- Joined
- Sep 20, 2021
- Messages
- 126
when this saga is expected to end ?
Because we live in the real world. Musk was the richest person in the world yet had to borrow $13bn to buy Twitter with reported quarterly debt payments of $300m.
The acquisition of Twitter represented a far smaller percentage of Musks 'net worth' than Manchester United would Jim Ratcliffe's.
The idea we "don't know" Ratcliffe's deal will involve considerable debt is like standing on the runway at Heathrow and saying we don't know for sure the 747 on the tarmac is planning to get to New York by going up in the fecking air
We don’t know this.Ratcliffe has been the one leaking most to the media during this whole process. You don't need to do that if you think you're ahead in the race
As climate change gets more important in the next 10/20 years, you will see more news about Ratcliff's INEOs on their impact on the environment. You will see Man utd connected to petrochemicals, forever plastics etc
You think Qatar will be bad, you will see...
On the flip side I could argue that the Qatar bid is a sham. The money is genuine of course but it isn't coming from Jassim as they claim it is.
How is that any better? We'd be starting off a new relationship under false pretences. Hardly reassuring is it that they have to lie to even get a chance in the process.
On the flip side I could argue that the Qatar bid is a sham. The money is genuine of course but it isn't coming from Jassim as they claim it is.
How is that any better? We'd be starting off a new relationship under false pretences. Hardly reassuring is it that they have to lie to even get a chance in the process.
We don’t know this.
Aye. There’s no short term realism to that. There’s no sense in them staying on only to accept similar money in a couple of years. If they’re staying on - with little voting power, no less - it’s in the hope of a pot of gold (which is apt, because Big Malc looked like a paedo leprechaun) via the Super League or a fundamental change to the streaming rights negotiation/distribution. They CL reforms won’t cut it. The more likely cycle for changes like that would be 5 years+, if it ever happens.If he's intending to buy the other two out, it could take ages. There are just too many questions surrounding his bid. What do you think Brophs?
Sorry. I meant he’ll get the deal done if he can and worry about the clean up later.True. But he's up against Jassim and his ol'man. With their bank balance it's as if Jim's taking on an oil state.
What is it you want him to say?The clubs future is literally at stake here. A lot of people who have made their name/wealth via the club have been far too quiet.
I'll start with the biggest of them all. Sir Alex Ferguson.
He an extent he gets a pass considering what he has done for us but even he isn't untouchable. A lot of people won't like his loyalty being questioned as he's taken on almost a holy figure If he truly loves the club/fans that have given him everything he needs to speak up. He can't just show up to games every week, smile and make a passing comment about the squad every now and then.
Can you imagine the impact if SAF spoke out against the Glazers?
Him and a few other "Legends" can't sit around scratching their a** hoping this will all pass and they'll continue to make an income off their history at the club. TOP figures in and around the club need to speak up now. We will remember who fought for our clubs future and who protected their own interests.
Oh shut up playing the corporate lick spittle. Ineos is an oil and chemical company. Their money comes from raping the environment.Oh shut up playing the race card.
Ineos is one of the largest companies on the planet, that's where their money comes from. The business itself.
Whereas the Qatari money we all know comes from Oil and projects using slave labour.
Not really, INEOS biggest problem has been the lack of clarity with the debt and investment and it’s still the same you have to at least ask why? Might be nothing in it but it’s being left open to interpretation for a reason.
It'd be £5bn for 100% of the club, so 69% of £5bn would go to the Glazers, no? There's no way £5bn goes to the Glazers and an additional £1.55bn to buy the other 31%, plus debt, infrastructure upgrades and player investment on top, you're looking at a potential £10bn outlay.https://www.bloomberg.com/news/arti...ted-bidders-make-third-attempt-to-clinch-deal
“Sheikh Jassim’s bid consists of the £5 billion sum that will go to the sellers if successful, plus additional amounts for club facilities and other investments, one of the people said.”
So as I said earlier on this is £5 billion for the Glazer’s 69% controlling part of the club therefore is over $1 billion each for each Glazer as £5 billion is $6.3-6.4 billion dollars, the Qataris want 100% of the club but that isn’t owned by the Glazer’s and is shared out by randoms which the Qataris would have to buy up afterwards.
I didn’t believe that the £5 billion offer would include money promised for work on the club in infrastructure and transfer investment as the Glazer’s being the parasitic cnuts they are couldn’t give a feck about the club after they’ve squeezed that last bit out of it, everyone was too busy listening to sports journalists who know nothing about finance.
So it basically comes down to do two parasitic cnuts agree to feck off for over $1 billion along with their siblings or stay on in the hope they’ll be getting dividends each year and pray they get a big sum IF the club was sold in 10-15 years which is highly unlikely.
I've read it all now and this is up there with the worst, terrible takes and you should be embarrassed at some of things written here about one of the most influential figures in our clubs history.The clubs future is literally at stake here. A lot of people who have made their name/wealth via the club have been far too quiet.
I'll start with the biggest of them all. Sir Alex Ferguson.
He an extent he gets a pass considering what he has done for us but even he isn't untouchable. A lot of people won't like his loyalty being questioned as he's taken on almost a holy figure If he truly loves the club/fans that have given him everything he needs to speak up. He can't just show up to games every week, smile and make a passing comment about the squad every now and then.
Can you imagine the impact if SAF spoke out against the Glazers?
Him and a few other "Legends" can't sit around scratching their a** hoping this will all pass and they'll continue to make an income off their history at the club. TOP figures in and around the club need to speak up now. We will remember who fought for our clubs future and who protected their own interests.
The Qatar bid is not relevant to the fact Ratcliffe will need to leverage considerable debt to pay for us.
I agree but there again if Qatar is behind all this then why aren't they winning? Surely they can outbid SJR if they want to
As opposed to being a sports washing instrument for an oil and chemicals company? If you look closely enough then both the bidders are bot so different at all. If that is the case then i would like to go with one who is the best for the club. And by that i mean investment into the stadium and removing the debt laden onto the club.I don't think anyone would claim that most billionaires are paragons of virtue, but simplifying opposition to racism is facile and seems to be the default last line of defense for the Qatari PR machine here. It totally ignores the real reason that most are against the takeover. When pointed out that it's really because most don't want the club to become a sportswashing vehicle for a state, the default response is then 'well that's just the way the story is going', which is really no counter argument at all.
Have Todd Boehly and Clearlake made a bid yet?
As bad as plastics are I bet Ineos has spent more money on investment intended to find solutions to the problems they cause than the Qatari government has on initiatives to stop them from persecuting homosexuals
Why?As bad as plastics are I bet Ineos has spent more money on investment intended to find solutions to the problems they cause than the Qatari government has on initiatives to stop them from persecuting homosexuals
Pretty sure they don't let thousands of their work force die needlessly too to build something they bribed their way in on.
Anyone putting INEOS along side the atrocities of Qatar has already lost the argument. Trying to justify all that so you can have some oil money is just absolute madness. Just shows how easy sportswashing is because a lot of people on here don't care about any of it as long as Utd are successful.
Once again, not what greenwashing is.
They can but clearly they don't want to overpay.
I still think they might win too even though that's not what I want to see happen. This ain't over yet.
What?why are people that upset? even if ratcliffe buys us, there’s nothing stopping us forcing our women back into the kitchen and persecuting the gays.
That's called sportswashing.It doesn’t line up with the official definition, but there not wrong.
Anyone that thinks Ineos won’t use the purchase of united to improve there image to the outside world is beyond naive.
Is that the most stupid and uneducated comment of the week? Probably. Qatar is effectively a dictatorship? Oh, you didn't know that?As opposed to people not asking where INEOS’ owner git his money from. Don’t get this attitude people have towards the middle east. Seems like white people money is somehow cleaner than brown people money. Smacks of racism. No billionaire is going to be completely clean.
Aye. There’s no short term realism to that. There’s no sense in them staying on only to accept similar money in a couple of years. If they’re staying on - with little voting power, no less - it’s in the hope of a pot of gold (which is apt, because Big Malc looked like a paedo leprechaun) via the Super League or a fundamental change to the streaming rights negotiation/distribution. They CL reforms won’t cut it. The more likely cycle for changes like that would be 5 years+, if it ever happens.
I’m similarly underwhelmed by him. It feels like the name above the door would be all that changes. I’ve always assumed the Qataris would pony up and I’m still of that view, broadly speaking. They’re trying to squeeze Qatar for every last penny. You can only sell the farm once, after all. A partial sale with the two gimps staying makes little sense from their point of view. They’d be watching a guy run their club and their invest, with no record of success in football club ownership, in the hope he’d increase the value of the asset sufficiently to make having stayed on for a later divestment worthwhile. Which would be tricky, as their votes shares become less relevant once the initial sale has taken place.
Aye. There’s no short term realism to that. There’s no sense in them staying on only to accept similar money in a couple of years. If they’re staying on - with little voting power, no less - it’s in the hope of a pot of gold (which is apt, because Big Malc looked like a paedo leprechaun) via the Super League or a fundamental change to the streaming rights negotiation/distribution. They CL reforms won’t cut it. The more likely cycle for changes like that would be 5 years+, if it ever happens.
I’m similarly underwhelmed by him. It feels like the name above the door would be all that changes. I’ve always assumed the Qataris would pony up and I’m still of that view, broadly speaking. They’re trying to squeeze Qatar for every last penny. You can only sell the farm once, after all. A partial sale with the two gimps staying makes little sense from their point of view. They’d be watching a guy run their club and their invest, with no record of success in football club ownership, in the hope he’d increase the value of the asset sufficiently to make having stayed on for a later divestment worthwhile. Which would be tricky, as their votes shares become less relevant once the initial sale has taken place.
That's called sportswashing.
'They' is many different people on many more occasions in the thread. Intervention is clearly required.They used the wrong word, they are still right.
'They' is many different people on many more occasions in the thread. Intervention is clearly required.
This is wrong. Assuming Jassim has bid 5bn then that is the valuation he places on the whole club, the Glazers only get 69% of that which is roughly 3.4bn between them. The debt and infrastructure investment may well be on top, but those figures are largely irrelevant to the Glazers and probably won’t affect their decision.So as I said earlier on this is £5 billion for the Glazer’s 69% controlling part of the club therefore is over $1 billion each for each Glazer as £5 billion is $6.3-6.4 billion dollars, the Qataris want 100% of the club but that isn’t owned by the Glazer’s and is shared out by randoms which the Qataris would have to buy up afterwards.
It’s been said before but NDA. Also we have had reports that plans are in place for debt and infrastructure but they are irrelevant to the bid, so are not included. Everybody just assumes that is for negative reasons which are then blown out of proportion by the pro-Qatar lobby.Not really, INEOS biggest problem has been the lack of clarity with the debt and investment and it’s still the same you have to at least ask why? Might be nothing in it but it’s being left open to interpretation for a reason.
Exactly!This just proves "greenwashing" works as well as "sportswashing".