Who’s both after profit?
Club Sale | It’s done!
- Thread starter JB08
- Start date
- Status
The paragraph on Sheikh Jassim and Qatar in general makes no sense at all and reeks of ignorance.
I can definitely see the Glazers opting to lose majority control while leaving a huge amount of capital in a club at the mercy of someone else - someone who is promising to run it not as a business but “for the fans”.
They’re definitely going to do this without any promise of dividends and without any promise of ROI.
They’re just going to stay on board out of love for the club. It’s definitely a positive sign that these leeches want to put their trust in Jim to look after their capital in a way that benefits them.
They’re definitely going to do this without any promise of dividends and without any promise of ROI.
They’re just going to stay on board out of love for the club. It’s definitely a positive sign that these leeches want to put their trust in Jim to look after their capital in a way that benefits them.
They've offered to do so. An offer for all 6 Glazers shares is on the table.
They've also offered an alternative option. Given this offer came at the final stage, it's likely they sensed hesitation from 2 of the 6 and acted swiftly.
Nobody is peddling anything either. Some fans are being more flexible and open-minded over ridding the club of the Glazers control and influence. 2 Glazers with no input, which is what they would have, even if they kept the B status of their shares, Ratcliffes majority would be so significant that they wouldn't be able to influence anything, is better than 6 Glazers with 100% control.
How people don't get this genuinely blows my mind.
Four leeches out, three in.
explain to us how it makes no sense
I'm not really buying this Nine Two Foundation story, it's state money which I doubt will need to paid back, that's just my take on it though.
Some people won't mind the state money but some will, for me I'm all good with it as long as they don't go down the City route of making up sponsors or sticking Qatar Airways on our shirt for an over inflated sponsorship deal.
What capital? Their dad put in a couple of hundred million. It's all cream for them.
They get a return on their investment. They’ve been offered a premium price above the current offer (which is double the current share price) if they sell after one or two years - or the clubs share price is doing that well that they stay as a minority longer term and reap the benefit that way. If they accept the 50+1% offer then it’s a win win for them.
Qatar has gone eerie quiet..
What fecking profits?
Any profit he could make from United would literally be a drop in a huge fecking bucket for him, considering how much his company makes every single year & his net worth being more than 20 billion.
You really think Ineos would spend 5+ billion pounds on a football club that's in huge debt + needs a significant amount of investment on top of it, just so that they can take out any profit the club makes?
Ineos makes billions in profit each year. I'm sure they'll throw 5 billion pounds at United to then go on and make nothing from it.
How uninformed can you be?
Sounds like you know more than the Glazers then, who don't seem to have done too badly for themselves, and are hanging around for more.What fecking profits?
Any profit he could make from United would literally be a drop in a huge fecking bucket for him, considering how much his company makes every single year & his net worth being more than 20 billion.
You really think Ineos would spend 5+ billion pounds on a football club that's in huge debt + needs a significant amount of investment on top of it, just so that they can take out any profit the club makes?
Ineos makes billions in profit each year. I'm sure they'll throw 5 billion pounds at United to then go on and make nothing from it.
How uninformed can you be?
As has always been the case, we are all going off the information we have available. I've said many times that there's a good chance everything we know is bollocks, but given its all we have, it drives the discussion.
And yes, I do. I suspect there will be some form of minimum payment, within a set period of time to ensure they get at least the equivalent return had they sold their entire stake immediately. They'll covert to A shares but they'll agree a future price regardless of what happens to the shares value. I'm pretty sure there's a term for this but can't think off the top of my head.
Having a passive stake is perfect for them though. They get the potential benefits without the stress. Given millions of investors do exactly this I don't see it as anything out of the ordinary. And if as suggested above, they agree in advance a minimum sale price, then it makes sense from their POV.
Wilful ignorance at this point.
Seems some want to be able to pat themselves on the back and claim they drove the Glazers out of the club. They crave a symbolic moral victory and are missing the hood in pursuit of perfect.
Others are just that hell bent and hyped on state money doping that they can’t stand the thought that the club might have to work to achieve its aims and earn its victories not just buy them.
Futures, usually a type of derivative.
Because this is a message board, not The Times. If you want threads to only consist of 100% verified information, then this thread would be just a few posts long consisting of a couple of official press releases that have been made.
Yes, everyone is speculating based on reports that no one here knows to what extent they may or may not be true, much of which is PR from someone with an agenda. Does that need to be said in every post, or can we just all acknowledge that our discussions come with the qualification of "if reports are true"?
Last edited:
I thought the whole article read like a hit piece on the sale process. Just seemed to be taking the piss out of the whole thing.
They'll use debt because its a tax deductible, if Apple bought us they'd do the same even if they had cash most big companies would
A) They inherited the club from their dad. B) It's one of their major sources of income.
The Glazers are small fry compared to INEOS. As others have said, it makes no sense whatsoever for a company that size to spend billions on buying a football club (even a huge one) if they're only interested in taking out relatively measly dividends.
ETA United's average yearly profit under the Glazers has been something like 10 mill if I remember correctly (I may not be, but at any rate: it is not a lot of money, relatively speaking).
Even a state bid leaves the club in debt. They may want the club to pay them back in some way, but even if not financial debt, there is still debt. Yes, you can say that about anyone, but people shouldn't think that a state bid is just a gift with no strings attached.
@711 Are you saying you think INEOS would split the ‘profit’ with the Glazers or Joel and Avram with split the ‘profit’?
Well they bribed FIFA delegates to win the world cup bid and PSG have an overinflated Qatar Airways sponsorship, so I would expect the same.
They would be joint owners, it's not that hard to work out.
What fecking profits?
Any profit he could make from United would literally be a drop in a huge fecking bucket for him, considering how much his company makes every single year & his net worth being more than 20 billion.
You really think Ineos would spend 5+ billion pounds on a football club that's in huge debt + needs a significant amount of investment on top of it, just so that they can take out any profit the club makes?
Ineos makes billions in profit each year. I'm sure they'll throw 5 billion pounds at United to then go on and make nothing from it.
How uninformed can you be?
To give some idea of the scale we are dealing with, in 2019, Ineos paid £1.2billion in dividends.
Imagine Ratcliffe then taking what, £50million out of United
Thank you
I can’t believe how many times I’ve read on this forum that Jim can’t afford to buy United.
This is clearly wrong.
If Jim buys United on his own, we immediately jump from 12th to 3rd in the table of owner’s wealth* behind only City and Newcastle. With Ineos as owners, we may even be second (although that does require a leap of faith on the actual wealth of City’s owners).
Either way we will have even more financial muscle than we do today, only limited by FFP.
* source Sports Illustrated Jan 8, 2023 Premier League Rich List: All 20 Clubs Ranked By Combined Net Worth Of Owners.
This is clearly wrong.
If Jim buys United on his own, we immediately jump from 12th to 3rd in the table of owner’s wealth* behind only City and Newcastle. With Ineos as owners, we may even be second (although that does require a leap of faith on the actual wealth of City’s owners).
Either way we will have even more financial muscle than we do today, only limited by FFP.
* source Sports Illustrated Jan 8, 2023 Premier League Rich List: All 20 Clubs Ranked By Combined Net Worth Of Owners.
Tell us how so? It's roundly agreed that nobody knows much about Jassim, or the intricacies of his bid and wealth - unless there's something you know that most don't?
People seem to have taken the Liew article a bit personally. Is he saying anything that a lot of people in here haven't already? People are upset that Ratcliffe has blindsided fans by immediately jumping into bed with the Glazers, people also upset about potentially becoming an instrument of sports washing for an autocratic regime. We know little to nothing about Jassim who might be our new owner. The Glazers might be staying on after all. The whole thing is a bit farcical and is worth poking a bit of fun at.
Haha.
I'm not questioning whether the Glazers would be staying for long-term profits, that's exactly their plan if they go down the Ineos route.
However, saying that Ratcliffe would make a 5 billion investment for a football club that's made around 20 million pounds a year on average between 2010-2019 (pointless to include COVID years) is just something you put zero thought into.
There are dozens of investments Ineos could make that would realistically make good money for them. Buying the most expensive football club in the world for profits is a high-risk, low reward move.
What if he's doing for legacy purposes?
But you’re posting your example as if it’s out of the ordinary when it’s literally the situation pre takeover as we stand.
As an example, rich people with stocks and shares take out loans against those stocks and shares as a way to not pay any tax at all. If a lot of the Glazers wealth are tied to their shareholding then 100 percent it’s stupid to put that at risk and cede control for an extra 100m in two years time.
Who says we won’t do a Chelsea?
Even though looks like INEOS are offering Glazers chance to stay I think it’s unlikely to happen. Possibly it’s just calling their bluff or at worst they’ll get a slightly bigger premium by staying for 1-2 years and just stagger the takeover.
If they do stay they’ll lose all their perks, have no control and will essentially be entrusting hundreds of millions to someone who will run the club completely differently to how they have and would do.
Even if they keep their voting rights it’s going to take a long time for their shares to be worth what they are getting offered now which is essentially a massively inflated fee. They might need another takeover for their minority shares to exceed the current offer they have.
If they do stay they’ll lose all their perks, have no control and will essentially be entrusting hundreds of millions to someone who will run the club completely differently to how they have and would do.
Even if they keep their voting rights it’s going to take a long time for their shares to be worth what they are getting offered now which is essentially a massively inflated fee. They might need another takeover for their minority shares to exceed the current offer they have.
I asked in good faith because your wording wasn’t clear, you could have answered the question straight and not been a sarcastic cock. Nevermind.
No they wouldn’t be joint owners. Far from it. There is 31% shareholding by private investors. If INEOS takes 51% that leaves 18% for the two Glazers who want it. Hardly joint.
Secondly Sir Jim is on video stating he wouldnt buy Chelsea to make money. Profit wasn’t his motivation then, so what makes United different?!
So when you said, quote 'What fecking profits,' with added imbecile smiley, you had forgotten about 'long-term profits? Fair enough.
Admittedly we don't know his intentions, but money is literally the least likely option by far.
Legacy purposes would mean he's definitely going all in, so that would be a great outcome.
If they want to make serious long-term profits, that would take at least a decade to achieve and would be hopeless without getting United back to the footballing elite on top of major infrastructural investments, so you're still gravely mistaken.
Joint doesn't mean equal. All the shareholders would be joint owners. You can substitute another term if you wish, but owners of the same company they would still be.
Our very own, Jack Walker.
What does a "joint owner" matter if they have no say in running the company? They would be nothing but shareholders.
It's weird how oil money has corrupted people's ambitions in football.
It's only a couple of years ago the green and gold movement was at its peak and United fans were begging Jim Ratcliffe to save us.
Now the same people think he's the devil because he doesn't come from a country that wants to throw billions at us to hide their own terrible human rights record all so we can be just like City.
Sir Jim is by far the best outcome we could wish for, he is nothing like the Glazers has more money than they could ever dream off actually does support the club and wantss this to be his legacy.
But hey let's ignore that and bring in a complete puppet no one knows anything about including his own representatives who doesn't have anywhere near the money to buy us and is just a figurehead for a state that will use us to try and hide their own misdeeds.
It's only a couple of years ago the green and gold movement was at its peak and United fans were begging Jim Ratcliffe to save us.
Now the same people think he's the devil because he doesn't come from a country that wants to throw billions at us to hide their own terrible human rights record all so we can be just like City.
Sir Jim is by far the best outcome we could wish for, he is nothing like the Glazers has more money than they could ever dream off actually does support the club and wantss this to be his legacy.
But hey let's ignore that and bring in a complete puppet no one knows anything about including his own representatives who doesn't have anywhere near the money to buy us and is just a figurehead for a state that will use us to try and hide their own misdeeds.
- Status