Again, eh?
expat
/ˌɛksˈpat/
Learn to pronounce
INFORMAL
noun
- a person who lives outside their native country.
"a British expat who's been living in Amsterdam for 14 years"
Club Sale | It’s done!
- Thread starter JB08
- Start date
-
In the latest episode of the United Hour Podcast, Nik (@Rood) is joined by CEO Duncan Drasdo and Financial Director Andy Green from the Manchester United Supporters Trust for a special episode on all things behind the scenes at Old Trafford including a brief history of MUST and their aims today, views on INEOS and Sir Jim Ratcliffe so far, and the Old Trafford regeneration.
- Status
expat
/ˌɛksˈpat/
Learn to pronounce
INFORMAL
noun
Exactly I find it really telling how people's opinions have suddenly changed once the lure of tainted oil money appeared
That’s not an issue apparently
Ahh, the good old, Ineos makes money so they will just spend 5bn and get loans and service them.It’s obviously not for a company that generates revenues of 2bn-ish a year man. As mentioned previously, they could service debt to the tune of 4.5 times our current debt servicing and their bottomline would change from €2,100,000,000 to €2,020,000,000
Glazers debt also didn’t affect ffp. Its still a giant albatross around our neck.
It's about evidence, there is no evidence of state backing, and there is no evidence QIB couldn't afford to buy united.
You enjoy your conspiracy theory and bridge, that fairytale place isn't for me.
I was agreeing with you mate
He’s stuck a bid in for 4bn and is the richest man in the U.K. owning 66% of a company that has revenues of 80bn a year. I mean he’s an obvious cnut but I don’t think he’s an obvious bluffer.
Chelsea are an actual example
So what would they do then?
Because Glazers didn’t have a parent company raking in 2bn a year
United had to pay it all themselves, was no other option available to them.
Keep convincing yourself INEOS are some poor company mind who’d be struggling to finance a company almost 100 times smaller. It’ll make you feel better about having no choice but the state I’m sure.
I don't have statistics or hard proof, but I shouldn't need to for something like this. I'm sure there are studies out there, but I don't have the energy to find them. And if we can't even agree that a Twitter poll wouldn't necessarily be representative, then what's the point in continuing.
I suppose you don't think Man City or Newcastle are state owned either then?
80bn revenue? Darn that is a huge and sudden increase from the 18b euro reported revenue.
No I know you were, which is why I posted the other posters one.I was agreeing with you mate
This notion that a big company will not put any loans on us, is silly imo.
When it comes to building a new stadium, we will be so cash strapped, we wont get to spend on transfers and on field.
People want that over, lets compete.
What every other owner does... they will need to put up something to the loan, equity, etc..
Next thing, Ineos come out and say, to build a new stadium we need to take a 2bn loan under Manutd's name and we will be servicing it... debt again.
I suspect you are someone who wants us to have debt?
Wikipedia and Google say 61bn revenues. Still not sure even if it was 18bn that makes him a bluffer…I’d love to bluff my way to being the richest man in the UK.
But this is the point - we simply don't know, so how can you be so confident most fans, even only local fans, don't prefer Qatar?
We have seen a lot of targeted propaganda from the British media that clearly want Jimmy R (and also wanted Poch instead of EtH) because quite clearly they'll benefit from it.
Why is it so impossible to believe most people would reluctantly accept the Qatari offer knowing it ensures the continued existence of United as a football superpower?
If Ratcliffe had bid 15 years ago, we wouldn't be here but the state of the club is such that we need their spending power to compete.
I mean I know the obvious answer but I wonder where they are gonna say it's coming from
That poll is pretty solidly at 59-41%, when you told me an hour or so ago that there was no divide in the fanbase , because the open sewer of twitter was hugely in favour… My point was there very obviously is, as evidenced by your eyes and ears, but everyone is just steadfastly ignoring things they dislike… whether that be Twitter, the Athletic, or Forums.
Plus if you’re completely clear headed and untroubled by your personal opinion it’ shouldn’t matter, but people very clearly aren’t, which is why they’re trying to ‘wash’ their preferences with cherry picked popularity,
I’d agree there seems to be a preference for Qatar overall, but “most United fans have been won heart and mind by Qatar” is a ridiculous statement that basically aims to erase dissent.
Last edited:
You are probably getting figures mixed up. 18b euro is about his estimated net worth. INEOS annual revenue is about 60 bn with profit of ~ 2bn.
Brexit Jimbo isn’t oil rich but he’s clearly no pauper, and it would be pretty spectacularly stupid to commit proof of fund of billions of pounds for a bid that you may yet win, if the whole purpose is just PR.
Not particularly no.
But in an ideal World I'd like United to be a self sufficient football club that doesn't have outside sources draining money out or pumping money in. So if a self sufficient football club decides to build a new £1-2 billion stadium. How would they usually go about that? How are Spurs doing it?
I didn't say that they don't prefer Qatar, I originally started by questioning the statement that there is no divide in fans' opinions, and was then shown Twitter polls as proof for this. So I questioned these. I still presume if you were to somehow ask every United fan in the world, Qatar would come out top. But there would surely be a split in fans, with a sizeable chunk of them wanting Jim, or whoever - just not Qatar.
I am glad you asked this question.
I will tell you how and why.
1. Competing on the pitch, they are competing for top 4 with 0 trophies in god knows how many years.
2. The stadium cost 1bn, United is 2bn.
3. They can't spend money - remember when they were building it, £0 spent in a window.
4. They took loans out, couldn't pay it back and then re-financed their loans.
https://smartseries.sportspromedia.com/news/tottenham-hotspur-stadium-debt-loans-refinance
This is what I want to avoid. I want Manutd to compete with for big titles, not Spurs.
Jim did not mention the removal of existing debt. So we would have the current debt, plus the debt that will be added (to Ineos, technically) in the buying of man utd.
Also, no one is still mentioning how Ineos can own both Man utd and OG Nice under INEOS, how is this not talked about enough.
I feel that if you swapped the names of Ratcliff and Jassim on both statements, there would be overwhelming support for you Ratcliff in both statements because he is British.
Tweet
— Twitter API (@user) date
Also, no one is still mentioning how Ineos can own both Man utd and OG Nice under INEOS, how is this not talked about enough.
I feel that if you swapped the names of Ratcliff and Jassim on both statements, there would be overwhelming support for you Ratcliff in both statements because he is British.
Last edited:
I'm definitely not mixed up. Page F-5 is pretty clear on the reported P&L ineos-group-holdings-s.a.-2021-annual-report.pdf I'm well aware of a statement about the larger figure..
The tiniest bit of effort would have saved you from youself: https://www.ineos.com/about/
Because the 70 year old man wants to be the clubs custodian.
What’s so short term and worrying about that?
What about it is long term?
Why shouldn’t United pay for their own stadium man?
Spurs had to, Arsenal had to, what makea us more worthy ?
The tiniest bit of effort would have saved you. Page F-5 is pretty clear on the reported P&L ineos-group-holdings-s.a.-2021-annual-report.pdf states 18.8b euro. The 65 is NOT ineos, it is revenues include in their equity share of revenues generated by joint ventures
edited because I have no posts left for today.
Something for those who say 65b euro is power. okay, read 12a page F-45.
Refining joint ventures
2021 2020 2019
€m
Revenue................................................................................................................................ 27,417.3 ................................ 17,102.8 ............... 27,867.0
Expenses ..............................................................................................................................(27,494.6) .............................. (17,409.5) ............ (27,722.9)
And read
page F-5
Share of (loss)/profit of associates and joint ventures using the equity accounting method
................................................................................................ 12a (42.5) ................................ (210.0) ................... 67.0
Last edited by a moderator:
That’s my point. You really need succession plans and long term planning to be fully confident in his bid.
We’d be selling to Jim short term but the real new owner is whoever comes behind him.
We’ve had this with Malcolm Glazer and his death. We now have his siblings split on what to do so we’re being sold
So if he pops his clogs and Ineos is taken over by someone who doesn't want us. Sorry I should have read what you actually said I am agreeing with you.
Caf: "Keep it civil"
Caf users: "No, I don't think I will"
Caf users: "No, I don't think I will"
You clearly don’t know what the bolded means.
Tbf the money that was taken out of us via dividends and debt repayment over the last 17 years amounted to a little over £1bn., that’s pretty much a new stadium or OT renovated, so people just rationalize it as us being given that money now by a new owner is no more than recompense for the Glazer years.Why shouldn’t United pay for their own stadium man?
Spurs had to, Arsenal had to, what makea us more worthy ?
You can of course argue the merit of that, but that’s how it’s being seen, although I do concede that football fans in general care not a fig about the competitive spirit of the gam as long as it benefits their team.
Indeed, but joint ventures are part of the group's income. There's likely accounting and legal reasons why they're reported differently, but they're part owned by the group so it makes no sense to ignore them when discussing Ineos' financial might.
They're still blood sucking corporate parasites that pimped the club around to anyone who is going to pay a few bucks. Do I need to remind you the jokes about United and the various sponsorships? How are the Qataris, who are going to actually invest in the club, going to make us lose our soul more?
Its tough to trust a fracking Brexiteer who lives in a tax haven overseas.
Been out of the loop on this over the weekend but how concerned should we be about this Glazer/Elliot potential partnership
Red Bull owns several clubs, so does the City investment group. Qatar already own PSG. Technicalities, no idea.
I don't think the support for SJR has anything to do with names, but with the fact that those people don't want the club to be state-owned, doesn't even matter which country makes a bid.
- Status