Actually no. It’s been his response to each of Jassim improved offers. So it’s a logical next step.
Club Sale | It’s done!
- Thread starter JB08
- Start date
- Status
Interesting shares up 50 cents on yesterday close at just under $19 let’s see tomorrow, really does look like no one has a clue of whose wining ?
You’re not aware of his previous responses? It’s a logical next step, just like it was logical to assume Jassim would make improved cash offers. I think the anger comes from his fan base who know offering the glazers more power is his only hand.
JASSIM ISN’T QATAR!
Clearly this isn’t a state bid, so please, let’s stop acting like Jassim is responsible for the Qatar government’s worse actions.
Rat personally helped make Brexit happen, and then moved all his wealth elsewhere - nothing has hurt this country (I’m British) more than Brexit since the 2nd World War, and this guy used his notable power to ensure it happened.
He should be held accountable.
As with getting into bed with the fecking Glazers.
Trust me, within 2 years you’ll be calling him a cretin too.
They have absolutely no leverage, and they know the Glazers have them by the balls. As you said it's pretty pointless to make public their plans for investment, so they probably thought the fans would get on their side and put pressure on the Glazers or something.
The reports from this new improved take it or leave it bid seem to suggest it's still under Sir Jim's valuation. Obviously we don't know this for fact but a lot of people are saying it.
Why keep bidding for something that somebody has bid more for? It's embarrassing at this point. Either trump the offer or walk away.
@Messier1994
From your tweet:
"Total package (with pledged investment) offered is around $7.5bn". $7.5bn=£6bn. £1bn investment. £5bn for the club and the debt. Of which the Glazers get £2.9bn. Hate to be the bearer of bad news (for many), but this is more or less Chelsea money for MUFC.
Boehly paid 2.5bn and pledged to invest 1.75bn."
Boehly paid £2.5bn for 100% of Chelsea, Glazers would be getting £2.9bn for 69% which is significantly more.
Our an I misreading your point?
From your tweet:
"Total package (with pledged investment) offered is around $7.5bn". $7.5bn=£6bn. £1bn investment. £5bn for the club and the debt. Of which the Glazers get £2.9bn. Hate to be the bearer of bad news (for many), but this is more or less Chelsea money for MUFC.
Boehly paid 2.5bn and pledged to invest 1.75bn."
Boehly paid £2.5bn for 100% of Chelsea, Glazers would be getting £2.9bn for 69% which is significantly more.
Our an I misreading your point?
Lets break down the bids based on the assumption that the widely reported 5bn for 9-2 and 6bn from Ineos are correct.
From the Glazers POV
With 9-2's bid being based on a 5bn EV valuation, it pays the Glazers 2.9bn.
With Ineos bid being capped at a 6bn EV valuation, it could pay the Glazers up to 3.6bn, of which app. 2.3bn is paid today, and up to app. 1.3bn is paid in 2026.
What is better, (a) 2.9bn today or (b) 2.3bn today and 1.3bn in three years? (b) is clearly better. .If the Glazers get a 10% yearly return on the extra 600m they get from 9-2 today, Ineos bid is still better with 400m. If they get 20% yearly return, the difference is 170m.
It seems like Ineos bid is variable regarding the remaining "18%". The impact of the variable part will not be massive. It is possible to with a fair amount of certainty forecast what our revenue will be in 3 years time. The UK TV deals runs to 2029 right. In the US, it runs to 2028. We won't all be watching the PL with VR glasses in 36 months time. But sure, we can do a lot better without the Glazers point of view. If the Glazers go with Ineos -- the variable part should be fairly obtainable.
From the fans POV
9-2 would pay the debt and has pledged to invest 1bn in the club. That totals app. 1.78bn. It is very similar to what Boehly has pledged to invest in Chelsea FC (1.75bn).
How much will Ineos invest in the club? I don't think there has been any report on that. What we can do is look at Ineos bid for Chelsea:
We got to assume that Ineos in no event will be willing to in total invest -- less -- in MUFC than in CFC. With Ineos bid for the shares of MUFC being 3.6bn, we must be able to assume that Ineos would be willing to invest 900m into the club. This match their total 4.5bn commitment for Chelsea.
Is 900m enough? No, I don't think it is. I won't expand on the math in this post but having looked at the numbers in the past, to afford a new/rebuilt OT we probably need up towards 1.5bn -- at least -- for it to not have an impact on our transfer budget. I am not surprised by 9-2's pledge of a total of 1.78bn, because that is a very reasonable number. There is no point in contributing like 2.5-3bn to the club, we couldn't spend the money over 10 years due to FFP anyway.
So hopefully Ineos is willing to invest more in MUFC than in CFC. I think it is good business for Ineos to do that. We are a bigger club, so the upside is higher. But we just have no reports in this regard so its anyone's guess.
From the Glazers POV
With 9-2's bid being based on a 5bn EV valuation, it pays the Glazers 2.9bn.
With Ineos bid being capped at a 6bn EV valuation, it could pay the Glazers up to 3.6bn, of which app. 2.3bn is paid today, and up to app. 1.3bn is paid in 2026.
What is better, (a) 2.9bn today or (b) 2.3bn today and 1.3bn in three years? (b) is clearly better. .If the Glazers get a 10% yearly return on the extra 600m they get from 9-2 today, Ineos bid is still better with 400m. If they get 20% yearly return, the difference is 170m.
It seems like Ineos bid is variable regarding the remaining "18%". The impact of the variable part will not be massive. It is possible to with a fair amount of certainty forecast what our revenue will be in 3 years time. The UK TV deals runs to 2029 right. In the US, it runs to 2028. We won't all be watching the PL with VR glasses in 36 months time. But sure, we can do a lot better without the Glazers point of view. If the Glazers go with Ineos -- the variable part should be fairly obtainable.
From the fans POV
9-2 would pay the debt and has pledged to invest 1bn in the club. That totals app. 1.78bn. It is very similar to what Boehly has pledged to invest in Chelsea FC (1.75bn).
How much will Ineos invest in the club? I don't think there has been any report on that. What we can do is look at Ineos bid for Chelsea:
We got to assume that Ineos in no event will be willing to in total invest -- less -- in MUFC than in CFC. With Ineos bid for the shares of MUFC being 3.6bn, we must be able to assume that Ineos would be willing to invest 900m into the club. This match their total 4.5bn commitment for Chelsea.
Is 900m enough? No, I don't think it is. I won't expand on the math in this post but having looked at the numbers in the past, to afford a new/rebuilt OT we probably need up towards 1.5bn -- at least -- for it to not have an impact on our transfer budget. I am not surprised by 9-2's pledge of a total of 1.78bn, because that is a very reasonable number. There is no point in contributing like 2.5-3bn to the club, we couldn't spend the money over 10 years due to FFP anyway.
So hopefully Ineos is willing to invest more in MUFC than in CFC. I think it is good business for Ineos to do that. We are a bigger club, so the upside is higher. But we just have no reports in this regard so its anyone's guess.
It does matter. Nobody is going to invest 1bn+ if they don’t own 100%.
Thats how i read it too. The comparision with Boehly doesnt make any sense.
Lets break down the bids based on the assumption that the widely reported 5bn for 9-2 and 6bn from Ineos are correct.
From the Glazers POV
With 9-2's bid being based on a 5bn EV valuation, it pays the Glazers 2.9bn.
With Ineos bid being capped at a 6bn EV valuation, it could pay the Glazers up to 3.6bn, of which app. 2.3bn is paid today, and up to app. 1.3bn is paid in 2026.
What is better, (a) 2.9bn today or (b) 2.3bn today and 1.3bn in three years? (b) is clearly better. .If the Glazers get a 10% yearly return on the extra 600m they get from 9-2 today, Ineos bid is still better with 400m. If they get 20% yearly return, the difference is 170m.
It seems like Ineos bid is variable regarding the remaining "18%". The impact of the variable part will not be massive. It is possible to with a fair amount of certainty forecast what our revenue will be in 3 years time. The UK TV deals runs to 2029 right. In the US, it runs to 2028. We won't all be watching the PL with VR glasses in 36 months time. But sure, we can do a lot better without the Glazers point of view. If the Glazers go with Ineos -- the variable part should be fairly obtainable.
From the fans POV
9-2 would pay the debt and has pledged to invest 1bn in the club. That totals app. 1.78bn. It is very similar to what Boehly has pledged to invest in Chelsea FC (1.75bn).
How much will Ineos invest in the club? I don't think there has been any report on that. What we can do is look at Ineos bid for Chelsea:
We got to assume that Ineos in no event will be willing to in total invest -- less -- in MUFC than in CFC. With Ineos bid for the shares of MUFC being 3.6bn, we must be able to assume that Ineos would be willing to invest 900m into the club. This match their total 4.5bn commitment for Chelsea.
Is 900m enough? No, I don't think it is. I won't expand on the math in this post but having looked at the numbers in the past, to afford a new/rebuilt OT we probably need up towards 1.5bn -- at least -- for it to not have an impact on our transfer budget. I am not surprised by 9-2's pledge of a total of 1.78bn, because that is a very reasonable number. There is no point in contributing like 2.5-3bn to the club, we couldn't spend the money over 10 years due to FFP anyway.
So hopefully Ineos is willing to invest more in MUFC than in CFC. I think it is good business for Ineos to do that. We are a bigger club, so the upside is higher. But we just have no reports in this regard so its anyone's guess.
To directly compare an estimated future figure with a figure today is delusional. Darn, even my first year undergrads will laugh at that.
Lets break down the bids based on the assumption that the widely reported 5bn for 9-2 and 6bn from Ineos are correct.
From the Glazers POV
With 9-2's bid being based on a 5bn EV valuation, it pays the Glazers 2.9bn.
With Ineos bid being capped at a 6bn EV valuation, it could pay the Glazers up to 3.6bn, of which app. 2.3bn is paid today, and up to app. 1.3bn is paid in 2026.
What is better, (a) 2.9bn today or (b) 2.3bn today and 1.3bn in three years? (b) is clearly better. .If the Glazers get a 10% yearly return on the extra 600m they get from 9-2 today, Ineos bid is still better with 400m. If they get 20% yearly return, the difference is 170m.
It seems like Ineos bid is variable regarding the remaining "18%". The impact of the variable part will not be massive. It is possible to with a fair amount of certainty forecast what our revenue will be in 3 years time. The UK TV deals runs to 2029 right. In the US, it runs to 2028. We won't all be watching the PL with VR glasses in 36 months time. But sure, we can do a lot better without the Glazers point of view. If the Glazers go with Ineos -- the variable part should be fairly obtainable.
From the fans POV
9-2 would pay the debt and has pledged to invest 1bn in the club. That totals app. 1.78bn. It is very similar to what Boehly has pledged to invest in Chelsea FC (1.75bn).
How much will Ineos invest in the club? I don't think there has been any report on that. What we can do is look at Ineos bid for Chelsea:
We got to assume that Ineos in no event will be willing to in total invest -- less -- in MUFC than in CFC. With Ineos bid for the shares of MUFC being 3.6bn, we must be able to assume that Ineos would be willing to invest 900m into the club. This match their total 4.5bn commitment for Chelsea.
Is 900m enough? No, I don't think it is. I won't expand on the math in this post but having looked at the numbers in the past, to afford a new/rebuilt OT we probably need up towards 1.5bn -- at least -- for it to not have an impact on our transfer budget. I am not surprised by 9-2's pledge of a total of 1.78bn, because that is a very reasonable number. There is no point in contributing like 2.5-3bn to the club, we couldn't spend the money over 10 years due to FFP anyway.
So hopefully Ineos is willing to invest more in MUFC than in CFC. I think it is good business for Ineos to do that. We are a bigger club, so the upside is higher. But we just have no reports in this regard so its anyone's guess.
Thanks. I think there is a conversion error in your figures, though. Reports today have indicated that Qatar's 5th offer is for $7.5bn (£6bn), which includes a pledged investment of $1bn (£800m). This means that their current offer (excluding the investment) values the club at $6.5bn (£5.2bn rather than the £5bn you have stated).
Trust me bro written all over this.
He's a Sheikh. He has the name Al Thani. His Dad was the prime minister.
Not a state bid though apparently. Yeah right.
How many more clues do you need?
If you truly believe this is a private bid and nothing to do with Qatar or the state then my word man. Of course it is.
Lets break down the bids based on the assumption that the widely reported 5bn for 9-2 and 6bn from Ineos are correct.
From the Glazers POV
With 9-2's bid being based on a 5bn EV valuation, it pays the Glazers 2.9bn.
With Ineos bid being capped at a 6bn EV valuation, it could pay the Glazers up to 3.6bn, of which app. 2.3bn is paid today, and up to app. 1.3bn is paid in 2026.
What is better, (a) 2.9bn today or (b) 2.3bn today and 1.3bn in three years? (b) is clearly better. .If the Glazers get a 10% yearly return on the extra 600m they get from 9-2 today, Ineos bid is still better with 400m. If they get 20% yearly return, the difference is 170m.
It seems like Ineos bid is variable regarding the remaining "18%". The impact of the variable part will not be massive. It is possible to with a fair amount of certainty forecast what our revenue will be in 3 years time. The UK TV deals runs to 2029 right. In the US, it runs to 2028. We won't all be watching the PL with VR glasses in 36 months time. But sure, we can do a lot better without the Glazers point of view. If the Glazers go with Ineos -- the variable part should be fairly obtainable.
From the fans POV
9-2 would pay the debt and has pledged to invest 1bn in the club. That totals app. 1.78bn. It is very similar to what Boehly has pledged to invest in Chelsea FC (1.75bn).
How much will Ineos invest in the club? I don't think there has been any report on that. What we can do is look at Ineos bid for Chelsea:
We got to assume that Ineos in no event will be willing to in total invest -- less -- in MUFC than in CFC. With Ineos bid for the shares of MUFC being 3.6bn, we must be able to assume that Ineos would be willing to invest 900m into the club. This match their total 4.5bn commitment for Chelsea.
Is 900m enough? No, I don't think it is. I won't expand on the math in this post but having looked at the numbers in the past, to afford a new/rebuilt OT we probably need up towards 1.5bn -- at least -- for it to not have an impact on our transfer budget. I am not surprised by 9-2's pledge of a total of 1.78bn, because that is a very reasonable number. There is no point in contributing like 2.5-3bn to the club, we couldn't spend the money over 10 years due to FFP anyway.
So hopefully Ineos is willing to invest more in MUFC than in CFC. I think it is good business for Ineos to do that. We are a bigger club, so the upside is higher. But we just have no reports in this regard so its anyone's guess.
I think you are mixing up earn-out structure with a put-call option structure which is what has been reported as far as I have understood it.
Lets break down the bids based on the assumption that the widely reported 5bn for 9-2 and 6bn from Ineos are correct.
From the Glazers POV
With 9-2's bid being based on a 5bn EV valuation, it pays the Glazers 2.9bn.
With Ineos bid being capped at a 6bn EV valuation, it could pay the Glazers up to 3.6bn, of which app. 2.3bn is paid today, and up to app. 1.3bn is paid in 2026.
What is better, (a) 2.9bn today or (b) 2.3bn today and 1.3bn in three years? (b) is clearly better. .If the Glazers get a 10% yearly return on the extra 600m they get from 9-2 today, Ineos bid is still better with 400m. If they get 20% yearly return, the difference is 170m.
It seems like Ineos bid is variable regarding the remaining "18%". The impact of the variable part will not be massive. It is possible to with a fair amount of certainty forecast what our revenue will be in 3 years time. The UK TV deals runs to 2029 right. In the US, it runs to 2028. We won't all be watching the PL with VR glasses in 36 months time. But sure, we can do a lot better without the Glazers point of view. If the Glazers go with Ineos -- the variable part should be fairly obtainable.
From the fans POV
9-2 would pay the debt and has pledged to invest 1bn in the club. That totals app. 1.78bn. It is very similar to what Boehly has pledged to invest in Chelsea FC (1.75bn).
How much will Ineos invest in the club? I don't think there has been any report on that. What we can do is look at Ineos bid for Chelsea:
We got to assume that Ineos in no event will be willing to in total invest -- less -- in MUFC than in CFC. With Ineos bid for the shares of MUFC being 3.6bn, we must be able to assume that Ineos would be willing to invest 900m into the club. This match their total 4.5bn commitment for Chelsea.
Is 900m enough? No, I don't think it is. I won't expand on the math in this post but having looked at the numbers in the past, to afford a new/rebuilt OT we probably need up towards 1.5bn -- at least -- for it to not have an impact on our transfer budget. I am not surprised by 9-2's pledge of a total of 1.78bn, because that is a very reasonable number. There is no point in contributing like 2.5-3bn to the club, we couldn't spend the money over 10 years due to FFP anyway.
So hopefully Ineos is willing to invest more in MUFC than in CFC. I think it is good business for Ineos to do that. We are a bigger club, so the upside is higher. But we just have no reports in this regard so its anyone's guess.
thank you for your efforts here!
A quick point, the government put in the condition for CFC sale that the new owner must invest in the club. That's why SJR committed to that. Because it was mandated. There's no mandate here, its a dire need from fans POV.
no guarantee that SJR will invest, & probably the reason why he has not mentioned anything about debt, facilities or any of that. Its just a wish from SJR supporters.
Thats literally the choice available to the Glazers. What are you on about
You still wait by the chimney on Christmas?
A tear in my eye
Did you really type that without being sarcastic?
I don't value this highly since for most potential bidders -- just owning the 69% is the same as owning 100%. Who owns and controls the club today? The Glazers. Why would anyone want "more" control than the Glazers?
If you want to take dividend out of the club, it has an impact. The days of taking dividends out of a football club are over. If you want to make massive infrastructure investments in terms building train stations, train lines, luxury hotels, malls and what not at least partly on the land owned by the club -- you also will want 100% (you don't want to make that type of business "inside" a football club, how would our balance sheet and P&L look? Qatar will want to restructure the club with this land being owned by like a sister company to MUFC and not a subsidiary, and that is cumbersome to do if its not 100% owned). But this only impacts a buyer like Qatar, not Ineos. And Qatar would surely sell like 15-30% of the shares of MUFC after having restructured the club -- like it has with PSG taking on minority investments. MCFC also has minority owners having acquired shares from Abu Dabi. Amazon buying us for streaming rights would also want 100%.
Lets break down the bids based on the assumption that the widely reported 5bn for 9-2 and 6bn from Ineos are correct.
From the Glazers POV
With 9-2's bid being based on a 5bn EV valuation, it pays the Glazers 2.9bn.
With Ineos bid being capped at a 6bn EV valuation, it could pay the Glazers up to 3.6bn, of which app. 2.3bn is paid today, and up to app. 1.3bn is paid in 2026.
What is better, (a) 2.9bn today or (b) 2.3bn today and 1.3bn in three years? (b) is clearly better. .If the Glazers get a 10% yearly return on the extra 600m they get from 9-2 today, Ineos bid is still better with 400m. If they get 20% yearly return, the difference is 170m.
It seems like Ineos bid is variable regarding the remaining "18%". The impact of the variable part will not be massive. It is possible to with a fair amount of certainty forecast what our revenue will be in 3 years time. The UK TV deals runs to 2029 right. In the US, it runs to 2028. We won't all be watching the PL with VR glasses in 36 months time. But sure, we can do a lot better without the Glazers point of view. If the Glazers go with Ineos -- the variable part should be fairly obtainable.
From the fans POV
9-2 would pay the debt and has pledged to invest 1bn in the club. That totals app. 1.78bn. It is very similar to what Boehly has pledged to invest in Chelsea FC (1.75bn).
How much will Ineos invest in the club? I don't think there has been any report on that. What we can do is look at Ineos bid for Chelsea:
We got to assume that Ineos in no event will be willing to in total invest -- less -- in MUFC than in CFC. With Ineos bid for the shares of MUFC being 3.6bn, we must be able to assume that Ineos would be willing to invest 900m into the club. This match their total 4.5bn commitment for Chelsea.
Is 900m enough? No, I don't think it is. I won't expand on the math in this post but having looked at the numbers in the past, to afford a new/rebuilt OT we probably need up towards 1.5bn -- at least -- for it to not have an impact on our transfer budget. I am not surprised by 9-2's pledge of a total of 1.78bn, because that is a very reasonable number. There is no point in contributing like 2.5-3bn to the club, we couldn't spend the money over 10 years due to FFP anyway.
So hopefully Ineos is willing to invest more in MUFC than in CFC. I think it is good business for Ineos to do that. We are a bigger club, so the upside is higher. But we just have no reports in this regard so its anyone's guess.
Good post
If it's a state bid by Qatar, who have more cash than you and me combined, why haven't they blown Ratcliffe away? They're not arsed? It's a private bid? One thing is clear...the Glazers are greedy bastards.
You're trying to be an expert at pretending to be smart. Try again.
You think as the richest man in Britain he sees this as an investment opportunity then? Ah these prices? He's massively overpaying.
Makes no sense mate.
So we are still bidding??
It seems to me the Glazers don't give a fukk about success on the pitch so long as cash keeps getting stuffed into their pockets, which has been the story of United since the Glazer takeover. Yes, there is a relationship between pitch performance and cash performance but the delta in what it takes to go from a top four scraper to a perennial title challenger may well be greater than the delta in the cash performance associated with being a perennial title challenger. If this is a true statement, and we online warriors can only speculate on this, it seems more likely than not that if Sir Jim has to scramble to put this deal together and that he has to keep on two of the Glazer leeches that United under Sir Jim will be a top four scraper for years to come, whereas Sheik Jassim et al will be owners who overriding focus will be elevating United to a perennial title challenger.
I'm sure this has been discussed before on this thread but I haven't all 1500 pages of this thread.
I'm sure this has been discussed before on this thread but I haven't all 1500 pages of this thread.
JASSIM IS QATAR.
of course it's a state bid but even they have a ceiling and it's been met.
And even if not he's part of the higher ups in Qatar and has influence and beliefs that match the status quo.
I haven't mentioned being an expert, I have questioned the ludicrous premise of direct comparison of capital figures while there is a time variation element and potential for spread in other variables. Your post on the other hand...
If Jassim was as rich as we thought and had the club interest as heart as his PR has led us to believe, I think he'd have made substantial increases to get the deal done.
The fact each bid is just slightly better than the last and still not as economically attractive as Ratcliffs means he's a bit fishy.
The fact each bid is just slightly better than the last and still not as economically attractive as Ratcliffs means he's a bit fishy.
Pretty sure you have to have connections to the ruling family to use the name Sheikh in your title anyway.
.
The Glazers face some money now and some money later vs all money up front. Like it or lump it there's a comparison of the two with interest over time considered in that process.
You have tried to pretend you're some expert by humblebragging about having first year graduates.
Partially correct, and supportive, in part, of my comments. next
United are a world wide brand and always will be, he doesn't have to reverse anything.
Congrats on arguing with yourself. Enjoy the newb forums.
how are the rest of the 'City Group? performing btw?Really?
What gives you this confidence? his handling of Nice? his relegated club in Switzerland?
Nice's last summer business was Kasper Schmeichel, Ross Barkley and Aaron Ramsey
Let the good times roll!!
Personally I am not arsed either way if it’s state back up or not.
You strongly believe it is, my question is if:
1) it’s something that bothers you?
2) if it does, what will you do if SJ is the new owner of the club e.g, will u stop supporting the club or you will move to another round of protest against the Qataris like we doing with Glazers or you gona come on forums and be a key board warrior
3) if it doesn’t bother you, why is it important ?
Messier did bring up time value of money in his post though
If he's keeping the Glazers around it will be within 6 months.
I wouldn't bother. Brexit expertise has taken over the thread.
few pages, some one mentioned that Nice has been owned for only 4 years, give them another 3-5 years to be 2nd best team in France. Given Man Utd is atleast twice big as Nice, we must give Mr. Ratcliffe about 14-18 years before we can expect EPL title.
- Status