Course correction doesn’t equate to state ownership.
Club Sale | It’s done!
- Thread starter JB08
- Start date
- Status
My thoughts on the rumoured possibilities.
Best Case Scenario - Qatari full takeover
2nd Best - Jim Full takeover
3rd - Jim majority & 2 Glazers stays holing a minority amount.
4th - Glazer Majority and Hendge Fund Minority
5th - No sale
Obviously I'm hoping for number 1 but if you asked me a season or two ago then I'd be happy with anything from the 3rd option up.
Best Case Scenario - Qatari full takeover
2nd Best - Jim Full takeover
3rd - Jim majority & 2 Glazers stays holing a minority amount.
4th - Glazer Majority and Hendge Fund Minority
5th - No sale
Obviously I'm hoping for number 1 but if you asked me a season or two ago then I'd be happy with anything from the 3rd option up.
Ensuring that the questions about source of wealth are properly answered is a bit more reassuring in terms of the Qatar direction
Yes these are all very basic questions and I’m would have been covered in detail much earlier in the process. It’s incomprehensible the Raine Group would have allowed any bid to get this stage without understanding who the UBO would be and where the money is coming from.
Are you not?Are you horny or something?!
Good to know unlike other clubs we have the history to stomach it at least even with the break.
As always with the glazers it’s the worst case scenario for the club from the outside looking in but it suits them quite nicely. Can they not just take their billions lotto win and feck off and leave the club in safe hands, wealthy enough to sort out the mess they’ve made of everything. They are a human cancer.
Last edited:
Thanks for that and the other responses, everyone else that responded too.
I have intentionally stayed away from this as much as possible up until now as we just don't have clarity on what is on the table.
Seems we will be much further along in our understanding in the next few days and we can all nail our colours to the mast.
As I said before, people will make all kinds of analogies and justifications to suit their purposes.
Hey look, Raine don't even know who Jassim's wealthy mates are. 
Yeah, it's about achieving the best possible outcome now isn't it.
Happy with any of the top three.
Agree.
The PL stood by and did nothing when we were bought with our own money by a bunch of parasites, and then when three other PL clubs effectively won the lottery due to horrible regimes.
Under Fergie we were the model of good ownership and all we got was abuse for it. We produced some of the best players England have ever had and the Ingerlund morons burned them in effigy.
So yeah, we owe nothing to anyone. Our sole priority should be what's best for United, because no-one else has stepped in to help us, ever.
Mate, I remember Martin Buchan play. Had posters of McQueen on my wall.
When Chelsea was for sale it was at this stage that they asked for financial statements and a Saudi group refused to share their financials and withdrew. In no way saying Qatari bid will be the same, but the process looks the same.
Well surely you'll understand better than most why state ownership is not something that's desirable as it will come at the expense of the club's identity.
Indeed. Raine will have to identify UBOs as part of their anti money laundering checks. This is standard stuff and not newsworthy.
I’m not sure I agree with this in the context of present day Man Utd…
I mean, the club’s identity has been completely eroded by the Glazer ownership era. I really don’t see how state ownership could alter it for the negative from where it currently is.
Sure, if this had happened before City or Newcastle, but they’ve both been taken over and were previously poor PL clubs - whereas Utd is already a giant financially, so the identity of the club is being altered a lot less.
If anything, I’d actually suggest that it’s highly possible that a purchase that removed the Glazer ownership completely would actually reinstall Man Utd’s identity.
And I say this as someone who finds the practices of Qatar utterly repellent.
How has the club identity been eroded?
No idea, sorry. He is somebody who knows what he is talking about though, he regularly appears on Stretford Paddock and is across all of football, not just United. If he says the stadium will cost X and pay for itself in Y years then I trust him.
The idea that he can be discredited and called out by a numpty on a football forum is ridiculous.
Sellers do their due diligence, too.
Not wishing to be argumentative but I'm not sure I understand the logic behind the two bolded parts. I don't see how Glazer ownership has eroded the club's identity, unless you assume that winning is inextricably linked with the club's ID (which isn't really true).
The idea that getting rid of the Glazers for the qataris would reinstall the club's identity also doesn't track for me, unless part of the club's identity has been as a sportswashing front for a nation state.
Ratcliffe was going to buy the parasites out, so how can you believe a word they say?
Rather than at the expense of being able to compete debt free
Eyy, it's almost as if the people who called Ratcliffe just another Glazer actually know what they are talking about. But I can see his staunch defender accounts are already on with the mental gymnastics.
This club is fecked. Whatever, man.
They don't. At all.
Given the choice of 6 Glazers with full control, or 2 Glazers with no control it's a pretty simple choice for all of us.
The "buy the whole club" option seems to be a non starter, so if you don't support the 2 Glazer choice, by default you must be in favour of keeping all 6 at this time?
To be clear, I don't actually think anyone would actually prefer that, but this faux outrage over the proposed bid from Ratcliffe just doesy make sense when you factor in the clear unwillingness of Joel and Avram Glazer to sell their stake at this time.
Once again, the only way this deal is acceptable is if Ratcliffe gains a controlling stake and effectively takes over the club.
For all the rich kids bluster and the vast wealth of Qatar, even they cannot force those who don't want to sell, to sell. Ratcliffe new proposal is about as close to a confirmation that they won't sell as we are likely to get, so the smart play for any bidder is to adapt of they are really determined to become the new owner of Manchester United.
Fans crying "full sale only" are literally saying it's either all or nothing... And well, that's support for nothing isn't it?
Why do you call people names when the issue with his tweet and his "analysis" are pretty obvious? You are trusting someone that put together figures that have no meaning because they describe nothing even though real estate and financing through debt are grounded in reality.
A numpty like myself has several questions that need to be answered since I'm a numpty and struggle with certain things. How can an expert use a financing agreement that is older than 4 years as a point of reference when we are currently in the middle of new banking crisis? What the 800m represent, what is the project and what is the ecpected result for 800m? Spurs ended up spending more than they initially expected, does he take that into account? And where the revenue increase come from, how has he projected that range?
64.51% of the controlling shares. Joel and Avram own 33.49%
they do want to sell though this a long game.
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.
He's a multibillionaire, they don't die, they just go into the freezer until it's time to pop them on a plate in the sink so they defrost for dinner.
If the question is would I rather the debt or be owned by a state, it's definitely the former.
Not this fecking chancer again.
"New deadlines mean new rules sent by letter"
Well done Sherlock...
I don’t follow…?
We all hope that is the case. But all of the signs say otherwise unfortunately, at least in the short term.
Steve was a legend like.
I have said from day one after done my research that I don’t like SJR as a business man.
Too many red flags follow him whenever he’s involved in things that are political or business related. I don’t know him and I don’t know anybody else who knows him but with age and experience we can often judge someone (as a business men/women) just based on how they act when it comes to statements, promises, interviews, business deals or how they run their own company.
Ratcliffe’s latest proposal or whatever we shall call it smack’s desperation. If he has bad intentions and want to fool the Glazers (or others) is that really an owner we want? Is it to be smart to make a deal with a hidden agenda when the whole world is watching?
A combination of SJR, Goldman Sachs or similar and the two remaining Glazer siblings seems like a rattle snake nest if you ask me. Who’s fooling who first?
There’re off course downsides with SJ and his Qatar connections too but at least we don’t have to worry about internal fights, hidden agendas or cheap financial tricks. His bid and statement was clear and straight forward and I judge them from that perspective.
I really understand those who’re reluctant of being state owned but when taking everything in to consideration and if we care about what’s best for United then it’s only one bidder who stands out in a good way if we want our club to be truly successful.
MU has nothing to apologize for, we have earned our right to have ambitious and wealthy owners like our neighbors.
Too many red flags follow him whenever he’s involved in things that are political or business related. I don’t know him and I don’t know anybody else who knows him but with age and experience we can often judge someone (as a business men/women) just based on how they act when it comes to statements, promises, interviews, business deals or how they run their own company.
Ratcliffe’s latest proposal or whatever we shall call it smack’s desperation. If he has bad intentions and want to fool the Glazers (or others) is that really an owner we want? Is it to be smart to make a deal with a hidden agenda when the whole world is watching?
A combination of SJR, Goldman Sachs or similar and the two remaining Glazer siblings seems like a rattle snake nest if you ask me. Who’s fooling who first?
There’re off course downsides with SJ and his Qatar connections too but at least we don’t have to worry about internal fights, hidden agendas or cheap financial tricks. His bid and statement was clear and straight forward and I judge them from that perspective.
I really understand those who’re reluctant of being state owned but when taking everything in to consideration and if we care about what’s best for United then it’s only one bidder who stands out in a good way if we want our club to be truly successful.
MU has nothing to apologize for, we have earned our right to have ambitious and wealthy owners like our neighbors.
The poster I was referring to hasn’t raised any particular issue with Kieran’s analysis. That would be a valid point of discussion.
What they did do (twice) was poo-poo Kieran himself and try to shut down his points because it doesn’t agree with their own pro-Qatar viewpoint.
I have no personal issues with any poster, and I don’t have an issue with measured criticism or questioning. I’ve done the same because that how I learn about this process. But trashing someone just because they don’t agree is out of order and doesn’t add to the debate.
For the record, I myself am a numpty. Probably more than most. I meant no disrespect.
Keep researching- Status