That was obvious to me anyway before the poll. Say least they are consistent in having no morals
Club Sale | It’s done!
- Thread starter JB08
- Start date
- Status
That was obvious to me anyway before the poll. Say least they are consistent in having no morals
INEOS deal reeks of Glazers mk2. Zero footballing expertise - Lausanne got relegated again when they were bought out and couldn’t even win a promotion next year.
Nice are arguably worse than when they were bought out.
The deal seems to be structured in the same loan/profit basis that the Glazers are using for decades and I remain doubtful how much they are going to invest in the club outside what the club profits itself.
on top of that Glazers will remain for couple of years.
one may ask himself what’s really the difference if SJR buys the club..
Nice are arguably worse than when they were bought out.
The deal seems to be structured in the same loan/profit basis that the Glazers are using for decades and I remain doubtful how much they are going to invest in the club outside what the club profits itself.
on top of that Glazers will remain for couple of years.
one may ask himself what’s really the difference if SJR buys the club..
Is the problem with the 'Ratcliffe is minted and can afford to bankroll us' crowd that they're looking at the Ineos gross profit and not the net?
Gross profit that, maybe somewhat ironically, has for most years over the last decade been largely wiped out by its financial obligations including debt repayments.
Gross profit that, maybe somewhat ironically, has for most years over the last decade been largely wiped out by its financial obligations including debt repayments.
INEOS is SJR, it just has a higher ceiling than his personal wealth.
Nobody knows the difference of any potential owner but I'd like to think that INEOS as a company, like most companies know how to service debt properly and not just let it fester like the Glazers have.
State ownership has skewed reality, it's not the norm to run debt free, cash paid at most business levels nevermind one of 5bn.
Most companies, Ineos included, take the exact same approach to debt as the Glazers have. Ineos have never made anything other than interest payments required. Business approach to debt is always to eventually reduce it by virtue of comparatively increasing value of the asset. Same really to how governments view debt, there's no real will to pay it off but simply grow the economy so debt ad a proportion of GDP increasingly becomes less significant.
Businesses don't see debt like a credit card or mortgage where the aim is to pay something off and own it outright. They're not logging into Expirian every 30 days checking their monthly credit score and concluding if they double the amount they pay Capital One they can clear it up in 2 years
Businesses only clear one debt with another when they can secure a new loan with more favourable interest terms.
INEOS is 60% owned by Ratcliffe. The rest is owned by Andy Currie and John Reece.
Presumably they are happy with Ratcliffe spending billions on United under the INEOS hood for a vanity/pleasure purchase and aren’t expecting any ROI from the billions their company is spending on it? He’s a United fan after all so this opportunity is too good for him to miss. A chance to get his boyhood club back to where they should be.
I presume they were also happy with him making the same investment in Chelsea a year ago. That too was not an investment but a vanity/pleasure purchase that neither expected a ROI on. He was a Chelsea season ticket holder after all so that opportunity was too good for him to miss.
We do have some track record of clubs owned by INEOS in the past and present and it doesn’t really look good in leagues where the competition is miles off from PL.
as for state ownership it is what it is. Considering the one offer on the table is debt free and commitment of investment in both club, players and infrastructure, the choice for me is clear as I want the best for the club.
I have no moral issues between the two offers as taking moral high ground when you are a petrochemical company is a bit rich.
Nope. We'll be bought by the Nine-Two Foundation very soon.
Fecking hope so.
If the dirty laundry had any real effect, we wouldn't have so many people drooling for Qatari owners
And the whole "vanity project" thing is a complete invention too. It's literally just people working backwards from a denial that Ratcliffe is a hard- nosed, active businessman just as interested in profiting from us as the Glazers were.
But that inconvenient reality is counted with 'vanity project' to give the impression he's just going to be throwing money at us.
I'd love to know how he is going to do this within any reasonable timeframe, given the Glazers have already stripped the cupboard bare, and have put a massive premium on the clubs real value.
It could surely be argued that the only buyers out there are ones who see the club as a vanity purchase, which is exactly why there isn't a whole line of hard nosed businessmen currently trying to get their teeth into us.
What was the point in the Glazers announcing the club was up for sale in November? Nearly 8 months later and Joe public is still non the wiser as to what the outcome will be, if I were one of the potential bidders I’d be seriously asking The Reign Group to sort it and tell those Glazers accept or kiss goodbye and I want an answer by next Wednesday at the latest.
If those Yanks had one ounce of respect for the club they would sell up and let the new owners start signing off on transfers but the Glazers don’t know the meaning of the word respect.
I have a feeling they will still be here next season.
If those Yanks had one ounce of respect for the club they would sell up and let the new owners start signing off on transfers but the Glazers don’t know the meaning of the word respect.
I have a feeling they will still be here next season.
Perhaps, but his innocence is amongst those reasons. Or she may just never have been as upset and traumatised as some people on the internet in the first place. She never wanted to press charges, we simply do not know. I have no problem with taking this position if Mase was found guilty, but I will stand up and say it now because feck it - I am tired of this apparent agreement on here to simply proceed as if the man was guilty regardless anyway, and slyly try to call any poster who doesn’t some sort of ‘horrible person’ or the ‘well we know where some posters morals lie’. Like feck off! You, or anybody else, know feck all about the truth. You had no involvement in the lengthy legal proceedings, nothing that came out in court was leaked - all we know is that of the people who have had the opportunity to hear all of the information and evidence available a decision was taken not to convict Greenwood. A decision that did not require the alleged victim’s cooperation if the evidence was sufficient.
Anyone can have their own ‘ideas’ as to what ‘really’ happened - but these are real people’s lived and you/we are all effectively internet nerds scattered wherever we may be across the world. As I said, humility to not always draw conclusions on things is important. Sometimes just say ‘I don’t know’ about things, because we don’t. A man has been to court and been cleared and we have laptop guys doing ‘he who can’t be named’. Like who the feck are you (we)? Nobody here has any position of relevance on any of this. Your ‘view’ is different from those involved in the case. Really? Do explain to everyone how you have drawn different conclusions from your flat in Bristol.
My ‘you’ is not aimed at you for the record, I am of course speaking more broadly, and also generally - not limited to this case alone. But people online generally need to learn to opt out and not claim opinions on everything because the information simply isn’t available and I just don’t see why people can say ‘I have no idea what really happened’ about things, or at least acknowledge that if they wish to take a differing view, it is with the understanding that they have no idea about what actually happened.
The new season starts in just under nine weeks. Even if a full takeover is announced this week it won't be completed before the start of next season now.
The Glazers are set to make billions from us. The idea outside investors would look at billions of profit being made in 17 years and scratch their head in where our value lies in terms of investment is silly.
Buying the club, watching media rights explode, exploit commercial advantages and revenues to increase value of the brand and revisit how much you can flog it for in 10+ years time seems far more likely than "vanity project"
Sorry mate, I know you are a great contributor on here, but this stance is nothing shy of the typical Internet Virtue Signalling Brigade person. If you really cared you wouldn't be on here for one, typing on a device mined using child labour in DR Congo. History doesn't remember the ones with morals. It remember the victors. All this talk about City treble being stained is pure and utter delusion. And it till continue this way until Qatar take over rather than Brexit Jim.
Why is that we only have Qatar and a billionaire United fan as the only viable bidders then?
Forget the hedge funds, even if the interest was real it would only have been to push the can down the road for a couple of years before a full sale happened, but I doubt it was ever a viable (if real) option anyway.
Spot on the Glazers have left the club in such a state whoever buys it has to pump money in and won’t see a return for a long time.
The Glazers bought a successful club on and off the pitch, debt free, cash in the bank, modern facilities and a brand that sold itself. That’s all gone and whoever comes in can’t carry on the leeching business model or load huge sums of debt onto the club as it’s just not sustainable and won’t lead to profit.
Because not everyone wants to buy a football club. And the value means only few people can afford it.
When any multi billion pound companies are put up for sale there's usually very small number of interested parties who have both desire and funds to afford them.
Do you think there's a particular reason the city doesn't just assume all of these must also be vanity projects?
Good post. Keyboard warriors who spout morals when all they do is wake up, game all day playing call of duty in their parent’s basement, the odd redcafe, shouting at their mum to bring down some more Pringles and Oreo’s. Then these people trying to go on the internet saying morals. When they have contributed nothing to this world.
Do many British homes have basements?
I do not want this to come off as an attack on another poster, there is enough vitriol on the Internet on places like Reddit which is why I escaped from there and came here.
The sad reality is we are powerless. Democracy. Good one Democracy is an illusion. Power only changes hand not by the will of the people alone but you need a puppetier in the background that will finance and cause division/instability. The next sentence is going to be on the wars in the Middle East. Without going into too much detail as this sort of topic belongs in the CE section of the Caf, those uprisings took place on the back of Western nations bombing them to smithereens.
The individual person is helples at causing change, only when the powerful people of this world deem it happen it'll happen. Us arguing about morality on Internet forums is pointless and just highlights you as the typical virtue signalling keyboard warrior - bless em, they are full of idealistic hope; or perhaps delusion. Maybe they are two sides of the same coin.
I want neither of them but I want Qatar far less. The idea that not wanting state ownership, especially by a state as morally dubious as Qatar, is being a virtue signalling keyboard warrior is utterly bizarre.
I don't know what the City says aboout these other sort of deals, my point is that on paper United look a terrible purchase, and whoever buys us is going to have to spend a fortune before they see any sort of return, I'd strongly argue there are alot better purchases out there for people with money like this to spend.
So the conclusion must be they are buying us in the main for a different reason. I don't think the Qatar motives are even in question, so Ratcliffe at the age he is at, given this is the club he supports, the area he is from, with already enough money to do as he wishes, might just have other motives than seeing a big return at some point in the future, and realistically at the earliest when he will be approaching 80.
In the space of 17 years the Glazers look set to make a $4-5bn profit. I'm sorry but that cannot be the starting point for anyone to argue they don't possibly see the appeal of owning Manchester United outside of it simply being a vanity project
Not wanting state ownership puts us in a bit of dilemma in the sense. We don’t want the Qataris buying a rival ie, Liverpool and bankrolling them into City.
Yeah seems we're fecked either way.
Mid June, about twenty reported bids, and here we are, no further along as we enter the most crucial transfer window we’ve had since Ferguson left.
fecking parasites.
fecking parasites.
INEOS have been charged with hundreds of environment related offences out of which they have been found and documented guilty in 72 of them in the last 20 years. And that’s only environment hazard, let alone hundreds of safety law violations, employees rights violations and railroad safety violations. And those are the ones that are recognised and reported to be filled in court and that’s are much more that have been swept under the carpet or resolved outside court.
currently they are waiting on for ruling on their 3bln plastics project, decision to be taken later this year.
so yea it’s a bit rich to take the moral high ground against the Qataris when the other option is petrochemical company that flushes toxic chemicals year after year in the air and in the sea, affecting the lives of billions all over the world.
I'd say i'm surprised but i'm really not. People ultimately don't care anymore about morals, they'll sell their own souls if it meant stopping City and being rich, that's how Thats the trouble with a lot of pro Ratcliffe supporters, they think the companies turnover is profit. I wouldnt trust a word he has said about the debt either.
The reality assessment of why Qatar and Ratcliffe are interested in us are to sportswash human rights abuses and to exploit media rights and commercial opportunities to increase value of the asset over the medium to long term as an investment opportunity, respectively.
Neither are doing it for their love of the club, community spirit, altruism or just wanting to give something back.
Neither are doing it for their love of the club, community spirit, altruism or just wanting to give something back.
except thats exactly whats happened
where are all these investors who see the value then?
we only have a nation state and Sir Jimmy, and neither want to pay the asking price
We really need this to be resolved soon. If it dampens our transfer window, it'd be a disgrace.
Spot on. Qataris are willing to pump billions to clean their image as shown with the World Cup.
let’s be real here, who is worth north of 6bln and has a clean dossier? Let alone wanting to buy a football club. I’d wager there’s absolutely no one fitting in that profile.
No one.
Anyone whose value is in the billions likely doesn't have a clean dossier and is involved in immoral acts.
It's unfortunate, but that's the reality of the world we live in.
Both of the potential owners haven't really helped with this either, they know the longer this drags on the more it eats into the preparation time for next season, they should have set a solid deadline and walked off after that date but the pair of them are playing some stupid game with the Glazers whilst the clock is ticking, dumb move from the pair of them really.
- Status