Club Sale | It’s done!

Status
Not open for further replies.
Nou_Camp99 said:
Made this point several times. People have been well and truly sportswashed by that oil cash. It's so hard to witness tbh.

Sir Jim was the knight in shining armour to most on here before Qatar entered the fold.
Click to expand...
Yeah amazing how people rather trust a guy who’s source of income is his dad / the state of Qatar and who would need to ask Daddy and the PSG owner every time before approving anything for United.
Maybe he will now cry so Daddy gives him some more money to buy us.
 
Berbaclass said:
I don't need to answer it, the statement is self-explanatory.
Click to expand...

Just answer what exactly is the problem with answering who is they? Are you thinking about, the remaining Glazers or INEOS?
 
I wonder if Jassim saw all our xenophobic posts on social media and decided he wasn't that keen after all.
 
crossy1686 said:
No wonder they're making him prove he's got the cash:

FuuMBaEXsAE_Dmg
Click to expand...

Wouldn’t he fail the directors fit and proper test?
 
Thought experiment, bear with me:
You are Qatar investors seeking to buy MannUtd for sports-washing intentions.
How would you proceed to arrange this, in a way which generates the most acceptance and support from the supporters and fans?
As far as i can see it, they couldn’t have proceeded in a better way to engage fans on their side.

Initially many fans are negative to middle eastern ownership
There needs to be an auction to indicate some kind of openness to the process.
Play it so its obvious SJR/INEOS can’t win an outright bidding auction.
Force INEOS hence to table a bid allowing Glazers to remain with a part ownership(which i believe is a fake negotiation ploy), and as such reducing fan support for INEOS bid, and increasing support for Qatar bid.
 
Berbaclass said:
The statement " they need money to continue running the club" sufficiently answers your question.
Click to expand...

Okay so you want me to assume your thinking. The Glazers wouldn't be running the club in that scenario, they would not be the ones needing money to continue running anything related to the club, INEOS would because INEOS would be the majority owners while Joel and Avram are minority owners. On that front the situation would be the similar to United being entirely purchased by INEOS with the small exception that by not purchasing 100% of the club INEOS has the ability to allocate part of their cash to investments instead of sending it entirely to the Glazers and other shareholders.
 
Castia said:
He’s going to own around 60% of the club but freely pay off hundreds of millions worth of debt? I very much doubt it.

But sure I have no clue.
Click to expand...

You have no idea what the debt will be, could be or is, you also don’t know how it would be handled. Your speculating. You’ve also been rattling on about how much Qatar will “invest” without any real knowledge on that either.

It appears Ratcliffe has realised the only way to get the club might be to do a deal with the devil, short term.There have been numerous rumours they don’t want to sell. This solution could effectively remove them from control and have them like any other non-voting shareholder. ie. Irrelevant. Eventually they might lose interest or be bought out by other means.

If you want to believe the speculation it looks like Qatar might have picked the wrong strategy and valuation. I hope not. I’d prefer an outright purchase, but I wouldn’t be against the Glazers being “silent partners” if they no longer have control of the club. There would be nothing to stop them buying the publicly available shares as things stand anyway, so either way they could own part of the club.
 
AFC NimbleThumb said:
I’ve barely kept up as I didn’t take him seriously, can you source this please.
Click to expand...
https://strettynews.com/2022/08/17/...erested-in-buying-stake-in-manchester-united/

Key words: “talks with a view to long term ownership” -ie building up to a controlling stake. Statement released in August last year which everyone got very excited over making him the face of the Liverpool protests.

It’s all fairly simple to me. He wants to buy the club. Avram and Joel want to stay as they think now isn’t the time to cash out. Buying the other 4 out to get a controlling stake seems a rather practical solution and is infinitely better than what we currently have. However, it isn’t the dream of being owned by an oil state with unlimited funds that the masses have been sold so naturally we’re all in meltdown.
 
SmallCaine said:
I didn't mention busby that was a different time and even he spent a record fee to get Dennis Law to utd. Our success was built on spending big money its not the only thing but it is a substantial part of it, are you really trying to say it wasn't? Yes Giggs and other class of 92 were important for our dominance in 90's, you know who else were Gary Pallister, Roy Keane and Andy Cole all of them british record signings when signed for utd. Same for 2000's, we wouldn't have had the success we had without likes of Rio Berba or rooney, 2 of those 3 record signings. Are people really trying to rewrite history and imagine us being leicester of 90's and 2000's? We had money and we spent it well, thats why we won things and the players we developed stuck around because we could pay well and win trophies.
Click to expand...

You were replying to a post mentioning both Busby and Ferguson.

Denis Law was signed in 1962, Busby took over United in 1945 and by '62 had won the the FA Cup and 3 first division titles. His success was built on the academy, Munich destroyed most of what he built and he had to adapt but he still brought players through and his success was still largely built on academy players.

Leicester's brief and relative success wasn't built on academy players, it was built on astute signings and good management, i.e. "having money and spending it well". United's success has always been built on a core of academy players supplemented by signings. You can argue about the importance of one verses the other but to say "Our success was built on spending big money" is gross misrepresentation of history.
 
whitbyviking said:
You have no idea what the debt will be, could be or is, you also don’t know how it would be handled. Your speculating. You’ve also been rattling on about how much Qatar will “invest” without any real knowledge on that either.

It appears Ratcliffe has realised the only way to get the club might be to do a deal with the devil, short term.There have been numerous rumours they don’t want to sell. This solution could effectively remove them from control and have them like any other non-voting shareholder. ie. Irrelevant. Eventually they might lose interest or be bought out by other means.

If you want to believe the speculation it looks like Qatar might have picked the wrong strategy and valuation. I hope not. I’d prefer an outright purchase, but I wouldn’t be against the Glazers being “silent partners” if they no longer have control of the club. There would be nothing to stop them buying the publicly available shares as things stand anyway, so either way they could own part of the club.
Click to expand...

This whole thread is speculation that’s all we have to go on, I’m willing to wait for the final outcome and plans for the club but I have no hope for Ratcliffe.

There was a story some weeks ago that Jim would put the debt over to Ineos which is fine but at that stage when that story broke he was all in for 100% it’s only been these past days that the news started leaking about a 69% share with the Glazers. This is where my doubt comes from, He gets absolutely feck all for paying off hundreds of millions in debt if he only owns part of the club in fact there’s no chance our current debt is paid and further to that he will probably borrow the money for the 60% and further for the stadium
 
Unsurprisingly nobody knows anything, wouldn’t be surprised if we have another “No bid has arrived yet” situation.
 
Castia said:
This whole thread is speculation that’s all we have to go on, I’m willing to wait for the final outcome and plans for the club but I have no hope for Ratcliffe.

There was a story some weeks ago that Jim would put the debt over to Ineos which is fine but at that stage when that story broke he was all in for 100% it’s only been these past days that the news started leaking about a 69% share with the Glazers this is where my doubt comes from, He gets absolutely feck all for paying off hundreds of millions in debt if he only owns part of the club
Click to expand...

No it was Glazers shares from the beginning. It was actually one of the first big difference reported.
 
Mickeza said:
https://strettynews.com/2022/08/17/...erested-in-buying-stake-in-manchester-united/

Key words: “talks with a view to long term ownership” -ie building up to a controlling stake. Statement released in August last year which everyone got very excited over making him the face of the Liverpool protests.

It’s all fairly simple to me. He wants to buy the club. Avram and Joel want to stay as they think now isn’t the time to cash out. Buying the other 4 out to get a controlling stake seems a rather practical solution and is infinitely better than what we currently have. However, it isn’t the dream of being owned by an oil state with unlimited funds that the masses have been sold so naturally we’re all in meltdown.
Click to expand...
Thanks.

I can only speak personally but I don’t think any option involving these leeches remaining is ‘infinitely better’ but maybe that’s just me. This no better than the oil state with unlimited funds option that you speak of.
 
Yes, any option involving people who couldn't give a shit about the club is a useless one. They will always be a hindrance.
 
Sir Erik ten Hag said:
Whole situation stinks to high heaven.

Jim came out calling them wonderful owners or good people, some shite at the beginning of the year then suddenly he outbids the bottomless pit that is Qatar.

Absolutely shocking that people, in particular certain United podcasts, are trying to pedal him moving the debt instead of clearing it as positive. Also, when the feck was the Glazers staying on in any capacity acceptable!? Shambolic.
Click to expand...

I wouldn’t say moving the debt is a positive but it’s also not the disaster people try to make out it is. The most likely outcome was always that whoever bought the club would do so with some form
of debt.

The debt will be serviced by INEOS, the Glazers will either be gone or have no say in anything including whether or not they get dividends. The Qatari bid supposedly only pledges 800m of investment which doesn’t even cover renovating the stadium. I’m sure INEOS would invest something similar.

There is no ideal bid where someone will be pumping in billions and billions, from reports the Qatari bid is nothing like the bottomless pit of cash people had convinced themselves it would be. There are a lot of question marks with the SJR bid but a lot of what people say about it is so over the top and dramatic.

I’m sure they’ll be further briefs about both bids but I doubt neither is as good or bad overall as what a lot of fans think.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.