Only people happy here are the Glazers. Turkeys voting for Christmas is apt
Manchester United reaches agreement for Sir Jim Ratcliffe to acquire 25% of the company
- Thread starter mu4c_20le
- Start date
- Status
Fantastic news and hopefully it'll be like a cloud clearing. Will take time to have an impact, and there will be a lot of changes to be made. A lot of new hires to be made, and not every appointment will be correct. But having people in charge of sporting control who will continually try and improve us will make such a big difference.
Yep. This just seems like a massive win for the Glazers to me. Not only is someone else going to pay for the facilities getting a much-needed upgrade, but they have a patsy in place to take all the abuse for the footballing side of things. All whilst they continue to have ultimate control over the club and continue to leech money from it. Merry Christmas!
Trawlers Ltd sounds like something Del Boy would have set up after the collapse of Trotters Independent Traders.
Brilliant frol Glazers. Get the rich to bid for full control. Then sell 25% to this nub.
There is no vote. None of us have a say in this.
There's only people who are rich enough to buy the Glazers out (which are none), and those who are rich enough to buy 25% (there is only the one).
I don't think it's going to be the case. I mean sjr can't be that stupid right?
Yep effectively they've added about another 5 buffers to shield them from criticism.
When things dont work out we'll blame the next manager, then whoever is appointed DOF by Brailsford and Blanc. Then we'll blame Brailsford and Blanc. Then we'll blame Ratcliffe.
Maybe after all of that we'll remember it's actually the Glazers who have ultimate control over all of it.
Investment into the stadium and club infrastructure? That's objectively a positive.
Control of football operations out the Glazers hands? A positive. Could it work out badly? Sure but you could say that about anything. One thing I do is the the football side of the wasn't going to improve under Glazer control.
Ultimately the short/medium term benefit of this simply comes down to how well INEOS run our football operations.
If we operate effectively we will be able to achieve success under this arrangement. And footballing success will allay fan concerns while the longer term ownership situation plays out. It will have been a direct, inarguable benefit achieved from this purchase and will make the fans favourable towards full INEOS/Ratcliffe ownership.
On the other hand, if we do not see an improvement in how the football side of the club then nothing has been gained, the continued Glazer ownership will draw more and more ire and INEOS will be tarred by association.
If we operate effectively we will be able to achieve success under this arrangement. And footballing success will allay fan concerns while the longer term ownership situation plays out. It will have been a direct, inarguable benefit achieved from this purchase and will make the fans favourable towards full INEOS/Ratcliffe ownership.
On the other hand, if we do not see an improvement in how the football side of the club then nothing has been gained, the continued Glazer ownership will draw more and more ire and INEOS will be tarred by association.
the key will be changes to the footballing side and structure of the recruitment team.....if those changes aren't made to get proper football guys in place, nothing will change
I don’t think anyone else could do worse. We have been run like a drunken Liverpool fan playing a dodgy fm save.
Exactly like any of us have any say in this whatsoever is laughable, there have been large scale protests against the Glazers for the best part of 16 years and they don't care and don't want to sell completely which they proved
Might change by chance to be fair. Lots of sporting success is trial and error.
Given that he actually wants control of the hard side of the business while the Glazers straight up ignored it, it's a good start. The intention to improve leads to actually making changes to improve things, benchmarking others and trying to implement similar structures. The Glazers just ... Didn't bother trying.
The amount of posters using the full ownership line the only have themselves to blame. It was never going to happen.
This bid should have been vilified.
INEOS' own wording (see below) is that Ratcliffe has made the purchase but INEOS have been delegated responsibility for managing football operations.
Tweet
— Twitter API (@user) date
It was by swathes of people, but these people have 0 say in the takeover, just like all the people who vilified the Glazers bid at the time and nothing stopped it, the people with the money have the power you can kid yourself otherwise but that's the case
Am I right in assuming SJR owns 25% not Ineos?
We won't come under their umbrella like Nice?
It's al very confusing
It should be remembered that Ratcliffe will be the single biggest shareholder. In fact, if the Glazers are selling their shares equally (each of them selling 25% of what they own), Ratcliffe will basically own the same as Joel and Avram put together. The other four siblings have never shown any real interest in the club so could very well prefer someone coming in who will run things better, as that will inevitably put more money in their pockets. At which point Joel and Avram wouldn't have too much say in what happens (not sure how much Avram has been involved in decision making anyway, seeing as all the rumours have mostly just talked about Joel).
Also, there were rumours that some of the siblings preferred a full sale, so if that is the case then that's an avenue that Ratcliffe can use to increase his control in the not-too-distant future seeing as apparently he gets first dibs. Of course, that's reliant on the Glazer's selling equally now, rather than let's say the two lowest holders selling all of theirs while the other four continue to hold the same as they currently do.
Because our fans making noise has never had any impact on anything. . .
* cough * Greenwood * cough * super League
No one is saying it stops the deal but the leaks to the press to test the water were roundly lapped up by people. Had the response been vocally negative, who knows what would have happened but placating this shite did the club no favours.
Loads of journos off for Christmas, so the news around this will be a fraction of what it could have been.
There's other reasons as well. It is shite.
Sounds like fun, I'm in.
It's a disaster for the club long term given there's no view to full ownership which was logical. It's frustrating it's not a staggered purchased of the club but a minority investment. Soon as the club starts to balance FFP and produce revenue the Glazers will go back to taking out dividends.
The hope is that the footballing structure changes brings more success than the negative predicament of elongated Glazers remaining.
The hope is that the footballing structure changes brings more success than the negative predicament of elongated Glazers remaining.
The ESL was because of protests of all the teams, if it was just United fans on there own and the rest of them compliant it would have went forwards
Aye, as per INEOS' statement Ratcliffe has bought United but INEOS have been delegated responsibility for managing football operations. Whereas with Nice they described it as INEOS making the purchase.
In de facto terms I don't think it makes a difference, but it's quite a complicated arrangement.
25% in company law is enough to block board decisions. Glazers no longer have full control.
maybe but at least it starts with guys only concerned by the sporting side of the business not making money or penny pinching on transfers
More I think on it, happier I am. A club supporter with a history of business success and someone who surrounds himself with best in class people is now in charge of football operations.
https://www.ineos.com/news/ineos-gr...quire-up-to-a-25-shareholding-in-the-company/
Ratcliffe is buying 25% of the club. Then he's putting $200m into the club, which will also see him receiving additional shares. Then he's putting another $100m into the club, which will see him receive more shares again. Presumably any further investments that he makes into the club will have the same deal. This encourages him to continue investing into the club, and each time he does he gets more and more control.
Not sure why this isn't being talked about more. It's exactly what some of the more knowledgeable posters were saying would likely be the avenue that Ratcliffe used to get more control.
Ratcliffe is buying 25% of the club. Then he's putting $200m into the club, which will also see him receiving additional shares. Then he's putting another $100m into the club, which will see him receive more shares again. Presumably any further investments that he makes into the club will have the same deal. This encourages him to continue investing into the club, and each time he does he gets more and more control.
The Glazers haven't been penny pinching for a long time. Conversely, they throw ridiculous amounts of money on utter shite because some clown in football operations (Manager? Murtough? CEO?) tells them 'It's worth it".
Kaveh Solhekol just basically took apart the whole thing on SSN, pointing-out all the sporting failures of INEOS in various sports as well as the level of investment needed to repair the damage caused by the fecking Glazers over the last 18 years, and the remaining questions about the debt, etc.
There's no pleasing some people.
We now have someone who will make wholesale changes to the sporting operations of the club (or structure, a word which keeps being thrown around)
He'll invest a significant amount of money into infrastructure.
Both are unobjectively positive things for the club.
We now have someone who will make wholesale changes to the sporting operations of the club (or structure, a word which keeps being thrown around)
He'll invest a significant amount of money into infrastructure.
Both are unobjectively positive things for the club.
£300 doesn’t touch the sides, Glazers have taken how much more out of the club?
Utter nonsense.
This is not a takeover, the Glazers are still round, the investment is marginal.
Sounds like a way to circumvent the multi-club ownership rules
The deal is far from ideal, but it could be the beginning of something (good or bad).
The big question is what are the concrete plans for the sporting control? They said they are delegating, but how much say will the Glazers have? I assume they still have control over the purse strings.
The big question is what are the concrete plans for the sporting control? They said they are delegating, but how much say will the Glazers have? I assume they still have control over the purse strings.
300 mil towards the stadium will get us some kiosk upgrades.
Now that he is a Class B shareholder, he could in theory, buy out individual Glazers (the ones that did want out) and the shares wouldn't revert to class A; surely? Pick them off one at a time until he has a majority controlling stake?
- Status