Club Sale | It’s done!

Status
Not open for further replies.
redcucumber said:
Americans aren't a race and yank is a relatively innocuous term. There's some very strange behaviours in here of some individuals arbitrarily and baselessly accusing others of racism and of being racist and it largely goes unchecked.
Click to expand...
Isn't is sort of the equivalent of calling a British person a 'cockney' or a manc' etc?
 
Berbaclass said:
Americans aren't a race :confused:

Maybe it's offensive (I don't know enough about American history) but I don't think it's racist.
Click to expand...

I do not know of anyone that is offended by the term Yankee or Yank over here....unless you are referring to the NY Yankees, then as an Atlanta Braves fan, yes, highly offensive!!
 
NYSE opens in one minute. Interesting to see how it reacts to the news
 
Blood Mage said:
I don't think there's any doubt that Ratcliffe will be a considerably better owner than the Glazers, but this was probably our last shot at acquiring the kind of wealth which would help us to compete with City so it's hard not to feel disappointed. The Qataris will probably turn to another PL club like Spurs next and that will make it even harder to stay competitive.
Click to expand...
This POV is just so frustratingly wide of the mark.
We already do! It’s just wasted paying for the Glazers and their incompetent decisions. City need financial doping because they are a tiny club that the world doesn’t give a shit about. United have never needed that, we are a behemoth in comparison. If the new owners appoint the right structure we will thrive, both on the pitch and in the boardroom.
We don’t need to copy or aspire to be like City, we should aspire to be better than them in every conceivable way.
 
NK86 said:
That's fair, but then the question you need to answer is will any business (successful and profitable) take on additional debt to acquire an organization which is currently running losses and needs huge infra investments. If it is something of a passion project for JR, then it does make sense but I doubt he became a billionaire by spending billions on items he has no need for.
Click to expand...

And the answer is yes. Happens all the time. Companies buy failing companies all the time, and they don't just buy them with cash.
 
HarryP said:
Listen to his interviews from the time he tried to buy Chelsea and the one in the Summer. He was asked if he was looking to buy a club to make money. He laughed and said he has INEOS to make money and doesn't need a football club to do it. He's buying purely for sporting success, there's no question.


You can see the BBC one with Dan Roan here. https://www.bbc.co.uk/sport/football/61320812
Click to expand...
That’s a great video. I hadn’t seen it before. Hope everybody takes a moment to watch it. Hopefully it will allay some of the fears around Sir Jim’s intentions.

Thanks for posting.
 
Plant0x84 said:
This POV is just so frustratingly wide of the mark.
We already do! It’s just wasted paying for the Glazers and their incompetent decisions. City need financial doping because they are a tiny club that the world doesn’t give a shit about. United have never needed that, we are a behemoth in comparison. If the new owners appoint the right structure we will thrive, both on the pitch and in the boardroom.
We don’t need to copy or aspire to be like City, we should aspire to be better than them in every conceivable way.
Click to expand...

Totally agree.

We don't need to financial dope. Just need to be able to not start from behind, due to the debt and dividend payments.

This is why, personally, i don't think we need a Qatar or nation state investment.
 
InfiniteBoredom said:
We won 5 titles in 7 seasons, missed out on one by 1 point and another by GD, against oil money teams, when we had the best league manager in the world.

They have the best league manager in the world, when they didn’t, it was 2 titles in 8 years for them.

The ones not having a clue are those who actively twerk for oil money without realizing it won’t solve all your problems.
Click to expand...

This is true how many Champions leagues have City and PSG won ?
 
Horrific abuse against the gun people and suddenly our stock on the NYankSE drops.

Clearly not a coincidence
 
NK86 said:
According to some on here now, the debt was never an issue. It was only incompetence. So if we were in the CL every season or winning the odd PL/CL, the debt would have been a good thing. :p
Click to expand...
The debt leveraged on the club is a horrible thing. If the Malcolm borrowed the money against the strip mall business, it would not have had much effect on United. Of course, if the Glazers then used money from United to service that debt, then it would.

In other words, Ineos debt won't affect United, UNLESS Ineos makes United pay to service that debt. Some have claimed that would be the case, but that comes across as just assuming the worst. Nothing said or reported has suggested that will be the case.

Let's also just remember that just because it isn't with a Western Bank doesn't mean that a Qatar bid wouldn't have debt. Even if people accept that it is a state bid, that doesn't mean there isn't debt. Qatar as a nation has debt.
 
Fans have to be pragmatic about this sale.
It would make us feel better if The Glazers were gone for good, but if they turn out to be retain a minority stake in the club, would it be the worst thing in the world?
I would rather them sell the controlling stake to Ratcliffe than sell more chunks to venture capitalist groups.
 
Plant0x84 said:
Your whole argument fall down at the bolder part. Do some research.
Click to expand...

Nope only falls apart when YOU assume stuff that I said. The MANCHESTRER UNITED DEAL will have shareholders, other parties with shares who will expect payments from their shares. There is a reason why there are protests for 100% sale.

Hope thats cleared up for you and you now understand my original point.
 
HarryP said:
If news had broken last Summer that Ratcliffe had agreed a deal to become the majority shareholder and the Glazers influence would be dramatically diluted, everyone would be popping the champagne corks.

But because the spectre of a full sale was raised and Qatar dangled their oil money, Ratcliffe suddenly becomes a 'British Glazer' who wants to line his own pockets and has no interest in the welfare of the club. Absolutely embarrassingly juvenile stuff from anyone speaking like this.
Click to expand...
I never agree with Harry usually but you're bang on the money here.

When I first heard about Sir Jim's interest, I was estatic. But because everyone wants us to be like Oil City, people are now fed up.

Don't get me wrong, I think we need investment and if Jim is buying us with loan etc, I don't want him near the club. But if he's actually going to pay off the debt which in no way hinders Utd, then I'm fully onboard.

You see, IF the debt is loaded onto Ineos - I couldn't care less. Because it doesn't effect Manchester United. And we're big enough and valuable enough to run ourselves.

I just want the Glazers gone now and if it's SJR, so be it.
 
NWRed said:
I never claimed he did say he'd clear the debt.

Here is Adam Crafton in The Athletic:



I'll accept your apology anytime you wish.
Click to expand...
So no new debt put onto the club, and no promise at any point that the debt would be cleared.

Now here is what you said:

NWRed said:
No, the problem is people are paying close attention to the details of the bids. Even after Qatar interst became known most people were still pro Radcliffe, the worm turned when it became known he wouldn't clearing the Glazers debt, was taking on more debt to buy the club, wouldn't be buying 100% and so has no plans to invest his own money in it (if he is to renovate Old Trafford and Carrington it means more debt on the club), and now possibly not even getting rid of the Glazers.
Click to expand...
Which is bullshit by the way because no one thought that he was ever going to waltz in and clear all the debt in the purchase of United. No one can really do that unless it's Amazon or some state backed bid.

The way it actually played out was - everyone loved Ratcliff when he came in as a white knight for us, but the minute Jassim waltzed in with a promise of clearing debt, he was immediately preferred.

At no point was there an insinuation that Jim Ratcliff would clear our debt.
 
Plant0x84 said:
Well you wouldn’t want the club bankrupted would you? :wenger:
Click to expand...

:lol: oil states don't go bankrupt only over-leveraged parasites that crawled out from under the dead corpse of American capitalism.
 
Plant0x84 said:
Yes. That’s exactly what is being argued. Well done. :rolleyes:
Click to expand...

It's an idiotic point of view.

Our interest repayments during City's rise to dominance:

2008 £60 million
2009 £42 million
2010 £49 million
2011 £168 million
2012 £47 million
2013 £77 million
2014 £28 million
2015 £49 million

This was the time when City were signing the players that would form the basis of their dominance, players we didn't challenge for because 'there was no value in the market'. It was the time we sold Ronaldo and replaced him with Valencia, the time we had to bring Scholes out of retirement because we failed to sign a replacement for him

The Glazers have taken ~£1.5 billion out of united in interest and dividends, that is a new stadium and training ground or far more signings of a much higher calibre just when City were building their empire.
 
VP89 said:
So no new debt put onto the club, and no promise at any point that the debt would be cleared.

Now here is what you said:


Which is bullshit by the way because no one thought that he was ever going to waltz in and clear all the debt in the purchase of United. No one can really do that unless it's Amazon or some state backed bid.

The way it actually played out was - everyone loved Ratcliff when he came in as a white knight for us, but the minute Jassim waltzed in with a promise of clearing debt, he was immediately preferred.

At no point was there an insinuation that Jim Ratcliff would clear our debt.
Click to expand...

It is written into the terms of the debt that if the club is sold it must be repaid, to not repay the debt is an active decision to refinance not a passive decision to keep the status quo. It was always the assumption that sale of the club would result in the removal of the Glazer debt.
 
gaffs said:
Fans have to be pragmatic about this sale.
It would make us feel better if The Glazers were gone for good, but if they turn out to be retain a minority stake in the club, would it be the worst thing in the world?
I would rather them sell the controlling stake to Ratcliffe than sell more chunks to venture capitalist groups.
Click to expand...
Who do you think will buy the shares off the Glazers in a couple of years? Jim already doesn’t need them and would be a sunk cost since he would have control anyway and has no interest in anything about 51 percent
 
NWRed said:
It is written into the terms of the debt that if the club is sold it must be repaid, to not repay the debt is an active decision to refinance not a passive decision to keep the status quo. It was always the assumption that sale of the club would result in the removal of the Glazer debt.
Click to expand...
But it wasn't.
A buyer can use further debt to buy the club, or buy the club including the debt, but restructure it with better terms (like Ratcliff would be doing, and putting it on the holding company), or clearing the debt all together.

The forum markedly turned on Ratcliff when it broke that Qatar were involved, promising full clearance of debt and a lot of ££ into renovation. Shiny new toy and all that.

Whilst we are on that Qatar/Jassim topic, it is extremely odd that he is being outbid if he's apparently so rich, and so vested into the club. Either he's actually bid a lot more than we know or there is a fair bit of bullshit in his PR.
 
I'm not worried about how either INEOS or Qatar will run the football side of the club because I expect both parties to run with a Sporting director/head coach model.

But my concern is if we can challenge the current bench mark in English football (Man City) and go head to head with them, especially financially. I know people will point to Liverpool winning a title as something that gives us hope, but the reality is that City have been dominant at all levels of their club as outlined below. And the football people they brought in to kick-start their revolution (Marwood/Wilcox) were either a inexperienced football director in Marwood's case or in Wilcox case he had never worked within a football structure before taking a role at City straight from a commentary role on TV. Wilcox was later promoted to a director of the academy role. And the football structure Marwood created is still operational at City throughout the club. And even their current DoF (Txiki) was brought to the club due to the attempts to bring Guardiola to the club. And Txiki himself was given the role at Barcelona without any experience and only survived at City due to Guardiola not being a possibility without Txiki being at the club. Which Guardiola himself has admitted is true.

But the point is, that it's not difficult to create a functional football structure as proven at City with unproven management. But the biggest difference is made via their owners.


 
Last edited:
Status
Not open for further replies.