Clearly not given how we were run the past 10 years. The main men were commercial guys like Woodward / Arnold. As long as the money kept coming in, the Glazers didn't care.A football club main job is footballing issues. Very confusing. Glazers like 100%.
Club Sale | It’s done!
- Thread starter JB08
- Start date
- Status
But the offer from Jassim was lower than the offer from Ratcliff. If he offers the same money for the rest of the shares he’s offering more than Jassim, and they could have made a deal when and how he can get the other shares. Bad thing is the Glazers can leech a couple years more and get more valuation than Jassim for the shares. Good thing is they will be gone in the end. Let’s just wait and see what the deal is, nobody really knows right now.
Who runs Spurs and how much of the club do they own?Does make some sense,
how does a person with 25% stake of a Football Club, control all footballing issues.
A football club main job is footballing issues
Tweet
— Twitter API (@user) date
The fact is that everything will still require sign off by Joel and Avram so Ratcliffe and Ratcliffe’s men will be hampered by exactly the same issues Murtough and his ilk have had before.Does make some sense,
how does a person with 25% stake of a Football Club, control all footballing issues.
A football club main job is footballing issues
Tweet
— Twitter API (@user) date
We are stuck with bad owners who will try to sell club again in a year or two. Now we have a mess. Especially with the fact that Glazers got fresh money now so they don't need to sell full club for years.
It's not strange at all.
Do you think the Glazers (who? Darcie? The guy who's an actual MAGA loon? One of the other two whose names I can't even remember) actually give a feck about football?
It is a very slight, very tiny chance that either Joel or Avram consider themselves football experts and would interfere with whatever Jim's people do on the football side.
(In reality, there's zero chance, because Jim won't spend a billion and a half to gain "control" of United's football side without actually gaining that control: the idea that he'll piss away that kind of money only to have some gimp with a combover/ponytail calling the shots is pure fantasy, and a rather bizarre fantasy at that).
Warming up to Jim. The footballing structure needs to be torn down and rebuilt, fans have been crying about it for decades now. So much money wasted.
Its the ideal place to start.
Its the ideal place to start.
The guy in the video suggested Todibo is the better buy, younger and future leader.
I've personally not watched much of him at all, so I thought he made good points.
I am sure he will have a lot more say than Murtough and there will be something in place regarding who signs what off. Be pretty stupid to pay all that money for sporting control and allow Joel/Avram to overrule anything and everyone.
Maybe not
I guess they have no confidence in their ability to invest money, so owning a stake in United seems like the best choice for them.
So basically Ratcliffe wants to be the Director Of Football? Boehly-lite incoming? I'm being facetious
Totally agree.
Until the offer has been agreed/voted on - nobody will know what the details of the deal contain.
Everything in the media currently is pure speculation.
Until we actually get a statement from both sides then everything you read is guesswork.
One thing for sure is that Ineos are not going to spend £1.50bn to be the Glazer’s be-atches
It means he has full control, finances and all, of the sporting side. Effectively making him in charge of the club in any meaningful form that we - the fans - care about.
It is in INEOS best interest to absorb the debt as it's easier for the parent company to restructure it favourably and it removes any limitations the debt puts on sporting success and thus value improvement. Absorbing debt is the same as borrowing new money and paying off the existing debt - you can make the smaller company pay it off - but why do that when it has a negative impact on your new investment? Man Utd has a 6.3m profit after debt, INEOS has 2.6-3bn. They can pay off that loan far quicker and without it harming their bottom line, the same can't be said for Man Utd.
It's not like the Qataris weren't going to do the same, they just didn't disclose how they were going to do that (probably a loan from the Islamic Bank of Qatar).
Why? If they contractually have full sporting control and the board has approved that, then why would they have to fight for board approval on fundemental operating cost decisions?
My assumption is that they have agreed a moving price on the shares, an absolute lowest and an absolute highest so that they win regardless.
This is where people are confused, they wouldn't need board approval, they are quite literally a part of said board.
So despite retaining majority control of the club, despite having their own capital still at stake they’re going to have a complete personality change and put all their faith in people they did not personal hire to spend hundreds of millions of the company they own’s money?
Would you like to buy a bridge?
Probably. But I would think the highest amount would be a somewhat big amount when compared to the 5.5B or 6B that is being talked about now.
Yes because that’s what Ratcliffe is purchasing I hope. Complete power on the football side.
The Glazer's arent giving up control of the football side. They never bothered with it from the start, which is why we're in the hole we're in.
They have never wanted anything to do with the football side. They probably didn't know there was a football side.
They have never wanted anything to do with the football side. They probably didn't know there was a football side.
Thanks….sounds promising. We can only hope for a better situation. My only concern is that we end up in an even worse financial situation. If it doesn’t put an additional 1bn of debt on the club and Sir Jim has the best interest of the club at heart, communicates with the fans etc then it’s got to be better. No club has a right to unlimited funds but I am unhappy that he has gone down a route that allows the Glazers to stay and have majority share.
Should this happen there better be a lot of transparency around the plans for the club.
It's not guaranteed they will but it avoids having FFP issues we currently face.
Would this be allowed under PL rules now? It was outlawed, unless I'm mistaken.
Yes, and presumably sporting decisions would be taken outside the boardroom anyway from now on because that's what INEOs has basically demanded for their investment. That 25% have 100% of control on sporting matters.
If nothing else, what this saga has confirmed, if it was ever in doubt of course, is that this clown on Sky is an absolute moron.Does make some sense,
how does a person with 25% stake of a Football Club, control all footballing issues.
A football club main job is footballing issues
Tweet
— Twitter API (@user) date
Never seen a club where 25% runs the footballing side.
Except of course United, where two of the 6 Glazers ran the footballing operations while the other 4 appear to have never even been to England before, let alone to Manchester.
Was never outlawed. Chelsea had a clause in their sale but it's not a prem rule or anything.
Leveraged buyouts can and do still happen. But this isn't a leveraged buyout.
Impressive, you appear to be assuming I'm in support of INEOS. I'm not. Also Brexit is completely inconsequential to me.
Levy owns 30% of 89% and is basically in charge of football at Spurs...
If Ratcliffe has a cast iron guarantee that he is buying the rest of the club in the next 2-3 years or so, then I don't know why the Glazers would need to have to sign anything off on the football side of things.
Lets face it the Glazers have never really cared about the football side of things, and if things go wrong then it'll be Ratcliffe getting the heat, so it probably works well for them to keep out it anyway.
Lets face it the Glazers have never really cared about the football side of things, and if things go wrong then it'll be Ratcliffe getting the heat, so it probably works well for them to keep out it anyway.
In the last decade, Ineos groups has averaged 2 billion a year gross profit.
In what world do you think they can take on 6 billion debt for the club, 1 billion for our debt and whatever infrastructure expenditure is required?
While also maintaining there other obligations and retain the liquidity needed for their actual business?
All while recieving absolutely zero in return.
IF Qatar eventually buy us instead of Jim, do you promise to never post in the match day thread ever again? I think that’s a fair deal!There is still hope that board will refuse Jim's offer. Fingers crossed
They let Ed Woodward take control with 0.05% voting class B shares, they don’t care!
think your being rather naive if you think the Glazers will put a single penny into the club, they are not about addressing the clubs liquidity they are only interested in one thing filling their own pockets.
We don't have any facts.
"...require sign off..."? Yes, that is not unlikely if what you mean is that the Glazers, as (still) the majority shareholders, could - in theory - block whatever Jim's people have planned.
Why would they do that, though?
The Glazers have been pissing away money for years - just mentioning it unless anyone has forgotten.
There's zero evidence that they've been doing much else beyond "signing off" on anything the supposed football management have decided are good tranfers/contracts.
That would be 33% then
The mistake people are making with this is assuming the Glazers run us like a football club first and commercial entity second. It's painfully obvious it's the other way around, so having someone else take the pain of that for them, potentially doing a better job (not hard) of it does make sense - especially if it is a condition of them getting their hook like mitts on the premium he is paying. I can't see why this is hard for people to see. They will still have some form of budgetary control, probably not day to day but at a minimum annually, just like any major corporation, and there will likely be clauses around what happens if things go tits up on his watch.
Then what are Glazers remaining with? It doesn't make sense.
Manchester United is a football club. Everything else comes second after United being a Football club.
Let's say Glazers go and buy 25% of Ineos, then they demand for complete power in INEOS Chemical business, does it make sense?
Because owner is an owner. You can't be majority owner of something without giving approval for basically everything. Jim can get football stuff to manage but at the end Glazers are the ones who sign a paper with approval to invest 50 million for new right winger or 5 million for new DoF.
People ask question why would Ineos invest 1.5 billion without having some control. Ask a different question; Glazers refused 5 billion for whole club. Why would they sell "only" 25% and allow someone to be in control how club will spend money?
For me, there is absolutely no way that Ineos will have autonomy to spend money on players and staff without Glazers having a last say on that. Absolutely zero logic in that. Because, at the end, it is STILL their club.
Of course that it goes in opposite way too. Ineos will get a right to vote about many things. Because they do invest 1,5 billion.
Nope I don’t like the INEOS bid one bit but he will not invest his own money for transfers and £30m required each year for next three year to add to the £15m for FFP loss if he does not have the controlling vote on transfers, he’s not that dumb ?
Taking on the debt doesn't mean paying it off. If they become majority owners it's their debt wether it on Uniteds books or Ineos. The cost to them is the same.
Only difference is if it's on the Ineos books it doesn't effect their newly purchased football team in terms of FFP. They could still probably service it with club cash if they wished.
Also we already know for a fact they are placing any new debt on Ineos as they said as much in their initial statement. Not a big stretch to speculate they might move the other debt too.
TLDR: It's their debt one way or the other if they become majority owners.
To the Glazers Manchester United is a marketing / sports entertainment business first, football club second. Thats why they run us the way they do. Don't grant them the credit of running us as a football club. If they did that they would be investing and structuring the operations entirely differently (i.e. with care) rather than doing the minimum to keep us at the top of the tree when the big deals need negotiating.
- Status