Club Sale | It’s done!

Status
Not open for further replies.
Hypothetically
Sir Jim Radcliffe wins but the two Goblins stay however no power whatsoever. SJR and his entourage starts to turn up at United games?

Will fans boo and jeer him or will they cheer him?

It could really go either way which is why he needs to get his mandate out asap after he knows he’s going to be the new Man United Chairman and it needs to be something like this ;

1. After purchasing controlling shares of the club to the sum of 51% through Ineos my first act is to absorb (clever word) the Clubs debt into the parent company Ineos so we can be more active and proactive in this summers transfer window.

2. I am a huge fan of the current manager and intend to support him 100% in this summer window. Due to Financial sustainability and FFP there will have to be some player departures to help fund the huge intended spend of £300m this summer and create additional funds for the winter transfer window.

3. I am and have always been a huge fan of this club, it’s rich history and it’s constant never say die hard attitude and desire to win at all costs. I’m here to win not to compete and we will endeavour to make sure that we put best in class Executives all through the clubs structure, Woman’s, Youth investment and invest in in training ground improvements which will also be made.

4. As a visitor on many times to old Trafford, it’s clear that this great stadium needs modernisation and investment, we will be embarking on a clear policy to create a fit for purpose state of the art old Trafford with a 100,000 all seater capacity, more information to be released soon.

Now if he came out with something like this through his PR rather than saying what nice people the Glazers are, he’ll get those cheers otherwise this is going to get nasty and quickly!
 
United being the side to buck the "State money is the only way to get success" narrative that some clubs and fans now push, would be fantastic.

We are the only club in English football capable of doing so, if we are managed correctly, on and off the pitch. If we became an advert for another State, then football is probably lost forever.
 
JagUTD said:
Credible isn't the word I'd use for the Qatari Royal family's news outlet when reporting on themselves.
Click to expand...
It's credible for reporting the views of Qatar although I was told otherwise about 4000 pages back. Slightly off-topic but Al-Jazeera is actually a pretty good news outlet. We've rightly focussed on the negative aspects of the ruling family in Qatar but Al-Jazeera does demonstrate some of the positive aspects of the Qatari general population.
 
VP89 said:
Again, 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 cleared all together.

The forum markedly turned on Ratcliff when it broke that Qatar were involved. Shiny new toy and all that.
Click to expand...

We aren't getting better terms in the current financial climate, it is almost certainly one of the reasons the Glazers are trying to sell.

The article I quoted makes clear that INEOS sources stated the current debt will remain borrowed against the club, and further borrowing will be against INEOS. But as the article goes on to state just because the debt remains off Uniteds books it will almost certainly be Uniteds revenues that service the debt.

Read it yourself https://theathletic.com/4225736/2023/02/19/manchester-united-takeover-ratcliffe-bid-key-questions/

I'm sure some people did jump on the Qatar bandwagon as soon as their bid was announce, but I certainly didn't and it wasn't my impression that the majority of people did either. My opinion changed as soon as it became known Radcliffe wasn't clearing the debt and was taking on more debt (I was ambivalent about him not buying 100% although this does mean he would be borrowing any money spent on infrastructure, that would be debt the club could live with if the rest of it didn't exist). Given those facts there is only one bid a fan with clubs best interests at heart can support.

All this may be moot anyway, having thought about the nature of the previous leaks to the press about the bidding process I have a sneaking suspicion that the leak about the value of the bids is one last play from the Glazers to get the Qataris to up their bid and so that when they can finally accept the Qatari bid they can say they had the best interests of the club in mind and not just accepting the highest bid.
 
cyberman said:
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
Click to expand...
According to Duncan Castles (not saying that makes it true, but it also doesn't make it not true), Ineos will. Joel and Avram are heavily incentivized to sell within the next 2 years. They will get a premium price on their shares, above what their siblings would get now.

Ineos can't offer Joel and Avram more per share than what they're offering their siblings now as part of the same sale, but they can in a year or two as a separate sale. After 1 year, they would get less of a premium, and after 2 years, they would get no premium. As they won't have any power to sell, their shares will be worth little more than the NYSE price, which I believe is about half or less than half of the what the premium would be.

Again, this is all based on Castles' report, but if true, it shows that SJR wants them away from the club, as well.
 
Plant0x84 said:
Yes. That’s exactly what is being argued. Well done. :rolleyes:
Click to expand...
You can roll your eyes as much as you want, but there are posters on here arguing the debt itself was not bad, only the management of it. I understand good debt, like the one which Spurs have to build a new stadium, but this debt was nothing but bad debt from the beginning made worse by their sheer incompetence.
 
MiamiSpartan said:
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.
Click to expand...
I understand that happens, but usually when that organization has some potential to unlock. A football club, unless sold forward, is hardly going to be an opportunity like that. Wouldn't you agree?

Also, from a financial standpoint, our revenues are extremely good but expenses are an issue. Maybe we can curtail our expenses but will that ever make United or any football club worth billions? The share price over the last 10 years would definitely suggest otherwise.
 
Do you think if the SJR deal went through and the 1958 continued protesting, would fans start to turn on the 1958?
 
MiamiSpartan said:
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.
Click to expand...
It is all speculations at this point. I am not anti anyone, but would prefer if JR would get it across through some leaks (NDAs being an issue) that no additional debt will be laden on United or will be paid for by United, while the old debt will be taken off of United's books.

Once that is made clear, it becomes easier to get in his corner.
 
NWRed said:
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.
Click to expand...
Yet we have posters here batting for "debt was not an issue", only incompetence was.
 
Tango80 said:
Do you think if the SJR deal went through and the 1958 continued protesting, would fans start to turn on the 1958?
Click to expand...

Probably not but they'd do well to consider a huge portion of the fanbase is against State ownership so shilling for Qatar is unlikely to gain them many friends.
 
JagUTD said:
Probably not but they'd do well to consider a huge portion of the fanbase is against State ownership so shilling for Qatar is unlikely to gain them many friends.
Click to expand...
I don't think a "huge" portion is against SJ bid. It's pretty much divided down the middle currently and most want to hear details from JR on how he plans to tackle the debt and infra investments.
 
I've been against Qatar from the start I've never wanted us to be part of a sportswashing exercise.
Ineos although not perfect is much more appealing to me and as some have tried to explain on here isn't as bad as its being made out by mainly pro Qatari supporters.
 
MiamiSpartan said:
According to Duncan Castles (not saying that makes it true, but it also doesn't make it not true), Ineos will. Joel and Avram are heavily incentivized to sell within the next 2 years. They will get a premium price on their shares, above what their siblings would get now.

Ineos can't offer Joel and Avram more per share than what they're offering their siblings now as part of the same sale, but they can in a year or two as a separate sale. After 1 year, they would get less of a premium, and after 2 years, they would get no premium. As they won't have any power to sell, their shares will be worth little more than the NYSE price, which I believe is about half or less than half of the what the premium would be.

Again, this is all based on Castles' report, but if true, it shows that SJR wants them away from the club, as well.
Click to expand...

It pretty much does.
 
Question from an ignorant fan. Is there a rule brought in by the powers that be. That who ever buy's united can not put debt on to the club. This is known as the Glazer rule I think. I thought I read about this during Chelsea's sale. If true any buyer should not be able to put extra debt while buying us.
Just a question from a very confused fan who can not work out how we could be allowed to be worse off in any type of sale.
 
NK86 said:
I don't think a "huge" portion is against SJ bid. It's pretty much divided down the middle currently and most want to hear details from JR on how he plans to tackle the debt and infra investments.
Click to expand...

Which would be a huge portion.

I'd agree it's definitely split and I wouldn't be surprised if we saw protests whoever takes over. I do think though that many of those opposed to State ownership would find it very difficult to accept the Qataris at any point, while if Ratcliffe managed to move the club forward on and off the pitch, many currently opposed would begin to warm with him. I'd imagine if over the first couple of years, he invested well, showed a clear plan to remove the debt and showed plans and financing for a new stadium, most fans would be quite happy.

Some Newcastle fan groups protest against their owners even with improved on pitch performances. There are even City fans against their owners, which means there are actually City fans who are decent human beings (nah, not really).
 
JagUTD said:
United being the side to buck the "State money is the only way to get success" narrative that some clubs and fans now push, would be fantastic.

We are the only club in English football capable of doing so, if we are managed correctly, on and off the pitch. If we became an advert for another State, then football is probably lost forever.
Click to expand...
The horse has already bolted in that respect. But your point still stands up. We can buck the trend and be a success without state ownership. I am 100% convinced.
 
downunder red said:
Question from an ignorant fan. Is there a rule brought in by the powers that be. That who ever buy's united can not put debt on to the club. This is known as the Glazer rule I think. I thought I read about this during Chelsea's sale. If true any buyer should not be able to put extra debt while buying us.
Just a question from a very confused fan who can not work out how we could be allowed to be worse off in any type of sale.
Click to expand...

The conditions involved in the Chelsea sale didn't set any precedents (as far as I know): the circumstances were exceptional.

Also: the owners can add debt (but within certain limits). What they absolutely cannot do (for the next decade or so) is to take out dividends: the latter is what some have called the "anti-Glazer rule".
 
TrueRed79 said:
The horse has already bolted in that respect. But your point still stands up. We can buck the trend and be a success without state ownership. I am 100% convinced.
Click to expand...

I think it can still be pulled back from the edge but if United are lost to this disease, then it's done.
 
NK86 said:
I understand that happens, but usually when that organization has some potential to unlock. A football club, unless sold forward, is hardly going to be an opportunity like that. Wouldn't you agree?

Also, from a financial standpoint, our revenues are extremely good but expenses are an issue. Maybe we can curtail our expenses but will that ever make United or any football club worth billions? The share price over the last 10 years would definitely suggest otherwise.
Click to expand...
I think we have huge potential to unlock, with stadium/training ground upgrades, a return to regular UCL football, PL titles. Again that's based on potential, if we are successful, which we can be if we just spend what we make and have a solid footballing structure. I'm not of the belief that we need state ownership to compete with state ownership.

Whether it's smart business all depends what Ineos' goals are. How much do they expect to raise the value and in how much time? And what do they need to invest to make that happen? Kind of like when people look to remodel their home, they decide that if they put X amount in, it raises the value by Y, even if they aren't looking to sell immediately.

Or are Ineos' goals less about a direct financial benefit of owning United, and more just to greenwash their business? And how much is that worth to them? None of us know. I slightly prefer that to state owned sportswashing, but either way, some distasteful people will be using us to wash their image.
 
JagUTD said:
Which would be a huge portion.

I'd agree it's definitely split and I wouldn't be surprised if we saw protests whoever takes over. I do think though that many of those opposed to State ownership would find it very difficult to accept the Qataris at any point, while if Ratcliffe managed to move the club forward on and off the pitch, many currently opposed would begin to warm with him. I'd imagine if over the first couple of years, he invested well, showed a clear plan to remove the debt and showed plans and financing for a new stadium, most fans would be quite happy.

Some Newcastle fan groups protest against their owners even with improved on pitch performances. There are even City fans against their owners, which means there are actually City fans who are decent human beings (nah, not really).
Click to expand...
I agree that if JR does well, people will get behind him. Similarly if SJ gets us back to the top, most of the folks will move on from this and get behind the team as well. There will definitely be a faction who will perhaps move away like we saw when the Glazers bought the club.

Bottom line, as long as the new owners do good by the club, most will get behind the team and not kick up a huge fuss.
 
Last edited:
MiamiSpartan said:
I think we have huge potential to unlock, with stadium/training ground upgrades, a return to regular UCL football, PL titles. Again that's based on potential, if we are successful, which we can be if we just spend what we make and have a solid footballing structure. I'm not of the belief that we need state ownership to compete with state ownership.

Whether it's smart business all depends what Ineos' goals are. How much do they expect to raise the value and in how much time? And what do they need to invest to make that happen? Kind of like when people look to remodel their home, they decide that if they put X amount in, it raises the value by Y, even if they aren't looking to sell immediately.

Or are Ineos' goals less about a direct financial benefit of owning United, and more just to greenwash their business? And how much is that worth to them? None of us know. I slightly prefer that to state owned sportswashing, but either way, some distasteful people will be using us to wash their image.
Click to expand...
Let me put it this way. Can United generated 100s of millions in net profits which Ineos could tap into for any future needs? I don't think that will ever be the case. Rising revenues will always be accompanied with rising costs on players and operations. That's the nature of the beast.

Totally agree with your last line. No matter who owns us amongst the current bidders, it will never be palatable. As long as they try to bring us back to the top without cheating or fudging the books, it will at least be slightly less difficult to swallow, at least for me.
 
Chesterlestreet said:
The conditions involved in the Chelsea sale didn't set any precedents (as far as I know): the circumstances were exceptional.

Also: the owners can add debt (but within certain limits). What they absolutely cannot do (for the next decade or so) is to take out dividends: the latter is what some have called the "anti-Glazer rule".
Click to expand...
Thanks for that.
 
I'm really not concerned about the debt, management etc. For me, the main difference is how the club is ultimately run, the ambitions.
I fear JR definition of success would be driving the club value up, leverage the enormous PR potential etc.
whereas, I believe Qatar wants to be the best, win it all, by all means. Which I think is a necessity to be a successful sports club. Do whatever it takes to get to the top, see City, Barca, Real, PSJ.

Not just about spending money, but how. Spending when you are ahead, not the billions Glazers spend when we were already buried down under.
 
Woziak said:
This is a solid post, the current actual debt of Man united can be broken down into three categories;

1. Historical debt used as a leveraged buy out which is now approx £536m$(650m)
I use approx because it fluctuates with the exchange rate, but this has increased from the original amount nearly 19 years ago due to gross negligence and greed from the Glazers taking out annual dividends which could have been used to pay off the debt. With low interest rates this debt was serviceable but not now.

2. Transfer Amortised Payments debt slightly different as this is not equated in FFP but may soon be added I’m sure to the new Financial Sustainability rules where only 70% of your turnover can be spent on wages, agent fees and new net transfers sales will be the new rules by 2025/26 season. This debt is said to be £227m, but let’s be clear nearly all clubs have this type of debt as most transfers are amortised. This does not need to be cleared as a new owner will just continue to service the payments to other clubs.

3. Credit Card Facility debt - This is a credit line agreed with the bank and currently the club has £300m limit but spent £207m of that limit mostly on transfers last year.
Part of their sales pitch to prospective buyers is that Debt would be cleared by the end of June through gate receipts, PL payments and merchandising sales, clearing a smooth transition path for a new owner to use this facility for summer transfers and whilst giving them time to sign the correct change of ownership details and pass all the necessary ownership fit and proper tests from Uefa and the PL.

Sheikh Jasim and the now confirmed full Qatar state bid would simply have paid the £535m debt instantly closed down the existing banking facilities and put their own in place, this still would have probably taken 2-3 months and gave them very little time now to operate in the transfer window, almost similar to when Abu Dhabi bought City hat first window, they may have used existing banking but no guarantee as they have been singular in their ideas, buy 69% take full control, pay off the debt, spend £400m on marquee players, then buy the existing 31% of the club, build super stadium and training ground, highly unlikely they would use existing banking because it involves interest payments and that concept is aboded in their culture.

The more favourable deal to Joel and Avram is to sell maybe 3% each of their b shares with the other 4 siblings selling all 45% of their shares to SJR through Ineos.

The company would be restructured with no more B shares and they would get 20% or 32.6m of the new company which is listed on the NYSE with SJR/Ineos owning 83 million of the 163 million shares and controlling rights. The agreed premium would still be available year 1 for both Glazers but diminishes slightly in year 2 so SJR could effectively buy an additional 20% of the company in 2024 or 2025 or they could keep their shares and hope through success on the field the shares go up to $30/35 per share through ineos investment and management.

Highly unlikely it’s a smart play from SJR, he’s outmanoeuvred SJ and the Qatar hate to lose, expect them to bid on another PL club soon however now that the state has been confirmed the PL might not allow it but probably can’t stop it.

SJR could move much quicker in the transfer window because if this model because he will unfortunately be working in the short term with Malcolm and Joel and probably Arnold and Murtourgh, he might say I need a huge transfer window and become hands on, listening to him earlier in his interviews he seems to me like he could be a throwback to Blackburns Jack Walker and united is his love so it’s win at all costs, we’ll see but whoever wins SJ or more likely now SJR will spend big this summer.
Click to expand...
When was this confirmed that the Qatar state are behind Jassim?
 
webbthepostie said:
Is anyone still trying to argue it isn't?
Click to expand...
You misunderstand. Where has it been confirmed is the question. We are all free to speculate either way but there's no mention of it officially being a State bid.
 
NK86 said:
You misunderstand. Where has it been confirmed is the question. We are all free to speculate either way but there's no mention of it officially being a State bid.
Click to expand...
Ahh ok, I don't think we'll ever get that.
 
NWRed said:
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.
Click to expand...
I think you’ve seriously got the wrong end of the stick, because absolutely nobody is arguing that the debt from the Glazers leveraged buyout was in any way good.
What I and others have argued is that a small amount of well serviced debt ( paid down over time, not just interest payments and left to fester) is a normal healthy part of business - and therefore any debt involved with infrastructure improvements is not necessarily bad and not a reason to turn our nose up at any bid, particularly the INEOS one.
Obviously if Sir Jim was proposing to leverage the whole 6bn against the club Glazer style then any sane person would have a real issue with it, just as we did back in 2005. As far as I am aware that is NOT what is proposed, nor would that make any sense.
 
Tango80 said:
Do you think if the SJR deal went through and the 1958 continued protesting, would fans start to turn on the 1958?
Click to expand...
Depends on what specifically they're protesting and how.

Regardless of who wins, it is important for the fans to continue to hold the new owners accountable.
 
NK86 said:
You can roll your eyes as much as you want, but there are posters on here arguing the debt itself was not bad, only the management of it. I understand good debt, like the one which Spurs have to build a new stadium, but this debt was nothing but bad debt from the beginning made worse by their sheer incompetence.
Click to expand...
I haven’t seen that, I certainly haven’t said anything of the sort but if that’s the case then I apologise.
Clearly they are totally wrong. The leveraged debt should never have been allowed to happen, and has been a millstone around the clubs neck for almost 2 decades.
 
The shares are going down because people think Ratcliffe will win. He isn't concerned with the 31% so naturally the share price falls a little.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.