Well well well...
It's being reported as £4.25b actually.
I don’t see why 51%+ fan ownership would necessarily be a promised land.
£4billies for Chelsea, damn that’s a good number. They should bite his hand off
comment by Sat Nav (U18243)
posted 0 seconds ago
I don’t see why 51%+ fan ownership would necessarily be a promised land.
£4billies for Chelsea, damn that’s a good number. They should bite his hand off
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Plus we’re already Beyond the Promised Land 😉
Ratcliffe has spoken openly about his prospects of buying Man United recently. But he has not really said anything that anybody else doesn't know about how badly United has been run making them an unattractive business proposition for serious investors.
"Ineos never wants to be the dumb money in town, never. United are in quite a big pickle as a business. They haven't got the manager selection right, haven't bought well. They have been the dumb money, which you see with players like Fred. United have spent an immense amount since Ferguson left and been poor, to put it mildly. Shockingly poor, to be honest. "We (Lille) have a different approach here to be moderately intelligent about it. Try to do it more grass roots, trying to locate young talent. Some clubs seem to have an ability to do that, Southampton, Lille. United have done it really poorly. They have lost the plot." "It’s not getting any better at United. It’s gone from bad to catastrophic. Talk about a glass-half-empty."
So, basically he wouldn't touch United with a barge pole. An unveiled damning warning for Glazers here that they might be killing the goose that laid their golden egg if they don't buck their ideas up.
Glazers not about to part with the club that lays golden eggs.Don't win feckall but the eggs are to die for.
comment by groovyduringthewar (U1054)
posted 1 minute ago
Glazers not about to part with the club that lays golden eggs.Don't win feckall but the eggs are to die for.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
are you on glue?
Ratcliffe is a cvnt. Why do so many cvnts get involved - ah yes, it’s a cvnty business.
comment by groovyduringthewar (U1054)
posted 1 minute ago
Glazers not about to part with the club that lays golden eggs.Don't win feckall but the eggs are to die for.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
are you on glue?
-------------------------------
Are you stuck for something to say
SatNav, fan ownership isn't a guarantee of good governance. However, it is a guarantee that the club is run according to the supporters' interests. There are dysfunctional democracies and relatively benign dictatorships. I'd always rather live in a democracy. And in terms of my football club, I'd always take my chances with a wide swathe of fans defining the club's fundamental objectives rather than it being a vehicle for debt repayment or sportswashing a vicious regime.
comment by RB&W - What is it now, Ralf? (U21434)
posted 1 hour, 24 minutes ago
Ratcliffe has spoken openly about his prospects of buying Man United recently. But he has not really said anything that anybody else doesn't know about how badly United has been run making them an unattractive business proposition for serious investors.
"Ineos never wants to be the dumb money in town, never. United are in quite a big pickle as a business. They haven't got the manager selection right, haven't bought well. They have been the dumb money, which you see with players like Fred. United have spent an immense amount since Ferguson left and been poor, to put it mildly. Shockingly poor, to be honest. "We (Lille) have a different approach here to be moderately intelligent about it. Try to do it more grass roots, trying to locate young talent. Some clubs seem to have an ability to do that, Southampton, Lille. United have done it really poorly. They have lost the plot." "It’s not getting any better at United. It’s gone from bad to catastrophic. Talk about a glass-half-empty."
So, basically he wouldn't touch United with a barge pole. An unveiled damning warning for Glazers here that they might be killing the goose that laid their golden egg if they don't buck their ideas up.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
As per my OP, I don't want United to pass into the ownership of "a better class of millionaire". However, I don't really follow the logic of the quoted comments. He's basically saying United isn't an attractive investment because it is being badly run. But that's a really good reason to buy a company. If you can identify a business that has residual value that isn't being realised due to inefficient processes and poor leadership, it's by definition an organisation that with improved leadership can quickly become more profitable. If you're looking to expand your portfolio, you're looking out for companies where it's clear how potential growth can be unlocked.
The cheap appeal to nationalistic jingoism in that INEOS press-release tells me they've already lost to the American bidders.
Ratcliffe has previous form when it comes to disingenuously wrapping himself in the Union Jack.
A Man Utd supporter eh. That tells you all that you need to know about consortiums. This guy couldn't care less about Chelsea the football team, as a Utd fan,probably the opposite, but is getting his foot in the door for a profitable business pure and simple.
Welcome to the world the rest of us ( outside of City and probably Newcastle ) have to put up with, where profit comes before anything else, including glory.
comment by Red Russian (U4715)
posted 30 minutes ago
comment by RB&W - What is it now, Ralf? (U21434)
posted 1 hour, 24 minutes ago
Ratcliffe has spoken openly about his prospects of buying Man United recently. But he has not really said anything that anybody else doesn't know about how badly United has been run making them an unattractive business proposition for serious investors.
"Ineos never wants to be the dumb money in town, never. United are in quite a big pickle as a business. They haven't got the manager selection right, haven't bought well. They have been the dumb money, which you see with players like Fred. United have spent an immense amount since Ferguson left and been poor, to put it mildly. Shockingly poor, to be honest. "We (Lille) have a different approach here to be moderately intelligent about it. Try to do it more grass roots, trying to locate young talent. Some clubs seem to have an ability to do that, Southampton, Lille. United have done it really poorly. They have lost the plot." "It’s not getting any better at United. It’s gone from bad to catastrophic. Talk about a glass-half-empty."
So, basically he wouldn't touch United with a barge pole. An unveiled damning warning for Glazers here that they might be killing the goose that laid their golden egg if they don't buck their ideas up.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
As per my OP, I don't want United to pass into the ownership of "a better class of millionaire". However, I don't really follow the logic of the quoted comments. He's basically saying United isn't an attractive investment because it is being badly run. But that's a really good reason to buy a company. If you can identify a business that has residual value that isn't being realised due to inefficient processes and poor leadership, it's by definition an organisation that with improved leadership can quickly become more profitable. If you're looking to expand your portfolio, you're looking out for companies where it's clear how potential growth can be unlocked.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
I don't get why he says this as a reason not to own United either. Just because he thinks the current lot run it badly doesn't follow that he will. I would hope not either. Unless he thinks that the cancer eating United is now embedded in the DNA of the club and is irreversible.
Said on the news he’s been a United supporter since he was a child, but has been a season ticket holder at SB for years, and now wants to buy them
Odd to say the least
Its kind of weird tbh
He went public about it almost concurrently with the news coming out that the La Dodgers guy Todd Boehly had won the bidding process
Not sure why he didnt go public sooner when time is clearly at a premium with the sanctions etc ongoing
Page 1 of 1
First
Previous
1
Next
Latest
Sign in if you want to comment
Sir Jim Ratcliffe
Page 1 of 1
posted on 29/4/22
Well well well...
It's being reported as £4.25b actually.
posted on 29/4/22
I don’t see why 51%+ fan ownership would necessarily be a promised land.
£4billies for Chelsea, damn that’s a good number. They should bite his hand off
posted on 29/4/22
comment by Sat Nav (U18243)
posted 0 seconds ago
I don’t see why 51%+ fan ownership would necessarily be a promised land.
£4billies for Chelsea, damn that’s a good number. They should bite his hand off
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Plus we’re already Beyond the Promised Land 😉
posted on 29/4/22
Ratcliffe has spoken openly about his prospects of buying Man United recently. But he has not really said anything that anybody else doesn't know about how badly United has been run making them an unattractive business proposition for serious investors.
"Ineos never wants to be the dumb money in town, never. United are in quite a big pickle as a business. They haven't got the manager selection right, haven't bought well. They have been the dumb money, which you see with players like Fred. United have spent an immense amount since Ferguson left and been poor, to put it mildly. Shockingly poor, to be honest. "We (Lille) have a different approach here to be moderately intelligent about it. Try to do it more grass roots, trying to locate young talent. Some clubs seem to have an ability to do that, Southampton, Lille. United have done it really poorly. They have lost the plot." "It’s not getting any better at United. It’s gone from bad to catastrophic. Talk about a glass-half-empty."
So, basically he wouldn't touch United with a barge pole. An unveiled damning warning for Glazers here that they might be killing the goose that laid their golden egg if they don't buck their ideas up.
posted on 29/4/22
Glazers not about to part with the club that lays golden eggs.Don't win feckall but the eggs are to die for.
posted on 29/4/22
comment by groovyduringthewar (U1054)
posted 1 minute ago
Glazers not about to part with the club that lays golden eggs.Don't win feckall but the eggs are to die for.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
are you on glue?
posted on 29/4/22
Ratcliffe is a cvnt. Why do so many cvnts get involved - ah yes, it’s a cvnty business.
posted on 29/4/22
comment by groovyduringthewar (U1054)
posted 1 minute ago
Glazers not about to part with the club that lays golden eggs.Don't win feckall but the eggs are to die for.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
are you on glue?
-------------------------------
Are you stuck for something to say
posted on 29/4/22
SatNav, fan ownership isn't a guarantee of good governance. However, it is a guarantee that the club is run according to the supporters' interests. There are dysfunctional democracies and relatively benign dictatorships. I'd always rather live in a democracy. And in terms of my football club, I'd always take my chances with a wide swathe of fans defining the club's fundamental objectives rather than it being a vehicle for debt repayment or sportswashing a vicious regime.
posted on 29/4/22
comment by RB&W - What is it now, Ralf? (U21434)
posted 1 hour, 24 minutes ago
Ratcliffe has spoken openly about his prospects of buying Man United recently. But he has not really said anything that anybody else doesn't know about how badly United has been run making them an unattractive business proposition for serious investors.
"Ineos never wants to be the dumb money in town, never. United are in quite a big pickle as a business. They haven't got the manager selection right, haven't bought well. They have been the dumb money, which you see with players like Fred. United have spent an immense amount since Ferguson left and been poor, to put it mildly. Shockingly poor, to be honest. "We (Lille) have a different approach here to be moderately intelligent about it. Try to do it more grass roots, trying to locate young talent. Some clubs seem to have an ability to do that, Southampton, Lille. United have done it really poorly. They have lost the plot." "It’s not getting any better at United. It’s gone from bad to catastrophic. Talk about a glass-half-empty."
So, basically he wouldn't touch United with a barge pole. An unveiled damning warning for Glazers here that they might be killing the goose that laid their golden egg if they don't buck their ideas up.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
As per my OP, I don't want United to pass into the ownership of "a better class of millionaire". However, I don't really follow the logic of the quoted comments. He's basically saying United isn't an attractive investment because it is being badly run. But that's a really good reason to buy a company. If you can identify a business that has residual value that isn't being realised due to inefficient processes and poor leadership, it's by definition an organisation that with improved leadership can quickly become more profitable. If you're looking to expand your portfolio, you're looking out for companies where it's clear how potential growth can be unlocked.
posted on 29/4/22
The cheap appeal to nationalistic jingoism in that INEOS press-release tells me they've already lost to the American bidders.
Ratcliffe has previous form when it comes to disingenuously wrapping himself in the Union Jack.
posted on 29/4/22
A Man Utd supporter eh. That tells you all that you need to know about consortiums. This guy couldn't care less about Chelsea the football team, as a Utd fan,probably the opposite, but is getting his foot in the door for a profitable business pure and simple.
Welcome to the world the rest of us ( outside of City and probably Newcastle ) have to put up with, where profit comes before anything else, including glory.
posted on 29/4/22
comment by Red Russian (U4715)
posted 30 minutes ago
comment by RB&W - What is it now, Ralf? (U21434)
posted 1 hour, 24 minutes ago
Ratcliffe has spoken openly about his prospects of buying Man United recently. But he has not really said anything that anybody else doesn't know about how badly United has been run making them an unattractive business proposition for serious investors.
"Ineos never wants to be the dumb money in town, never. United are in quite a big pickle as a business. They haven't got the manager selection right, haven't bought well. They have been the dumb money, which you see with players like Fred. United have spent an immense amount since Ferguson left and been poor, to put it mildly. Shockingly poor, to be honest. "We (Lille) have a different approach here to be moderately intelligent about it. Try to do it more grass roots, trying to locate young talent. Some clubs seem to have an ability to do that, Southampton, Lille. United have done it really poorly. They have lost the plot." "It’s not getting any better at United. It’s gone from bad to catastrophic. Talk about a glass-half-empty."
So, basically he wouldn't touch United with a barge pole. An unveiled damning warning for Glazers here that they might be killing the goose that laid their golden egg if they don't buck their ideas up.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
As per my OP, I don't want United to pass into the ownership of "a better class of millionaire". However, I don't really follow the logic of the quoted comments. He's basically saying United isn't an attractive investment because it is being badly run. But that's a really good reason to buy a company. If you can identify a business that has residual value that isn't being realised due to inefficient processes and poor leadership, it's by definition an organisation that with improved leadership can quickly become more profitable. If you're looking to expand your portfolio, you're looking out for companies where it's clear how potential growth can be unlocked.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
I don't get why he says this as a reason not to own United either. Just because he thinks the current lot run it badly doesn't follow that he will. I would hope not either. Unless he thinks that the cancer eating United is now embedded in the DNA of the club and is irreversible.
posted on 29/4/22
Said on the news he’s been a United supporter since he was a child, but has been a season ticket holder at SB for years, and now wants to buy them
Odd to say the least
posted on 30/4/22
Its kind of weird tbh
He went public about it almost concurrently with the news coming out that the La Dodgers guy Todd Boehly had won the bidding process
Not sure why he didnt go public sooner when time is clearly at a premium with the sanctions etc ongoing
Page 1 of 1