The Sir Jim Ratcliffe Era

Sideshow Bob

Sideshow Bob

Avatar & New Members Forum Mod
Joined
May 8, 2011
Messages
44,019
I’ve created a new thread to discuss the Sir Jim Ratcliffe era.

I’m quite excited by the new structure. The club will now have people in place whose primary goal is to get United winning trophies.

The not so good news:

To view this content we will need your consent to set third party cookies.
For more detailed information, see our cookies page.
 
Sideshow Bob said:
I’ve created a new thread to discuss the Sir Jim Ratcliffe era.

I’m quite excited by the new structure. The club will now have people in place whose primary goal is to get United winning trophies.

The not so good news:

To view this content we will need your consent to set third party cookies.
For more detailed information, see our cookies page.
Click to expand...


Oh yeah lets start on a negative ....
 
SJR has a reputation for taking failing businesses and turning them round into making a profit if he thinks there`s too many staff it will be true.

Just read that he`s stopping the parasite Glazers from taking dividends for the next three years

A stock exchange report on the takeover states that "no dividends will be paid to shareholders for the next three years" If true he`s pulled a belter off there.

www.mirror.co.uk

Glazer family suffer immediate Man Utd financial blow in Ratcliffe deal

Sir Jim Ratcliffe's minority takeover at Manchester United is set to stop the Glazers taking their biannual dividend from the club, which will be met with huge fan approval
www.mirror.co.uk www.mirror.co.uk
 
To view this content we will need your consent to set third party cookies.
For more detailed information, see our cookies page.
 
It’s sad news for the staff who lose their jobs but like @JammyRed said it’s a business and cost cutting measures usually start with job losses.
 
That is true on the dividends.

It's clear the business is failing so staff will lose their jobs. I'd start with the scouts
 
The Glazers aren’t exactly known for running big employee numbers I’d be amazed if there’s 300 people who can just be made redundant from a business the size of Utd that’s a very big number. Change is needed though.

Sounds like there is room for further share buys from the Glazers which must be a positive.

All football decisions have to be approved by INEOS prior to the premier league approval.

Great news on the dividends Utd have to sort out both their cash and FFP situation.
 
To view this content we will need your consent to set third party cookies.
For more detailed information, see our cookies page.
 
To view this content we will need your consent to set third party cookies.
For more detailed information, see our cookies page.
 
Is it true he's borrowed money to buy the shares?

Not that is a directly on the club, indirectly that is another loan on the club, he will need to pay it off
 
It is not on the club INEOS borrowed money to buy the stake, this debt stays on their balance sheet and doesn’t become a club liability. It’s very common for a business to borrow money to fund these sort of deals.

INEOS will pay it off through their group trading over time.

The return for INEOS is them speculating that the overall value of the club will continue to increase under their leadership through better management and investment in infrastructure.
 
ah ok, so he's written it off against Ineos and not created a new business?
 
jsp said:
The return for INEOS is them speculating that the overall value of the club will continue to increase under their leadership through better management and investment in infrastructure.
Click to expand...
This is again a savvy decision by the Glazers. Club value rising via actually doing something in football. I hate them, but they are clever.
 
Mr C said:
ah ok, so he's written it off against Ineos and not created a new business?
Click to expand...

Think it's all going through a company called Trawlers Ltd which is owned by Ratcliffe not INEOS but it's based in the Isle on Man not the UK for tax purposes I assume.

My guess is there's some link to INEOS sports given the board seats he's getting in return are likely to go to people employed by INEOS.

I'm not sure it's been revealed how he's financed the move be it personal wealth or if INEOS have loaned Trawlers the money or if it's through third parties loaning money to him. INEOS is one of those mega companies that own about 100 different subsidiary businesses so you'll probably never know exactly where all the money comes from but this will probably something they'll need to show to the Premier League but it wouldn't need to be made public.

However, no further debt has been put on the clubs balance sheet. If SJR eventually gets to 100% and takes the club private again I doubt he'll be adding debt to it anyway as he'll be left with the Glazer debt to pay off.
 
Jayc1860 said:
This is again a savvy decision by the Glazers. Club value rising via actually doing something in football. I hate them, but they are clever.
Click to expand...

Thing is SJR has already paid a huge premium above the listed share price. The shares consistently trade at something like $20 a share he's paid $33 a share for his initial 25%. So any improvement in financial performance (off the field is what moves the share price) is likely to only move it closer to the price he's already paid. So it's very hard to see a situation where the Glazers can justify more than $33 a share if they decide to sell the rest to SJR at a later date.

The way the Glazers have set the deal up point to them looking to be out the door within the next 3 years (I think it was 3 years). The deal has these drag along rights basically says if a new buyer comes in within the next 3 years and the Glazers accept their offer then SJR has the right to match that buyers offer and take the shares at that price. If he decides he doesn't want to match that offer then the new buyer has to buy his shares at either the agreed price or a minimum of $33 per share (what he paid).

There is a scenario here where SJR is gone in 3 years time and banks a tidy profit if the Glazers find a buyer to meet their valuation and he isn't willing to match the bid.

The more likely scenario I think is they end up selling in full to SJR within the next 2-3 years probably at not far off what he's paid per share for the current investment.
 
jsp said:
Thing is SJR has already paid a huge premium above the listed share price. The shares consistently trade at something like $20 a share he's paid $33 a share for his initial 25%. So any improvement in financial performance (off the field is what moves the share price) is likely to only move it closer to the price he's already paid. So it's very hard to see a situation where the Glazers can justify more than $33 a share if they decide to sell the rest to SJR at a later date.

The way the Glazers have set the deal up point to them looking to be out the door within the next 3 years (I think it was 3 years). The deal has these drag along rights basically says if a new buyer comes in within the next 3 years and the Glazers accept their offer then SJR has the right to match that buyers offer and take the shares at that price. If he decides he doesn't want to match that offer then the new buyer has to buy his shares at either the agreed price or a minimum of $33 per share (what he paid).

There is a scenario here where SJR is gone in 3 years time and banks a tidy profit if the Glazers find a buyer to meet their valuation and he isn't willing to match the bid.

The more likely scenario I think is they end up selling in full to SJR within the next 2-3 years probably at not far off what he's paid per share for the current investment.
Click to expand...
Thanks for that I'm not great with this side - it's all quite complex, but you've given me a better understanding.
 
To view this content we will need your consent to set third party cookies.
For more detailed information, see our cookies page.


To view this content we will need your consent to set third party cookies.
For more detailed information, see our cookies page.
 
Such a better way to start your reign than the previous shot callers.
 
Still too much Influence from the shit house rat parasite Glazers, they`ve blocked the appointment of Jean Claud Blanc as CEO.
This is how its going to be they still have too much say and dont give a toss that they are hated.
 
Has the appointment of Jean Claud Blanc been blocked? I can’t see anything online regarding the story.
 
Yeah that is news to me.

I'd be surprised if they've blocked that already given the deal hasn't officially gone through until the league signs it off.

Blanc has been seen at matches
 
Manchester United are unlikely to appoint Jean-Claude Blanc as the club's new chief executive once Sir Jim Ratcliffe's £1.3billion investment goes through, according to reports. The Red Devils could instead opt for a candidate of a similar ilk to Ed Woodward and Richard Arnold, with the Glazer family still in control of such a decision.
www.express.co.uk

Man Utd could appoint another Ed Woodward as Jean-Claude Blanc ‘unlikely’

The Glazers still have control over a crucial decision at the start of Sir Jim Ratcliffe and INEOS' Man Utd project.
www.express.co.uk www.express.co.uk

Could be paper talk?
 
Thought it had been known for a while he was staying where he was. He was just advising. The guy knows less about football than Woodward!
 
Justin Cider said:
Thought it had been known for a while he was staying where he was. He was just advising. The guy knows less about football than Woodward!
Click to expand...
Someone that knows less about football than Woodworm ? I’m not sure if that’s possible.
 
Wasn't the idea that Blanc would concentrate on growing the commercial revenues which have flat-lined a bit in the later years of the Glazer ownership.

Repairing a damaged brand is what he seems to specialise in having done well with Juventus and PSG.
 
Justin Cider said:
Ed is quite clued up on football actually.
Click to expand...

His actions would suggest he hasn't got a clue.

Got taken to the cleaners by a number of clubs/players and also totally misread the desire for the super league which cost him his job.
 
jsp said:
His actions would suggest he hasn't got a clue.

Got taken to the cleaners by a number of clubs/players and also totally misread the desire for the super league which cost him his job.
Click to expand...

Did he? He was just putting the clubs money where his mouth was. Poor bloke just wanted to be popular with our more entitled fans. And i'm sure it was the Glazers driving the Super League idea, and maybe he lost his job because he strongly opposed it. Who knows, who cares.
 
Justin Cider said:
Did he? He was just putting the clubs money where his mouth was. Poor bloke just wanted to be popular with our more entitled fans. And i'm sure it was the Glazers driving the Super League idea, and maybe he lost his job because he strongly opposed it. Who knows, who cares.
Click to expand...

I don't know him personally and there's very little he's said on the record think he gave 1 interview with united we stand in his time in charge outside of the investor calls. It's pretty obvious Utd have had their pants pulled down by clubs on transfer fees and wages for new signings we have paid well above market rates to get players. Those mistakes early on gave other clubs/players/agents the confidence to always ask for more as Utd will probably back down and pay it.

I doubt it was his idea but he was the face of it and he was the man who went to talk to Boris to sound him out and he thought he had the green light from the government, turns out he didn't. If he didn't support it he'd have stepped down before even trying to get it going, he was happy to push it through.
 
jsp said:
I don't know him personally and there's very little he's said on the record think he gave 1 interview with united we stand in his time in charge outside of the investor calls. It's pretty obvious Utd have had their pants pulled down by clubs on transfer fees and wages for new signings we have paid well above market rates to get players. Those mistakes early on gave other clubs/players/agents the confidence to always ask for more as Utd will probably back down and pay it.

I doubt it was his idea but he was the face of it and he was the man who went to talk to Boris to sound him out and he thought he had the green light from the government, turns out he didn't. If he didn't support it he'd have stepped down before even trying to get it going, he was happy to push it through.
Click to expand...

Clubs have always tried it on with United, it's same as it ever was, and after supporting a club who for years post Kenyon were more than happy to get by spending as little money as possible it was nice briefly to be able to outbid Europe's elite clubs on fees/wages, something we'd never done before despite having the money to do it, and if we had to pay over the odds occasionally so what. "We can do things ......"

Well Ed did work just down the road from him, a bit easier than the Glazer clan flying over don't you think.

Anyho we're going off topic.
 

Login or Register

Forgot your password?
Don't have an account? Register now
or Log in using
Back
Top