Club Sale | It’s done!

Status
Not open for further replies.

Hughie77

Full Member
Joined
Oct 22, 2017
Messages
4,204
I will be optimistic about this. Looking at it purely from a footballing point of view it appears on the face of it to be very positive and exactly what we have been crying out for. A complete overhaul of the football operations side.
You got more faith than me in this..
 

mu4c_20le

Full Member
Joined
Jul 7, 2013
Messages
44,342
So I’m drinking kool-aid and trying to spin this as being good news?

I’m trying to work out who you have an issue with or if you’re arguing with yourself somewhat.
Sorry to poke holes i. you poking holes but did you actually read my post? If so where do I say it was a full sale or do I say it’s a steep climb down from what people wanted when the statement first dropped.

The state of this place. Comprehension matters lad.
This thread just keeps on giving :lol:
 

ajaxunited34

New Member
Newbie
Joined
Aug 21, 2023
Messages
23
Supports
United
I hope he puts ralf ragnick in charge as head of football.
And gives him total control of the transfers and guard keeper of the football philosophy at the club.
 

Rojofiam

Full Member
Joined
May 11, 2017
Messages
3,572
The usual suspects with their clear agendas don't want to admit that the initial 300m investment is clearly not the only one that Ratcliffe will make, just the first of many...not surprising. Their "won't ever put money in" argument was defeated on day 1...
 

AFC NimbleThumb

New Member
Joined
Apr 21, 2019
Messages
8,363
The usual suspects with their clear agendas don't want to admit that the initial 300m investment is clearly not the only one that Ratcliffe will make, just the first of many...not surprising. Their "won't ever put money in" argument was defeated on day 1...
Wading in with strawman arguments has always been a great way to move forward the discussion.

Just like discussing investment certainties you know sweet f all about.

He’s putting in $200mil woth a further $100mil to come, that’s what we know as fact. So if you’d like to discuss facts instead of being the usual suspect that talks about things we’ve no clue about then join the party.
 

sullydnl

Ross Kemp's caf ID
Joined
Sep 13, 2012
Messages
34,063
INEOS' other shareholders might have opinions or influence that Ratcliffe isn't interested in I suppose.
Doubt that's the reason, as one of INEOS' other two co-owners will reportedly be appointed to the United PLC board. Between him and Ratcliffe that's 80% of INEOS' ownership directly involved, with INEOS themselves taking control of the football operations. I doubt the opinion/influence of the third co-owner would be such an issue at that point as to prompt Ratcliffe to make the purchase instead.
 

Castia

Full Member
Joined
Jun 18, 2011
Messages
18,476
The usual suspects with their clear agendas don't want to admit that the initial 300m investment is clearly not the only one that Ratcliffe will make, just the first of many...not surprising. Their "won't ever put money in" argument was defeated on day 1...
No proof or even suggestion of that happening what so ever but ok. The money he’s ’putting in’ is hilarious he’s getting shares for that 300m investment he’s committed nothing without some sort of return

Jim gets his shares OT gets a coat of paint and the roof repaired…..amazing
 
Last edited:

Marcelinho87

Full Member
Joined
Aug 4, 2010
Messages
7,263
Location
Barnsley
INEOS' other shareholders might have opinions or influence that Ratcliffe isn't interested in I suppose.
the other 2 of them? Doubt it.

trawler has been setup to muddy the waters so to speak, so that INEOS won’t be linked to United because of Nice but you bet INEOS is involved somehow.
 

arnie_ni

Full Member
Joined
Apr 27, 2014
Messages
15,252
Can someone up to date on ffp tell me if a cash injection by a shareholder via issuance of shares be used on player transfers? Or is thay disallowed as well
 

Marcelinho87

Full Member
Joined
Aug 4, 2010
Messages
7,263
Location
Barnsley
Wading in with strawman arguments has always been a great way to move forward the discussion.

Just like discussing investment certainties you know sweet f all about.

He’s putting in $200mil woth a further $100mil to come, that’s what we know as fact. So if you’d like to discuss facts instead of being the usual suspect that talks about things we’ve no clue about then join the party.
Here’s a fact, he has put in $300m more than those feckers ever have.
 

Buster15

Go on Didier
Joined
Aug 28, 2018
Messages
13,543
Location
Bristol
Supports
Bristol Rovers
I agree, I understand people's concerns regarding the future control of the club, but I'm just glad for some change around how the footballing side operates and someone with at least high level sporting and football experience doing that.
Yes indeed. We simply can not carry on as we were.
 

Rojofiam

Full Member
Joined
May 11, 2017
Messages
3,572
No proof or even suggestion of that happening what so ever but ok. The money he’s ’putting in’ is hilarious he’s getting shares for that 300m investment he’s committed nothing without some sort of return

Jim gets his shares OT gets a coat of paint and the roof repaired…..amazing
So you yourself realize that the deal is structured in a way that there's heavy incentive for him to keep investing big amounts...?
 

arnie_ni

Full Member
Joined
Apr 27, 2014
Messages
15,252
the other 2 of them? Doubt it.

trawler has been setup to muddy the waters so to speak, so that INEOS won’t be linked to United because of Nice but you bet INEOS is involved somehow.
Itl be easy to follow the flow of the money. Is the money deposited to trawler Ltd a director loan or not
 

Big Ben Foster

Correctly predicted Portugal to win Euro 2016
Joined
Mar 19, 2008
Messages
13,037
Location
BR -> MI -> TX
Supports
Also support Vasco da Gama
the other 2 of them? Doubt it.

trawler has been setup to muddy the waters so to speak, so that INEOS won’t be linked to United because of Nice but you bet INEOS is involved somehow.
This. I interpreted it as a way to circumvent the multi-club ownership restrictions.
 

DownRiver

New Member
Newbie
Joined
May 5, 2018
Messages
769
INEOS won't own anything.

Ratcliffe is buying the shares himself (both the original 25% and the new shares issued for the $300m), not INEOS. He's doing that under the company Trawlers Limited, a company he set up (the name is a nod towards Cantona's old quote about seagulls following the trawler) which he owns 100% of. Effectively, Trawler = Ratcliffe. I presume it's just more tax effective to own them through a company rather than directly under his name.

So at the end of the day, the 6 Glazer siblings and Trawler/Ratcliffe will be the ones with Class B shares.
Thanks for this, I guess as Ratcliffe is the majority owner of INEOS, he can loan Trawlers a low interest debt if in the future Trawlers wants to buy more equity in the club.

I presume this will overcome any sort of UEFA issues with NICE.
 

Castia

Full Member
Joined
Jun 18, 2011
Messages
18,476
So you yourself realize that the deal is structured in a way that there's heavy incentive for him to keep investing big amounts...?
No that’s not been announced what so ever. Again you’re completely jumping the gun. This 300m will go to the club for a return of shares that’s been negotiated and agreed as part of the deal.

If the Glazers are selling more shares next year, in 2 years or whenever there’s absolutely nothing in place for money to go to the club in fact I’m 99.9% sure they’re taking out every penny possible

This ‘initial’ 300m ‘investment’ is an absolute farce I’m amazed by how many people think this is a good thing

Do you not have questions about the debt or the future of OT and its refurbishment? this deal on the face of it outside of hiring a DoF which by the way even clubs in the fecking Championship have in place is completely bollocks
 

cyberman

Full Member
Joined
May 26, 2010
Messages
37,331
I think many people are neglecting to acknowledge how significant these changes will be.
Why? They’ll just be waiting on Jim instead of Joel. There’s nothing streamlined here.
Plus extending budget is because they know the squad needs more, seemingly having that flexibility taken away isn’t a positive
 

Buster15

Go on Didier
Joined
Aug 28, 2018
Messages
13,543
Location
Bristol
Supports
Bristol Rovers
No that’s not been announced what so ever. Again you’re completely jumping the gun. This 300m will go to the club for a return of shares that’s been negotiated and agreed as part of the deal.

If the Glazers are selling more shares next year, in 2 years or whenever there’s absolutely nothing in place for money to go to the club in fact I’m 99.9% sure they’re taking out every penny possible

This ‘initial’ 300m ‘investment’ is an absolute farce I’m amazed by how many people think this is a good thing

Do you not have questions about the debt or the future of OT and its refurbishment? this deal on the face of it outside of hiring a DoF which by the way even clubs in the fecking Championship have in place is completely bollocks
So 300m Euros into the club is a farce. Goodness me.
 

AFC NimbleThumb

New Member
Joined
Apr 21, 2019
Messages
8,363
No that’s not been announced what so ever. Again you’re completely jumping the gun. This 300m will go to the club for a return of shares that’s been negotiated and agreed as part of the deal.

If the Glazers are selling more shares next year, in 2 years or whenever there’s absolutely nothing in place for money to go to the club in fact I’m 99.9% sure they’re taking out every penny possible

This ‘initial’ 300m ‘investment’ is an absolute farce I’m amazed by how many people think this is a good thing

Do you not have questions about the debt or the future of OT and its refurbishment? this deal on the face of it outside of hiring a DoF which by the way even clubs in the fecking Championship have in place is completely bollocks
We’ve been ran so badly that ‘football structure’, which as you point out clubs in the lower league have, is being championed.
 

DownRiver

New Member
Newbie
Joined
May 5, 2018
Messages
769
People are overlooking the fact that Ratcliffe is buying the club and not INEOS. However, he is using INEOS’s resources as he is majority owner. This is the best scenario as this secures the club for a generation/s if for whatever reason in the future INEOS goes public or Ratcliffe’s shares in INEOS are diluted etc. The club can be self sustaining, and I feel Ratcliffe has put extra ‘security’ on his prized asset.

I don’t know his plans, maybe this will change and INEOS buys Trawlers shares once the UEFA rule changes on owning for than one European club. I would like to see his vision.
 

MadDogg

Full Member
Joined
Apr 24, 2002
Messages
16,026
Location
Manchester Utd never lose, just run out of time
So 300m Euros into the club is a farce. Goodness me.
Actually $300m US.

In the grand scheme of things? it absolutely is.
It's not enough to completely revolutionise things, but it's hardly just 'a coat of paint'. It's a very significant amount to inject into the club in a 12 month time frame. How much more is to come in later years, we'll just have to wait and see.
 

mav_9me

Full Member
Joined
Feb 9, 2009
Messages
12,504
I have no preference in who owns the club, am not anti Jim or anti Qatar. Only anti Glazers.

So in that sense I'm happy someone else is in charge of football.

Having said that, I'm very pessimistic about the future anyway, I feel we are cursed for the immediate future. It's not like INEOS has a brilliant track record. Even if there is understandably some hope for a lot of the fans, I'm not one of them.
 

Plant0x84

Shame we’re aren’t more like Brighton
Joined
Jun 23, 2020
Messages
13,492
Location
Carpark and snack area adjacent to the abyss
You’re the same guy that’s waffles on about not believing all the press report when it comes to players/the manager in other threads so not sure why the sudden change. Oh yes, it doesn’t suit todays narrative.

Facts are there was never a nothing substantial yet many posters were shoving full ownership down the throats of whoever questioned this investment model.

I hope it goes well but spent months on the end of you ItKs chatting out your arses.

Merry Christmas btw
Why aggressive/defensive?

There is no narrative, I speak as I find and at the time credible sources were reporting the plan involved a roadmap to a majority and subsequent possibility of 100% and taking the club off the stock exchange. It was reasonable to assume this was the plan given Sir Jim’s desire to buy a majority from the get go. I still hope this is the end goal, although I’m willing to admit it seems a whole lot more sketchy now. We are all just gonna have to suck it and see.

Maybe I got a little carried away, after all we had months of Jassim this and Jassim that and it was only a matter of time. To find out that it was actually Sir Jim getting a deal done was a blessed relief, but generally yeah - don’t hang your hat on what journos looking for clicks are saying. You can consider this example a cautionary tale!! ;)

For what it’s worth, Sir Jim and INEOS have never been a perfect scenario. Even purchasing the Glazers whole 69% and having majority control as per the first bid was fraught with complications and compromises. But I have favoured this bid because I believe it to be the best for the club going forward.

The whole mystique and subterfuge of the Qatar bid was a huge turn off. Just put your cards on the table and play it straight. Are you a front for a state bid or a private citizen? How are you funding the bid? If you want 100% then why won’t you pay the asking price? Why didn’t you turn up in person? Do you understand that it’s the Glazers you have to impress, not the fans? I understood the whole allure of endless cash and glitzy transfers, state of the art stadiums and training centres but at the end of the day their bid was only about money, and without wanting to sound corny United means more to me than that. That’s before we get into the whole state ownership/sportwashing thing that has been done to death. :boring:

If their was a third credible way, which appealed more I would have backed it, indeed if Jassim didn’t seem too good to be true I could have backed him, but in the end it was a straight choice between Qatar and ineos and the rest is history now.

I’ve never claimed to be ITK either, I’m certainly definitely no better informed than any caftard, but I do get my hair off with all the opinion, half truths and lies that gather traction and get banded around as fact which is why Ive banged on in the thread as much as I have. I only ever wanted fellow fans to have correct information to make their judgement on, and if they have a different opinion to me then so be it. I hope you’d agree with the little information and misleading reports we’ve all had to go on in the last 12 months that there has been a fair amount of arse-chat on both sides of the debate.

I too hope this goes well and we start to see attractive winning football because ultimately hope is all we have as fans. I’d like to think now we have an outcome the fan base can unite behind a new way, but I’m not naive or deluded enough to think we actually will.

Merry Christmas to you too mate, I hope you’re having a better day than it seems from the tone of your posts! :devil:
 

Big Ben Foster

Correctly predicted Portugal to win Euro 2016
Joined
Mar 19, 2008
Messages
13,037
Location
BR -> MI -> TX
Supports
Also support Vasco da Gama
I assume this is you suggesting they could sell seperately.

Do you have any concrete evidence to support such an assertion or is it wishful thinking in order to justify this deal?
Still waiting for the details of the governance rule changes to see if this is true, but one of the sources yesterday said B shares will no longer convert to A shares once sold.

Logically, that would make sense. The other four siblings were said to prefer the Qatar bid as they wanted out entirely. This would provide them an eventual exit path and enable SJR to build up his stake over time.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.