Club Sale | It’s done!

Status
Not open for further replies.
McTerminator said:
Lets be honest though, they just went out and bought the masterminds behind peps Barca then left the decisions to them. It’s a relatively easy model to follow with the resources they have.
Click to expand...

Aye, they brought Pep’s Barca men in on money beyond their wildest dreams and then offered Pep well, feck knows, something absolutely ridiculous to keep him there much much longer than Bayern or his beloved Barca.
Then they just backed Pep to the hilt of 1.5 bn + the incredible amount of dodgy dealings on top, and anytime a CB, fullback or another signing didn’t quite work out, they gave him 60m to try again for the same position the following Summer whilst also strengthening elsewhere.
 
Rado_N said:
Where are you getting it from that the debt will be cleared?

And no, that is unequivocally NOT as good as them gone.
Click to expand...
Because you can’t dance around and sing ‘ding dong the witch is dead’?!!
If they are minority they have no control, no say and importantly no dividends. They will melt into the background like Homer into a hedge and never been heard of again until the point where they sell up. It’s the same outcome either way.
 
Plant0x84 said:
Because you can’t dance around and sing ‘ding dong the witch is dead’?!!
If they are minority they have no control, no say and importantly no dividends. They will melt into the background like Homer into a hedge and never been heard of again until the point where they sell up. It’s the same outcome either way.
Click to expand...

feck me, I despair I really do.

Tell me you have no understanding of the club without telling me you have no understanding of the club.
 
Rado_N said:
Yea feck that kind of “source”.

INEOS own PR (such as it is) made specific mention of there being no “fresh” debt, that screams doing nothing about the existing situation.
Click to expand...

The PR is all shite anyway, I'm sure every bad owner ever when they took over said we'll do this and that etc etc and then didn't do feck all.

Proof is in the pudding I think everyone has put to much into what was said/wasn't said in what amounted to 1 paragraph from each camp, without any concrete details from either.
 
Gavinb33 said:
The PR is all shite anyway, I'm sure every bad owner ever when they took over said we'll do this and that etc etc and then didn't do feck all.

Proof is in the pudding I think everyone has put to much into what was said/wasn't said in what amounted to 1 paragraph from each camp.
Click to expand...

Yea that’s all fair, which makes it even more concerning that they can’t even spin the suggestion that they’ll get rid of the debt. Their PR made it blindingly obvious there was something to be worried about.
 
NK86 said:
Not sure about the above the current price, I read it was at a premium but nothing was mentioned a premium on what value.
Click to expand...
I’ve been looking for the tweet/link for hours but I can’t find it. :(
I’m sure I read it was a premium above the offer price now though.
Would make sense to incentivise them to feck off sooner rather than later.
 


Are these normally scheduled every x months or do they just hold them whenever they want?
 
Rado_N said:
Yea that’s all fair, which makes it even more concerning that they can’t even spin the suggestion that they’ll get rid of the debt. Their PR made it blindingly obvious there was something to be worried about.
Click to expand...

:lol: exactly. Brexit Jim's PR has been so bad that it has been concerning that he won't refute any of the bad news associated with his bid.
 
Plant0x84 said:
Current debt cleared/moved to INEOS. Same difference. Control of club as good as Glazers gone.
Click to expand...

They haven't said they'd be clearing/moving current debt, just that any new debt won't be borrowed against the club, and even if they did move the current debt off the clubs books it's the clubs money will still be used to pay interest and capital no matter whose name it is borrowed against.

If a family member takes out a loan for you in their name and you pay the monthly repayments it is still your debt and it is still your money paying it back.

The mental gynmastics some of you are doing to convince yourselves that Radcliffe debt is better than Glazer debt is mindboggling.
 
Last edited:
Rado_N said:
Yea that’s all fair, which makes it even more concerning that they can’t even spin the suggestion that they’ll get rid of the debt. Their PR made it blindingly obvious there was something to be worried about.
Click to expand...
FlawlessThaw said:
:lol: exactly. Brexit Jim's PR has been so bad that it has been concerning that he won't refute any of the bad news associated with his bid.
Click to expand...

Pretty sure both bids got told to shut the feck up in the press after those flimsy early statements
 
gaffs said:
We could and should be competing with City. We have spend just as much money over the last 10 years.

The Glazers sucking money out of the club has been awful, but not putting in a proper structure for success has been the main reason for our failure. If we had the structure in place during and after Fergie's reign, maybe we would have recruited Pep not Jose.

We don't need a mega donor. Just need someone who can let the club stand on its own two feet, as we did for years before the Glazers.
Click to expand...
If you conveniently ignore off the books spending for which City has precedent since Mancini
 
NWRed said:
No it isn't, the clubs money will still be used to pay interest and capital no matter whose name it is borrowed against.

If a family member takes out a loan for you in their name and you pay the monthly repayments it is still your debt and it is still your money paying it back.

The mental gynmastics some of you are doing to convince yourselves that Radcliffe debt is better than Glazer debt is mindboggling.
Click to expand...
That’s totally categorically incorrect. If a family member takes a loan in their name THEY are legally responsible for it whether you pay or not.
Why would a multi billion pound enterprise take money out of a few hundred million enterprise? It makes no sense. Also INEOS has already pledged no fresh debt.
 
NWRed said:
No it isn't, the clubs money will still be used to pay interest and capital no matter whose name it is borrowed against.

If a family member takes out a loan for you in their name and you pay the monthly repayments it is still your debt and it is still your money paying it back.

The mental gynmastics some of you are doing to convince yourselves that Radcliffe debt is better than Glazer debt is mindboggling.
Click to expand...
This is the bit I can't get my head around. The argument that the existing debt being transferred onto on the books of Ineos is somehow removing any likelihood that Ineos would want some form of servicing from United of that debt. It's even more likely they would want servicing from the club in a less than 100% ownership situation. If Ineos own say 60%, but have transferred all the debt to themselves, then they are paying 100% of the repayments for only 60% benefit. Better they leave the debt on United, because at least then the 40% minority ownership is still picking up their share of the repayments.

We simply don't know what the debt structure will be, so assuming it's 100% happy days under Ineos is optimistic to say the least. It might be great, but logically it would not be much better than now - they only benefit coming in a debt restructure at more favourable rates.
 
Plant0x84 said:
That’s totally categorically incorrect. If a family member takes a loan in their name THEY are legally responsible for it whether you pay or not.
Why would a multi billion pound enterprise take money out of a few hundred million enterprise? It makes no sense. Also INEOS has already pledged no fresh debt.
Click to expand...

In this situation, the family member has complete and total control of your actions, i.e. you and they are one and the same.

INEOS haven't pledged no fresh debt, they've said they won't load debt onto the club, that's very different to saying club revenues won't be used to service new debt.
 
House Mkhitaryan said:
Are you including unreported, under-the-table payments?
Click to expand...
Even if we go with the under table payments, let’s bring in Liverpool and Chelsea. We’ve spent ridiculously more than them too in Glazers reign. They’ve been miles ahead of us during that time.
 
Rado_N said:
Yea that’s all fair, which makes it even more concerning that they can’t even spin the suggestion that they’ll get rid of the debt. Their PR made it blindingly obvious there was something to be worried about.
Click to expand...

He's been very careless. And ever since news broke of the Glazers staying on in some capacity...he's lost even more good will(fans who were favouring Jim) It's such an emotive subject for the fans and he ought to know how supporters feel about the family...whether folk are being irrational or not.
 
Rado_N said:
Yea feck that kind of “source”.

INEOS own PR (such as it is) made specific mention of there being no “fresh” debt, that screams doing nothing about the existing situation.
Click to expand...
The Twitter thread was by a poster here - who is a specialist in corporate M&A and he posted images of the finance documents in question. It’s legit. There is a CoC clause that means the debt becomes immediately payable - so worst case scenario is it get refinanced on INEOS books which is what has been reported all along.
 
Spoony said:
He's been very careless. And ever since news broke of the Glazers staying on in some capacity...he's lost even more good will(fans who were favouring Jim) It's such an emotive subject for the fans and he ought to know how supporters feel about the family...whether folk are being irrational or not.
Click to expand...

People are just guessing at shit though, no one knows what is going on this thread must go around the same circles nearly hourly
 
Chief123 said:
Even if we go with the under table payments, let’s bring in Liverpool and Chelsea. We’ve spent ridiculously more than them too in Glazers reign. They’ve been miles ahead of us during that time.
Click to expand...
You might want to check what we’ve won under Glazers it’s this post
 
Gavinb33 said:
People are just guessing at shit though, no one knows what is going on this thread must go around the same circles nearly hourly
Click to expand...

Would you say the Ratcliffe giving the two Glazers a minority stake is media speculation? I think it's caused alarm amongst the fans. The optics don't look good.
 
Spoony said:
He's been very careless. And ever since news broke of the Glazers staying on in some capacity...he's lost even more good will(fans who were favouring Jim) It's such an emotive subject for the fans and he ought to know how supporters feel about the family...whether folk are being irrational or not.
Click to expand...
I don’t have the impression from his public appearances that he is the sort of person that is particularly interested in popular sentiments. Won’t go down well with fans who want to have more of a say in how club is run but the sort of man who made his fortune in chems and supported Brexit while moving residence offshore to avoid taxes probably doesn’t give a fig about the common plebs.

Which, to be fair, doesn’t exclude the possibility of him being a competent owner for a football club, just not the sort fans dream about.
 
Gavinb33 said:
People are just guessing at shit though, no one knows what is going on this thread must go around the same circles nearly hourly
Click to expand...

Hilarious that most of them are also blatantly pushing a narrative and making up fan fiction to support it, really weird the way people do that for Billionaires they have never met, like the Elon Musk fanboys. I do of course not include @Plant0x84 in that as he is quite clearly being paid by Ineos.
 
Chief123 said:
Even if we go with the under table payments, let’s bring in Liverpool and Chelsea. We’ve spent ridiculously more than them too in Glazers reign. They’ve been miles ahead of us during that time.
Click to expand...

no we haven't, we've spent more than Liverpool but Chelsea have spent about £700m more than us since the Glazers took over.
 
Gandalf said:
Hilarious that most of them are also blatantly pushing a narrative and making up fan fiction to support it, really weird the way people do that for Billionaires they have never met, like the Elon Musk fanboys. I do of course not include @Plant0x84 in that as he is quite clearly being paid by Ineos.
Click to expand...
Sadly not, they need all there money for the bid because they can’t afford to buy the club apparently :rolleyes:
 
Plant0x84 said:
Hardly a surprise when their previous owner gave them a billion interest free whilst our owners have take over a billion out in the last 17yrs
Click to expand...

something you seem keen on repeating on a larger scale with Radcliffe.
 
I really do think the end game of an SJR ownership leaves the Clclub debt free and the Glazers gone. He is my preferred bidder as I just can't get myself to accept de facto State Ownership.

Maybe that makes me an idiot or naive but if I am wrong then I will stand on it and own it.

Maybe state ownership is what is best for the club in order for it to compete for trophies, even if it isn't something I am comfortable with, maybe that realisation should lead me somewhere else entirely. I fecking hate the Glazers for even making me ha e to question my long term relationship with this club in such a way. I hate all of this and want it to be over.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.