Club Sale | It’s done!

[NWRed]

The existential problem for United is what it has been for the last 18 years, the Glazers.

They are the ones that threaten the clubs existence, it is their actions that have gone against the values of the club for the 127 years prior to their purchase.

 

[Fluctuation0161]

I can see his point. I totally disagree with state backed clubs. But there needs to be regulation against it for all clubs. Just like there should've been regulation against what the Glazers did, I believe there is now, but too late for us.

My personal preference is Radcliffe.

 

[MDFC Manager]

Daddy is extremely wealthy and has more than enough.

Yeah to be honest I doubt even his father's wealthy enough to fund the project they've proposed from his own funds.

Oh, I think daddy is certainly wealthy enough himself. fecker owns a $300m yacht for example.

 

[JohnnyKills]

The existential problem for United is what is has been for the last 18 years, the Glazers.

They are the ones that threaten the clubs existence, it is their actions that have gone against to the values of the club for the 127 years prior to their purchase.

Totally.

It was fine for us to be owned by a bunch of absentee parasites who siphoned millions of pounds of fans' money every year.

 

[Fluctuation0161]

Totally.

It was fine for us to be owned by a bunch of absentee parasites who siphoned millions of pounds of fans' money every year.

No, no. That wasn't fine either. It has since been regulated against so it can't happen again.

 

[Moston Red]

The existential problem for United is what is has been for the last 18 years, the Glazers.

They are the ones that threaten the clubs existence, it is their actions that have gone against to the values of the club for the 127 years prior to their purchase.

Completely agree, what the glazers did to buy our club in the first place was criminal. We could have gone under years ago.

 

[stevoc]

I highly doubt if the dad, an investor will plonk 100% of the funding. He would be daft. He will get a consortium of investors. Spread the risk.
Who -- will depend on their business model and the eventual stakeholders of the Foundation.

INEOS' business model is represented by who was in the delegation -- INEOS will be a multi-club model.

Of course not it makes no sense, wealthy people don't spend their money like that.

But some on here seem to think that will be the case.

 

[stevoc]

Oh, I think daddy is certainly wealthy enough himself. fecker owns a $300m yacht for example.

Wealthy enough to drop £8-10 billion of his own cash on a vanity project for 1 of his 15 children?

Yeah I seriously doubt he is that wealthy and even if he was he would be getting outside funding from somewhere. Billionaires just don't spend their own money like that.

 

[stevoc]

No, no. That wasn't fine either. It has since been regulated against so it can't happen again.

I don't believe that rule has actually been put in place yet.

 

[sglowrider]

Of course not it makes no sense, wealthy people don't spend their money like that.

But some on here seem to think that will be the case.

OPM is the operative term. Other People's Money.

 

[Giggsyking]

Make a second bid means "agreed" to you? Let's just go with your original explanation that it was just your opinion.


Yes, they will have to borrow money. Nobody knows the details of how either will be financed, so I can't speak on the interest rate (which was the point of my original point).

I'll restate it so we don't go down an unrelated rabbit hole - The vehemently pro-Qatar/anti-INEOS narrative is just plain weird to me, and I believe most of stems from the perception of Qatar having more transfer funds available (ie. I don't believe for one second it's mainly about the infrastructure). For some reason, I don't think many want to admit it and it's fine but just my opinion based on what I'm reading.

He will not borrow with interest, he is a QIB board member and works through Islamic banking. That means if he is to borrow the money from the bank it will be with 0% interest, but instead the bank will own a share in the club. QIB owns assets of about 47B, they will be selling some assets or they already did to make money available for their purchase of united.

 

[Rood]

The existential problem for United is what is has been for the last 18 years, the Glazers.

They are the ones that threaten the clubs existence, it is their actions that have gone against to the values of the club for the 127 years prior to their purchase.

And some would say that this goes back even further than the Glazers to the Edwards family who were the ones who decided to cash in by floating the club on the London Stock Exchange back in the 90s

It's decades ago that our club was turned into a business from stock market listing to leveraged buy out so its a bit weird to see some journalists and fans claim that the 'soul' and history of the club are now suddenly under threat

I've never been the biggest critic of the Glazer ownership but I also never wanted them in the first place. As it was absolutely clear that Malcolm Glazer had zero interest in football or Manchester United (never even visited Old Trafford at any point in his life) and cared only about how much money he could make from the club.

Compare this to Sheikh Jassim who at the bare minimum seems to be a long time Manchester United fan with an interest in football. Pledges to invest in the team and stadium which the current owners cannot afford.

So how is the latter the one who is a threat to the history of Manchester United?!

 

[Plant0x84]

Wealthy enough to drop £8-10 billion of his own cash on a vanity project for 1 of his 15 children?

Yeah I seriously doubt he is that wealthy and even if he was he would be getting outside funding from somewhere. Billionaires just don't spend their own money like that.

There is no way he has £6bn lying around to spunk on purchasing United. Not in a month of Sundays.
Sir Jim is personally worth £16b - £18b and he has chosen to debt finance parts of his bid. I cannot see past this being a state bid.

 

[Castia]

I can see his point. I totally disagree with state backed clubs. But there needs to be regulation against it for all clubs. Just like there should've been regulation against what the Glazers did, I believe there is now, but too late for us.

My personal preference is Radcliffe.

Miguel Delaney

Probably the biggest ani-Qatar reporter thus far which is fair enough….if he didn’t work for the Independent that’s literally owned by a Russian oilman and the Middle East

Biggest hypocrite of the lot and a massive bellend

 

[711]

And some would say that this goes back even further than the Glazers to the Edwards family who were the ones who decided to cash in by floating the club on the London Stock Exchange back in the 90s

It's decades ago that our club was turned into a business from stock market listing to leveraged buy out so its a bit weird to see some journalists and fans claim that the 'soul' and history of the club are now suddenly under threat

I've never been the biggest critic of the Glazer ownership but I also never wanted them in the first place. As it was absolutely clear that Malcolm Glazer had zero interest in football or Manchester United (never even visited Old Trafford at any point in his life) and cared only about how much money he could make from the club.

Compare this to Sheikh Jassim who at the bare minimum seems to be a long time Manchester United fan with an interest in football. Pledges to invest in the team and stadium which the current owners cannot afford.

So how is the latter the one who is a threat to the history of Manchester United?!

Has ownership not changed several times since we were founded, before we were ever listed on the stock exchange? The Edwards could have just sold directly to the Glazers if they had waited long enough, so I'm not sure the float made much difference in that respect. Only asking, it's not my subject.

@Fluctuation0161 is right, the press can bog off trying to make out it's a United problem, more rules are needed, but needed for everyone, not just us.

 

[Greck]

Why is the media reporting their opinion with the coverage. Media can stop pretending like they care about the club, they just want the buyer that will give them the easiest scoop. Where was this when we were trying to get rid of shitty American management. Seems like everyone was enjoying our plight till now.

 

[LawCharltonBest]

My personal preference is Radcliffe.

The boy who lived, come to buy

 

[Bubz27]

The boy who lived, come to buy

 

[711]

The boy who lived, come to buy

If that is some sort of Pinocchio reference I'm worried. Actually I'm worried anyway, it's a hard life being a football fan.

 

[devilish]

'Journalist' working for an 'independent' media company owned by a Russian oligarch and a saudi investor has complained about a ME investor buying a a football club

 

[ShinjiNinja26]

'Journalist' working for an 'independent' media company owned by a Russian oligarch and a saudi investor has complained about a ME investor buying a football club

Pretty much. Why people keep posting this hacks opinions I’ll never know. Utterly irrelevant.

 

[alexanderplatz]

Miguel Delaney

Probably the biggest ani-Qatar reporter thus far which is fair enough….if he didn’t work for the Independent that’s literally owned by a Russian oilman and the Middle East

Biggest hypocrite of the lot and a massive bellend

I have a mate who is a young journalist and Miguel has gone out of his way to offer tips and support over time. No reason to do so other than having empathy. A number of fans may disagree with this article but ‘bellend’ he most certainly is not

 

[Rood]

Has ownership not changed several times since we were founded, before we were ever listed on the stock exchange? The Edwards could have just sold directly to the Glazers if they had waited long enough, so I'm not sure the float made much difference in that respect. Only asking, it's not my subject.

@Fluctuation0161 is right, the press can bog off trying to make out it's a United problem, more rules are needed, but needed for everyone, not just us.

Yes there have been a few owners but the Edwards family were the first to see the club as a business and take profit from it. Martin Edwards tried and failed several times to sell the club before opting for floatation. Imagine that Michael Knighton had a deal agreed at £20m in 1989 - today we are talking about £5-6bn!

The stock market listing was significant because at that point there were shareholders who got annual dividends, publicly available accounts, AGMs etc

The Glazers ramped all this up to the next level with hostile takeover, debt etc and again many fans at the time talked about the soul and history of the club being lost

Personally I believe the soul and history of the club lives on in the ground, the fans etc regardless of who is the owner so I'm more interested in how any potential owner is likely to run the club compared to the current lot who have mismanaged for a decade now.

 

[C'est Moi Cantona]

We know Miguel, you've said it all before.

I mean who does Miguel expect to spend that sort of money without massive consequences for us? Or is he saying he wants the Glazers to stay (or similar to take over) so we have to to be the club that takes to moral stand, but is then expected to compete whilst towing a lead weight behind us for eternity.

 

[cyberman]

I see Delaney has limited replies so he doesn’t get exposed with these takes time and time again.

 

[Kinsella]

Let the ad hominem arguments begin….

 

[The Ferociousness]

I remember an interview last year when Sir Jim was being asked if he wanted to bid for United, the most alarming thing that stood out from the interview is that he called the glazers good people but it's not surpise he sees the good in them, considering his position of having no intention to clear debt and needs help from partnerships to help him buy the club

 

[Rolaholic]

Let the ad hominem arguments begin….

Where have you been the last few pages?

 

[MackRobinson]

Whatever way you look at it Jassim's personal wealth raises big questions that people have every right to ask, particularly when Ineos are being questioned on their very provable and easily verifiable ability to afford the club.

There are people here who both want to lay claim to his bid being much better for the club from a financial position but also distance it from being the state backed bid that makes it true.

The only currently varifiable way he can afford the club is through state backing. He isn't believed to have the necessary wealth nor is his his immediate family. That doesn't mean for certain they don't have but it sure as hell raises questions. If not the state then where is the money coming from? (Don't answer that because you don't know)

Anyone who is claiming it's the best deal for the club should be honest and admit they think he's backed by the Qatari state. If you don't think he is then you really don't have any evidence to think he's the sugar daddy you crave.

Want whoever you want but be realistic about what they all are.

Pretty much this especially the bolded. All this tap dancing around the point is exhausting.

 

[Regulus Arcturus Black]

Let the ad hominem arguments begin….

People wouldn’t do that man, be nice.

'Journalist' working for an 'independent' media company owned by a Russian oligarch and a saudi investor has complained about a ME investor buying a a football club

Pretty much. Why people keep posting this hacks opinions I’ll never know. Utterly irrelevant.

I see Delaney has limited replies so he doesn’t get exposed with these takes time and time again.

 

[MackRobinson]

I'm merely answering your question as you keep asking what has Jassim's dad got to do with it. If you watch the video, you'll know exactly what his dad has got to do with it.

I'm giving you the source of the information. Will be interesting to read your reaction after you watch it.

Watched it and his nothing to do with what I asked. I don't understand why there is this much song and dance for a simple question. If you don't or can't answer it that's fine too.

 

[Kinsella]

Where have you been the last few pages?

Replied before scrolling through.

 

[Chief123]

 

[MackRobinson]

By this logic King Charles is also an alleged sex trafficker like his brother! If the source of funding for the Malaga, PSG and potentially United ownerships is the same then why the hell are PSG playing CL football and not relegated like Malaga?

Jassim could be a front or he could have secured concessionary from the state to back his bid but that doesn't guarantee that the running of United will be similar to that of PSG or Malaga. The people who will do the actual running will have their own ideas and competencies whose success or failure will be informed by circumstances peculiar to United and its challenges.

The same goes for Ineos. All the prospective owners will start with United under a different series of circumstances and trajectories from where PSG, Malaga or even City started from. The smart money for either will be to go with the Murtough + ETH combo for a couple of season, add to what they have built so far and then reassess in 2026 or thereabouts.

You lost me there. Didn't even bother to read the rest.

 

[golden_blunder]

Hopefully this won't happen, it'd be a mess

I hope not either, it’d be a sign that we’re not planning signings with the manager anymore

 

[MackRobinson]

I would advise you to stop believing everything you read online. Nobody knows the feck in one's pocket or docket and it's not everyone that's willing to disclose everything to people and I am that type. The Sheikh and his dad seem to be that type.

This is the reason it is difficult to give precise answer to your question.

From the little I have gathered , the Sheikh 's dad seems to be very rich and highly connected worldwide.

I think we should leave this question for the future.

Oh the irony.

 

[MackRobinson]

The obvious answer is usually the correct answer.

Two posters are already dancing around this point. I 100% believe it will be state-backed. I was trying to sift through the mental gymnastics, but I realized it was a losing battle.

 

[711]

Yes there have been a few owners but the Edwards family were the first to see the club as a business and take profit from it. Martin Edwards tried and failed several times to sell the club before opting for floatation. Imagine that Michael Knighton had a deal agreed at £20m in 1989 - today we are talking about £5-6bn!

The stock market listing was significant because at that point there were shareholders who got annual dividends, publicly available accounts, AGMs etc

The Glazers ramped all this up to the next level with hostile takeover, debt etc and again many fans at the time talked about the soul and history of the club being lost

Personally I believe the soul and history of the club lives on in the ground, the fans etc regardless of who is the owner so I'm more interested in how any potential owner is likely to run the club compared to the current lot who have mismanaged for a decade now.

Not sure the Edwards were the first to take profit, I think a lot of people have made profit from a lot of clubs over history. Could be wrong about us though. Now of course most of the prem are owned by people who want to make money out of them, mostly foreigners, although at least it amuses me that the likes of Liverpool fans don't even know it.

Couldn't agree more about the soul of the club though, we're all hoping.

 

[Kinsella]

So how is the latter the one who is a threat to the history of Manchester United?!

Because the club would carry a state owned stench if it succeeds.

 

[Eplel]

I can see his point. I totally disagree with state backed clubs. But there needs to be regulation against it for all clubs. Just like there should've been regulation against what the Glazers did, I believe there is now, but too late for us.

My personal preference is Radcliffe.

Same here. Agree with his point, but I'm not going to pretend that it was all ok when city and newcastle did it, but now that it's united it's a problem and it must be stopped.