Yeah, no point in arguing with you and a few others. You all just come back with one liners like this, without even trying to understand both sides and both bids.
Club Sale | It’s done!
- Thread starter JB08
- Start date
- Status
Yeah, no point in arguing with you and a few others. You all just come back with one liners like this, without even trying to understand both sides and both bids.
Throughout this I have said multiple times I am Qatar in and I would much prefer this route, but the complete melt down of some over SJR is absurd as we have no clue what his plans are and I believe whatever he does will be a damn site better than as it is now.
Indeed and the Glazer’s haven’t accepted anything yet.
But if the Qatari bid doesn’t offer the Glazer’s what they want then that’s on the Qatari’s and no one else.
Jesus can't you tell what a joke is
Nobody said otherwise dude
I was not calling you out but I find it weird people somehow think that Glazers staying is acceptable. I want them out.
And Ratcliffe for me is a dodgy guy, even without mentioning Brexit.
This place, I swear. Sooner this season is over for some of these the better I think. I would seriously consider shutting the caf down for 3 days to let people have a mental health reset.
Oh 100% I understand the situation it just sucks that us fans and the club will end up losing out in the long run.
It's easy to say 'why don't Qatar just pay x,y or z' but the reality is there's nobody else on the planet committed to spending 6-7B at United outside of them and its us who will ultimately miss out
The money the Glazers want (around 6B) plus the clearing of debt (600m?) and a facility upgrade (1B) wont be paid by anybody so they might as well have value the club at 100b because there literally nobody paying their asking price for a full sale it's been pointless since day 1 they've always wanted an investment offer.
It's been explained countless times. A small equity stake with zero control is, for all intents and purposes, no different to them being gone completely.
Of course, I'd prefer a full sale to Qatar, but all the whining in here from posters about something they have zero understanding of is insufferable.
They’re like emotional vampires draining the life out of people (a bit like the Glazer’s).
Horse shoe theory and all that.
I see this as SJR feeding Joel and Avi scraps, they get nothing but minority shares, they don't sit on the board they won't even attend games.
Same as what Woodward has now, a token gesture.
You've been dismissing every potential positive about the INEOS bid, because it's not what you want to hear nor what you've been expecting these last few weeks
What am I wrong about specifically?You've been dismissing every potential positive about the INEOS bid, because it's not what you want to hear nor what you've been expecting these last few weeks
I've had to add so many people to my ignore list over the last few days because all they do is derail an otherwise interesting discussion with the same worn-out takes, over and over.
Do you know what I do for a living with all this dumb condescension?
Maybe you want to tell us your qualifications?
Agreed. I share your sentiment on that point.
You didn't say he's exploiting them with the club, you said he's exploiting loopholes. Brexit shenanigans, his tax affairs, denying workers rights and smacking unions around, minimum safety regulations at facilities risking life, especially in developing countries, bullying companies to make them collapse for cheaper corporate takeovers. Look up a bit about ineos; anything shady but legally exploitable he'll exploit.
This also makes him a rat who cannot be trusted. As you say, facts.
I called him out as a charlatan right from the start. I don't believe he was ever serious about a full takeover or helping the club.
Not referring to you specifically.
I didn't say anything about loopholes. I was asking what he's done in this deal that qualifies as a loophole.
I'm just disgusted with those pricks. How the PL can conjure up opposition to us getting investment yet these fecks have ruined us financially and yet it's fine.
Grr, infuriating.
What is based on, though? Reckon folk need to calm down, put things in perspective and see how this situation develops. I'm not an ardent “cheerleader” of Jim Ratcliffe (or any of the reported buyers, really), but he does boast a net worth of around $23 billion according to Forbes (trending upwards) and oversees one of the largest chemical manufacturers in existence, so he isn't some sort of pauper among the ranks of Premier League owners.
https://www.forbes.com/profile/james-ratcliffe
Of course, Public Investment Fund and Mansour Al Nahyan are on a different dimension in terms of overall financial capabilities (which has indubitably warped supporters' views), but it's hard to get behind the notion that a club like United (which is a powerhouse in its own right and can afford to take out loans with a fixed interest rate of about 2.5-3% to finance the redevelopment of Old Trafford) can only compete (and invest heavily on infrastructure) with the backing of nation states. The crucial aspect would be streamlining operations and assembling the right management team with top-shelf specialists, so we get more bang for our buck on the pitch — which is by no means an unrealistic goal (especially when INEOS Sports has already made moves like enlisting the help of former Juventus and Paris Saint-Germain CEO Jean-Claude Blanc (who made direct and active contributions to the rehabilitation/ascent of both clubs over the last 10-15 years)).
Two things. Most of his wealth is basically his Ineos holding.What is based on, though? Reckon folk need to calm down, put things in perspective and see how this situation develops. I'm not an ardent “cheerleader” of Jim Ratcliffe (or any of the reported buyers, really), but he does boast a net worth of around $23 billion according to Forbes (trending upwards) and oversees one of the largest chemical manufacturers in existence, so he isn't some sort of pauper among the ranks of Premier League owners.
https://www.forbes.com/profile/james-ratcliffe
Of course, Public Investment Fund and Mansour Al Nahyan are on a different dimension in terms of overall financial capabilities (which has indubitably warped supporters' views), but it's hard to get behind the notion that a club like United (which is a powerhouse in its own right and can afford to take out loans with a fixed interest rate of about 2.5-3% to finance the redevelopment of Old Trafford) can only compete (and invest heavily on infrastructure) with the backing of nation states. The crucial aspect would be streamlining operations and assembling the right management team with top-shelf specialists, so we get more bang for our buck on the pitch — which is by no means an unrealistic goal (especially when INEOS Sports has already made moves like enlisting the help of former Juventus and Paris Saint-Germain CEO Jean-Claude Blanc (who made direct and active contributions to the rehabilitation/ascent of both clubs over the last 10-15 years)).
Secondly, he doesn't appear to be big on investing his own money, more like borrowing it. I have always been of the opinion that it'll have to come back from the club in the end, even if it takes a bit longer.
So you're just doing linguistic gymnastics over the definition of a 'loophole' then. - Buying the club but not clearing debt, keeping the glazers on with 23% (and you'd expect them to have a board seat if not in fantasyland), financing it with debt, telling fans you want the whole club then rowing it back. All of these are 'loopholes' in trying to buy sentiment of people who just want the Glazers not in control. Not in the legal sense, but still loopholes.
No, they're not. They're just the terms of the deal.
You think Goldman Sachs only get involved if there's debt? There is going to be a share restructure.
Honestly stop posting fake shit like "the owners with 50% are using debt" unless you actually know about it. Banks get involved with all M&A Deals, it doesn't mean that there's debt involved in every one of them.
It is a bit odd then. I don't see an issue of bidding for another club at his age when United aren't for sale. Time wasn't on his side to wait around in the event it ever came up for sale. The world doesn't work that way, lots of supporters of sides end up playing for other teams for example.But that isn't a fact.
This sort of a reply to a reasonable post just shows how little you actually know about the deal or the intent of either potential owner.
It was tongue in cheek man, you can relax.
Hence ‘seemingly’.
So ratcliffes intent is to purchase 51% of the club and all the debt, and then pour billions of equity in to enrich the minority shareholders.
None of us know for sure as you say, but does this sound legit? You buy 51% for control, not to invest your own money.
Some interventions are needed. Clearly...
He's putting the debt onto INEOS rather than clearing it. And the board are basically him and a couple of mates, so it might well be the case that they are less business focused on seeing returns on the debt through big dividends and more interested in making this footballing project as successful as they can.
Whether he makes good appointments or not is another matter, but I don't doubt his intent to actually restore Manchester United. He's got 51% for control for the moment but from what I understand it's not uncommon to start with this and then gain closer to 70% briefly afterwards.
It’s fully understandable that people would be sceptical of certain elements of the Qatar bid but those same posters are trying to legitimise Glazers staying whilst some are acting like SJR is some plucky local lad that doesn’t have multiple of his own issues.
What we’ve known from day 1 regarding his intent is that he’s bidding for control of the football club. Either for the Glazer’s entire shareholding of 69%, or for 50%+1 reflecting the reluctance of 2 siblings to sell their share. He mentioned funds for the stadium, training ground and players. Everything else is speculation.
That's speculation for the moment, not something known.
You think Goldman Sachs only get involved if there's debt? There is going to be a share restructure.
Honestly stop posting fake shit like "the owners with 50% are using debt" unless you actually know about it. Banks get involved with all M&A Deals, it doesn't mean that there's debt involved in every one of them.
It's all speculation, there's nothing concrete on anything but if we're going off reports I haven't seen one yet that claims Jim will outright buy his stake in the club, almost every single report mentions backed funding
'Fake shit' I could pull you 20+ reports on Jim using funding to buy the club and id be absolutely shocked if thats not the case
Is there people that actually believe he's going to come in on his own money at 51% ownership and then pass the debts on to INEOS?
absolutely fecking no chanceSums up this farce perfectly.
We can only wait for clarification of that.
But we know he hasn’t put in 2 bids, rather his bid contains a compromise option.
What do you mean its all speculation?
There is credible info to state how he's structuring the deal, you can look it up.
It's quite funny, when you are reminded that banks aren't only involved in debt related transactions, and that there is no actual credible information that states he is using debt to buy the club - you have no problem poisoning the thread with fake information claiming he is.
But when you are pointed to what has actually been credibally reported, you don't want to be discussing "speculation"
.Tell you what - share me one of your credible articles that state Ratcliff is using extra debt to buy the club.
- Status