just emotional barf with very little consideration or thought. Just lurching and flip flopping from one half arsed thought to another.

No idea what calling someone you've never met, spoken to and basically know nothing about a "slimy feck" on an Internet forum does for you but I hope it gave you that little dopamine hit you need to feel a little better about yourself? Hopefully one day you don't need to anonymously insult complete strangers to get that.

 

[JagUTD]

So funny how the narrative around him a couple of years ago was pretty much all positive, people were pretty much begging and pleading for him to try and buy the club.

To go from that to "slimey feck" really just highlights how little thought people actually put into their opinions. Shame that most opinions in football are just emotional barf with very little consideration or thought. Just lurching and flip flopping from one half arsed thought to another.

No idea what calling someone you've never met, spoken to and basically know nothing about a "slimy feck" on an Internet forum does for you but I hope it gave you that little dopamine hit you need to feel a little better about yourself? Hopefully one day you don't need to anonymously insult complete strangers to get that.

It's just a parody of the usual anti Ratcliffe posts we get here. Generally based on stuff they made up and then repeated so often they now believe it to be fact. See 3 posts up for an example.

 

[SmallCaine]

So funny how the narrative around him a couple of years ago was pretty much all positive, people were pretty much begging and pleading for him to try and buy the club.

To go from that to "slimey feck" really just highlights how little thought people actually put into their opinions. Shame that most opinions in football are just emotional barf with very little consideration or thought. Just lurching and flip flopping from one half arsed thought to another.

No idea what calling someone you've never met, spoken to and basically know nothing about a "slimy feck" on an Internet forum does for you but I hope it gave you that little dopamine hit you need to feel a little better about yourself? Hopefully one day you don't need to anonymously insult complete strangers to get that.

You don't really need to know someone personally for them to be slimy feck their actions tells us who they are, brexiteer who lives in eu for the express purpose of not paying his taxes is the definition of a slimey feck.