Club Sale | It’s done!

[Son]

I think I’m at my lowest as a United supporter this week. This past decade has finally got the point now where I know we aren’t going anywhere fast anytime soon. I’ve come to terms the United of old is dead.

This club has been on a downward trajectory since the day we sold Ronaldo around 2010. The rot started around that time after a few genius years on a tight budget.

Owen coming in as a number 7 etc was a sign of a new era. United sides in Fergie’s last years were super weak at times just like they are these days.

 

[OleGunnar20]

Some epic tantrums in here since this news broke, but it is undoubtedly a good thing that Manchester United will not become a sportswashing vehicle for a despicable regime like the Qatari ruling family.

I don't love Ratcliffe and nor do I love the 25% deal that's been proposed, but it is infinitely preferable to the Qatari alternative. As always with these things, the devil is in the detail and we'll need to wait to see how this Ineos deal shakes out.

Agreed 100%.

Hate the Glazers, but Qatari ownership would be ruinous to the soul of our club. We can only hope Brexit Jim can put a decent structure in place and start putting our significant wealth to good use (improved facilities, smarter recruitment etc).

He can hardly do worse than the current lot.

 

[Syphon Wallet]

Agreed 100%.

Hate the Glazers, but Qatari ownership would be ruinous to the soul of our club. We can only hope Brexit Jim can put a decent structure in place and start putting our significant wealth to good use (improved facilities, smarter recruitment etc).

He can hardly do worse than the current lot.

Of course he can do worse.
He's going to do worse.

 

[mu4c_20le]

Of course he can do worse.
He's going to do worse.

Well, he already did the unimaginable by cock blocking the oil money. Will take some time to get over that.

 

[Sir Erik ten Hag]

The War Of The 5 Investors will soon be upon us...

And Old Trafford has been burning ever since…

 

[Himannv]

I'm buzzing off the news. To think we could be not only no longer be controlled by the Glazers sporting wise in the immediate term, but potentially be rid of them long term by a local guy who made his millions by himself.... Yep, take that all day long.

Everyone else getting their knickers in a twist because they can't look past a big pot of money the guy is a meme. I'd rather be run like Brighton than PSG/Chelsea any day.

The Glazers are still in charge. I think it's naïve to think that sporting decisions are separate from financial ones. And the Glazers are definitely still in control of any significant financial outlay. The operations will continue as they have all these years with the only finances that are made available being what is generated by the club itself.

 

[RedChisel]

Of course he can do worse.
He's going to do worse.

Can you DM me next week's lottery numbers please?

 

[Bert_]

I think I’m at my lowest as a United supporter this week. This past decade has finally got the point now where I know we aren’t going anywhere fast anytime soon. I’ve come to terms the United of old is dead.

This club has been on a downward trajectory since the day we sold Ronaldo around 2010. The rot started around that time after a few genius years on a tight budget.

Owen coming in as a number 7 etc was a sign of a new era. United sides in Fergie’s last years were super weak at times just like they are these days.

Nothing other than a sale to the Qatari's will fix it?

 

[NotChatGPT]

Obviously it’s not ideal that we’ve seemingly ended up with a deal that involves the Glazers staying on, but going down the route of Jassim (Qatar) was the worst possible alternative so thank god we’ve avoided that one, would’ve been the end of Manchester United.

Hopefully we’ll soon know more about the details, it seems naive to believe that Ratcliffe is spending an obscene amount of money for 25% of the club without there being a clear agreement on a full takeover within x years and that Ratcliffe will have a big impact on general operations.

 

[El Zoido]

Agreed 100%.

Hate the Glazers, but Qatari ownership would be ruinous to the soul of our club. We can only hope Brexit Jim can put a decent structure in place and start putting our significant wealth to good use (improved facilities, smarter recruitment etc).

He can hardly do worse than the current lot.

We’ve been a soulless club for over a decade now. If anything, Qatari ownership would bring the soul of the club back as the focus would be primarily on the football. Under the glazers we’re just a soulless advertising entity, being used to generate commercial revenue to maximise their dividends. And yes it can get worse than the Glazers, and likely will.

 

[IrishMcD]

I think I just expected more from them. I was lead to believe these guys despise losing and would do whatever it takes etc.

To then in their mind, their way of not losing is to buy Liverpool, Spurs or someone else and hammer us for the next few decades.

 

[AFC NimbleThumb]

Some epic tantrums in here since this news broke, but it is undoubtedly a good thing that Manchester United will not become a sportswashing vehicle for a despicable regime like the Qatari ruling family.

I don't love Ratcliffe and nor do I love the 25% deal that's been proposed, but it is infinitely preferable to the Qatari alternative. As always with these things, the devil is in the detail and we'll need to wait to see how this Ineos deal shakes out.

It’s only preferable if you chose to operate in a world where there are only 2 options.

Had you told our fanbase that Ratcliffe was going to buy 25% of the Glazers 69% all the way back when the Glazers released their statement they’d have been uproar so judging this Ratcliffe deal in the shadow of ‘it’s not Qatar’ isn’t actually judging the Ratcliffe deal on its merits.

Whilst people had their reasons for not wanting Qatar it was the sole 100% change deal we had on the table so people being disappointed this has gone through isn’t ’throwing epic tantrums’ especially when, as you say, the devils in the detail with the Ratcliffe deal & people are acting like it’s a win with none of those details available.

The proposed deal of a petro-chemical giant giving the Glazers billions for a share of their shares is not infinitely preferential to the deal that just stepped away from the table.

If Ratcliffe refused the 25% deal how long can the Glazers continue to run the club for? Ratcliffe doesn’t have to do this, & the fact he’s willing to do this in this way should be a warning.

 

[Rojofiam]

So much utter drivel on here...some nonsensical take on every page

 

[Bert_]

We’ve been a soulless club for over a decade now. If anything, Qatari ownership would bring the soul of the club back as the focus would be primarily on the football. Under the glazers we’re just a soulless advertising entity, being used to generate commercial revenue to maximise their dividends. And yes it can get worse than the Glazers, and likely will.

Nothing cleanses the soul as much as becoming an autocratic state's propoganda vehicle.

 

[AFC NimbleThumb]

Nothing cleanses the soul as much as becoming an autocratic state's propoganda vehicle.

As opposed to a petro-chemical company?

I can actually get behind why people would see an issue with Qatar on human rights but why are people so willing to turn a blind eye to the atrocities petro-chemical mining causes? Surely neither are good enough?

 

[Rojofiam]

As opposed to a petro-chemical company?

I can actually get behind why people would see an issue with Qatar on human rights but why are people so willing to turn a blind eye to the atrocities petro-chemical mining causes? Surely neither are good enough?

Because it's one man with his company vs a whole-ass nation state. How can you even make that comparison?

 

[Drizzle]

We’ve been a soulless club for over a decade now. If anything, Qatari ownership would bring the soul of the club back as the focus would be primarily on the football.

An incredible take. As if Qatar has any interest in football's soul.

You wanted unlimited money, the end. Let's just call it as it is. It's an understandable position, so it's OK to say it. Stop creating bizarre narratives.

 

[Lyng]

As opposed to a petro-chemical company?

I can actually get behind why people would see an issue with Qatar on human rights but why are people so willing to turn a blind eye to the atrocities petro-chemical mining causes? Surely neither are good enough?

Not to mention how close his company is to the Saudis.
Ineos is about as disgusting as companies can get, so the fact that we have people on here cheering for Jim while trying to play high and mighty towards people who where behind the Qatar bid, is a bit rich.

 

[Widow]

Had you told our fanbase that Ratcliffe was going to buy 25% of the Glazers 69%

Is he buying 25% of their shares though? I thought it was a mixture of class A and B from the twats and from the market?

 

[Widow]

An incredible take. As if Qatar has any interest in football's soul.

You wanted unlimited money, the end. Let's just call it as it is. It's an understandable position, so it's OK to say it. Stop creating bizarre narratives.

Why wouldn't Qatar be interested in the 'soul of the club', whatever that means. City and Newcastle owners are pumping cash into the local area and every inch of their respected clubs, would this class as embracing the 'soul' of football? What does it mean to you personally?

 

[NotChatGPT]

It’s only preferable if you chose to operate in a world where there are only 2 options.

Had you told our fanbase that Ratcliffe was going to buy 25% of the Glazers 69% all the way back when the Glazers released their statement they’d have been uproar so judging this Ratcliffe deal in the shadow of ‘it’s not Qatar’ isn’t actually judging the Ratcliffe deal on its merits.

Whilst people had their reasons for not wanting Qatar it was the sole 100% change deal we had on the table so people being disappointed this has gone through isn’t ’throwing epic tantrums’ especially when, as you say, the devils in the detail with the Ratcliffe deal & people are acting like it’s a win with none of those details available.

The proposed deal of a petro-chemical giant giving the Glazers billions for a share of their shares is not infinitely preferential to the deal that just stepped away from the table.

If Ratcliffe refused the 25% deal how long can the Glazers continue to run the club for? Ratcliffe doesn’t have to do this, & the fact he’s willing to do this in this way should be a warning.

It depends on the full extent of it, doesn’t it? There’s a bit of a difference between «only 25% and the Glazers staying on until the end of days» and «initial 25% then full takeover within x years as the yanks are unhappy with current valuations». It’s hardly a no strings attached «please take my money» situation, is it.

It’s rather simple, a lot of people wanted Qatari ownership because they wanted a shortcut to success. Doesn’t matter who we are owned by, what it actually means, the consequences, as long as we bag a few big trophies along the way. Had nothing to do with getting rid of the Glazers. Had this 25% deal been struck with Jassim they would’ve loved it. feck it, feck them.

 

[NotChatGPT]

Why wouldn't Qatar be interested in the 'soul of the club', whatever that means. City and Newcastle owners are pumping cash into the local area and every inch of their respected clubs, would this class as embracing the 'soul' of football? What does it mean to you personally?

Such nice wonderful people.

 

[Suv666]

I need to see an ironclad timeline of the full takeover and the Glazers fecking off or being reduced to an insignificant minority.

If there isn’t this is a bad deal otherwise I’m fine with it.

 

[Hester_manc]

I fear Ratcliff is no better news for United than the Glazers were. In any case, there are a number of unanswered questions that we must hope will be answered in the near future. Here are Gary Neville's 16 questions for Ratcliff and United. Answers to these will at least be a start.

• 1. What does the distribution of funds look like? Is all the cash being taken out of the club?
• 2. Which Glazers are going or is it a family dilution?
• 3. How does it impact the NYSE shareholders?
• 4. Does the executive stay the same?
• 5. Does the sporting side stay the same above the manager?
• 6. Who within the board has sporting control?
• 7. Are there future dilution clauses with the Glazer family in any deal you do as a minority shareholder? When are they?
• 8. We’re maxed out on the credit card and debt. How is this deal going to change the capital structure and financial issues the club has?
• 9. Is any further debt being placed on the club?
• 10. Is any debt being paid off?
• 11. How does this deal impact the board composition?
• 12. How does a minority shareholder impact the negative culture within the entire organisation?
• 13. Old Trafford is tired and is in need of significant redevelopment. How does this deal resolve this issue?
• 14. Will this deal allow the development of the training ground to its required standard?
• 15. Old Trafford requires significant investment on its surrounding land. Does this deal impact this requirement positively or does it leave it as a concrete wasteland?
• 16. How does a minority shareholder stop cultural decline across a whole organisation if the people who have overseen this decline still have a majority shareholding?

 

[Tango80]

The Glazers are still in charge. I think it's naïve to think that sporting decisions are separate from financial ones. And the Glazers are definitely still in control of any significant financial outlay. The operations will continue as they have all these years with the only finances that are made available being what is generated by the club itself.

They're still in charge for now. But if they have given up sporting control for it, that's huge.

If Ratcliffe has also started the path for an eventual takeover, also huge. There's a lot of ifs in there, but at the same time, why start wetting the bed when you don't know all the details?

Let's remind ourselves of the other options on the table here, rather than looking at the big sack of Qatari cash on the table.

We could have sealed a minority investment with another entity who wasn't interested in having any control. The Glazers could have also not taken any deal. What we ended up with is very positive.

The reason why we are in a mess financially is because of sporting decisions. If the sporting side is run correctly, then we're successful and the financial side then benefits.

 

[Wheato]

I think I’m at my lowest as a United supporter this week. This past decade has finally got the point now where I know we aren’t going anywhere fast anytime soon. I’ve come to terms the United of old is dead.

This club has been on a downward trajectory since the day we sold Ronaldo around 2010. The rot started around that time after a few genius years on a tight budget.

Owen coming in as a number 7 etc was a sign of a new era. United sides in Fergie’s last years were super weak at times just like they are these days.

How is Britain's richest man, buying a quarter of the club, with the intention of taking over the sporting side of the business, with the best in class involved, any worse than what we had before?

You've been duped by the Qatari Disneyland, which probably was never on the cards in the first place. They were just a pawn to flush out potential investors.

The investor we will end up with does have some skin in the game. Not like the Elliot group from the US. He is from Manchester, he follows football, and has a track record with Sporting endeavours. Between him and his co partners at Ineos, they have a combined wealth of 43bn so we're not in a bad place all things considered.

 

[Lyng]

I fear Ratcliff is no better news for United than the Glazers were. In any case, there are a number of unanswered questions that we must hope will be answered in the near future. Here are Gary Neville's 16 questions for Ratcliff and United. Answers to these will at least be a start.

• 1. What does the distribution of funds look like? Is all the cash being taken out of the club?
• 2. Which Glazers are going or is it a family dilution?
• 3. How does it impact the NYSE shareholders?
• 4. Does the executive stay the same?
• 5. Does the sporting side stay the same above the manager?
• 6. Who within the board has sporting control?
• 7. Are there future dilution clauses with the Glazer family in any deal you do as a minority shareholder? When are they?
• 8. We’re maxed out on the credit card and debt. How is this deal going to change the capital structure and financial issues the club has?
• 9. Is any further debt being placed on the club?
• 10. Is any debt being paid off?
• 11. How does this deal impact the board composition?
• 12. How does a minority shareholder impact the negative culture within the entire organisation?
• 13. Old Trafford is tired and is in need of significant redevelopment. How does this deal resolve this issue?
• 14. Will this deal allow the development of the training ground to its required standard?
• 15. Old Trafford requires significant investment on its surrounding land. Does this deal impact this requirement positively or does it leave it as a concrete wasteland?
• 16. How does a minority shareholder stop cultural decline across a whole organisation if the people who have overseen this decline still have a majority shareholding?

Great post.

 

[Remember the geese]

Great post.

How? It's just copied from Gary Neville.

 

[pauldyson1uk]

Obviously, everyone wants the leeches (Glazers) out and the sooner the better. But what would hasten that?
Empty stadiums and no merchandise sales is my guess.
Why is there no concerted effort on those fronts? Would probably only take a few months of it before they shat themselves.

This will never happen, for every person that say's I wont go or buy anything from the shop, there is 100 that will say OK I will take your ticket and buy stuff and they know that.
You are delusional, if you think OT would ever be anywhere near empty for a game.

 

[aganley]

How is Britain's richest man, buying a quarter of the club, with the intention of taking over the sporting side of the business, with the best in class involved, any worse than what we had before?

You've been duped by the Qatari Disneyland, which probably was never on the cards in the first place. They were just a porn to flush out potential investors.

The investor we will end up with does have some skin in the game. Not like the Elliot group from the US. He is from Manchester, he follows football, and has a track record with Sporting endeavours. Between him and his co partners at Ineos, they have a combined wealth of 43bn so we're not in a bad place all things considered.

It's not what we had before, it's what we could have had. The complete removal of the Glazers - New Stadium - New Infrastructure - No debt - Huge investment in the Team. Now we have some vague plans with an empty promise that some time in the future an 80 year old man wants full control.

 

[Drizzle]

Why wouldn't Qatar be interested in the 'soul of the club', whatever that means. City and Newcastle owners are pumping cash into the local area and every inch of their respected clubs, would this class as embracing the 'soul' of football? What does it mean to you personally?

If you think City and Newcastle owners are interested in the soul of those clubs then I give up. Their property deals, done on cheap deals with local councils desperate for regeneration, will be very profitable for them longterm and is a convenient haven for petro money, to distribute it globally and protect them from any geopolitics that may be coming their way.

They're sportswashing projects, plain and simple. And yes, that means they want the clubs to be successful, just like almost all owners.

The soul of the club is the club itself and us, the fans. Not the owners.

 

[Bert_]

As opposed to a petro-chemical company?

I can actually get behind why people would see an issue with Qatar on human rights but why are people so willing to turn a blind eye to the atrocities petro-chemical mining causes? Surely neither are good enough?

No, petro-chemical company ownership doesn't cleanse the soul either.

 

[Lyng]

How? It's just copied from Gary Neville.

I had not seen that from Gary. In that case let me rephrase: Great points from Neville.

 

[Tincanalley]

I'm buzzing off the news. To think we could be not only no longer be controlled by the Glazers sporting wise in the immediate term, but potentially be rid of them long term by a local guy who made his millions by himself.... Yep, take that all day long.

Everyone else getting their knickers in a twist because they can't look past a big pot of money the guy is a meme. I'd rather be run like Brighton than PSG/Chelsea any day.

Well said. This debate didn’t split the supporters. But it certainly flushed out a fair bit of plastic. Like others have said, lots of uncertainty still, no big celebration from here. But … maybe … a glimmer of hope.

 

[Sir Erik ten Hag]

If you think City and Newcastle owners are interested in the soul of those clubs then I give up. Their property deals, done on cheap deals with local councils desperate for regeneration, will be very profitable for them longterm and is a convenient haven for petro money, to distribute it globally and protect them from any geopolitics that may be coming their way.

They're sportswashing projects, plain and simple. And yes, that means they want the clubs to be successful, just like almost all owners.

The soul of the club is the club itself and us, the fans. Not the owners.

Then we as a club has lost the “soul”, since the fans are treated as irrelevant by the people actually running the club?

 

[Bert_]

Why wouldn't Qatar be interested in the 'soul of the club', whatever that means. City and Newcastle owners are pumping cash into the local area and every inch of their respected clubs, would this class as embracing the 'soul' of football? What does it mean to you personally?

The overpriced low quality terraced houses and tiny flats Abu Dhabi have built on what was previously publicly owned land that they grabbed for peanuts has really seen them embrace the soul of the city. They even threw a launch party for a new housing project recently to entice buyers. Unfortunatley, I couldn't attend as it was in Singapore.

 

[pauldyson1uk]

Good luck to all True Reds here. This is me signing off from this forum.
I have been Pro-Qatar for a while for a simple fact, demanding results from everyone.
Pogba, Sanchez, Glazers, Jim, Rashford, all cut from the same cloth. Money without accountability.

following United for almost 27 years has been a great joy, I associated myself with this club even living thousands kilometers away.
From last november I saw a bitter truth, tribalism at its peak across every fiber of our society.

I wanted my team to win, best players & best facilities (never had the money to visit, but that was my life time goal to visit Old Trafford) , my team has been at the top of mt. everest of football for generations, unfortunately there's nothing going to change. And taking emotional toll which I cannot take it any more.

Lack of unity on this forum shows what Glazers have done to us. Its been 10 years since our better days, we have been smacked around by our fiercest rivals, yet Jim is the answer. (either get the money or get competency atleast if both are not possible).

My 4 year old has been singing Glory Glory from last 2 years. I hope he succeeds in following his team for his life.

Thank you for everything friends.

Cheers for this, just another plastic gone, that can only be good
I always say, if you cant support the club during the bad and right now it is bad, then you don't deserve to support the club during the good.
Clearly you came when it was very good, now you cant handle the bad.
BYE

 

[Drizzle]

Then we as a club has lost the “soul”, since the fans are treated as irrelevant by the people actually running the club?

We, the fans, exist, regardless of how the owners treat us.

Owners come and go, we'll remain (well apart from the few who are claiming they've given up supporting us now because Qatar didn't buy us).

 

[Wilt]

How is Britain's richest man, buying a quarter of the club, with the intention of taking over the sporting side of the business, with the best in class involved, any worse than what we had before?

You've been duped by the Qatari Disneyland, which probably was never on the cards in the first place. They were just a porn to flush out potential investors.

The investor we will end up with does have some skin in the game. Not like the Elliot group from the US. He is from Manchester, he follows football, and has a track record with Sporting endeavours. Between him and his co partners at Ineos, they have a combined wealth of 43bn so we're not in a bad place all things considered.

Good post

 

[JagUTD]

Because it's one man with his company vs a whole-ass nation state. How can you even make that comparison?

Someone explained why in this post

So much utter drivel on here...some nonsensical take on every page