RedStarUnited
Full Member
- Joined
- Mar 25, 2008
- Messages
- 8,188
Not sure, it still means theres a meeting to agree a budget and then what if things change?That’s GOT to be a step forward…
Not sure, it still means theres a meeting to agree a budget and then what if things change?That’s GOT to be a step forward…
Can he play up front?
If they go by data McT is surely the first one out of the team.Has anyone seen the QPR documentary the four year plan? I envisage it will be like that. Brailsford picking the team, probably still start McTominay
Scroll back a few pages, it’s literally in the last few tweets!Will we ever see it officially confirmed that Joel will no longer have any power in football decisions?
Impossible to believe.
Yup.Ratcliffe at the moment is essentially Viagra for the Glazers to enable them to keep fecking the club. He's just given them no reason to leave. They're having their cake and eating it.
Because there’s no such thing as “control of footballing matters” without majority ownership. It’s only “control of footballing matters at the mercy of the majority owner” as of now. Which is to say, the running of the club in all manners is still wholly in the hand of the Glazers.In all honesty.....and hear me out here....why does Ratcliffe need FULL control if the Footballing matters are in his control?
The footballing matters is what us fans care about the most. It's clear the Glazers know what they;'re doing with the commercial side.
Arguably the footballing side of the football club is worth a lot more than just 25%, not sure what else he needs to control?
This - best Christmas present in a long while!Over the moon this is finally done.
Sporting control has been wrested from the Glazers, at long last.
And we haven't become a pointless, soulless sportswashing club like Newcastle/Man City.
Here's to Sir Jim.
How is he going to do that?I personally think it will be goddamned funny if the Sheikh buys the remaining 75% of the club next year.
Tweet
— Twitter API (@user) date
No idea. Offering the Glazers their own oil refinery?How is he going to do that?
Ratcliffe will have a "first refusal" option if the Glazers are going to sell further shares. Also, the only reason he amended his initial offers for a full takeover back around April is because the Glazers asked for it. I don't see how he wouldn't just buy the whole club outright if it was an option.No idea. Offering the Glazers their own oil refinery?
I don't think it will happen, I'm just being amused at the thought of it.
It’s tricky moaning in threads simultaneously?
I dont really care about what some nobody from 90min football is saying about it. Actual confirmation by the club or Ineos or at least something on Sky or BBC.Scroll back a few pages, it’s literally in the last few tweets!
I have no problem with Sir Jim buying the club outright if he has the dosh. I also don't have a problem with the Sheikh if he wants to come in and conduct joint business with the Glazers and Sir Jim.Ratcliffe will have a "first refusal" option if the Glazers are going to sell further shares. Also, the only reason he amended his initial offers for a full takeover back around April is because the Glazers asked for it. I don't see how he wouldn't just buy the whole club outright if it was an option.
It’s literally in the second paragraph on the BBC article.I dont really care about what some nobody from 90min football is saying about it. Actual confirmation by the club or Ineos or at least something on Sky or BBC.
The Glazers didn't own 100% of the club. Ratcliffe will have the highest proportion of shares now at the club, individually.He's a minority share holder, how exactly do you think it works?
I'm no expert but in the UK special resolutions, i.e. stopping fundamental changes to the company like changing it's name or using company cash to buy shares, require a 75%+ vote, but most decisions require a 50%+ vote.
It's likely that all this delay has been because both sides needed to define exactly how these things would work and what kind of decisions would require whose approval but there's no way the Glazers have just handed over control of the football team to a minority share holder in perpetuity with no way to regain control if it all goes (even more) pear shaped.
What would an actual confirmation from the club would look like other than "INEOS delegated responsibility for management of football operations"? I don't think the club will come out and say Joel has been shit and will have no say at the footballing decisionsI dont really care about what some nobody from 90min football is saying about it. Actual confirmation by the club or Ineos or at least something on Sky or BBC.
i mean the deal that’s been announced explains it?Will we ever see it officially confirmed that Joel will no longer have any power in football decisions?
Impossible to believe.
You're easily amused!No idea. Offering the Glazers their own oil refinery?
I don't think it will happen, I'm just being amused at the thought of it.
Tweet
— Twitter API (@user) date
Yes I am, when it comes to watching very rich people throwing billions around like spare changeYou're easily amused!
After this deal the Glazers will, collectively, still own 51.75% of the shares, all (or virtually all) class B shares. They vote and behave as a collective unit and Ratcliffe is in the minority. Believing anything else is simply deluding yourself.The Glazers didn't own 100% of the club. Ratcliffe will have the highest proportion of shares now at the club, individually.
They didn't hand over control for nothing. Ratcliffe paid them 1 billion quid to take control. He now owns the football side, not with caveats, he just owns it as he partially owns the club just like Avram Glazer partially owns the club and Joel Glazer partially owns the club. They can't just vote him out, that's not how it works. It's contractually stipulated that he owns the football operations now. He's not 2nd in command to the Glazers, he doesn't report to them. He's just in charge of that stuff, that's it.
There is a similar deal in basketball where Mark Cuban sold a large percentage of the Dallas Mavericks but retained control of basketball operations. Levy doesn't own Spurs, but he does control the footballing side.
Besides, this is an easy win for the Glazers. They get 1 billion to split amongst them, and they don't have to be responsible for or worry about the most important part of the business which also happens to be the hardest part to get right with a ton of variables which they clearly were never bothered to actually put much energy in. They can now just sit back and take their money, see the asset rise in value as somebody else does the work and takes the flak.
Tweet
— Twitter API (@user) date
Someone should make a list of all the Twitter liars from the past 12 months and blacklist them
What would an actual confirmation from the club would look like other than "INEOS delegated responsibility for management of football operations"? I don't think the club will come out and say Joel has been shit and will have no say at the footballing decisions
'Ineos running the football side' and 'The glazers have no power or veto over any football decision' are two very different things.i mean the deal that’s been announced explains it?
They don't though, hence this entire process taking such a long time. J&A have different interests vs the other four siblings.After this deal the Glazers will, collectively, still own 51.75% of the shares, all (or virtually all) class B shares. They vote and behave as a collective unit and Ratcliffe is in the minority. Believing anything else is simply deluding yourself.
Where is this contract that stipulates that Ratcliffe now 'owns' the football side? And how did you get your hands on it?
The wording in the statement was as follows
Tweet
— Twitter API (@user) date
I know this deal is sweet for the Glazers, that's what's making my blood boil.
So again, I'm asking you what would a club statement regarding that would look like?'Ineos running the football side' and 'The glazers have no power or veto over any football decision' are two very different things.
Not really. There was no factual or logical reason for anyone to believe that Jim put an obligation to buy clause. Also anyone who was using that as a justification for supporting Jim’s bid should really now reassess . But as the saying goes “it’s easier to con someone then it is to convince someone they’ve been conned “You were guessing just like everyone else. No pat on the back for you.
No, it's not. If you buy a share of Apple from some other random person, then you are investing in Apple even though no money goes to the company. This is extremely basic terminology. It is not inaccurate, it is not confusing, it is not ambiguous in any way.It is just factually incorrect. It's like saying a cat is a dog.
We don't actually know what happened to cause the process to take such a long time. For the Glazers it actually pretty quick. It took them 2.5 years to appoint a sporting director and according to the Athletic only pulled the trigger because Murtough was about to walk.They don't though, hence this entire process taking such a long time. J&A have different interests vs the other four siblings.