Check out tweet on page 1652 from Faisal Islam,hopefully that explains things better
Club Sale | It’s done!
- Thread starter JB08
- Start date
- Status
Check out tweet on page 1652 from Faisal Islam,hopefully that explains things better
This is gold…So you’re guessing that ‘at some point’, Jim Ratcliffe will sell his own business… a business that is his life’s work, and that when he does what you’re guessing he’ll do, he’ll then definitely have enough to buy Utd outright and invest in it properly.
And you’re then asking ‘why do people pretend otherwise’.
Sensible logic for a well run club
No, that only applies if I was partaking in the silly Ineos v Qatar debate that I have never engaged in.
I was answering a defence of Qatar based on the premise there is no clean money.
My criticism of State ownership by an undemocratic entity with human rights issues is just that.
It's baffling people can't see that.
It has nothing to do with drinking Nescafe or wearing Nike or wanting Ineos.
The person I want (SJR) doesn't have a better bid.The better I don't want (The Qatari group) have bid.I really don't know how to feel about the potential ownership of United.
I know that football is heading in this direction. If one of the historical clubs in Europe is owned by a state/state-backed company, it's going to change the sport. Even if a historical club is going to be owned by a state,I don't want United to be the first.
I think this ownership is potentially the antithesis of what United was built on,I don't want hollow glories.
Look at city, nobody gives a fck about their 'treble',despite their effort to publicize it.
I guess at the end of the day,the Glazers will make a business decision.
I know that football is heading in this direction. If one of the historical clubs in Europe is owned by a state/state-backed company, it's going to change the sport. Even if a historical club is going to be owned by a state,I don't want United to be the first.
I think this ownership is potentially the antithesis of what United was built on,I don't want hollow glories.
Look at city, nobody gives a fck about their 'treble',despite their effort to publicize it.
I guess at the end of the day,the Glazers will make a business decision.
https://www.independent.co.uk/sport...ver-sale-qatar-jassim-ratcliffe-b2356420.html
There is a view within industry circles that the United owners have long seen Ratcliffe as a “stalking horse” and that, if they are to actually sell, the intention has been to just gradually move Qatar up to the £6bn valuation. While Ratcliffe has made his valuation clear and can't really go past a certain point, after all, the Glazers are naturally conscious of Qatar's ultimately limitless wealth. It has ensured the process has become “a game”, in the words of many sources.
“By calibrating it, it just allows them to hover under the radar of being so obviously a state-backed entity, “ Davidson explains. “If they said, ‘right, we want it’ just as they did with Harrods, and did a bid that blew everyone out of the water, it would be pilloried for being an uncompetitive offer that reflects badly on Qatar. It’s an ongoing calibration as far as I can see… enough to win the bid without attracting too much negative attention or too much attention, it is ultimately state wealth.
There is a view within industry circles that the United owners have long seen Ratcliffe as a “stalking horse” and that, if they are to actually sell, the intention has been to just gradually move Qatar up to the £6bn valuation. While Ratcliffe has made his valuation clear and can't really go past a certain point, after all, the Glazers are naturally conscious of Qatar's ultimately limitless wealth. It has ensured the process has become “a game”, in the words of many sources.
“By calibrating it, it just allows them to hover under the radar of being so obviously a state-backed entity, “ Davidson explains. “If they said, ‘right, we want it’ just as they did with Harrods, and did a bid that blew everyone out of the water, it would be pilloried for being an uncompetitive offer that reflects badly on Qatar. It’s an ongoing calibration as far as I can see… enough to win the bid without attracting too much negative attention or too much attention, it is ultimately state wealth.
My post wasn't aimed at you specifically. But there is no hiding from it, the Ineos v Qatar is central in this thread, people are largely championing one side over the other and use moral arguments.
On a personal level I have several issues with both whether we are talking about the moral, political, legal or football sides of things. Now I'm sure people will either think that I'm purposely fence sitting or trying to hide my support but truth be told, I will have an issue with either owners and I will also likely be able to ignore it most of the time, the same way I did with the Glazers.
Someone should should let them know that @whitbyviking off of the internet thinks that ‘at some point’ Jim Ratcliffe will sell INEOS, thus enabling enough money to pay what they’re asking - I’m sure they’d want to know this information.
So you’re guessing that ‘at some point’, Jim Ratcliffe will sell his own business… a business that is his life’s work, and that when he does what you’re guessing he’ll do, he’ll then definitely have enough to buy Utd outright and invest in it properly.
And you’re then asking ‘why do people pretend otherwise’.
Sensible logic for a well run club
Selling his stake in his company to put money into the football club owned by... the company?
Selling his stake in his company to put money into the football club owned by... the company?
6D chessYou may not like it, but that's the way things are heading. You either get with the programme or you will get left behind.
The last league we won was 10 years ago and if don't become state owned, we might not win a league title for another 10 years.
It's not ideal, but what else can we do?
Regarding MCFC's treble not meaning much - it means a lot to a lot of people. The fact that 10 years ago, they were not even on the radar for winning the treble and now they have actually done it, means that it's an extraordinary achievement.
And the crazy thing is that they are still at the peak of their powers - next year, they could repeat the treble.
Nearly a whole week's worth of share volume traded today already
I was able to ignore the Glazers to a degree because I'm a socialist living in a neoliberal shitstorm and I have to be able to survive. The dissonance is essential.
I hate Jose, and he was the tipping point for me, I took a break then. It's a complex culminating of shite that would turn someone away.
My fascination regarding the Glazers is that people who normally advocate the free market and hustling fecking hate them because it's their club.
And this is what the "what about Nike?" brigade fail to see, there is a very personal relationship that we all have with the club. It's not a disposable piece of clothing.
Looking like a small week. Would this shit just end already.
ETH must be fuming considering the affect it has on how he can build the squad
ETH must be fuming considering the affect it has on how he can build the squad
Then I don’t have much of an issue with that. As I’ve said, there’s a big difference between accepting it & celebrating it.
Of course not all the people who want Qatar are the childish transfer muppet dregs of the fanbase…. But all the childish transfer muppet dregs of the fanbase want Qatar.
No one’s putting INEOS flags in their social media bios is my point
Last edited:
I don't want to be state owned thank you very much. Dirty oil money can stay where it is, we don't want to be associated with sportswashing or human rights abuse.
It's obvious there is something major cropped up for this to be dragging like it is, it is ridiculous. I'd rather Sir Jism takes the reigns.
It's obvious there is something major cropped up for this to be dragging like it is, it is ridiculous. I'd rather Sir Jism takes the reigns.
I totally get your point, in fact I think that most points that I have seen are reasonable but we all need to understand that it's a very personal interaction. It's senseless that a few posters are doing the round trying to impose their choice on others.
They do, but, they don't function. It's a farce, let's be honest.
Yeah, there should be more effort to find a commonality within the disagreeing.
We always manage, even with the obvious barriers
There are many situations where removing money from an asset will hinder a company's ability to extract maximum value from that asset. Most obviously by stunting its ability to appreciate further in value, but for other reasons too depending on why the asset was bought.
Because of this, it is quite common for businesses to purchase an asset without immediately placing the cost of the purchase on the asset itself. Because the goal isn't to minimize the impact of the purchase of one asset on existing finances, but to maximise overall value.
The fact that you seem to be baffled by this fairly common occurance and approach to asset management is, as I say, sheer ignorance on your part. Which is fine, you're allowed to not understand how some things work, people can't know everything. But you also don't then have to come into threads spouting that ignorance as fact.
And it would generally be helpful if that was happening less in this thread, which (as the poster who responded to you suggested) has become dominated by a pro-Qatar echo chamber.
So you want SJR to cripple us more with debt
They do but have been widely and continuously criticised by international trade unions for discrimination against women and migrant workers.
If you are having tell half truths then surely something is up.
Many people are incapable of this sort of restraint.
My thoughts on the potential ownerships:
SJ is the choice I would be happiest with. Not happy, but there's two options and for me, this one gives United the best chance to succeed. People saying that it makes any future wins feel hollow like City are wide of the mark I think. United have been playing with a handicap for a long time with the Glazers leeching money from us and having their useless lackeys running the club.
I would see an owner not doing this as simply redressing the balance unless they were pumping billions into the club which I don't expect they'll do. I think it'll just be sanctioning signings in and around our usual budget as well as infrastructure improvements which should have happened already. We're already a huge and rich club, not at all like City were. They were nothing without the money.
My concern with Ratcliffe is mostly around his financing and concerns around competence running a club. I do not want us to become a laughing stock, and neither do I want us to become nothing more than a cautionary tale in years to come. If he is already looking at drowning himself in debt and refusing to commit to reducing the club's debt then I don't imagine he'll be finding an extra billion or so to sort out Old Trafford or anything else in that area. We could end up in some real financial trouble.
To be clear, I've no idea if SJ would be any more competent but at least he's not already shown that he isn't.
SJ is the choice I would be happiest with. Not happy, but there's two options and for me, this one gives United the best chance to succeed. People saying that it makes any future wins feel hollow like City are wide of the mark I think. United have been playing with a handicap for a long time with the Glazers leeching money from us and having their useless lackeys running the club.
I would see an owner not doing this as simply redressing the balance unless they were pumping billions into the club which I don't expect they'll do. I think it'll just be sanctioning signings in and around our usual budget as well as infrastructure improvements which should have happened already. We're already a huge and rich club, not at all like City were. They were nothing without the money.
My concern with Ratcliffe is mostly around his financing and concerns around competence running a club. I do not want us to become a laughing stock, and neither do I want us to become nothing more than a cautionary tale in years to come. If he is already looking at drowning himself in debt and refusing to commit to reducing the club's debt then I don't imagine he'll be finding an extra billion or so to sort out Old Trafford or anything else in that area. We could end up in some real financial trouble.
To be clear, I've no idea if SJ would be any more competent but at least he's not already shown that he isn't.
Fair points. Well made.
What's the volume been like today? (shares)
a lot more than usual, but it has been hot, so i’ve been drinking a lot more water.
Stay off the sand.
Any news today or is the Qatari press from last night still the latest?
8.3m traded. I think the average is 1.7m.
‘that money’ and ‘his existing fortune’ are largely one and the same. His wealth is based, mainly, on the amount of Ineos paper that he owns. He is not sitting on billions in cash, but just a large slice of Ineos. And who is to say he will sell Ineos? He’s doubtless taking a nice income from the company to fund his life style, but he’s not cash rich - like most billionaires.
I think you're confusing state ownership with being a well run club. One doesn't automatically equal the other.
We haven't won a league for a decade because we're badly run. Not because we aren't state owned.
Not much movement in price though, just very liquid.
A lot of it is also normal folk getting into rumours. There's nothing stopping someone setting up a trading account and buying or selling.
I thought it would've gone down, though. We need a stock market expert...
The share movement is just speculators taking bets. It doesn't mean much
Share price will come down if we don't get any more concrete news by Friday, I'd say.
Today has also been a big up day for markets with inflation coming lower than expected, so overall sentiment is also a factor.
Today has also been a big up day for markets with inflation coming lower than expected, so overall sentiment is also a factor.
I think only a portion of it would be normal folk. To put it in money terms, it's $200m worth of trading today as opposed to around 30m normally. And most of it has happened after the speculation (from last night) got debunked.
There's nothing in that piece that hasn't been known for weeks or months. From the outset we knew he was borrowing but by all accounts that was going on INEOS
The not buying all the Glazer shares has also been known for some time.
- Status