Sir Jim Ratcliffe: I want to buy Manchester United | Will make a bid for the club [Telegraph]

redsunited

Full Member
Joined
Feb 17, 2013
Messages
720
Location
London
Anyone who buys from Glazers will overpay and lot of infrastructure change is up before them to payup. Anyone who thinks of making profit from United should stay away for their sake and for the club.
 

Rampant Red Rodriguez

New Member
Newbie
Joined
Aug 7, 2019
Messages
628
Judge the man by his past and his words, he talks about efficiency and not taking money out of the club for himself. This sounds like a good plan, but not with the club loaded with over half billion debt.

I think its going to be a messy sale because of the class A shares, I think most of them are on the stock market?. Glazers own most of the class B shares with the voting rights. So I want to see any potential sale buyback the class A shares and remove any debt burden owed by the club
 

11101

Full Member
Joined
Aug 26, 2014
Messages
18,663
I'd rather we were owned by Radcliffe than an Arab state. If challenging for titles in that scenario is not possible, so be it.
Exactly how I feel. Under no circumstances do i want us to be the sportswashing project of a bloodthirsty medieval regime, or a plaything of some other insalubrious oligarch. The league is heading towards a two tier structure anyway and we can be on the right side of that.

Of the available options, a wealthy fan is the best one. I'm not overly concerned about the negative stories surrounding Nice and Lausanne. We are a different level to them and Radcliffe will keep a much closer eye on us. We won't have a blank chequebook but Liverpool were just fine under that kind of ownership.
 

Oranges038

Full Member
Joined
Oct 19, 2020
Messages
5,641
Im glad some is asking because I find it ironic. If anything, buying a football team increases the scrutiny and magnifying glass on the state fund.

Nobody in the UK cared when then Qataris were buying up London real estate. But them owning PSG and the world cup has actually brought forward all the “issues” people have about their country/region.
Yeah it will bring some of these issues out to the forefront but also at the same time they think it'll gloss over them and people just won't really care as it's not in their country because of the football and the trophies.
 

Revaulx

Full Member
Joined
Mar 17, 2014
Messages
4,925
Location
Saddleworth
He’s a Chelsea fan and it was a stunt. It was well over the deadline and was never going to be accepted. You don’t make 4b deals at the last minute. That process was designed to smoke out people like Jim.
Then he tells us The Glazers are good people and aren’t selling but it comes out they were looking for buyers when he said this. That tells me he didn’t approach the Glazers at all.
4D chess maybe?

Or else he’s just a spoofer. Occam’s razor and all that.
 

KeanosMagic

New Member
Newbie
Joined
Sep 23, 2017
Messages
20
Exactly how I feel. Under no circumstances do i want us to be the sportswashing project of a bloodthirsty medieval regime, or a plaything of some other insalubrious oligarch. The league is heading towards a two tier structure anyway and we can be on the right side of that.

Of the available options, a wealthy fan is the best one. I'm not overly concerned about the negative stories surrounding Nice and Lausanne. We are a different level to them and Radcliffe will keep a much closer eye on us. We won't have a blank chequebook but Liverpool were just fine under that kind of ownership.
Nice to see a sensible post. I’m actually shocked seeing how many fans on here would be happy for us to be a bought by a similar regime as the owners of City and Newcastle.

United don’t need a sugar daddy like that to compete. We need owner able to clear the debt, put football people in charge of footballing decisions, a good manager ( which I believe we now have ) , good recruitment and let the club sustain itself through its own revenue.

This might not lead to glamorous singings every year and an ability to stay with City and Newcastle every season, but I’d rather that then just be involved in a ‘who has the best Middle East Sugar Daddy’ title race every year.
 

Revaulx

Full Member
Joined
Mar 17, 2014
Messages
4,925
Location
Saddleworth
Yeah, he made himself look a lot that way during the Chelsea episode. Blew a lot of hot air, but when it was time to put money on the table, he was a day late and a dollar short.

It's also noteable that the football teams he already owns aren't exactly pulling up trees, either. Lausanne have just been relegated, and Nice are dicking around in midtable after signing a bunch of past it big names... which all sounds a bit too familiar for me.
I’ve just googled their squad. Morgan Schneiderlin; Ross Barclay; Aaron Ramsey. Spare us good Lord!
 

wolvored

Full Member
Joined
Jul 6, 2016
Messages
8,721
Judge the man by his past and his words, he talks about efficiency and not taking money out of the club for himself. This sounds like a good plan, but not with the club loaded with over half billion debt.

I think its going to be a messy sale because of the class A shares, I think most of them are on the stock market?. Glazers own most of the class B shares with the voting rights. So I want to see any potential sale buyback the class A shares and remove any debt burden owed by the club
Isnt there a law that says if you buy over a certain percentage of a business shares you can then bid for all the other shares and they have to sell as long as there is a profit? Isnt that what the glazers did, or has my mind played tricks on me?
 

SATA

Full Member
Joined
Nov 8, 2005
Messages
14,707
Location
We all love United
Not entirely sure who he is but if he’s a United fan, then let him buy the club! I get that money is probably his first thing in mind but he will also want the good for United as the same with us, doesn’t he?
 

Gee Male

Full Member
Joined
Apr 10, 2009
Messages
4,184
Any billionaire who was pro-Brexit has to, by definition, be a self interested bellend.

Don't want him near us. Don't want human rights abusers either. Don't want a hedge fund. Don't want the Glazers.

Delighted that the club is for sale, have massive fear over what comes next.
 

Rockets Redglare

New Member
Newbie
Joined
Jun 23, 2015
Messages
1,620
Any billionaire who was pro-Brexit has to, by definition, be a self interested bellend.

Don't want him near us. Don't want human rights abusers either. Don't want a hedge fund. Don't want the Glazers.

Delighted that the club is for sale, have massive fear over what comes next.
I’m sorry but what do you want? The club is too big to be fan owned, and anyone with any sort of moral high ground would have nowhere near the funds to buy a club the size of United.
 

Rampant Red Rodriguez

New Member
Newbie
Joined
Aug 7, 2019
Messages
628
Isnt there a law that says if you buy over a certain percentage of a business shares you can then bid for all the other shares and they have to sell as long as there is a profit? Isnt that what the glazers did, or has my mind played tricks on me?
No your sane mate, and thank you for reminding me about it. I'm sure there is a rule for the other shares if you aquire over a limit. Glazers and Arsenal's Stanley Kronke both did the same thing as did many other people I'm sure. Top man/woman/he/she/gender neutral poster for reminding me :wenger:
 

golden_blunder

Site admin. Manchester United fan
Staff
Joined
Jun 1, 2000
Messages
111,349
Location
Dublin, Ireland
Any billionaire who was pro-Brexit has to, by definition, be a self interested bellend.

Don't want him near us. Don't want human rights abusers either. Don't want a hedge fund. Don't want the Glazers.

Delighted that the club is for sale, have massive fear over what comes next.
Let’s be realistic, it’s gonna cost 5bn+ to buy the club. No business person is going to buy without working out what’s in it for them. By that token we won’t be happy with anyone
 

Gee Male

Full Member
Joined
Apr 10, 2009
Messages
4,184
I’m sorry but what do you want? The club is too big to be fan owned, and anyone with any sort of moral high ground would have nowhere near the funds to buy a club the size of United.
I haven't a clue what I want. I thought that was clear from my post.

While I'm delighted we will be rid of the Glazers, I don't see a good outcome in terms of what comes next. I'm seriously apprehensive.

Maybe a full IPO would be the best option?
 

Gee Male

Full Member
Joined
Apr 10, 2009
Messages
4,184
Let’s be realistic, it’s gonna cost 5bn+ to buy the club. No business person is going to buy without working out what’s in it for them. By that token we won’t be happy with anyone
I think you've nailed it in the last sentence - we won't be happy with anyone.
 

Telsim

Full Member
Joined
Nov 7, 2021
Messages
1,873
I wonder if Beckham will be used as the front man for some investor
Yep. Mentioned it in the other thread, particularly as he is already on Qatar's bankroll and apparently they are not "unavailable". Doesn't really make sense to me, but they could decide to supplement hosting the World Cup with buying the biggest brand in world football. How owning Manchester United figures with already owning PSG is unknown.
 

Wednesday at Stoke

Full Member
Joined
Feb 11, 2014
Messages
20,373
Location
Copenhagen
Supports
Time Travel
Yep. Mentioned it in the other thread, particularly as he is already on Qatar's bankroll and apparently they are not "unavailable". Doesn't really make sense to me, but they could decide to supplement hosting the World Cup with buying the biggest brand in world football. How owning Manchester United figures with already owning PSG is unknown.
How would it be different from Ratcliffe owning Nice, Lausanne and United or Red Bull owning Salzburg and Leipzig?
 

golden_blunder

Site admin. Manchester United fan
Staff
Joined
Jun 1, 2000
Messages
111,349
Location
Dublin, Ireland
How would it be different from Ratcliffe owning Nice, Lausanne and United?
With respect to those other 2 clubs, if you owned psg and United there is sure to be questions asked. It’s like starting a multiplayer game of football manager and using one club to fund your transfers, inflate the market etc
 

wolvored

Full Member
Joined
Jul 6, 2016
Messages
8,721
No your sane mate, and thank you for reminding me about it. I'm sure there is a rule for the other shares if you aquire over a limit. Glazers and Arsenal's Stanley Kronke both did the same thing as did many other people I'm sure. Top man/woman/he/she/gender neutral poster for reminding me :wenger:
Cheers im a man :lol:
 

Wednesday at Stoke

Full Member
Joined
Feb 11, 2014
Messages
20,373
Location
Copenhagen
Supports
Time Travel
With respect to those other 2 clubs, if you owned psg and United there is sure to be questions asked. It’s like starting a multiplayer game of football manager and using one club to fund your transfers, inflate the market etc
Sure, but its not against the rules is it? The Qatar investment fund could put a different face in charge of the club and say there is no organizational overlap across the operations.
 

OmarUnited4ever

Full Member
Joined
Jan 1, 2021
Messages
2,616
Location
Malaysia
No I made the comment based on this tweet:


Which if you ask me sounds very Glazer Like!
Glazers are incompetent, and illogical in the way they ran the club by handling its keys to Woody, had they been logical all they had to do was find a competent pros to run the club which would have helped the team not only being successful on the pitch but also far more successful commercially.

Look at City owners, they are nothing special, they just have deep pockets, all they did was allow the competent pros run the club, yes they dumped a billion or so on the team but at very least they allowed the club to be run by the right people, United, unlike City, doesn't even require outside investment as it generates enormous revenues on it's own, the logical thing to do was to make sure the club was ran properly and the Glazers failed to do so.
 

crossy1686

Full Member
Joined
Jun 5, 2010
Messages
22,293
Location
Manchester/Stockholm
No I made the comment based on this tweet:


Which if you ask me sounds very Glazer Like!
I’ll say it again, what the majority of our fans want from an owner (spending on squad and infrastructure each season without care for the business side of running a football club, profit margins or sponsorship dependency) requires none other than a state funded sportswashing owner.

There is no one else on this planet that willingly will burn through their cash with reckless abandon because our fans don’t like finishing 5th.
 

JB7

Full Member
Joined
Jun 18, 2008
Messages
7,572
I’ll say it again, what the majority of our fans want from an owner (spending on squad and infrastructure each season without care for the business side of running a football club, profit margins or sponsorship dependency) requires none other than a state funded sportswashing owner.

There is no one else on this planet that willingly will burn through their cash with reckless abandon because our fans don’t like finishing 5th.
Really? The majority of people I speak to at games simply want an owner that doesn't cost the club a fortune in interest payments and doesn't take substantial dividends regardless of the performance of the business. I don't tend to come across many people that want the club to spend money with reckless abandon.
 

ROFLUTION

Full Member
Joined
Jan 22, 2009
Messages
6,032
Location
Denmark
Here we go... The magic sportswashing word. Because If you say it it must be true.

Manchester City group are owned by a golf state. Can you please cite some examples of how they have used thier ownership of City to" sportswash" ?
Are you fecking kidding me? You don't believe Sportswashing is a thing? You question the fundamentals of what is happening as City is just a hobby-project posted billions into for fun and vanity? (We know it's not a profitable operation). Can't have a logic debate with you then, im out.
 

crossy1686

Full Member
Joined
Jun 5, 2010
Messages
22,293
Location
Manchester/Stockholm
Really? The majority of people I speak to at games simply want an owner that doesn't cost the club a fortune in interest payments and doesn't take substantial dividends regardless of the performance of the business. I don't tend to come across many people that want the club to spend money with reckless abandon.
People want us to remain competitive, which we have been financially due to our sponsorship dealings, but believe me when I say that over the next few years that will dwindle and it will dwindle significantly, to the point we can no longer compete financially with the likes of City and now Newcastle.

We’re on course for a recession and advertisement spending during that time is the first thing to go, on top of that, companies are realising these sports team deals aren’t worth shit to them in reality. There’s a reason the Glazers are looking for outside funding or a sale now, and that’s because they’ve maxed the potential returns and they know it.

So if an owner comes in who can only just afford to buy the club with, let’s say a billion worth of investment across the whole club, that money won’t last long and it’s an all in or bust kind of move.

The football financial landscape just isn’t what it used to be in the 90’s and early 00’s anymore. It’s a different game now.
 

croadyman

Full Member
Joined
Mar 9, 2018
Messages
19,699
I'm conflicted. State owned clubs are a blight on football imo. But I want the best for United, and that means being in a position to compete against the likes of City and Newcastle.

I'm just wary of the fact that Ratcliffe and INEOS will prioritise profitability over football. I know the argument is we've always operated as a business since the Edwards days and even before that, but it's a whole new different football landscape nowadays.
Yeah the Edwards model of ownership was like you say when Football was a very different game
 

Spoony

The People's President
Joined
Oct 27, 2001
Messages
60,360
Location
Peng a leng.
People want us to remain competitive, which we have been financially due to our sponsorship dealings, but believe me when I say that over the next few years that will dwindle and it will dwindle significantly, to the point we can no longer compete financially with the likes of City and now Newcastle.

We’re on course for a recession and advertisement spending during that time is the first thing to go, on top of that, companies are realising these sports team deals aren’t worth shit to them in reality. There’s a reason the Glazers are looking for outside funding or a sale now, and that’s because they’ve maxed the potential returns and they know it.

So if an owner comes in who can only just afford to buy the club with, let’s say a billion worth of investment across the whole club, that money won’t last long and it’s an all in or bust kind of move.

The football financial landscape just isn’t what it used to be in the 90’s and early 00’s anymore. It’s a different game now.
So why has a Yank consortium taken over at Chelsea, why are they showing interest in United? I don't disagree with you but what are they seeing that most of us aren't? I just don't get it. Football is such a risky business.
 

devilish

Juventus fan who used to support United
Joined
Sep 5, 2002
Messages
58,501
No I made the comment based on this tweet:


Which if you ask me sounds very Glazer Like!
Actually from a moral point of view he is worse. Ratcliffe wanted Brexit as it allowed him to pollute the UK at his heart's content. However he had since moved to Monaco which means that he doesn't enjoy the dividend of his pollution
 

crossy1686

Full Member
Joined
Jun 5, 2010
Messages
22,293
Location
Manchester/Stockholm
So why has a Yank consortium taken over at Chelsea, why are they showing interest in United? I don't disagree with you but what are they seeing that most of us aren't? I just don't get it. Football is such a risky business.
They’re seeing how much they can potentially sell Chelsea for in 10 to 20 years time. Inflation and the possible expansion of football to the Arab states and America would increase tv rights significantly, which in turn would increase sponsorships long term, would at the very least double their investment over that amount of time.

Once the agreed investment money has been spent by Chelsea’s new ownership they’ll sit on the asset and do what the Glazers did, simply bide their time and wait for the right moment to sell. Which is again a factor in why the Glazers have decided to sell now, there’s only so many Arab states that you can sell to.

Chelsea fans are happy right now but in a couple of seasons time they’re going to be complaining about lack of investment and an ageing, stale squad.
 

Andersons Dietician

Full Member
Joined
Jun 14, 2016
Messages
12,456
So why has a Yank consortium taken over at Chelsea, why are they showing interest in United? I don't disagree with you but what are they seeing that most of us aren't? I just don't get it. Football is such a risky business.
By no means an investor or anything but if I was looking to make money out of a club the likes of Newcastle and Chelsea I’d imagine would be far easier businesses to grow than current United.
Glazers have likely maxed Uniteds growth hence the hiring of people like Woody to run it. Now arguably the only way to gain more is by spending billions to increase the money it can generate. Heavy investment for new stadium, Woman’s game and bringing success to th club.

I can’t see many willing to do that outside of a state funding. United itself is just too big for your average billionaire in my opinion or even a consortium.
 

RexHamilton

Gumshoe for hire
Joined
Feb 13, 2012
Messages
4,155
It's Apple for me.

Imagine a WWDC to unveil new players. Air Pod Trafford. Sign me up.
 
X