Club Sale | It’s done!

Status
Not open for further replies.
Even before this latest news about SJR offering the Glazers a way to stay, from purely a footballing perspective there was no doubt that the Qataris would be better owners for us.

They can put the funds to renovate the training ground and the stadium without needing to borrow. This latest news just confirms in the long run that even billionaire businessmen can't compete with state backed funds, hence SJR looking at alternative approaches to win.

So if you look at it logically, what benefit is there to be owned longer term by businessmen when even during the bidding process they make it clear they can't compete with State backed funds? Even if SJR wins this just shows he can't really compete with the likes of City, Newcastle etc and sooner or later majority of the top clubs in the PL will be owned by oil funds. So what benefit is there in being owned by him?
 
King7Eric said:
Even if SJR wins this just shows he can't really compete with the likes of City, Newcastle etc and sooner or later majority of the top clubs in the PL will be owned by oil funds. So what benefit is there in being owned by him?
Click to expand...

The romantic idea that a local boy done well buying the club he supported as a child/young adult. Hollywood story
 
King7Eric said:
So if you look at it logically, what benefit is there to be owned longer term by businessmen when even during the bidding process they make it clear they can't compete with State backed funds? Even if SJR wins this just shows he can't really compete with the likes of City, Newcastle etc and sooner or later majority of the top clubs in the PL will be owned by oil funds. So what benefit is there in being owned by him?
Click to expand...
A obvious benefit is that Manchester United won’t be associated with state ownership. In other words, the club’s historic reputation will remain intact.
 
Jim's looking sketchy as feck. Wouldn't be surprised if he's planning on flipping the whole INEOS sport consortium in the next 10 years. United being part of that makes it way more attractive to a middle eastern/american buyer
 
Chief123 said:
Because the Sheikh’s offer will most likely still be more lucrative than the new proposal.
Click to expand...

Nah, those two are probably envisioning the club would be worth 10b in due time. And they won't even have to do anything until then. It's the perfect deal for them. Chill for sometime, then collect ballpark of £1b each. Almost too good to be true. Unless Qatar offer an unspeakable deal right now this is over.
 
TrebleChamp99 said:
This latest deal from Sir Jim is such a bad idea somehow it’s worse than the glazers maintaining majority stake.

- Debt to buy club
- Original debt stays
- Glazers stay
- SJR needs significant funds on top of buying funds for less stake in the club

What a mess, can’t be allowed to happen.
Click to expand...
This is wildly inaccurate, but I cba going over old ground.
 
Stinkypete said:
What gave you the impression Ratcliffe would want the Glazers out? The interview he did when he told everyone present how nice the glazers were?
Click to expand...
The fact he has said all along he wanted the glazers 69% total share. So if my math is correct if hes now saying they can keep 20% that means he will only have 49% and not controlling amount. He would have to hope that he could purchase at least 2% elsewhere
 
Plant0x84 said:
This is wildly inaccurate, but I cba going over old ground.
Click to expand...
I don’t believe he is purchasing from personal capital or wealth, he is funnelling the cash through INEOS which is a company he owns 60% of therefore, I don’t think they will simply swallow 7-10bln out of the org without some agreement that they will make that money back somehow. The stakeholders would be absolutely bat shit to agree to that.
 
It depends what you want. A team who can compete at the top, but state owned really, or a team who may flirt occasionally with top 4 and win a cup once in a while, whilst owned by a bloke who was born local and parasites.
 
wolvored said:
The fact he has said all along he wanted the glazers 69% total share. So if my math is correct if hes now saying they can keep 20% that means he will only have 49% and not controlling amount. He would have to hope that he could purchase at least 2% elsewhere
Click to expand...

Ineos and SJR will want control of the club, which means they'll want more than 50%. This can be achieved if all siblings (excluding Avram/Joel) sell their full shareholding and Avram & Joel sell a small portion each. The recalcitrant siblings get to walk away entirely and Avram/Joel get a nice little payday and retain a 20% stake, which, they will hope, will appreciate in value over the next 5-10 years. Meanwhile, Ineos and SJR can run the club as they see fit.
 
Stinkypete said:
What gave you the impression Ratcliffe would want the Glazers out? The interview he did when he told everyone present how nice the glazers were?
Click to expand...

When he said that he wants the best for Manchester united and to bring united back to Manchester
 
Damn. Leeching parasites and traitorous rats. Dark days, indeed. All we need is a plague.
 
Time to face facts. If the Glazecliffe regime is taking over, we are destined for midtable purgatory.
 
TrebleChamp99 said:
I don’t believe he is purchasing from personal capital or wealth, he is funnelling the cash through INEOS which is a company he owns 60% of therefore, I don’t think they will simply swallow 7-10bln out of the org without some agreement that they will make that money back somehow. The stakeholders would be absolutely bat shit to agree to that.
Click to expand...
I can’t believe you are so ignorant of the situation that this STILL needs to be stated, but INEOS do not have stakeholders. It is literally SJR and two mates. They are 100% onboard and all 3 men were present at the OT and Carrington visit.
 
crossy1686 said:
Jim's looking sketchy as feck. Wouldn't be surprised if he's planning on flipping the whole INEOS sport consortium in the next 10 years. United being part of that makes it way more attractive to a middle eastern/american buyer
Click to expand...

I don't know if 70 years old Jimmy has an actual 10 years plan that involves making big bucks after 10 years. Is he even going to last that long?

Now imagine Joel Glazer repurchasing the majority of the club in 10 years. :lol:
 
So wait, the glazers have a billion worth of debt in our club from the leveraged buyout. Ratcliff is buying his stake by putting in more debt to INEOS. So directly or indirectly, the level of debt associated with Man Utd has INCREASED. Who is to say there won’t be MORE debt for training ground facilities and new stadium? So the only people winning here are the banks.

On the other hand, we have someone who can ‘reset’ via debt free investment,l and remove the current debt.

This is Ratcliff bid is okay to people on here as long they are not associated with any potential morality issues disguised as xenophobia?
 
Adisa said:
He isn’t going to invest until he can buy out the Glazers completely. Why should he invest and inflate the price he is eventually going to pay them off for?
Same thing happened to Arsenal. Kreonke did not invest his own capital until Usmanov left.
Click to expand...
That’s an excellent point
 
LordSpud said:
If Jim comes in...

He's borrowing to put the original bid in.
He's keeping the debt and borrowing more so more debt.
He's borrowing to pay to renovate the stadium.
Glazers will still be taking dividends.
Glazers (Avi and Joel) shares will still enable them voting power.
We will be absolutely crippled by the debt for years to come. Even more so than now.
Click to expand...
Debt is a normal function of business. The Qatar bid will likely include some debt. The difference is the Glazers could never afford the club and have hung their debt on the club and refused to pay it off choosing instead to simply pay the minimum payment and maintain the debt. INEOS have publicly stated no new debt, and if SJR buys 50.1% of the club he will have to deal with the current debt because of the change of control clause. You need to relax a little!
 
Kinsella said:
A obvious benefit is that Manchester United won’t be associated with state ownership. In other words, the club’s historic reputation will remain intact.
Click to expand...

Genuinely sounds similar to the argument for Brexit that the being in the EU was undemocratic and by leaving we would have direct influence on our politicians etc.
 
Sounds dreadful, can spin it how you want but the whole point of this process was for them to be gone, no half asks.

I imagine Jim will be thrown to the wolves by the fans, the damage is already done.
 
Bosws87 said:
Sounds dreadful, can spin it how you want but the whole point of this process was for them to be gone, no half asks.

I imagine Jim will be thrown to the wolves by the fans and thedamage is already done.
Click to expand...
If INEOS takes control then effectively the Glazers are gone.

Sadly I think your second paragraph is spot on.:(
 
wolvored said:
The fact he has said all along he wanted the glazers 69% total share. So if my math is correct if hes now saying they can keep 20% that means he will only have 49% and not controlling amount. He would have to hope that he could purchase at least 2% elsewhere
Click to expand...
Ive seen it reported INEOS would purchase 50.1% to take control of the club. Presumably the rest of the 69% would sit with the Glazer Bros and figures have been rounded up to simplify.
 
Telsim said:
But it's not true. Downplaying pro-Qatar arguments like this is incredibly reductive. Qatar actually do possess the means to transform the club by their own hand and have also unequivocally said they will pay off the debt. And their commitment and motivation are beyond doubt, because their goal is sportswashing. No point in denying that. If you are against Qatar for that and other reasons, okay, that's fine.

Ratcliffe has repeatedly and seemingly intentionally danced around the debt issue with vague worded releases that are open to interpretation. Is he paying it off? Is it included in the bid? Is being transferred to INEOS? Is it being refinanced? No one knows. His statement was also very weak by comparison. How will the structure renovation be financed? Now, he is willing to get in bed with the people that wrecked the club. To say this is bad optics would be an understatement. I also think the argument that he is too old is also extremely valid. What happens when he is gone as a gatekeeper? INEOS/Glazer ownership? Sale? Who will buy the club then? Another set of Americans? INEOS ownership remains shrouded in ambiguousness and uncertainty.

So aside from the memes, it's not at all just "give money".
Click to expand...
Again, I am not saying that the Ratcliffe bid is any kind of panacea, but a lot of folks just seen to be drawing the conclusions that they want to draw based on very little evidence.

As for the bolded part, I'm not sure how that refutes the point that those in favor of the Qatar bid are not all about the money. Surely that is essentially saying that they are, because through what other means are they offering the transformation you mention?

To be honest, the idea that some could be happy with the club becoming a sportswashing vehicle for a nation with fairly widespread problematic ideologies (by no means wish to tar all qataris with that brush) or for any nation, actually, makes me extremely queasy.
 
FlawlessThaw said:
Genuinely sounds similar to the argument for Brexit that the being in the EU was undemocratic and by leaving we would have direct influence on our politicians etc.
Click to expand...
People will pluck all kinds of analogies out of their heads (& arses) to suit their particular narrative I suppose.
 
Plant0x84 said:
Ive seen it reported INEOS would purchase 50.1% to take control of the club. Presumably the rest of the 69% would sit with the Glazer Bros and figures have been rounded up to simplify.
Click to expand...

INEOS could purchase that amount of shares, yes. But any B class shares they purchase from the other 4 Glazers get converted to A class upon transfer, so therefore Joel & Avram would still have massive say.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.