What this thread has taught me is, that apparently all Middle Eastern people are human rights abusing scum and Jim is apparently not human, but an actual Rat.
Club Sale | It’s done!
- Thread starter JB08
- Start date
- Status
Currently they affect me by paying themselves massive dividends from the earnings of my favourite football club.
As minority shareholders they won’t control dividend policy any more and will only gain if the valuation of the club increases which means that the club has become more successful.
Any investor selling an underperforming asset will retain a minority share so they can benefit from upside if and when it’s properly managed. Expecting otherwise is unrealistic and pointless.
Are you Banksy?
The overwhelming majority of Middle Eastern people are lovely, same as anywhere else in the world. A lot of their monarchies/dictators aren't very nice though. Sadly, it's the dictators that want the football clubs.
Last edited by a moderator:
Man the preferred bidder better be chosen this week. This shit needs to get moving to keep our momentum into the summer and next season
7/10 days for feedback on bids , not a quick process
At this stage I don’t even think the Glazers know what they want. Full sale or minority investment.
What if the Glazers had no intention to sell, was just a ploy so they can say well we tried but they are surprised bids are so high so they keep pushing for more?
The Glazers brothers staying on makes zero sense. Putting the value of their shares into the hands of a third party is surely too big of a risk?
No disrespect to Sir Jim, but his ownership of Nice has been far from successful. Would you fully trust him to massively increase Manchester United’s value over the next few years? I know what my answer would be.
The only reason they would stay on is if they are 100% certain a super league is imminent. There was so much fan and media backlash last time and nothing would change with a future announcement. So what’s changed?
No disrespect to Sir Jim, but his ownership of Nice has been far from successful. Would you fully trust him to massively increase Manchester United’s value over the next few years? I know what my answer would be.
The only reason they would stay on is if they are 100% certain a super league is imminent. There was so much fan and media backlash last time and nothing would change with a future announcement. So what’s changed?
Last edited:
This is my take too.
I just don’t see Joel and Avram leaving their shares on the table and letting their siblings exit with a bumper payoff that is only offered because Joel and Avram agree to the deal.
Joel and Avram are going to want to be less exposed and that means selling their shares and persuading the siblings to leave some of their shares on the table.
Sounds messy and complicated.
A full sale is still the likeliest outcome IMO, they’re just waiting to see if Qatar increase their offer a little.
It's not much risk at all, depending on the terms. For example one report over the weekend suggested they would have an option to sell their shares at a premium to the current price after 1 and 2 years.
It also depends on what they are actually projecting for the club. If they want to stay on it's because they see the value of the club increasing, but that could be for reasons external to the ownership as much as anything. For example if the structure of top level European football were to change in a way that increases the club's value, or if new revenue streams (like the speculation around VR, for example) impact the game generally.
If I'm wrong I'd like to open a pub and call it 'The Rat And Leeches'. Big sign over the bar, 'No Ayrabs'.
I could tell Gary Neville, he's a good lad, he might just do it. Possibly without the sign though.
Exactly mate. Nobody would have expected a season like this from Chelsea. The new owner could come in, sack ETH , put in a new CEO that makes Woodward look competent and have us finishing mid table. A couple of years of that and the wheels could really fall off.
It’s all hypothetical and extremely unlikely but I’d be damned if I’d gamble my fortune on it.
Given their ownership of the club you'd assume they're purely rational but we don't really know. They might be sentimental enough to want to stay part of the club their dad owned.
The Glazers sentimental?
They'd sell their Dad's ashes and their kids if the price was right
They're scum and I wish their graddad had been born without a penis
I'm sure ineos record in football management will fill them with the required confidence
Their continued ownership hasn't made sense so it could just be a case of confused idiots hanging on to the only good thing in their lives. In as much as United as grown for them, it was under valued and its commercial appeal under-exploited, a gap smartly spotted by their father, they aren't going to see similar levels of growth again under their ownership - a fact you can see in our falling sponsorships.
If I am advising any of the siblings I'd be telling them to squeeze as much money as possible but make sure you sell at the end of the day. Get the money and run to invest in a more lucrative industry/projects that won't have a thousand people denigrating you every other week.
No but I’ve met him and went to school with his cousin.
I'd say the dream would be Man United and INEOS become one entity.
We wouldn't have to think about FFP because the football club and the petrochemicals business is one thing.
The feck does that knobhead have to do with anything?
Literally, we have a player not behaving professionally being sanctioned for it and you're crying about Qatar's ownership of PSG, as if what they've done is unheard of or wrong.
Yet, I'm sure you were on the front lines pushing to throw Ronaldo out because he disrespected the club.
Basically, what I'm saying is you're applying double standards and pushing your agenda with dumb examples.
If you think the whole thing wasn't at least partially politically motivated I think you need to take your blinkers off pal.
Literally, we have a player not behaving professionally being sanctioned for it and you're crying about Qatar's ownership of PSG, as if what they've done is unheard of or wrong.
Yet, I'm sure you were on the front lines pushing to throw Ronaldo out because he disrespected the club.
Basically, what I'm saying is you're applying double standards and pushing your agenda with dumb examples.
Also, there's no need to be a wanker. This thread is so toxic whenever anyone criticises their preferred owner. It's pathetic.
Please give us the inside line because clearly you know so much.
Or is that you're just running with something based on no actual information whatsoever (in this particular case)?
I want more competitive tension between the bidders in this pantomime
At the moment, the story we're told is that Ineos have bid more and that the Qataris are happy with their shitter offer
It needs the Qataris to start offering backhanders or something, or at least claim that INEOS are lying and it's their offer which is higher in fact
At the moment, the story we're told is that Ineos have bid more and that the Qataris are happy with their shitter offer
It needs the Qataris to start offering backhanders or something, or at least claim that INEOS are lying and it's their offer which is higher in fact
Extracting oil out of the ground is the least polluting part of the whole oil to chemicals conversion process.
My posts are a reflection of your posts. So if they seem childish and hostile to you then maybe it was you who started it in the first place. Go back and look at the tone of your posts before calling out others.
Deffo. It's a controversial and contentious issue, and a number of people are demonstrating they don't have the emotional maturity to discuss it like a normal person.
Are you Daniel Plainview?
If they were 100% sure of that I don't think they would've announced that the club is for sale in the first place.
Yet you are willing to trust someone who may not even exist and if he does exist does not have anywhere near the money to buy us so is obviously a puppet for someone else?
Malcolm Glazer sued his sisters for his parents money when his mother died. Don't make the mistake of treating this family like human beings
I wouldn’t trust anyone under this scenario. I’d be taking the money and running.
As far as I am aware SJ hasn’t offered the rats a way to stay as shareholders, so what’s your point?
The two aren't mutually exclusive: Let's say Jassim is a figurehead and the de facto owner is the state (this is what most people think, for very good reasons). Of course it's possible that the former really is a United fan, and that he'd be thrilled to be involved in such a thing on a personal level. That wouldn't change anything in terms of why he'd be a highly problematic "owner", now would it?
ETA Two points can be added:
1) It seems borderline impossible that a "rogue" entity (either Jassim himself, or Jassim backed by his dad or a consortium of some kind) would be allowed to upstage the Emir, who by all accounts was personally involved in the PSG takeover.
2) If Jassim really is an independent operator with no meaningful (in this context) ties to the state, it becomes a huge problem in itself that we know next to nothing about him. If it's the state, we at least know that they won't run into any purely financial problems down the road.
Last edited:
What are the odds then? Who's favourite? The bookies are always right, so....
Don't be daft. They've done the right thing regardless of your opinion on the state as owners.
Not to be defending the Glazers here but considering the timelines involved it makes enormous sense that they would have been focusing on the NFL Draft for that time. It's much more time sensitive than the process at Man Utd where they control the issue.
- Status