Exactly this. It's bizarre to me how quickly the 'if you can't beat em, join em' mentality had permeated at the mere whiff of oil money.
Club Sale | It’s done!
- Thread starter JB08
- Start date
- Status
Makes no sense that he'll just overpay for 50% because he can't afford to buy it all.
Qatar is so clearly the best option for the clubs future on and off the pitch.
The alternatives of continued full Glazer ownership, Glazer ownership propped up by a hedge fund, or Ratcliffe's god forsaken alliance with Goldman Sachs and the Glazers (which would result in a mountain of new debt) are all appalling.
The alternatives of continued full Glazer ownership, Glazer ownership propped up by a hedge fund, or Ratcliffe's god forsaken alliance with Goldman Sachs and the Glazers (which would result in a mountain of new debt) are all appalling.
At this point anyone but the Qatar bid surely equals not being able to compete and another decade or so fighting for top four.
Now there’s a scary thoughtI 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.
I admire your positive outlook but looking at it dispassionately I don't see how any club can compete over the long haul with City, Chelsea & Newcastle.
No matter how talented the manager he still needs the resources to back him up.
Still waiting for details of the SJR deal, but I just can't see us not being financially hamstrung no matter what way they configure it.
We still need quite a large squad turnover in the next couple of seasons to win the league or CL. Probably £300m on players coming in and £100m to pay off the shite we’ve got to leave.
maybe his loan conditions are set on the control over the club.
… unless the share structure was revised by INEOS as part of the deal. It’s awfully technical and boring legal stuff but it’s not a foregone conclusion that the Glazers keep their voting rights.
What could be worrying is if they back him, but then say the infrastucture is fine, when obviously it isn't, or they could fix the infrastructure and we are in an Arsenal/Spurs situation and the team get neglected. We need both covering, with minimum or no debt.
The worst part in this is that it means any additional investment for the stadium has to come through more debt. Full ownership could potentially see someone investing in the stadium as it'll increase the club value long term, but why would anyone invest their own money to make other shareholders richer?
If INEOS stick to the publicised plan of refinancing the existing debt to themselves and not introducing new debt, then the club will be debt free and our revenue streams alone will be more than enough to compete. Look at the money we’ve spent under the Glazers with their debt being serviced by club revenue, and taking out their dividends too. With any luck INEOS also appoint competent football folk to support Erik and we spend our money much more effectively!
Another downside is that the Qataris will probably move on to another club, probably Spurs, which will make it even harder for us in the future.
I'm not claiming to know more than anyone else. But from reading the piece, the idea in my mind is that by keeping their 10% now they'd sell their 10% for more in a few years.
Figures will be wrong, but purely as an example, say if they sold that last 10% each now, they'd get £600m each for it. (10% of the £6bn overall value)
They may feel once INEOS or whoever comes in and upgrades the stadium, spikes revenues and (hopefully) makes United title challengers that the club may be worth £10bn in a few years. So by selling that 10% in say 5 years, they'll be able to sell that 10% to INEOS for £1bn each instead.
From INEOS's side, they can pay over a billion less now by only buying 50% of the shares instead of 70% - which allows them to pay for the stadium and other facilities now. And then when they go back in 5 years time and buy that remaining 20%, the revenue the club earns from extra seats etc will essentially pay for it.
I don't see why none of it makes sense? It seems to make perfect sense for both parties in the context that it's business and they don't take fan feeling into account.
That's all fine but what's the plan re financing new stadium or redeveloping OT etc?
The infrastructure is the big overarching question for me when it comes to Jim.
It is isn't it? Keeping in mind that Joel and Avram have always been described as the ones interested in Football, whether we dislike them or think that they are incompetent is irrelevant, If we take into account these two alleged affection for the game, there is a case where they like the idea of sticking around as minority shareholders because a sale of the Tampa Bay Buccaneers in the future could allow them to regain control of United when Ratcliffe is either too old or not around.
INEOS would have no problem raising debt financing for stadium renovation which would pay for itself once the work is done. Debt is not the problem, it’s the way the Glazers have used and managed the debt that is wrong.
What are the Muppetiers saying, @Berbaclass ?
I don't believe anything until they've told us what is actually happening.
I don't believe anything until they've told us what is actually happening.
That’s the key point.
feck. That would make this jimmy boy deal by far the worst possible option for us, even worse than glazers staying in the current setup.
RATcliffe have not promised anything regarding this. If he was planning it he would say it. And there are a loan involved in this even if it is against INEOS now but we never know how they will move this in the future.
I feel this guy is just a new kind of Glazer with a british accent.
But see people here welcomes him and too keep Glazers in the club. Seems like some people like to stay in abusive relationships.
They say stop being so petty and let it go.
Ah, so anybody who is pro Ratcliffe is secretly a xenophobe because they don't Jassim/Qatar? Is that what you're saying?
I'm against Ratcliffe now. He's a slippery cock who obviously doesn't give a solitary shit about United. Willingly jumping into bed with the Glazers just so he can get his paws on us - his whole shtick was being the local Mancunian lad rescuing the club from the clutches of the evil Americans. Balls to him.
Pretty sure the same argument was made when Utd became the first British club to go public or when the Glazers brought us. In hindsight one decision reaped massive benefits financially while the other not so much. But neither destroyed our heritage.
We are a massive club with a glorious heritage and Qataris buying us won't destroy it. What will destroy it is becoming an afterthought because our team, staff, facilities and stadium can no longer compete with the best in the land. And that is exactly what will happen if we keep having owners who's sole priority isn't on field success and the prestige that comes with it.
This is a very narrow view. Most businesses have a range of shareholders and thats not a problem. Its not worse than the Glazers as they would no longer be making the decisions and the club would be run to be successful and not just to take money out. He is not buying United as a way to make money, noone can at these prices.
Take a deep breath. Finding a way to do a deal is what business is all about. if they should want to stay then its this or some crappy hedge fund financing deal.
Will those capital/interest repayments be coming out of MUFC revenues?
If he really was a fan then he would hate the Glazers just as much as us. But it is all business.
Yep. Spot on.
It depends, they can use cross company loans and have all the debt registered under the Ineos parent company as they will have far less regulations than a premier league football club under FIFA, UEFA and PL. This is anywhere near as good as SJ offer for the club but it’s still miles better than the parasites having complete control.
Hopefully they see what’s happening at Wrexham and go and buy Notts County instead
Sorry, glossed over this point before responding. This means the increased revenue from larger OT capacity should cover debt refinancing?
No more questions I promise!
Not at all. They might be well informed on the subject, they might not be.
Not before a very long time. Keeping in mind that any thourough renovations includes large loss of revenues while you are renovating. Then you also have to factor in the fact that you added to your current debt.
Renovation or investment in infrastructure is a very good thing and a solid source of revenue on the long term but we are talking about 15 or 20 years down the line.
Would be interesting to know how much we'd lose during renovations. We're looking at close to a decade of smaller gates due to redevelopment.
You can't really blame people. The club is buried in debt, still being drained by our leeching owners and now one of the two bids appears to be in bed with them.
None of this is ideal.
Here is a tweet from Kieran Maguire, football finance expert and author of the price of football. It’s the follow up tweet at the bottom that is relevant here.
We are a laughing stock under the Glazers. Historical reputation is for the birds, this is our reputation now
- Status