Better the devil you know?

Pogue Mahone said:
But selling equity in the club wouldn’t put it in any more debt.

I’m sketchy about the difference between debt on the club vs debt on the parent company anyway. Surely any investor will want each asset to wash its own face? They won’t want debts incurred by United to be paid for by other, more successful, businesses. Especially if they have to answer to shareholders (INEOS is a public company, right?)
Click to expand...
Their siblings want to sell 47% of the club though - what equity can they sell and keep their majority share? INEOS only have 3 shareholders and Jim is the largest. I think his brother is another.
 
Pogue Mahone said:
But selling equity in the club wouldn’t put it in any more debt.

I’m sketchy about the difference between debt on the club vs debt on the parent company anyway. Surely any investor will want each asset to wash its own face? They won’t want debts incurred by United to be paid for by other, more successful, businesses. Especially if they have to answer to shareholders (INEOS is a public company, right?)
Click to expand...

INEOS isn't but if they acquired United it would remain publicly traded, which is a good thing because the club will still need to publish financial reports.

Qatar will takes us private, which increases the risk of shady dealings like City.
 
Pogue Mahone said:
Ah. Ok. Cool. That might make it a little easier to move cash around between the different assets?
Click to expand...
I’d imagine any loans to buy the club and then fund the infrastructure spending would come under INEOS and out of their revenues. Unlike the Glazers Jim has access to billions of cash revenues - they posted a 2bn profit last year.
 
j65454 said:
It's not like we're not spending money, we have the highest wage bill in the league and by some distance:

1. Manchester United – £222,984,000
2. Chelsea – £169,720,000
3. Manchester City – £163,060,000
4. Liverpool – £141,782,000
5. Tottenham – £101,344,000
6. Arsenal – £85,490,000
7. Leicester City – 78,780,000
8. Aston Villa – £75,232,000
9. West Ham – £70,160,000
10. Newcastle United – £62,610,000
11. Crystal Palace – £59,180,000
12. Everton – £43,120,000
13. Wolves – £38,310,000
14. Fulham – £37,610,000
15. Southampton – £35,380,000
16. Bournemouth – £32,044,000
17. Nottingham Forest – £28,590,000
18. Brighton – £28,340,000
19. Leeds United – £17,300,000
20. Brentford – £15,240,000
Click to expand...
more proof that they don't know what they're doing

leeching and wasting more than anyone else, with nothing to show for it - truly horrible owners
 
Think what a lot of people don’t understand under any ownership other than ME. United are not getting stadium redevelopment etc without austerity in the transfer market and OT getting name changed.
 
Mickeza said:
Their siblings want to sell 47% of the club though - what equity can they sell and keep their majority share? INEOS only have 3 shareholders and Jim is the largest. I think his brother is another.
Click to expand...

The siblings only need 9.2% of the shares to have majority control of the club, they have class b shares which have 10x the voting rights of class a shares, and if any of them sell shares to anyone outside the family they become class a shares, so effectively worthless in terms of voting, no one is going to seriously buy a ton of shares from the siblings without getting majority control
 
Mickeza said:
I’d imagine any loans to buy the club and then fund the infrastructure spending would come under INEOS and out of their revenues. Unlike the Glazers Jim has access to billions of cash revenues - they posted a 2bn profit last year.
Click to expand...
INEOS is a business not his personal piggy bank.
 
hobbers said:
If Glazers were to keep control of United and the 4 siblings who want out all get to sell their shares, I'm pretty sure that would mean Joel and Avram would have to buy at least 21% of the club from their 4 siblings. Which they dont have the cash for.

And obviously any money raised from Glazer siblings selling up is money going into the pockets of the Glazers.
Click to expand...

Nope. Joel and avram would have class b shares, whatever the siblings sell would convert into class a shares, and the class b have 10x the voting rights, so they could still control the club even if the only owned 10% of it
 
No. Worst possible option. Could only be worse if they partnered with Elliott or the like.
 
I have a major issue with the premise. It assumes that the new owners will be devils - specifically in this case - because they are Qataris and that any form of state-linked investment (if it is) is bad. Reminds me of the point someone made in the Casemiro thread that he's of the same age as Lingard, yet most would have the initial impression that Lingard is the younger player. I guess my point is to be more aware of propaganda (PR), programming and so on.. I could go on about neo-liberal Thatcher and Reganomics..

I'd invert the premise and ask if we'd be happy with new ownership that behave exactly like the Glazers did. Taking out a billion, putting their own inexperienced, incompetent cronies in leadership positions and continuing to use high interest loans to buy players when we should have been in a far healthier position in the 1st place. Then you also our infrastructure such as training facilities, stadium etc. not being adequately upgraded. We could have also done far better increasing our commercial revenue - just compare our kit designs and branding vs PSG. It's very parasitic behaviour. This is ignoring the more contentious point about squad investment during Fergie's latter years.

Can you imagine the headlines if it were the Qataris or Saudis who are doing this to the club? Do you think the western oligarchy media and narrative would be as kind? Gary Linekar on MOTD would be frothing at the mouth every week to give us a dissertation on everything that is wrong with United. Even if you disagree with my 1st para, would you really want a repeat of the 2nd? No thanks.
 
feck no. Get rid. Ignoring the dividends and lack of investment, their lacklustre approach to running the club has wrecked us. They’ve got no idea how to run a football club and let Woodward run riot when he had no clue either. We’ve been an absolute shambles and they need to go.
 
hobbers said:
Right forgot about the two tier share structure. But still that basically means the only way the Glazer siblings get to sell their shares is either the club is sold outright, or if Joel and Avram buy their shares. And to match Qatars' current offer Joel and Avram would each have to stump up about $880m.
Click to expand...

Yes, it's very unlikely anyone is going to stump up the cash to buy the other siblings out of their shares, while still leaving majority control with Joel and avram
 
Someone told me that the Glazers could easily fund their next decade at United by getting low interest loans of like 50 million and then betting on United to lose a meaningless preseason friendly and telling Erik to throw the game. Is this legitimately an option for them?
 
jm99 said:
Yes, it's very unlikely anyone is going to stump up the cash to buy the other siblings out of their shares, while still leaving majority control with Joel and avram
Click to expand...
I’ve just seen this:

“One more benefit Class B shares hold over Class A is in a change of control event or takeover. If any Class B shares exist during a takeover then the Glazers automatically hold 67% of the voting power. That means the Glazers could completely cash out their 120M shares except for 1 and they would still have FULL control of any buyout of the club. This share structure gives you an idea of how far the Glazer’s death grip reaches over Manchester United.”
 
No they're parasites.Only ever been it it to milk us dry.Now they can do one.
Qatar please to put us back on top,that's the way it's going now.Get with it or get left behind I'm afraid.
 
Wumminator said:
Someone told me that the Glazers could easily fund their next decade at United by getting low interest loans of like 50 million and then betting on United to lose a meaningless preseason friendly and telling Erik to throw the game. Is this legitimately an option for them?
Click to expand...
£50m bet won’t raise any eyebrows
 
Get out of here anyone who wants Glazers over new owners.

They’re a disgrace. Milked us dry and what to stay because we still have a pulse. No thanks.
 
Malcolm Glazer bought the club via a leveraged buy out when he didn’t has a pot to piss in to buy the club. For the past 20 years the clubs been bled dry, they’ve not invested one penny, the club has spent its own revenues, we’re riddled with debt, Old Trafford is falling to bits and Carringtons not far behind it.

anyone who wants these leeches to stay, go and give your head a wobble!!
 
At this stage why not, Althouse I'm a bit worried about whether they'll have the required cash to invest in the infrastructure which the answer to seems to be no.
 
No, if someone has to spend £5-£6 blilion on the club, then they are going to have to make dam sure it works out.

How they took over the club, and money taken out aside, the Glazers have proven time and again they don't have what it takes to run us succesfully. It's no coincidence that we have seen a major uplift since they annouced they were selling, like a curse is slowly lifting, they annouce they are staying and we'll get sucked right back down again.

They have brought hell on the club, and I can't wait for them to go.
 
I want an owner who is ravenously unsatisfied with Manchester United being anything other than the most successful club in the world.

That will simply never be the Glazers.

I gladly accept the risks of change.
 
abailey123 said:
Malcolm Glazer bought the club via a leveraged buy out when he didn’t has a pot to piss in to buy the club. For the past 20 years the clubs been bled dry, they’ve not invested one penny, the club has spent its own revenues, we’re riddled with debt, Old Trafford is falling to bits and Carringtons not far behind it.

anyone who wants these leeches to stay, go and give your head a wobble!!
Click to expand...
This. I can't believe anyone would actually accept these scumbags staying as owners
 
Pogue Mahone said:
The whole point is that they can generate funds without additional debt by selling off some equity in the club. An option not a available to new owners.
Click to expand...
Qataris and Ratcliffe both say the debt will be gone from the club. The parasites will just drag us further down with more and more debt.
 
They have to sell. While things are looking up on the pitch they've nearly drained the dregs out of the goose that lays the golden eggs. The fact didn't take a dividend this year tells you all you need to know. There is no other option as the finances are fecked. If they stay there won't be enough money for the transfers we need, let alone all the massive investment required due to the neglect of so much of the infrastructure.
 
wolvored said:
Qataris and Ratcliffe both say the debt will be gone from the club. The parasites will just drag us further down with more and more debt.
Click to expand...


They’ll do their utmost to drag us into the European Super League as well
 
Who's Kissing Cameras? said:
yFQowhO_d.webp

They’ve funded feck all of our outrageous spending. Zero. Nothing.
Click to expand...
That's indefensible, we now have a good manager, that's taken nearly a decade to find. When ETH goes off to chase his dream job in Germany the club won't survive another near decade of poor management. Glazers won't be able to raise revenues enough to catch up with all the underinvestment. The club 100% needs an owner who unburdens the club of the Glazers debt.
 
Pogue Mahone said:
Interesting to hear if anyone out there thinks that the Glazers staying in charge might be the best option?

They seem to have finally stumbled on a decent manager and - for all their sins - have tended to back their managers in the transfer market. With the rumours of Avram Glazer being keen to hold onto the club, what happens if they raise a couple of hundred million through selling some equity in the club to give ETH a war chest for the summer?

We’ve a lot of fans (including me) who are uncomfortable with being owned by a nation state. And any private owner is going to have to raise 5 or 6 billion quid to buy the club. That’s a brutal outlay and it’s hard to see how that won’t involve more debt on the club and put us on the back foot in the transfer market.

So yeah, what are the thoughts on business as usual next season?
Click to expand...
No. Anyone but the Glazers. They’re horrible little parasites looking to squeeze every little once out of the football club that they can’t comprehend how to run. I mean they have nothing going for them - they’re appalling at running a football club (you won’t find a worse run big club around until Chelsea’s recent efforts), they’ve saddled the club with their own debt / inadequcies and they have the gall to actually take money out over and above that. feck the cnuts. Given time, they’ll have ETH looking mediocre soon too.
 
Invictus said:
Nooooooo, please! Are you a glutton for punishment, haven't we suffered enough; why can't we have nice things, for once? Just want to highlight a couple of things, and leave it at that...
  • Even when one of Avram and Joel's sporting organizations is successful, you get a sense that they underperform (relative to what they would have achieved under better (or even league-average) owners). Consider United when we were successful under Ferguson — we had the chance to build a proper European dynasty (like Madrid in the 1950s and 2010s, Ajax and Bayern in the 1970s and Barcelona at the turn of the previous decade), but didn't because the Glazers tightened the purse-strings, sold our best player without appropriate replacement(s), and refused to level up as the chickens had come home to roost (which also had an impact on the domestic front...where City were coming up leaps and bounds). Now look at the Buccaneers, their NFL franchise — one of the worst-run organizations in the entire league (under the auspice of Avram and Joel), which suddenly had a chance to compete with the addition of the greatest quarterback of all time (by sheer happenstance); they won a Super Bowl in his first season, sure, but it was all downhill from there: stumbled in his second season, and then elevated subpar coaches at the behest of the outgoing Head Coach (which backfired spectacularly, leading to the ousting of the offensive coordinator and the re-retirement of the golden goose; clearly, no lessons were learned from the Moyes debacle). Even if United is successful under ten Hag, the Glazers' idiocy and greed will almost always hold us back — that should not happen.
  • Allowing the club to spend a portion of its own money is the rock bottom of expectations, not something that deserves praise — especially in a league where owners have spent hundreds of millions (if not several billions) of their own money to elevate the standing of their club and give it a competitive advantage over the rest (City being the most prominent example). Just to put things in perspective, United could have built world-class training facilities and completely revamped Old Trafford (if not built a brand new variant of Wembley Stadium, for example). If the Glazers don't leave, they will device new mechanisms to bleed the club dry, and cut corners at every other turn — these clowns are incredibly lucky that they inherited a club as robust and resilient to abuse as Manchester United (which had and has very few parallels), with the greatest manager of all time in situ to paper over the cracks. If they had taken over a midtable club, they would've been in The Championship by now (if not lower, staring into the abyss). Even Liverpool (a massive club in its own right, and one of the titans of the sport) started creaking after a few years of Gillett and Hicks. United is not too big to fail any more when it is a borderline Top 4 club rather than a perennial winner, this is not the late '90s and early 2000s where we were streets ahead of the chasing pack from an economic standpoint — the alarm bells have been ringing for quite a while, and unless ten Hag works miracles year-in and year-out for the foreseeable future, we're going to end up in a terrible situation because of these owners. They need to take what's being offered to them, and piss off; anything else would be a massive disappointment after ephemeral glimmers of hope.

Click to expand...

Thank you. Can’t even comprehend then staying being an option. We’ve waited nearly 18 years to get rid of the cnuts. I remember buying a share though must (lol) all that time back because of the negative sentiment around their purchase. But they turned out even worse in hindsight. The club needs to be free’d of these twats.
 
It's not only about investing in the squad, it's investing in the club overall. Old Trafford is falling to pieces, the training facilities are no where near top notch anymore.
 
Honestly, they’ve run the club like a legal Ponzi scheme for years and now get the benefit of actually making a legal profit on its sale. There’s no “not selling”…the musics over and they need to sell as they can’t leverage it anymore. They are just lucky they stumbled on an elite manager right before selling as our value has probably never been higher.

But again, it’s a moot point because it was always inevitable, like any Ponzi scheme. They literally could not continue owning the club given their years of leveraging…

I don’t know how any new owner could be more scummy than that…literally anyone is better IMHO. You can be a scummy person or have a scummy past. But to actually run a cherished and historically important sports club like the mob busting out a shady business is as bad as it could possibly be as a fan. Good riddance…
 
Last edited:
You must log in or register to reply here.