Come here to laugh at United

  • The Fighting Cock is a forum for fans of Tottenham Hotspur Football Club. Here you can discuss Spurs latest matches, our squad, tactics and any transfer news surrounding the club. Registration gives you access to all our forums (including 'Off Topic' discussion) and removes most of the adverts (you can remove them all via an account upgrade). You're here now, you might as well...

    Get involved!

Latest Spurs videos from Sky Sports

Sort by date Sort by reaction score
Murphy said:
Why the disparity? And if the Glazers own 71% still that extra 1% is worth fuck all surely 🤣
Click to expand...

disparity is that Ratcliffe is putting in one billion (ish) and accepting total value of Man U is say 4 billion, so his % share is a lot smaller than Glazers .......

extra 1% is worth something if/when manu pays dividends

the strength of Ratcliffe's ownership share is only as strong as the shareholder agreement he has with Glazers - media suggests that gives Ratcliffe control over the committee that overseas all playing matters including transfers.
 
Spursidol said:
disparity is that Ratcliffe is putting in one billion (ish) and accepting total value of Man U is say 4 billion, so his % share is a lot smaller than Glazers .......

extra 1% is worth something if/when manu pays dividends

the strength of Ratcliffe's ownership share is only as strong as the shareholder agreement he has with Glazers - media suggests that gives Ratcliffe control over the committee that overseas all playing matters including transfers.
Click to expand...
It's a great deal for the Glazers.

They take the money. But Radcliffe is responsible for the football decisions.
 
paddydogsstar said:
It's a great deal for the Glazers.

They take the money. But Radcliffe is responsible for the football decisions.
Click to expand...

Glazers are now in charge of sponsorship and other revenue streams though. And rebuilding the leaking (every match) wreck they laughingly call a stadium.

And Glazers are struggling to get that much real revenue growth with decline in football fortunes. So unless Ratcliffe improves the football side Glazers will come under fire as they are not increasing revenues to levels needed to rebuild squad........ !

But yes they've hived off to someone else the management of the bit they have no idea how to do.
 
Richard Arlison said:

View: https://x.com/GaryLineker/status/1747599657520259307?s=20
Click to expand...


I am sorry but this guy is supposed to be the neutral arbitrator of match of the day.

All well laughing but its like a judge commenting on a robbery on twitter with a big laughing emoji as he gets sent down, it really discredits his professionalism. He really needs to step down from MoTD and join TalkSport where his trolling is more suitable.

Twitter or X and other social media has made a lot of people in positions from politics to sports look really childish and amateur. When its your own industry you need to look professional and not a clown or go to a place where being a clown is ok.
 
Tomo said:
I am sorry but this guy is supposed to be the neutral arbitrator of match of the day.

All well laughing but its like a judge commenting on a robbery on twitter with a big laughing emoji as he gets sent down, it really discredits his professionalism. He really needs to step down from MoTD and join TalkSport where his trolling is more suitable.

Twitter or X and other social media has made a lot of people in positions from politics to sports look really childish and amateur.
Click to expand...

You do have a point.

MOTD has become clickbait and attention seeking now tho
 
Spursidol said:
disparity is that Ratcliffe is putting in one billion (ish) and accepting total value of Man U is say 4 billion, so his % share is a lot smaller than Glazers .......

extra 1% is worth something if/when manu pays dividends

the strength of Ratcliffe's ownership share is only as strong as the shareholder agreement he has with Glazers - media suggests that gives Ratcliffe control over the committee that overseas all playing matters including transfers.
Click to expand...

I have two questions about Man U and Ratcliffe.

1. Is the clubs valuation set by their share price?

2. Does Ratcliffe want to buy the whole club?

Because if it is and if he does then surely he will want the share price to decrease so the club becomes cheaper to buy. Where’s the incentive for him to make the club perform better? Unless he’s just bought in for a vanity project, considering his age it isn’t beyond the realms of possibility but from a business perspective if 1 and 2 are a yes, then I just don’t understand it.
 
Brian Fantana said:
I have two questions about Man U and Ratcliffe.

1. Is the clubs valuation set by their share price?

2. Does Ratcliffe want to buy the whole club?

Because if it is and if he does then surely he will want the share price to decrease so the club becomes cheaper to buy. Where’s the incentive for him to make the club perform better? Unless he’s just bought in for a vanity project, considering his age it isn’t beyond the realms of possibility but from a business perspective if 1 and 2 are a yes, then I just don’t understand it.
Click to expand...

1 Its a valuation agreed between them, but it would be astonishing if there was no relation to share price.
Just to confuse things there are 2 or more classes of share, not sure if all classes are quoted/listed. He will own different % of two classes of share

2 I think Ratcliffe started bidding for 100% but all bidders then notified that their bids didn't match Glazers valuation but suggested re-bid for a minority stake - which he did.

Ratcliffe has interests in a few sports businesses but ManU would be his largest (don't forget he bid for Chelsea against Boehly). Looks like he's trying to build up a portfolio of sports businesses with common 'strategic' managers - not dissimilar to US owners having stakes in NFL, basketball etc.

He's not commented on his goals or exit strategy, but surely realises its a 5+ year strategy to turn ManU round.

Maybe he thinks he's bought into an undervalued business - under valued because of bad management and lack of investment in facilities such as stadium so he thinks he'll be able to sell on at a profit come what may ?
 
Spursidol said:
1 Its a valuation agreed between them, but it would be astonishing if there was no relation to share price.
Just to confuse things there are 2 or more classes of share, not sure if all classes are quoted/listed. He will own different % of two classes of share

2 I think Ratcliffe started bidding for 100% but all bidders then notified that their bids didn't match Glazers valuation but suggested re-bid for a minority stake - which he did.

Ratcliffe has interests in a few sports businesses but ManU would be his largest (don't forget he bid for Chelsea against Boehly). Looks like he's trying to build up a portfolio of sports businesses with common 'strategic' managers - not dissimilar to US owners having stakes in NFL, basketball etc.

He's not commented on his goals or exit strategy, but surely realises its a 5+ year strategy to turn ManU round.

Maybe he thinks he's bought into an undervalued business - under valued because of bad management and lack of investment in facilities such as stadium so he thinks he'll be able to sell on at a profit come what may ?
Click to expand...

Maybe, I don’t know enough about his sporting ventures. One thing though is that he’s still got to build the stadium and we know that building and financing a stadium now is vastly different than when we started on that journey. He wants into PL football for some reason and I do just now wonder if it’s for the fun of it rather than the investment.
 
I just found out Manure paid £64m for Mount... Who was clearly overrated even while at chavs (despite having some great moments, he was never going to be world class). They thought they were buying Chavs best player! haaaahahahahahaha

I found this in some sofifa comments:

"7 starts for united in 2023 (626mins played)
7 starts for Chelsea in 2023 (670mins played)
0 goals 1 assist (in the league cup)
250k a week, and the iconic number 7 shirt"

It's nice to know we're not the only ones buying Ndombeles.
 
Brian Fantana said:
Maybe, I don’t know enough about his sporting ventures. One thing though is that he’s still got to build the stadium and we know that building and financing a stadium now is vastly different than when we started on that journey. He wants into PL football for some reason and I do just now wonder if it’s for the fun of it rather than the investment.
Click to expand...

One thing's for sure.... The 1bn he paid is going straight into the Glaziers pockets, so in that respect they're no richer; they just might find themselves better run..... Whether that means commercially or off the pitch is TBC.

Is he going to throw a further 500m - 1bn of his own dosh in to build a new stadium? I doubt that very much; so they'll continue to have to cut their cloth as they have been.
 
Airfixx said:
One thing's for sure.... The 1bn he paid is going straight into the Glaziers pockets, so in that respect they're no richer; they just might find themselves better run..... Whether that means commercially or off the pitch is TBC.

Is he going to throw a further 500m - 1bn of his own dosh in to build a new stadium? I doubt that very much; so they'll continue to have to cut their cloth as they have been.
Click to expand...

A new stadium will cost them over £2 billion. No idea if they’ve the appetite for that but I doubt it.
 
Brian Fantana said:
A new stadium will cost them over £2 billion. No idea if they’ve the appetite for that but I doubt it.
Click to expand...

The only way that gets done is if they do similar to us.... Only they'll have much higher interest rates and material costs........ And would City let them ground-share while the work was done????? If I was a minted oil sheikh then I certainly wouldn't.


.........They'll do a roof repair and leave it like that for another decade I reckon.
 
Last edited:
Murphy said:
There's issues with their current site/expansion too IU think because of the train line - it runs deep under the stand or something doesn't it?
Click to expand...

I read the other month that they had a site available to build another stadium there and it would be the most cost effective way rather than trying and replace old Trafford but by bit.

I think their problem is build costs and finance costs have gone up considerably since we built ours. Eg. Our interest payments are something like 2% one our loans, from memory. There’s would be higher, which they could afford but on top of the glaziers taking our dividends every year it’s less money towards the team.

Do they all have the patience for it nevermind a person driving it all.
 
Murphy said:
There's issues with their current site/expansion too IU think because of the train line - it runs deep under the stand or something doesn't it?
Click to expand...
It runs alongside their main stand, so they can’t expand that way.
I was up there last week and whilst the pitch and stands still look pretty good, the exterior is looking tired and the concourses, stairs and walls are long overdue a refurbishment. The toilets stunk and were in a poor state. You can see why united fans are so upset with the owners, they are sweating old Trafford as an asset and looks like the next owners will be left with a massive bill to overhaul the stadium or build a new one!
It reminded me of the last five years of WHL but at least we knew why WHL was not being invested in.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom