Club Ownership | INEOS responsible for the football side

[LawCharltonBest]

Who would be the best available (and attainable) in your eyes? Assuming you want to move on Ten Hag

I like Ten Hag and I don’t heavily object keeping him but my head says it’s probably not going to work out

No outstanding candidate like there has been in previous years (although United never got the outstanding candidates) - but I think Zidane and Luis Enrique are definitely two to approach for interview.

You?

 

[VP89]

I like Ten Hag and I don’t heavily object keeping him but my head says it’s probably not going to work out

No outstanding candidate like there has been in previous years (although United never got the outstanding candidates) - but I think Zidane and Luis Enrique are definitely two to approach for interview.

You?

I'd rather keep Ten Hag and see how he fares under the new structure. But I must admit the lack of progressive play is starting to piss me off.
Don't think Zidane wants the PL at all, and I don't think Enrique would be enjoyable to watch either. Find him a bit zombie like in his play. I want to be excited when I watch us for once, literally never really seen it post SAF.

 

[Rood]

Hopefully this ends all the utter nonsense about Sheikh Jassim not existing, although it probably won't because some are too far gone on the conspiracy theories

Shame we didn't get that full sale but hopefully Sir Jim can still sort out the shambles in the boardroom

 

[Plant0x84]

Hopefully this ends all the utter nonsense about Sheikh Jassim not existing

It was funny though, especially when you had the incompetent media publishing pictures and descriptors of the wrong Sheik Jassim. Humour filled the void left by this guys aloofness and Sir Jim was clever buying into that narrative ‘look at me, I’m one of the fans like you!’
Im sure he knows all about Jassim, if not from this deal then certainly from his other business deals.

… unless Raine/Ravitsch have been paid by the Qataris to publish this piece so they don’t look silly?

 

[alexthelion]

Eeek, I’m old enough to remember when there was a load of “I told you so’s” in here laughing at people for believing Qatar was ever an option and Jassim clearly never existed…

Fo you want to tag yourselves? You were very quick to post when Ratcliffe mad his jokey remarks.

Don't hold your breath.

 

[Dr. Dwayne]

He's still not real to me, damnit.

 

[Rood]

It was funny though, especially when you had the incompetent media publishing pictures and descriptors of the wrong Sheik Jassim. Humour filled the void left by this guys aloofness and Sir Jim was clever buying into that narrative ‘look at me, I’m one of the fans like you!’
Im sure he knows all about Jassim, if not from this deal then certainly from his other business deals.

… unless Raine/Ravitsch have been paid by the Qataris to publish this piece so they don’t look silly?

It was funny until I realised some people actually believed it!
A good lesson in fake news and how people believe what they want to believe

I did like Jim's billionaire banter though

 

[brontelicious]

It was funny until I realised some people actually believed it!
A good lesson in fake news and how people believe what they want to believe

I did like Jim's billionaire banter though

I remember the original sale thread (i didn't contribute then) had a section in which pro-Qatar posters thought Jassim was 'the man' because he allegedly fell asleep in meetings.

I'm sure there were plenty who fell for a sly one or two, but Jassim's intentions with United were somewhat vague. His perennial absence, lack of public profile and strong links to Qatar's ruling dictatorship had many sincerely wondering what was really going on.

 

[idek2346]

I remember the original sale thread (i didn't contribute then) had a section in which pro-Qatar posters thought Jassim was 'the man' because he allegedly fell asleep in meetings.

I'm sure there were plenty who fell for a sly one or two, but Jassim's intentions with United were somewhat vague. His perennial absence, lack of public profile and strong links to Qatar's ruling dictatorship had many sincerely wondering what was really going on.

This is all irrelevant. He just didn't show the money as evidenced by the SEC documents and as confirmed by Joe Ravitch - he was approx. 10% off asking price.

It seems to me like they came to buy Manchester United with a Liverpool-sized pot.

 

[SAF is the GOAT]

 

[Ali Dia]

He will have a private jet or two lying around. I feel for the people at the club behind the scenes who are going to lose their jobs but it’s clear to see we aren’t getting value or efficiency in any metric. Things need to be stripped back and rebuilt

 

[Robertd0803]

This isnt a surprise and happens with every takeover/significant investment.

Trimming the budget on overspending on travel and stupid stuff is fine, job losses on the other hand are always shit.

Especially considering that Antonys monthly salary alone is probably the equivilant of 5 or 6 regular staffs annual wages.

 

[Escobar]

This isnt a surprise and happens with every takeover/significant investment.

Trimming the budget on overspending on travel and stupid stuff is fine, job losses on the other hand are always shit.

Especially considering that Antonys monthly salary alone is probably the equivilant of 5 or 6 regular staffs annual wages.

Job losses suck but where there is no need there should not be an employee. However, I hope they start the clean up at the top

 

[GaryLifo]

Will his review include telling the Glazers to stop using United money to pay 250k for their private jets?

 

[arthurka]

Will his review include telling the Glazers to stop using United money to pay 250k for their private jets?

You can bet your ass on he won't be happy with them taking money out.

 

[RyRy11]

Will his review include telling the Glazers to stop using United money to pay 250k for their private jets?

My first thought reading that too.

 

[Pscholes18]

I'm wondering what these Glazer cnuts will end up doing? Do they already have a deal with Sir Jim to sell outright? Are they going to let him do all of the work and reap the benefits?

 

[wolvored]

I'm wondering what these Glazer cnuts will end up doing? Do they already have a deal with Sir Jim to sell outright? Are they going to let him do all of the work and reap the benefits?

I'm thinking that as well. This looks to me a if over x years Ratcliffe will keep purchasing their shares until he gets the lot, or 51%,v so hes in complete control. Hes doing way too much 'back of house' for a 25% stake. I thought he would be running the football side and thats it, but with a new stadium as well, it wouldn't make sense, unless he has a full sale agreement, or at least the controlling majority.

 

[Plant0x84]

I'm wondering what these Glazer cnuts will end up doing? Do they already have a deal with Sir Jim to sell outright? Are they going to let him do all of the work and reap the benefits?

Whilst they will undoubtedly benefit (most likely in terms of selling price) Sir Jim isn’t daft and wouldn’t enter an agreement that doesn’t suit him or give him what he wants. I’m confident some day soon we will be free of the Glazer scourge!

 

[UnitedSofa]

 

[Stobzilla]

That is good news.

 

[TrebleChamp99]

Is that the first capital payment on the debt we have seen?

 

[LawCharltonBest]

That is good news.

Is it? I'd see it as a positive if INEOS had bought out the Glazers completely and were gradually paying off their debts. But the Glazers are still here and are still going to be taking serious money out of the club, which they'll now expect INEOS to foot the bill for.

 

[MDFC Manager]

Is that the first capital payment on the debt we have seen?

It's the "credit card" debt, we've paid chunks of that several times before as well.

 

[TrebleChamp99]

It's the "credit card" debt, we've paid chunks of that several times before as well.

So it just covers interest? seems a hell of alot for an interest payment.

 

[VP89]

The same article says we are likely to take on more debt, by the way.

Not necessarily a bad thing but just worth noting.

 

[Plant0x84]

So it just covers interest? seems a hell of alot for an interest payment.

This is just our operational day to day spending debt. (Transfers etc)
The debt from the Glazers takeover will remain untouched.

 

[SuperiorXI]

So it just covers interest? seems a hell of alot for an interest payment.

Look into MUFC interest payments over the Glazer ownership, it'll knock you sick.

The banks love the Glazers, that much is certain.

 

[simonhch]

So it just covers interest? seems a hell of alot for an interest payment.

Look into MUFC interest payments over the Glazer ownership, it'll knock you sick.

The banks love the Glazers, that much is certain.

For clarities sake, no it’s not just for interest. The club has three primary types of debt. The acquisition debt, the revolving credit facility, and transfer debt. The acquisition debt is otherwise known as the Glazer debt and is in the form of a long term bond. The transfer debt is self explanatory. The revolving credit facility is access to shorter term debt to cover operational expenses as needed. It was initially used as part of the Covid management plan to cover short term cash needs, and is in addition to the Glazer debt. The interest rates are different (likely higher).

The 120m pays that off. Not sure how much is interest and how much is principle, but the 120m is that debt in its entirety. Only a relatively small portion will be interest. The acquisition debt and transfer debt remain. Most clubs carry transfer debt as transfers are often paid in installments.

 

[Robertd0803]

Job losses suck but where there is no need there should not be an employee. However, I hope they start the clean up at the top

Unlikely, its normally the poor sods at the bottom are the most expendable because they cost less to pay off.

 

[Berbaclass]

 

[Massive Spanner]

good, sooner he gets here the sooner he gets Sir Gareth. #brexitmeansbrexit

 

[whitbyviking]

Is it? I'd see it as a positive if INEOS had bought out the Glazers completely and were gradually paying off their debts. But the Glazers are still here and are still going to be taking serious money out of the club, which they'll now expect INEOS to foot the bill for.

It has been written multiple times here, and in other threads, that the Glazers will not be taking dividends.

 

[ShinjiNinja26]

The Geordies finally seeing sense. This was always a cut your nose off to spite your face routine from them as it holds them up finding a replacement as well.

 

[SuperiorXI]

For clarities sake, no it’s not just for interest. The club has three primary types of debt. The acquisition debt, the revolving credit facility, and transfer debt. The acquisition debt is otherwise known as the Glazer debt and is in the form of a long term bond. The transfer debt is self explanatory. The revolving credit facility is access to shorter term debt to cover operational expenses as needed. It was initially used as part of the Covid management plan to cover short term cash needs, and is in addition to the Glazer debt. The interest rates are different (likely higher).

The 120m pays that off. Not sure how much is interest and how much is principle, but the 120m is that debt in its entirety. Only a relatively small portion will be interest. The acquisition debt and transfer debt remain. Most clubs carry transfer debt as transfers are often paid in installments.

Thanks for explaining this case, my post was more referring to the bolded, from what I have read the interest payments on the acquisition debt is a disgrace.

 

[Dan_F]

Is it? I'd see it as a positive if INEOS had bought out the Glazers completely and were gradually paying off their debts. But the Glazers are still here and are still going to be taking serious money out of the club, which they'll now expect INEOS to foot the bill for.

We need some community notes. They aren’t taking dividends. They’re banking on Ineos turning the club around and being able to sell it for more money, or something a like a super league increasing the value in the next few years.

 

[MDFC Manager]

The same article says we are likely to take on more debt, by the way.

Not necessarily a bad thing but just worth noting.

Yeah using Jim's cash to pay off to the expensive debt, and will take on a cheaper replacement debt in it's place.

 

[Zen86]

I'm thinking that as well. This looks to me a if over x years Ratcliffe will keep purchasing their shares until he gets the lot, or 51%,v so hes in complete control. Hes doing way too much 'back of house' for a 25% stake. I thought he would be running the football side and thats it, but with a new stadium as well, it wouldn't make sense, unless he has a full sale agreement, or at least the controlling majority.

Maybe there's some sort of first refusal agreement and an agreed purchase price, if the club was to achieve X, Y, and Z.

 

[brontelicious]

For clarities sake, no it’s not just for interest. The club has three primary types of debt. The acquisition debt, the revolving credit facility, and transfer debt. The acquisition debt is otherwise known as the Glazer debt and is in the form of a long term bond. The transfer debt is self explanatory. The revolving credit facility is access to shorter term debt to cover operational expenses as needed. It was initially used as part of the Covid management plan to cover short term cash needs, and is in addition to the Glazer debt. The interest rates are different (likely higher).

The 120m pays that off. Not sure how much is interest and how much is principle, but the 120m is that debt in its entirety. Only a relatively small portion will be interest. The acquisition debt and transfer debt remain. Most clubs carry transfer debt as transfers are often paid in installments.

How much 'bastard Glazer' debt remains?

 

[MDFC Manager]

For clarities sake, no it’s not just for interest. The club has three primary types of debt. The acquisition debt, the revolving credit facility, and transfer debt. The acquisition debt is otherwise known as the Glazer debt and is in the form of a long term bond. The transfer debt is self explanatory. The revolving credit facility is access to shorter term debt to cover operational expenses as needed. It was initially used as part of the Covid management plan to cover short term cash needs, and is in addition to the Glazer debt. The interest rates are different (likely higher).

The 120m pays that off. Not sure how much is interest and how much is principle, but the 120m is that debt in its entirety. Only a relatively small portion will be interest. The acquisition debt and transfer debt remain. Most clubs carry transfer debt as transfers are often paid in installments.

Actually 140m of the revolving credit still remains owed.