Club Sale | It’s done!

Status
Not open for further replies.
HarryP said:
Don't be silly.

Practically every major investment involves some form of debt. It's already been stated that he won't leverage the debt involved in the purchase of the club itself, it'll be on the books of INEOS. You can't ask for more than that.

By calling for a ban on clubs to be bought with any form of debt, you're effectively calling for a rule change to only allow nation states to buy football clubs. As I said - don't be silly.
Click to expand...
@HarryP in talking sense shocker!
 
I'm not surprised by this news because I thought all along that Avram and Joel Glazer were determined to stay, even if it meant being in a reduced capacity in terms of control.

I do think it is a good way forward for the club for a number of reasons and most of the fears expressed are over egged.

Ratcliffe is the majority shareholder in a business that has an annual revenue of $60 billion. In the grand scheme of things, the financials of an elite football club is pretty small fry relative to INEOS. Yes he has to finance his purchase of the club, but that's because most billionaires have most of their wealth tied up in assets. They don't typically hold billions of £s of cash. Musk had to finance his purchase of Twitter vis several complex vehicles of investments and loans. This isn't something to get hung up on.

Ratcliffe isn't going to spend billions acquiring major control of an elite football club (as a glory trophy asset - he certainly isn't buying it to make money) only to not invest in up to date infrastructure and the football team. Not going to happen. Zero chance. He's going to spend roughly the same on that stuff as Qatar would have done (FFP only allows you to spend so much on players anyway and even the Glazers are coming close to the limit with FFP!).

So we are getting everything we would've had with Qatar but without the toxic baggage that comes with being owned by a nation state with an appalling human rights record!
 
NK86 said:
That's a silly thing to say. So people cannot ever want a better bidder to come in because they pinned their hopes on Ratcliffe a year ago?

If it was Apple or Amazon instead of Jassim and they called out that they would remove the debt from the club, would you still call it sportswashing because the fans had once hoped for Ratcliffe to get rid of the Glazers?
Click to expand...

Apple and Amazon don't really need to sportswash so I don't understand the link you made there.

Qatar have awful human rights record and want to entice people to Qatar for business and tourism. They just essentially let thousands of migrant workers die needlessly to build a world cup they bribed their way to host.

Apple and Amazon arent squeaky clean of course but they aren't as bad.
 
Nou_Camp99 said:
Most wanted him to save us months ago before Qatar emerged. He was seen as knight in shining armour back then.

People have been sportswashed good and proper. This is what it boils down to.
Click to expand...
You keep saying people have been sportswashed. What does that mean? Are people hailing Qatar as champions of human rights and freedom in here or what?
 
NK86 said:
But then the 5b does not include the debt and infra pledges? Has Bloomberg clarified that?
Click to expand...
Yes they clearly mention that 5bn goes to the sellers and there's additional money already earmarked for "club facilities and other investments"
 
It must be fun being a sports journalist writing about us at the moment. Light the slightest of fuses, stand back and watch the chaos ensue. All we've had today is 'SJR bid is higher valuation than Qatar' according to 'sources' (who could easily be a third cousin of Raines' tea lady who doesn't do numbers), followed up by confusion around the Qatar bid & whether it's valuation includes future investment or not. Less than 24 hours after the same people were stating that the Qatar bid was a world record price. Now it can of course both be the case the Qatar total offer is a record, but the per share value offer from SJR is higher, but it just goes to show how differently the same news can be presented and cause completely different reactions.

All this 'leaked' info means practically nothing, unless we know what the Glazers preferred options are. Maybe 100% cash is more preferable than a minority holding of an asset they can't influence? Perhaps they want as much free cash to cripple invest in a new Franchise (and we probably might all like to point them in certain directions as to which one). Maybe Joel and Avram are happy just to hold the shares because they've been told whoever wins will take us into a superleague & they consider that to have big capital growth potential & just want to maximise their siblings profits. We as fans, and most likely the journalists, just don't know and are being played like fiddles.

What is almost certain though is that after 3 rounds of bidding, Raine, the Glazers, Qatar, SJR and anyone else involved do have good clarity on what is required, what is being offered and on what terms the financing (which is inevitable) will be on. The idea that something so basic as what is, and is not, included in the Qatar bid as value to the Sellers can be unclear is just not credible at this stage. We just need to wait, but by god I hope not for much longer.
 
MDFC Manager said:
Yes they clearly mention that 5bn goes to the sellers and there's additional money already earmarked for "club facilities and other investments"
Click to expand...
There’s still confusion around whether it’s just the Glazers 69% or whether the offer covers the 31% Class A shares.
 
The #FullSaleOnly stuff I don't really get onboard with. Whether SJR or Jassim buy the club, they will both be in charge of running the club. Whether one has 51% or 100% stake in the club, I don't really care. They still get to control anything in the club.

I don't care if the Glazers are minority shareholders either. They are no longer (mis)managing the club. It just seems nonsense to protest that. 'Because Glazer' isn't really a legit reason. Being a minority shareholder is pretty much the same as not being there anyway in terms of how the club operates

That's one thing I credit MUST with - when they protested, there was at least some logic behind it, at least they had a plan. These days your get chancers like the 1958 who just want to promote themselves and windmill everywhere without any well thought out plan of action.
 
NK86 said:
That didn't really hamper our revenue and thus the Glazers never got rid of him.

All I am saying is any owner who has an iota of affinity towards the club they own would have fired Woody long back for his incompetence or at least set a mandate for restructuring the football operations. They did neither, so I find it hard to even hypothesise that they have any interest in the club apart from milking it as a cash cow.
Click to expand...

And the initial point was that the Glazers are 6 different person, 4 that allegedly never cared about sport and 2 that allegedly do. So when you ask yourself why two of them may take a decision that doesn't align with your view of the Glazers as a whole, one of the obvious answer is that up until now Joel and Avram were minority members of the Glazer group but now they have an opportunity to be outside of it. Maybe they are exactly like their other siblings or they are not but it's the first time since 2005 that we can witness it.
 
Pexbo said:
There’s still confusion around whether it’s just the Glazers 69% or whether the offer covers the 31% Class A shares.
Click to expand...

Confusion is the point. Clarification comes next, in the form of another bidding round.
 
Pexbo said:
There’s still confusion around whether it’s just the Glazers 69% or whether the offer covers the 31% Class A shares.
Click to expand...
Yes, I agree, that point is not clear. If it's the former, it should be an easy enough call for the glazers to make.
 
Anustart89 said:
You keep saying people have been sportswashed. What does that mean? Are people hailing Qatar as champions of human rights and freedom in here or what?
Click to expand...

People willing to look the other way with Qatar and all the shady stuff because they are filthy rich. It's not that difficult mate.

Lots on here who have probably been very critical of the City takeover too. All of sudden not so much of an issue now we could potentially benefit.

Thats sportswashing. It works.
 
Nou_Camp99 said:
Apple and Amazon don't really need to sportswash so I don't understand the link you made there.

Qatar have awful human rights record and want to entice people to Qatar for business and tourism. They just essentially let thousands of migrant workers die needlessly to build a world cup they bribed their way to host.

Apple and Amazon arent squeaky clean of course but they aren't as bad.
Click to expand...
You said that fans opposing Ratcliffe now while they were hoping for him to buy us a year back automatically proves it's sportswashing. All I am trying to counter is that it's not about where the bid is coming from but how that bidder has put out information that he will remove the debt and invest in infra, that's making people hope that he wins.

That's not sportswashing, it's simply wanting what's best for your club. If Ratcliffe comes out and says he will remove all debt, invest in infra and the team, then I am certain majority of fans wouldn't have any issues with him owning the club.
 
UnitedSofa said:
#RatcliffeOut trending on Twitter already. Oh dear. :lol: :lol: If anything other than Qatar happens I can forsee a lot of protests and match abandoned like last season. We will become the most Toxic club.
Click to expand...
Let’s face it, whoever takes over there will be people who are unhappy about the ownership.
I think there is an element of the fan base who really enjoy the protesting, the antagonism and the sense of ‘sticking it to the man’. Even some posts here in the current situation are more about the symbolic ‘glazers out’ cause rather than pragmatically reflecting on what is best for the club moving forward.
 
Nou_Camp99 said:
Most wanted him to save us months ago before Qatar emerged. He was seen as knight in shining armour back then.

People have been sportswashed good and proper. This is what it boils down to.
Click to expand...

Tbf I don't think it's just sportwashing. I think some people genuinely just lack financial literacy when it comes to the function of debt in this context. Which makes their negativity somewhat more understandable.
 
Tango80 said:
The #FullSaleOnly stuff I don't really get onboard with. Whether SJR or Jassim buy the club, they will both be in charge of running the club. Whether one has 51% or 100% stake in the club, I don't really care. They still get to control anything in the club.

I don't care if the Glazers are minority shareholders either. They are no longer (mis)managing the club. It just seems nonsense to protest that. 'Because Glazer' isn't really a legit reason. Being a minority shareholder is pretty much the same as not being there anyway in terms of how the club operates

That's one thing I credit MUST with - when they protested, there was at least some logic behind it, at least they had a plan. These days your get chancers like the 1958 who just want to promote themselves and windmill everywhere without any well thought out plan of action.
Click to expand...

Correct. Being determined to want the Glazers out 100% is a highly emotional desire and not grounded in logic. Obviously the most important thing with regards ownership of a club is who controls it and to what extent. If you hate the Glazers then you should be rejoicing that their control is being significantly diluted, and not cursing the fact they haven't disappeared altogether.
 
NK86 said:
You said that fans opposing Ratcliffe now while they were hoping for him to buy us a year back automatically proves it's sportswashing. All I am trying to counter is that it's not about where the bid is coming from but how that bidder has put out information that he will remove the debt and invest in infra, that's making people hope that he wins.

That's not sportswashing, it's simply wanting what's best for your club. If Ratcliffe comes out and says he will remove all debt, invest in infra and the team, then I am certain majority of fans wouldn't have any issues with him owning the club.
Click to expand...

I'd be amazed if Sir Jim comes in and thinks doing nothing different is going to wash with Utd fans. He's also not going to want to fail is he? It's a lot of money afterall.


A new stadium / redevelopment is coming. It has to. We don't really have a choice.

I'm sure the manager will get funds too. They always have even under the parasites.

Selling our soul to be a sports washing vessel for Qatar isn't worth it in my eyes. Other people don't care clearly. They just want what they see as 'garunteed' success.
 
El-Manos said:
feck me, how the feck is Qatar getting outbid.
Click to expand...
Because they want to invest in infrastructure and clear the debt, so they can't afford to be reckless with their bid. Ratcliffe has no intention of clearing the debt and probably won't invest as much in infrastructure either, so he can afford to slap a little bit extra onto his bid.
 
NK86 said:
That's a silly thing to say. So people cannot ever want a better bidder to come in because they pinned their hopes on Ratcliffe a year ago?

If it was Apple or Amazon instead of Jassim and they called out that they would remove the debt from the club, would you still call it sportswashing because the fans had once hoped for Ratcliffe to get rid of the Glazers?
Click to expand...

Theres a high chance even Apple or Amazon would use some sort of debt to buy the club. I believe the debt would be carried by Ineos in a Ratcliffe deal, wouldn’t it? Big acquisitions normally involve some sort of debt, but the Gulf states, in football’s case, have made it seem otherwise. I’d say it’s fair game to call that at least part of sports-washing.
 
Blood Mage said:
Because they want to invest in infrastructure and clear the debt, so can't afford to be reckless with their bid. Ratcliffe has no intention of clearing the debt and probably won't invest as much in infrastructure either, so he can afford to slap a little bit extra onto his bid.
Click to expand...

You don't know this at all. Nobody does. Nobody has the full details of what Sir Jim intends to do.

You're biased agenda makes you think Sir Jim would want to see his 5bn investment fail. Why would he want that?
 
Blood Mage said:
Because they want to invest in infrastructure and clear the debt, so can't afford to be reckless with their bid. Ratcliffe has no intention of clearing the debt and probably won't invest as much in infrastructure either, so he can afford to slap a little bit extra onto his bid.
Click to expand...
Worth mentioning that he has bid ~£5 billion but will only actually pay around half that as the 'bid' is just to determine his valuation of the club.
 
If we learnt anything throughout this ordeal is that the media talk bollocks and it's evident here nobody knows what's what so why don't we all just calm down and wait.
 
Blood Mage said:
Because they want to invest in infrastructure and clear the debt, so they can't afford to be reckless with their bid. Ratcliffe has no intention of clearing the debt and probably won't invest as much in infrastructure either, so he can afford to slap a little bit extra onto his bid.
Click to expand...
Yup. Some posters in here seem to be under the impression that having a lot of money means you should be willing to bid whatever it takes to win.
 
Rocksy said:
Theres a high chance even Apple or Amazon would use some sort of debt to buy the club. I believe the debt would be carried by Ineos in a Ratcliffe deal, wouldn’t it? Big acquisitions normally involve some sort of debt, but the Gulf states, in football’s case, have made it seem otherwise. I’d say it’s fair game to call that at least part of sports-washing.
Click to expand...
Apple has something like $20 billion in cash
 
Plant0x84 said:
Let’s face it, whoever takes over there will be people who are unhappy about the ownership.
I think there is an element of the fan base who really enjoy the protesting, the antagonism and the sense of ‘sticking it to the man’. Even some posts here in the current situation are more about the symbolic ‘glazers out’ cause rather than pragmatically reflecting on what is best for the club moving forward.
Click to expand...
Whoever wins the bid, we should still protest. Unless someone is in favor of chemical pollution or abusing human rights.

We've built up this great protest culture among United fans. Even if the new owners, whoever they may be, are doing a great job with the club, the massive voice of United fans should be used to continually bring attention to the environmental and/or human rights abuses and to call for change.

As either owner attempts to use United to distract from their abuses, it would be great if that got turned around and even more attention was brought to it. Idealistic, I know, but I'll do my part, however small it may be.
 
Nou_Camp99 said:
At the expense of being sports washers for Qatar? No thanks.

We could have won the league a few times over the last decade with better decisions made. It hasn't been a lack of transfer funds that's let us down. We have spent as much as City have.

And sir Jim has much more money than the Glazers do. Think about that.
Click to expand...

So you think Ratcliffe has beaten a state funded bid?
 
Status
Not open for further replies.