Club Sale | It’s done!

Status
Not open for further replies.
INEOS have never said what will happen with the existing debt. They've deliberately and repeatedly danced around this particular issue.
Yep. They only said no new debt and INEOS would take on the debt to buy United rather than leveraging more debt on United.
 
It’s becoming apparent the biggest golf emerging in the Utd fan base is not Ineos vs SJ bid but actually people who don’t mind the Glazers staying on vs a full sale.

I’m bewildered that there are fans that are happy for the Glazers to stay. Two of them were bad enough but all of them?

Im still not understanding how they benefit from this? Are they now going to be investing in the club along with SJR?

What is the benefit for them to stay? I can only think that somehow they make more money, but how?
 
For me it's Glazers out, no ifs ands or buts. I don't care if it's ineos, Qatar or the man on the moon, I'm against anyone taking over United if they are retaining the Glazers.

Glazers Out
 
It’s becoming apparent the biggest golf emerging in the Utd fan base is not Ineos vs SJ bid but actually people who don’t mind the Glazers staying on vs a full sale.

I’m bewildered that there are fans that are happy for the Glazers to stay. Two of them were bad enough but all of them?

Im still not understanding how they benefit from this? Are they now going to be investing in the club along with SJR?

What is the benefit for them to stay? I can only think that somehow they make more money, but how?

Hehe. Sure it is…

I mean, that’s how Qatari stans want the divide perceived. Much more socially acceptable way to crave a gulf state sugar daddy.
 
Like you said INEOS is already servicing £8bn debt, will they nearly double their debt and expect no component of that being serviced by United? :lol:

This bit seems to be completely lost on those who are keen on Brexit Jim. We then get the arguments that debt is ok and the Glazers aren’t really that bad of owners.
 
Is it confirmed that this would be the case then? Genuine question, I'm not clued up on it.

Almost certainly. People cite Ineos's revenues and Ratcliffe's estimated net worth and conflate them both for being the same as money they have available.

After paying to sustain itself Ineos last year made £474m. Two years ago it lost £200m. Big, impressive numbers. But they haven't got billions sat in the bank to buy a football club. Borrowing is as close to guaranteed as you can get.
 
If you're holding on to a small stake in the club because you think the value will sky rocket in the next few years - why are you selling the club at all?
 
INEOS have never said what will happen with the existing debt. They've deliberately and repeatedly danced around this particular issue.
And this, together with keeping the Glazers, is still the preferred solution for some?
 
If you're holding on to a small stake in the club because you think the value will sky rocket in the next few years - why are you selling the club at all?
The club is in a shitty situation, new money is needed and they dont have it
 
If you're holding on to a small stake in the club because you think the value will sky rocket in the next few years - why are you selling the club at all?
They think it will sky rocket due to the investment they're not willing or able to provide.
 
They think it will sky rocket due to the investment they're not willing or able to provide.

Yeah and there is no proof SJR will invest enormous money straight away. He could chill for 2-3 years, buy the Glazers out for a standard amount and then start investing. The clubs value will not sky rocket in a couple of years.
 
We've heard the "no money" claim for years and it's never been true
Of course it is. Look at our stadium, training facilities, etc. Look at our cash flow development over the past 5 years. Look at the costs of our debt or the structure of the debt.
 
Not the best scenario and personally would've preferred all 6 siblings gone.

If we assume SJR will want at least 51% that would leave the 6 around 3% each but more importantly no control of the club.
The way I am reading this Financial Times story suggests, under the current Ratcliffe structure they are now reviewing, now all 6 of them have to be willing to not fully cash out now. Personally, I think that makes this outcome less likely when all 6 of them to agree to this sell down, rather than just Joel and Avram. It seems those two might not be as keen on holding onto all of their shares, huh? Painfully obvious that was Raine blowing smoke.

"Multiple people said the process, which was first announced in November last year, has been complicated by a lack of cohesion among the six Glazer siblings."

Do we have any reason to believe this lack of cohesion will end anytime soon? I still feel that once the Qataris hit the right number for a full takeover now, this will be put to rest.

It has to be said, the longer it drags out and the more fans are led to believe the chances of "Glazers Out" are decreasing, the more of a hero Jassim will appear to be if they "swoop in" complete the full takeover. We shall see.

I've enjoyed reading your posts in this thread.
Yep. They only said no new debt and INEOS would take on the debt to buy United rather than leveraging more debt on United.

I've seen posts suggesting that the current debt has change of ownership clauses, that in the event of a sale these debts become payable immediately. Would this be factored into the purchase and then moved to Ineos effectively leaving us debt free? Or would the Glazers have to pay this out when they sell their shares?
 
People who support Ineos are supporting, at best, keeping the status quo. Keep the glazers, keep the debt, minimal investment while the long term Glazer transactions are still ongoing.

And at the very end of that road we get an owner with an ever lengthening track record of failing to improve their sports teams.
 
stw2022 said:
At the moment Ratcliffe only seems like an upgrade on the Glazers due to this utterly ridiculous fantasy that it would mean we could spend Ineos's revenues on building a new stadium and buying players.

Ineos would, in this fairytale land, put servicing their own £8bn debt burden on hold in order to free us from ours.

There's no moral equivalent between ordinary business practices or even capitalism with all its ills and state funded persecution of gay people. But Jesus Christ the reality of life under Ratcliffe is going to be a real bad awakening for some people.

Exactly this. Take a loan to buy the initial controlling stake. Take a loan to buyout glazers later on (no idea when that is). Take a loan to build new stadium/renovate Old Trafford.

Like you said INEOS is already servicing £8bn debt, will they nearly double their debt and expect no component of that being serviced by United? :lol:
INEOS have never said what will happen with the existing debt. They've deliberately and repeatedly danced around this particular issue.
This!
This!
This!

When a businessman who has a past history of broken promises and lies tap dance around the key question regarding future ownership then any financial sane person should be deeply concerned about the clubs future. It’s staggering that this question isn’t highlighted more when we’re dealing with a person without scruples.
 
Yeah and there is no proof SJR will invest enormous money straight away. He could chill for 2-3 years, buy the Glazers out for a standard amount and then start investing. The clubs value will not sky rocket in a couple of years.

Literally there’s nothing Brexit Jim has said that he will do anything besides making the club British again. He’s shown he is happy for the club that he owns to stagnate.
 
this is an extremely bad faith argument.

if you are a fan of iPhone the way you are a fan of your football club, you’re an extremely weird person. If you don’t see the difference between generic products and your football team, you’re either a liar or the dumbest person in every room you go in. I hope you’re the former, bc if you attach the same emotional investment in your football team as you do your cutlery for instance, that’s terribly sad for you.


If my morals dictated every decision i make, i would not pay unfair taxes. Sadly, i don’t want to go to jail. If my morals dictated every decision i make, i would volunteer all my time at the children’s hospital/homeless shelters/animal rescue centres. Sadly, the reality of the world we live in means i don’t have unlimited time, and have to provide for my family. I hold my own goals and pursuits as having value to me also. Life is about sacrifices and compromise. I would love if the world was fair, it is not.

Me (or anyone) having a phone is not the “own” you people make it out to be. It’s a modern convenience that means i spend more time with my family. If a phone came along that had much less questionable sourcing, I’d buy that, no problem. To compare that to allowing morals to effect the preferred owner of the football club i support, when one bidder is a state that kills gay people, jails dissenters, funds proxy wars that have killed and displaced thousands, treats women as second class citizens.. says plenty about you.

No I can't see the difference because there is no difference apart from the one you invented.

You can't pick and choose morals to live by when it suits you and dismiss them when they don't. People either live by their morals or they don't, you can't be half in and half out.

You say you would love if the world was fair but it is not. It's why people overlook what happens in Qatar, because they know the world is not fair and it's out of their control. They just want to enjoy their club. Just like they do with iphones, sportswear and everything else that's questionable. Doesn't mean they support it or that they're "The dumbest person in every room they go in" It's a very childish attitude to take.
 
Last edited:
Who cares that the 6 Glazers retain shares as long as Ratcliffe takes control (before eventually buying them out fully)?

So many of you on here are ridiculously hysterical.
As I said earlier (probably 500 pages into this thread), this is the level of gullible Ratcliff wants the fans to be.
 
Yeah but we protested when we were winning. In fact it was another 2 league title after that and another CL final

Yes we did mate.

And here we are 18 years later still protesting and the club have debt.

And still after this, some supporters are open to new owners that wont "add to the debt" and not pledge to do anything. Mind boggling.
 
Either way, they are not perfect. Any owner can make mistakes, problem we currently have is Glazers don’t give one ounce of shit about United football side. Qatar and Ineos would concentrate better on the footballing side as that protects their asset, Glazers relied on sponsorship deals that Woodie completed…

the common denominator here is Glazer control - need to get them out of the boardroom asap, Qatar and Ineos offer that and to me both are a step in right direction.
What makes you think Ratcliffe is any better? History suggests that he is no better than what Glazers are doing right now.
 
For me it's Glazers out, no ifs ands or buts. I don't care if it's ineos, Qatar or the man on the moon, I'm against anyone taking over United if they are retaining the Glazers.

Glazers Out
All you need to do is get someone to meet the asking price.
 
At least we’ve got something to look forward to over the summer as well as transfers now.

It’s pretty boring when there’s just muppeting going on for a solid two months. Now we’ll have this saga to look forward to also.
 
The elephant in the room is the lack of an answer to the question of why Ineos would significantly increase their own debt burden by borrowing money to buy an asset yet not expect the money generated by the asset to contribute towards the costs of purchasing it.
You are still thinking about this as a business venture. It’s not that simple.
 
You are still thinking about this as a business venture. It’s not that simple.


That is what we have to hope for. That for Brexit Jim and INEOS as a capitalist enterprise that this is not just a business venture but something he wants to have a legacy over.
 
I don't think Sir Jim has the power to ever buy these leeches out. They are here for the long haul.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.