Club Sale | It’s done!

Status
Not open for further replies.
Fts 74 said:
Why are you classed a "top red" because you don't want Qatar?Its one of the most infuriating sayings used on the caf.

I don't want us to be classed as a sportswashing project and if in 2/3 years we're as dominant as City(don't forget the huge elephant in the room 100+ charges)are right now, the narrative around us would be completely different it would probably be discussed in parliament how unfair it is.
Maybe as an older fan I see it a bit different we earn more than enough money to compete the problem has been we've wasted it for years.

Get competent owners in and we'll be fine this we need Qatar money to compete with cheats is ridiculous there is absolutely no guarantee that Qatar would be any good(same with Ineos granted)

Suppose that makes me a top red ah well.
Click to expand...

They’re giving us a promise of investment the rest will be our own money unless they want to do something crazy like buy Haaland for £300m. But who can really see that happening.

I don’t know what there would be to worry about. We get a nice new stadium and no debt.

The opposite as far as I’ve read is not offering that at all.
 
Rightnr said:
You see what these cnuts have caused over the past 15 years, so for me anyone who keeps them at the club can feck off as well.

That is without considering any of the other disadvantages that come with Jimmy Brexit.
Click to expand...
If the Glazers aren’t willing to part with 100% of their shares, INEOS with an operating majority is still significantly better for us than what we have now.
Qatar could be good, but we’d be another sportswashing project with similar question marks over our success as City have right now.
 
Dec9003 said:
If the Glazers aren’t willing to part with 100% of their shares, INEOS with an operating majority is still significantly better for us than what we have now.
Qatar could be good, but we’d be another sportswashing project with similar question marks over our success as City have right now.
Click to expand...

A nice, fair, reasonable post. Good to see.
 
red thru&thru said:
Correct me if I'm wrong, based on loose figures:

SJR is offering 3bn for around 51% of the Glazers B shares, valuing the club around 6bn. Sheikh Jassim is offering around 5.5bn for 100% of the club.

That Correct?
Click to expand...

I think so. But I feel a lot of news says the Qatar bid is lower. And yeah, if you take SJR's offer times 2 you get around 6bn. But Jassims offer for about 5,5bn is for both the higher valued B shares but also the lower valued A shares. So I don't know, maybe they are valued the same? Or was Jassims bid just for the Glazers shares even though it´s for 100% of the club? My god this is confusing.
 
Nou_Camp99 said:
What Liverpool did was nothing short of miraculous tbh but look at them now too. That heavy metal football can't be kept up. Those seasons took their toll on them where as City barely break a sweat each week as they just keep the ball instead.

Defeatist or a realist? We are a million miles away right now.
Click to expand...

No, that kind of football could have been kept up if klopp was given the same resources a Qatar owned United would have. Or even a Jim owned, debt free United.
 
RedDevilRoshi said:
“undecided on various contenders”

There’s only been two main contenders from the beginning - Jassim & Ratcliffe. Not sure who these other “various contenders” are?

Becoming more & more of a laughing stock each day.
Click to expand...
There's been a few sounds the last 48 hours that suggest they are keen to remind people of the idea they could opt for investment rather than selling a controlling stake in the club.

I stress 'keen to remind people' because I don't think there is any serious likelihood they won't sell but it benefits them to pretend otherwise.
 
Fts 74 said:
Why are you classed a "top red" because you don't want Qatar?Its one of the most infuriating sayings used on the caf.

I don't want us to be classed as a sportswashing project and if in 2/3 years we're as dominant as City(don't forget the huge elephant in the room 100+ charges)are right now, the narrative around us would be completely different it would probably be discussed in parliament how unfair it is.
Maybe as an older fan I see it a bit different we earn more than enough money to compete the problem has been we've wasted it for years.

Get competent owners in and we'll be fine this we need Qatar money to compete with cheats is ridiculous there is absolutely no guarantee that Qatar would be any good(same with Ineos granted)

Suppose that makes me a top red ah well.
Click to expand...

The problem is that most people opposed to Qatar seem to think that they'll sportswash and turn us into another City when the situations are completely different. For starters, we don't need the fake sponsorships that City use, and new FFP rules mean we couldn't go on a huge spending spree even if that's what the owners wished. What they will do is wipe all the fecking debt, redevelop OT and the training grounds that have needed investment for fecking years, and get rid of the Glazers. I don't think any of us hoping Qatar wins the bid are wishing for some FM style buying binge like Chelsea did. It's more about permanently purging the toxicity from previous owners and allowing the club to operate as it should without parasites at the top.

By all accounts Ratcliffe has done a dodgy job with Nice, he's trying to buy the club via financing, he's open to keeping the Glazers on with merely purchasing 50% and the promise of an exit in later years, and hasn't shown any sort of initiative that he'll invest in the club (not just transfers) in the same way Qatar will.
 
Mainoldo said:
They’re giving us a promise of investment the rest will be our own money unless they want to do something crazy like buy Haaland for £300m. But who can really see that happening.

I don’t know what there would be to worry about. We get a nice new stadium and no debt.

The opposite as far as I’ve read is not offering that at all.
Click to expand...
I'm not worried about it, if Qatar win I'll just have to accept it I'm not going to stop supporting Utd after 40+ years that would be impossible for me to do that.

I'm pretty sure Ratcliffe/Ineos are fully aware of what needs to be done and what it entails money wise just because he isn't shouting from the rooftops about what he's going to do doesn't mean he won't, we all know Ineos are a huge company with plenty of money or access to it so I'm not concerned at all that he won't invest he's a smart business man he's come into this with his eyes wide open, it's the people who are totally against him and in the Qatar or irrelevance camp are the ones who shouldn't be worried.
 
Valencia Shin Crosses said:
The problem is that most people opposed to Qatar seem to think that they'll sportswash and turn us into another City when the situations are completely different. For starters, we don't need the fake sponsorships that City use, and new FFP rules mean we couldn't go on a huge spending spree even if that's what the owners wished. What they will do is wipe all the fecking debt, redevelop OT and the training grounds that have needed investment for fecking years, and get rid of the Glazers. I don't think any of us hoping Qatar wins the bid are wishing for some FM style buying binge like Chelsea did. It's more about permanently purging the toxicity from previous owners and allowing the club to operate as it should without parasites at the top.

By all accounts Ratcliffe has done a dodgy job with Nice, he's trying to buy the club via financing, he's open to keeping the Glazers on with merely purchasing 50% and the promise of an exit in later years, and hasn't shown any sort of initiative that he'll invest in the club (not just transfers) in the same way Qatar will.
Click to expand...
That's fair given what we've heard so far, I just think Utd are a completely different animal to Nice and I'm sure he knows fine well that the scrutiny of owning Utd means he won't get away with it.
 
jm99 said:
No, that kind of football could have been kept up if klopp was given the same resources a Qatar owned United would have. Or even a Jim owned, debt free United.
Click to expand...

Liverpool fans will never accept Qatar, Saudi or any other type of oil money. Their club means more to them than you think. A lot more.

If that's the only way you can compete now consistently then the sport is finished anyway. It's beyond farcical at this point.
 
Fts 74 said:
I'm not worried about it, if Qatar win I'll just have to accept it I'm not going to stop supporting Utd after 40+ years that would be impossible for me to do that.

I'm pretty sure Ratcliffe/Ineos are fully aware of what needs to be done and what it entails money wise just because he isn't shouting from the rooftops about what he's going to do doesn't mean he won't, we all know Ineos are a huge company with plenty of money or access to it so I'm not concerned at all that he won't invest he's a smart business man he's come into this with his eyes wide open, it's the people who are totally against him and in the Qatar or irrelevance camp are the ones who shouldn't be worried.
Click to expand...

Yeah that’s true.. but take a loan against Qatar against smart business from Ineos, just plays abit different knowing that the back end will be most costly the Ineos way. You understand what I mean? Roman is a good example. Chelsea have had to pay nothing back for his investment. They still owed him money but if he never sold he would have probably never asked for it back.
 
dacore said:
I think so. But I feel a lot of news says the Qatar bid is lower. And yeah, if you take SJR's offer times 2 you get around 6bn. But Jassims offer for about 5,5bn is for both the higher valued B shares but also the lower valued A shares. So I don't know, maybe they are valued the same? Or was Jassims bid just for the Glazers shares even though it´s for 100% of the club? My god this is confusing.
Click to expand...

Jassim's bid is for only 69% of the B shares. That's all they can bid for at this point.
 
Nou_Camp99 said:
Liverpool fans will never accept Qatar, Saudi or any other type of oil money. Their club means more to them than you think. A lot more.

If that's the only way you can compete now consistently then the sport is finished anyway. It's beyond farcical at this point.
Click to expand...

You're arguing against a point I didn't make there. I said that kind of football could have been sustained with adequate resources, Liverpool aren't us and won't have the commercial appeal regardless of ownership, but it doesn't mean that city can't be caught.
 
When you factor in that inflation is generally between 5-10% each year and SJR is offering to buy out the Glazers fully in 2-3 years then JSheikh Jassim's offer is actually pretty much the same if not slightly better than SJR.

The total package is also better from a business perspective, clearing the debt etc.

I personally think Jassim is in the lead, I'm very sure that the Glazers will factor inflation and not just look at the cash value.

The only small consideration is the fact that the stock price could rise if the team is successful, but under SJR I don't think we'll see any sort of quick turn around, what happened at Nice hasn't been a big turn around or there's not been any great deal of improvement.
 
Apparently Everton are gonna be sold to an American investment fund pretty soon. Keegan broke the news. My question is how the hell does Everton get sold quicker then United where its taken us half a season just to get here?
 
George The Best said:
Why do they need to value 100% of the club? There are 2 sets of shares, A & B. The A shares are worth considerably less. The Glazer’s can only sell their B shares, the A shares are not up for sale at this time. Why would anyone need to put a value on the A shares at this stage? Glazer’s only want the best price for their shares, The remaining 31% A shares are irrelevant to them.
Click to expand...
No one is bidding £4.8-5 billion just to get 69% voting B shares, they will get a premium on these shares because only the Glazer B shares need to be purchased to take control of the club however because the club is listed on NYSE all bids were asked by Raine group to be for 100% value with the assumption that a bidding party only had to buy controlling shares. SJ wants to delist the club and make it private which is why you hear 100%, the club listed value or market cap is currently about $3bn which means even though Glazers have B voting shares and control the club they are worth 69% of that value, however both bidders have given the glazers a huge increase on their share value to try and buy a controlling stake so the bids are for full value. if the Glazers agreed to SJR £5bn valuation of the club, they would sell their shares 69% to the value of £3.45 billion, SJR would now own all 69% of the B shares and he would have no commitment to buy the remaining 31% or pay the debt as he is not looking to delist the club.

SJ would have to offer the same or similar share price to the remaining 31% to take the club off the NYSE and pay off the debt as this would be required before removing the company from the NYSE. It’s a common misconception that the Glazers want £6bn for themselves that’s not the case
 
Mainoldo said:
Yeah that’s true.. but take a loan against Qatar against smart business from Ineos, just plays abit different knowing that the back end will be most costly the Ineos way. You understand what I mean? Roman is a good example. Chelsea have had to pay nothing back for his investment. They still owed him money but if he never sold he would have probably never asked for it back.
Click to expand...
Yes I see your point

I just want it over with now, the Glazers have took the piss for years it's like one final push to keep their name in the headlines for as long as possible before they fcuk off into obscurity .
 
jm99 said:
You're arguing against a point I didn't make there. I said that kind of football could have been sustained with adequate resources, Liverpool aren't us and won't have the commercial appeal regardless of ownership, but it doesn't mean that city can't be caught.
Click to expand...

Catching City wouldn't be just winning one title. That can happen as Leicester did and as Liverpool have done once. You have to do it consistently and knock them off their perch. Personally I don't see that happening until Pep walks away or if the PL go really hard on them which seems unlikely.
 
VWW said:
Apparently Everton are gonna be sold to an American investment fund pretty soon. Keegan broke the news. My question is how the hell does Everton get sold quicker then United where its taken us half a season just to get here?
Click to expand...
They were already at the checkout counter.
 
Valencia Shin Crosses said:
The problem is that most people opposed to Qatar seem to think that they'll sportswash and turn us into another City when the situations are completely different. For starters, we don't need the fake sponsorships that City use, and new FFP rules mean we couldn't go on a huge spending spree even if that's what the owners wished. What they will do is wipe all the fecking debt, redevelop OT and the training grounds that have needed investment for fecking years, and get rid of the Glazers. I don't think any of us hoping Qatar wins the bid are wishing for some FM style buying binge like Chelsea did. It's more about permanently purging the toxicity from previous owners and allowing the club to operate as it should without parasites at the top.

By all accounts Ratcliffe has done a dodgy job with Nice, he's trying to buy the club via financing, he's open to keeping the Glazers on with merely purchasing 50% and the promise of an exit in later years, and hasn't shown any sort of initiative that he'll invest in the club (not just transfers) in the same way Qatar will.
Click to expand...

The issue is that (regarding the bold) we have been given absolutely zero reason to think that we won't also see investment in the infrastructure of the club under INEOS. In fact the idea that the stadium issue will inevitably be fixed under new owners has been treated as fact in pretty much all reports since this saga began.

And while I can understand people having qualms about debt, the reality is that one of the biggest debt deals in football history was taken out by none other than City Football Group to fund investment. The fact that even they have the need/desire to take out $650m loans should highlight the function debt holds for even extremely rich companies. Unless debt management has practical impact, it isn't a practical issue from a football POV.

Ditto the Glazers remaining. Unless them holding shares has an actual impact on how the club is run, it's practically irrelevant. It just amounts to fans throwing their toys of the pram because people they don't like will benefit financially from the club in a few years' time, as opposed to someone handing them more money now to leave immediately.

How competently INEOS have or haven't run Nice is relevant though, so misgivings on that front I can understand. But even then it's not being compared to any evidence of competence from Qatar, just a lack of information.
 
VWW said:
Apparently Everton are gonna be sold to an American investment fund pretty soon. Keegan broke the news. My question is how the hell does Everton get sold quicker then United where its taken us half a season just to get here?
Click to expand...

Maybe because they aren't valued at 5.5bn to 6bn quid by a couple of American bandits.
 
Nou_Camp99 said:
Liverpool fans will never accept Qatar, Saudi or any other type of oil money. Their club means more to them than you think. A lot more.

If that's the only way you can compete now consistently then the sport is finished anyway. It's beyond farcical at this point.
Click to expand...
Unfortunately that's the trend.

Newcastle's rise with Saudi money will mirror that of City's, but with a much bigger and better fanbase.

If the Qataris do not buy United, they'll buy another club, the rumour being Spurs.

The clubs that welcome investment from the Middle East are much more likely to be successful over the next 20 to 30 years than those unwilling to embrace such investment.

United and Liverpool either need to embrace such investments or face being left behind as the competition is only going to get more fierce.
 
Nou_Camp99 said:
Catching City wouldn't be just winning one title. That can happen as Leicester did and as Liverpool have done once. You have to do it consistently and knock them off their perch. Personally I don't see that happening until Pep walks away or if the PL go really hard on them which seems unlikely.
Click to expand...

But over the course of three separate seasons, within 4 years, Liverpool finished 2nd by a point and 1st by 19 points. With far less resources than city. If we had the kind of resources Qatar would offer, there's no good reason we couldn't do as well as Liverpool or better.

I get that you're agaisnt the Qatar bid, and that's fine if there's a moral issue for you, but it's kind of weird to keep pretending that even with Qatar level resources we'd be at best a runner up to a city in the league and presumably nowhere near a champions league title. You do realise that admitting that sporting wise Qatar would be great for us is a separate issue from your morals, one doesn't have to correlate with the other, you can think we'd win every title and champions league and still not want Qatar
 
Valencia Shin Crosses said:
The problem is that most people opposed to Qatar seem to think that they'll sportswash and turn us into another City when the situations are completely different. For starters, we don't need the fake sponsorships that City use, and new FFP rules mean we couldn't go on a huge spending spree even if that's what the owners wished. What they will do is wipe all the fecking debt, redevelop OT and the training grounds that have needed investment for fecking years, and get rid of the Glazers. I don't think any of us hoping Qatar wins the bid are wishing for some FM style buying binge like Chelsea did. It's more about permanently purging the toxicity from previous owners and allowing the club to operate as it should without parasites at the top.

By all accounts Ratcliffe has done a dodgy job with Nice, he's trying to buy the club via financing, he's open to keeping the Glazers on with merely purchasing 50% and the promise of an exit in later years, and hasn't shown any sort of initiative that he'll invest in the club (not just transfers) in the same way Qatar will.
Click to expand...

What you're describing is still sportswashing.

Sportswashing and financial doping aren't the same thing: United being owned by a member of the Qatari royal family and being intimately linked to the Qatari state means we'd be a sportswashing project for Qatar. It'd be different in nature as presumably there would be less financial doping involved than with Abu Dhabi and City, but fundamentally they're both sportswashing projects.
 
GreatDane said:
Horsehead in their bed?
Click to expand...
Not at all. He has a video, before Ratcliffe sold out to the Glazers, where he clearly states all the negatives of Qatar and state ownership.

He always said he wants megawealth and ideally from a company like Apple etc but that’s not likely.

In the early stages of the bidding he was neutral stating “ glazers out is what matters” but clearly stated the Jassim bid was better.

When Jim switched, Mark stayed true to “glazers out”
 
Infra-red said:
It means Qatar are getting desperate and making offers outside of the bidding process due to reports that the Glazers are closing in on a deal with Ineos. This is exactly what the Glazers will have been hoping for and will certainly give them something to think about (do we delay a little bit longer and see if we can draw some more money out of the Qataris), but while the Qatar bid remains per share lower than the Ineos one (as is still the case), Qatar are unlikely to become the preferred bidder.
Click to expand...

So Jassim needs to up it to £6bn pronto
 
UnitedFan93 said:
Unfortunately that's the trend.

Newcastle's rise with Saudi money will mirror that of City's, but with a much bigger and better fanbase.

If the Qataris do not buy United, they'll buy another club, the rumour being Spurs.

The clubs that welcome investment from the Middle East are much more likely to be successful over the next 20 to 30 years than those unwilling to embrace such investment.

United and Liverpool either need to embrace such investments or face being left behind as the competition is only going to get more fierce.
Click to expand...

Don't give a flying crap. We sell our soul to mask awful rights abusers we will never get it back.

It's actually quite worrying how many people are so willing to accept that just for the chance to win a few oil funded trophies.

If Qatar were a squeaky clean country they wouldn't even be interested in us. Says it all.
 
SalfordRed18 said:
So who's winning?
Click to expand...

No one, everything the journalists post is just bullshit designed to generate clicks. You have people on here standing behind the exact value of the bids that have been placed even though the numbers are coming from people with all sorts of conflicting reports. The bidders are under NDAs and aren't going to risk that by briefing journalists, we'll only know once there's confirmation, until then it's all talk
 
SalfordRed18 said:
So who's winning?
Click to expand...

If you believe the reports, Ineos are (currently) winning. Their valuation of the Glazers' shares is higher than Qatar's and they are more flexible and willing to offer the family a remaining interest. Qatar have closed much of the valuation gap with their offer yesterday, but it looks like they will lose unless they up their offer again. The question is whether we can believe the reports.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.