Yeah exactly this is better than them still being in complete control of everything,there are plenty in this thread who are clearly not prepared to give a new structure a chance. He is the 7th Glazer in their eyes and they have wrote him off already.
They liked the deal because they never cared about the football side of things, and just saw the club as a commercial business for them to just raise their asset value and take their dividends. The way they see it, they still own majority of the club and can take their dividends or whatever, they no longer have to deal with that annoying and difficult to handle football side that gets them a bad public image, and they get 1 billion between them to relieve them of that burden. It's an easy win for them. As it was, they pretty much ignored the football operations. Now they gave it to somebody else to be responsible for all of it.
This could very well be a poisoned chalice for Ratcliffe. Working with a pair of greedy rentier capitalists who only care about money is not going to make it easy to run the football side as a minority shareholder. Surely it's a temporary measure at best. Prising the Glazer tapeworm out of the clubs guts is going to be hard.
What are your criteria for a properly run club? How will success be defined?
Bookmarked and I will check again in 2 years time
Our initial hopes with ETH ought to give us some expectations.
Obviously the new owners, not the old ones. The old ones are good enough for writing cheques, getting their dividends and watching the value of the club grow. I'm fine with that.
Ratcliffe seems in control of football operations for now atleast, so hopefully the Glazers trust him with it.
I noticed in the locked thread there was a suggestion for a poll on what people think of the minority stake. Maybe that's the best way forward for getting a proper indicator on views here.
The money would come from United or would be borrowed by United as it always has done. The Glazers not spending a penny wouldn't be a change.
No, just some truth. Delighted that we have new owners bringing in a new structure that won't involve slaves or sportswashing. Absolutely wonderful news. The champagne has been out and all
The transfer budgets have never really been a problem. It’s been bad spending.
Think the trouble is Jassim's view for the club made many get starry eyed,INEOS seemed a popular option until they decided to move from 51% to 25% ownership. The lack of clarity on certain things is definitely fuelling frustration tooNo, just some truth. Delighted that we have new owners bringing in a new structure that won't involve slaves or sportswashing. Absolutely wonderful news. The champagne has been out and all
Well, we have been hamstrung by Glazers at times as well. As long as SJR pumps his own money in, shouldn't be a problem.
Some were definitely hoping for a sheikh up
ETH would have much better chance of success if he had a competent DOF and football structure supporting him.
This sort of arrangement will spill conflicts of interest all over.
ETH is a shit judge of potential and current ability. He wont be successful with such a flaw.
Yeah man, If it ain't white, it ain't right!
It simply can't be worse than owners staying in America and has zero interest in football at all. The parasite only interested in money and more money. Refused to even spent a penny ot their own money. Instead milking it every opportunity they have.
I respectfully disagree. They squad he assembled is a combination of his and the football structure failure. Even Klopp don't get all the players he wants. It's the structure decide and get him the players
Except ETH gets most player he wants and they're all crap. Even the players he coached before which he should have known inside out already by now
Is this totally his faults? He was not supposed to be the DOF.
If both walked away, we are stucked with Glazers, Arnold, Murtough and ETH. God no!
Yeah a truly nightmare scenario but clearly some believed Ratcliffe shouldn't have budged on his offer to buy at least 51%. He did it because desperately wanted the club,however wasn't getting anywhere trying to get a majority share
I saw this coming. The mental gymnastics that were being made to support Jim as he kept lowering his bid and offered to keep the glazers in made it obvious that there’s a % whose support for the Ratcliff bid is not based on rationality or merit.
I think there's two very different ways of looking at it. I'd appreciate if anyone who is more knowledgeable confirms or corrects this.
never gets old. Glazers would then be forced to sell.You have to remember that most of the Glazers have no interest whatsoever of the football side of things. If they believe that Ratcliffe being in charge will make them more money than Joel/Avram making the decisions, chances are they'd absolutely be for it. And Ratcliffe will now own roughly the same amount of shares as Joel and Avram put together.
Errrm are you okay?
This back-of-envelope maths makes the most sense. DSG's numbers seem a bit fantasistic -- that Ratcliffe found some magic formula that enabled him with 25% or 1.3billion to control the club.
The loan analogy doesn't make sense. Yes, there might be conflict of interest if Ratcliffe wants to buy a new stadium but we don't fund our transfers by borrowing beyond what we can spend (before the pedantic idiots jump in, lines of credit / other short term loans / creative financing stuff doesn't fall under the previous statement). FFP generally won't allow that, that's the reason for its existence.
