The Sir Jim Ratcliffe Era

[jsp]

The PL will apparently delay their change to PSR for another 12 months meaning next season we'll be working under the current rules.

This is apparently terrible news for us as it means we are still working on a rolling 3 year cycle rather than moving to a 1 year cycle.

Basically means that our sins of the past will have a big impact on what we can do this summer under the new rules we'd have had a lot more room to work with.

 

[Matt Varnish]

The PL will apparently delay their change to PSR for another 12 months meaning next season we'll be working under the current rules.

This is apparently terrible news for us as it means we are still working on a rolling 3 year cycle rather than moving to a 1 year cycle.

Basically means that our sins of the past will have a big impact on what we can do this summer under the new rules we'd have had a lot more room to work with.

I wonder if this decision has anything to do with the impending result of the enquiry into the 115 allegations against City?
According to Talk Crap yesterday, they are also going to try and pass a resolution so that they can (with notice to clubs) have access to computers and mobile phones, I'm wondering again if this has anything to do with the punishment (if any) that will be handed out to City.

 

[jsp]

I wonder if this decision has anything to do with the impending result of the enquiry into the 115 allegations against City?
According to Talk Crap yesterday, they are also going to try and pass a resolution so that they can (with notice to clubs) have access to computers and mobile phones, I'm wondering again if this has anything to do with the punishment (if any) that will be handed out to City.

The proposed new rules include "anchoring" which basically means the top clubs will only be allowed a budget that is 5 times the size of the smallest budget. So say the smallest club have a budget of £100m for the season that means no one can have a budget of more than £500m even if their revenues exceed that you are basically capped.

The PFA have said they will take that to court as they believe it will restrict wages for players which is against employment law. Employers cannot collude to keep wages down.

I doubt it has anything to do with City as that is all to do with historical rule breaches and the rules as they were then.

My guess is they don't want to bring new rules in until it has full support as they don't want it being dragged through court.

The access to records is probably in relation to City who've obstructed the process from day one by not co-operating but again this rule would only apply if it complies with the law. I'd be surprised if it does even if you agree to it if it's against the law then it cannot be enforced.

 

[Sideshow Bob]

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

Accept third party cookies

 

[Mr C]

Jesus, another chief while they lay off all the workers

 

[jsp]

Utd’s commercial growth has flatlined so bringing in a new person to head it up is surely a good thing?

None of this matters unless we fix things on the pitch. The only way we stand a chance of fixing things is getting back into the CL year after year.

 

[RichH2016]

And now Amorim is saying you need to sell before you can buy in the summer? I hate to say it guys but things are going to get worse, a lot worse, before they get better.

 

[Matt Varnish]

And now Amorim is saying you need to sell before you can buy in the summer? I hate to say it guys but things are going to get worse, a lot worse, before they get better.

We knew this would be the case, There are a lot that do fit into his system, so they have to be moved on, what's the point of keeping them?

 

[JammyRed]

The timing isn’t good for the club, needing a reset while psr rules are beginning to bite is going to make it a difficult few years, there’s no easy route out.

 

[tripleglazed]

We've been crippled by the Glazers and now it's becoming obvious. There's no way back without huge investment in infrastructure and building an enormous stadium (which are exempt from PSR) but for which there is no money for. Which is why as soon as the Glazers sold to INEOS and not Qatar we were screwed.

 

[Matt Varnish]

We've been crippled by the Glazers and now it's becoming obvious. There's no way back without huge investment in infrastructure and building an enormous stadium (which are exempt from PSR) but for which there is no money for. Which is why as soon as the Glazers sold to INEOS and not Qatar we were screwed.

That argument is only relevant if you believe the Qatar bid actually existed, and that Sheikh Jassim also existed, strange how there was only ever one picture of him posted, he never turned up to any meetings, and no paperwork about said deal was ever submitted to my knowledge.

 

[tripleglazed]

That argument is only relevant if you believe the Qatar bid actually existed, and that Sheikh Jassim also existed, strange how there was only ever one picture of him posted, he never turned up to any meetings, and no paperwork about said deal was ever submitted to my knowledge.

I assume that's because he is a nobody fronting for the Qatari Royal family.

The Glazers certainly claimed he never provided proof of fund but they had a strong interest in saying that to the shareholders since they otherwise were vulnerable to lawsuits for not acting in the shareholders best interests. But the claim was strongly disputed. Personally I wouldn't believe a word those parasites say.

 

[jsp]

I assume that's because he is a nobody fronting for the Qatari Royal family.

The Glazers certainly claimed he never provided proof of fund but they had a strong interest in saying that to the shareholders since they otherwise were vulnerable to lawsuits for not acting in the shareholders best interests. But the claim was strongly disputed. Personally I wouldn't believe a word those parasites say.

It wasn’t the glazers it was the bank handling the sale Raine who requested proof of funds as part of the sale process.

Lying to the SEC would be a big no no for them.

INEOS offered more per share than the Qatar bid so they gave better value to the shareholders.

The Qatar bid seemed to have a lot of PR and noise behind it but they did not get very far and it never felt like they were serious.

 

[tripleglazed]

It wasn’t the glazers it was the bank handling the sale Raine who requested proof of funds as part of the sale process.

Lying to the SEC would be a big no no for them.

INEOS offered more per share than the Qatar bid so they gave better value to the shareholders.

The Qatar bid seemed to have a lot of PR and noise behind it but they did not get very far and it never felt like they were serious.

Well yes but Raine worked for the Glazers. I genuinely don't know if the Qatar team had the money as they were never obliged to come up with it and opinions differ. You might be correct or you might not be. What I do know is that if they did they would have been better owners from a financial point of view, but worse ones from an ethical point of view. Not a great choice.

 

[Matt Varnish]

Well yes but Raine worked for the Glazers. I genuinely don't know if the Qatar team had the money as they were never obliged to come up with it and opinions differ. You might be correct or you might not be. What I do know is that if they did they would have been better owners from a financial point of view, but worse ones from an ethical point of view. Not a great choice.

Can I borrow your crystal ball for tonights lottery numbers

 

[IDFD]

Surely that's just common sense? The interested party that wanted to complete a full takeover and write off the debts would have been the better financial option?

 

[SuperRash]

No part of me would want us to be owned by a state. We just become another soulless cop out.

 

[Matt Varnish]

Surely that's just common sense? The interested party that wanted to complete a full takeover and write off the debts would have been the better financial option?

Not for the Glazers and the shareholders

 

[IDFD]

No part of me would want us to be owned by a state. We just become another soulless cop out.

What are we now?

Can you get more soulless than being owned by a people who want to use the club to make money for their business whilst supporting Chelsea and laying off hundreds of Manchester based people?

Let's not pretend with the current ownership we have a soul.

I wouldn't want either to own us and I hope the PL will move to the 51% method.

 

[IDFD]

Not for the Glazers and the shareholders

The Glazers were taking the highest bidders not what was best for the club.

They also don't really want to give up the club. They like being associated with it. Though this season probably helps against that and the negative PR Jim has managed to create.

 

[jsp]

Well yes but Raine worked for the Glazers. I genuinely don't know if the Qatar team had the money as they were never obliged to come up with it and opinions differ. You might be correct or you might not be. What I do know is that if they did they would have been better owners from a financial point of view, but worse ones from an ethical point of view. Not a great choice.

They were obliged to present proof of funds. Standard practise after bids are submitted for the buyer to prove they’ve got the money. For whatever reason Qatar never presented suitable proof that they had the money to back up the offer.

Threatening legal action to correct the record which never comes is classic bluffer stuff if anything it makes the whole thing even more fishy.

If Qatar really wanted it they’d have got it but it seems quite clear the guy co-ordinating it did not have the full support of the royal family. If he did they’d have outbid Ratcliffe.

There’s also a 3rd factor. Would they have been better from a sporting point of view? We don’t really know that.

 

[SuperRash]

What are we now?

Can you get more soulless than being owned by a people who want to use the club to make money for their business whilst supporting Chelsea and laying off hundreds of Manchester based people?

Let's not pretend with the current ownership we have a soul.

I wouldn't want either to own us and I hope the PL will move to the 51% method.

What makes you think the 51% method would work? You still need investment who are going to invest heavily in clubs, will wealthy investors come in and pump millions into a club knowing they’ll never have a controlling share?

It will never happen in England in my opinion.

The Bundesliga is obviously the major league doing it but it’s not all rosy and straightforward there. There have been legal cases from investors in the 49% arguing they should have controlling shares because of the money they’ve pumped in.

As for the current ownership, it is not nice people being made redundant, however the club is in a financial mess and tough decisions needed to be made to streamline. The Chelsea thing is just petty schoolboy talk, he may or may not to be a Chelsea fan but that doesn’t influence the way you run a business. The Qataris wouldn’t have been buying us for the pure the love of the club. Or anyone for that matter. They would be buying to make money and probably have a long term exit plan.

Football is an entertainment business and businessman want to generate profits, it’s naive to think otherwise. It would be nice to have fans own the club but the chances of that happening are slim to zero. That ship has long sailed away,

 

[Matt Varnish]

What are we now?

Can you get more soulless than being owned by a people who want to use the club to make money for their business whilst supporting Chelsea and laying off hundreds of Manchester based people?

Let's not pretend with the current ownership we have a soul.

I wouldn't want either to own us and I hope the PL will move to the 51% method.

Just because the "fans" have 51%, it doesn't mean they will always get their way, the only way they would is if a vote was 50/50.
Fan ownership is a blind alley, I was a shareholder in United against the buy out, so were thousands of other fans, but it still went through because "fans" with a bigger share opted to sell.

 

[IDFD]

What makes you think the 51% method would work? You still need investment who are going to invest heavily in clubs, will wealthy investors come in and pump millions into a club knowing they’ll never have a controlling share?

It will never happen in England in my opinion.

The Bundesliga is obviously the major league doing it but it’s not all rosy and straightforward there. There have been legal cases from investors in the 49% arguing they should have controlling shares because of the money they’ve pumped in.

As for the current ownership, it is not nice people being made redundant, however the club is in a financial mess and tough decisions needed to be made to streamline. The Chelsea thing is just petty schoolboy talk, he may or may not to be a Chelsea fan but that doesn’t influence the way you run a business. The Qataris wouldn’t have been buying us for the pure the love of the club. Or anyone for that matter. They would be buying to make money and probably have a long term exit plan.

Football is an entertainment business and businessman want to generate profits, it’s naive to think otherwise. It would be nice to have fans own the club but the chances of that happening are slim to zero. That ship has long sailed away,

This is a very hypocritical post. I will ask again what are we now if not a soulless club? You can't think with the way we behaved since the takeover we are some community club?

 

[SuperRash]

This is a very hypocritical post. I will ask again what are we now if not a soulless club? You can't think with the way we behaved since the takeover we are some community club?

Hypocritical? How so?

I have never said everything that has happened since the takeover has been good, aspects have been positive and aspects have been negative. But I do harp back to the fact the club is basically in ruin and tough decisions have to be made to bring it back up. Life isn’t all sunshine and daisies, where we are is the harsh reality of the incompetence of the last 10 years.

 

[Matt Varnish]

This is a very hypocritical post. I will ask again what are we now if not a soulless club? You can't think with the way we behaved since the takeover we are some community club?

We haven't been a "club" since John Henry Davies and three of his mates paid off Newton Heaths debts and changed the name to "Manchester United"
When United were floated on the stock market by Martin Edwards, at that moment we became a PLC, any resemblance of a "club" disappeared at that moment.
Fans moan about the Glazers taking dividends, don't they realise that Edwards and the other shareholders at the time also took dividends?

 

[Matt Varnish]

Hypocritical? How so?

I have never said everything that has happened since the takeover has been good, aspects have been positive and aspects have been negative. But I do harp back to the fact the club is basically in ruin and tough decisions have to be made to bring it back up. Life isn’t all sunshine and daisies, where we are is the harsh reality of the incompetence of the last 10 years.

Caused by a bloke falling out with two major shareholders over a nag

 

[tripleglazed]

Can I borrow your crystal ball for tonights lottery numbers

Hard to see how they could be worse, let's face it.

 

[JammyRed]

We haven't been a "club" since John Henry Davies and three of his mates paid off Newton Heaths debts and changed the name to "Manchester United"
When United were floated on the stock market by Martin Edwards, at that moment we became a PLC, any resemblance of a "club" disappeared at that moment.
Fans moan about the Glazers taking dividends, don't they realise that Edwards and the other shareholders at the time also took dividends?

Edwards was a parasite but the Glazers have taken it to another level the debt that those C**** have shackled the club with is insane,

 

[jsp]

We haven't been a "club" since John Henry Davies and three of his mates paid off Newton Heaths debts and changed the name to "Manchester United"
When United were floated on the stock market by Martin Edwards, at that moment we became a PLC, any resemblance of a "club" disappeared at that moment.
Fans moan about the Glazers taking dividends, don't they realise that Edwards and the other shareholders at the time also took dividends?

They at least invested money into the club to then take dividends out. They risked their own capital and deserve a reward for it.

The PLC format helped totally rebuild the ground and make the club the behemoth it became.

Of course they took dividends in return and I don’t think fans really begrudge them that. Dividends were paid out of profits.

The glazers is totally different they’ve invested -£500m and taken dividends on top even when the club was losing money. It was a very clever business move but it’s killed the club.

Even more frustrating is it didn’t even need to be this way just employ people who knew what they were doing to run it rather than investment bankers.

 

[Matt Varnish]

They at least invested money into the club to then take dividends out. They risked their own capital and deserve a reward for it.

The PLC format helped totally rebuild the ground and make the club the behemoth it became.

Of course they took dividends in return and I don’t think fans really begrudge them that. Dividends were paid out of profits.

The glazers is totally different they’ve invested -£500m and taken dividends on top even when the club was losing money. It was a very clever business move but it’s killed the club.

Even more frustrating is it didn’t even need to be this way just employ people who knew what they were doing to run it rather than investment bankers.

I don't want to get into this discussion again really.
My opinion is that a lot of what has happened to the team was down to Moyes, we lost a lot of experienced back room staff because of him, for the sake of dinosaurs like Lumsden.

 

[tripleglazed]

They at least invested money into the club to then take dividends out. They risked their own capital and deserve a reward for it.

The PLC format helped totally rebuild the ground and make the club the behemoth it became.

Of course they took dividends in return and I don’t think fans really begrudge them that. Dividends were paid out of profits.

The glazers is totally different they’ve invested -£500m and taken dividends on top even when the club was losing money. It was a very clever business move but it’s killed the club.

Even more frustrating is it didn’t even need to be this way just employ people who knew what they were doing to run it rather than investment bankers.

The Glazers spotted that the fanbase would accept fourth place every other year without impacting their revenue and so they did the economically logical thing. This led to a failure of investment and a toxic sporting culture which in turn led a collapse in the club's fortunes which might take a few years to reverse even if everything were done right. Which of course it might not because the Glazers are still there and INEOS so far don't seem that competent or willing to spend.

What the club needs is a sugar daddy who will buy a 120,000 seater stadium. Instead we get parasites and narcissists.

 

[jsp]

I don't want to get into this discussion again really.
My opinion is that a lot of what has happened to the team was down to Moyes, we lost a lot of experienced back room staff because of him, for the sake of dinosaurs like Lumsden.

That all points back to the Glazers.

The club had zero succession plan for Fergie. There was obviously a plan for Woodward to replace Gill. My guess is Gill (being the clever man he is) always planned to leave when Fergie did. He knew the right time to get out.

Leaving Woodward in charge was a massive mistake.

Fergie leaving should have been the trigger point to restructure and modernise as there wasn’t going to ever be another Fergie. That sort of manager just didn’t exist anymore.

 

[jsp]

The Glazers spotted that the fanbase would accept fourth place every other year without impacting their revenue and so they did the economically logical thing. This led to a failure of investment and a toxic sporting culture which in turn led a collapse in the club's fortunes which might take a few years to reverse even if everything were done right. Which of course it might not because the Glazers are still there and INEOS so far don't seem that competent or willing to spend.

What the club needs is a sugar daddy who will buy a 120,000 seater stadium. Instead we get parasites and narcissists.

I don’t think that’s the case at all. From day one the Glazers didn’t care about the fans or on field performance, 1st or 17th they just wanted their dividend paid on time.

Utd’s budget was always based on being a CL club. For 10 years that was guaranteed for them so their model worked. For the next 10 it hasn’t been and that’s caused major cash flow problems as spending has carried on at a CL level and now all the money is gone.

INEOS have put the maximum amount in that is allowed under PSR - £90m. On top of that they’ve put £50m into redevelop the training ground which doesn’t count for PSR. All in they’ve put about £220m of cash into the club to start fixing problems. They aren’t going to put more in until the Glazers agree to sell the rest of their shares.

As for the sugar daddy you want something that doesn’t exist. Find me a multi billionaire that isn’t a parasite or narcissist.

 

[Matt Varnish]

That all points back to the Glazers.

The club had zero succession plan for Fergie. There was obviously a plan for Woodward to replace Gill. My guess is Gill (being the clever man he is) always planned to leave when Fergie did. He knew the right time to get out.

Leaving Woodward in charge was a massive mistake.

Fergie leaving should have been the trigger point to restructure and modernise as there wasn’t going to ever be another Fergie. That sort of manager just didn’t exist anymore.

Wasn't it the other way around, didn't Gill accept the UEFA appointment before Fergie announced his retirement?