Club Sale | It’s done!

[Pogue Mahone]

I’d suggest you read that post again?
I’m on record here just a few days ago saying I don’t want the money cheat code. Said it many times in fact

I’m sure you’ve said that. But sometimes we reveal our inner motivations almost accidentally. There’s an Austrian psychoanalyst who had slips like that named after him

I’m not being entirely serious here. Just sniping really. But it does annoy me how rarely this “sign the stars” thing gets mentioned when we all know, deep down, that’s a primary motivation for wanting Qatari ownership. I’d be lying if it wasn’t something I occasionally think positively about myself.

 

[cyberman]

It's because pogue has psychic powers to know what people's true motivations are

It’s not even that, it’s reading comprehension.
To be fair I’ve made that mistake plenty of times on here myself.
I’d like to make a point that there’s a reason why posters keep repeating Mbappe over and over again. It’s because there’s few stars across Europe now that you can quote 6/7 huge names since it’s not 2003 anymore so they’re kind of stuck.
Without Qatar we had a bid accepted for FDJ, signed Varane, Casemiro and even Sancho. All huge stars when we bought them. Sancho was as hyped as any player not named Mbappe that we could even sign under Qatar. We’re after Kane this summer for feck sake.
The argument about wanting Qatar because of the names falls flat on its arse. There’s
more of an argument that fans would want the money so they can sign great players and not suffer if they fail but signing them in the first place isn’t a Qatar selling point.
We do that anyway. The league does that anyway. The big names arent as unattainable as they were when we were watching La Liga a decade ago or Seire A in the mid 90s

 

[cyberman]

I’m sure you’ve said that. But sometimes we reveal our inner motivations almost accidentally. There’s an Austrian psychoanalyst who had slips like that named after him

I’m not being entirely serious here. Just sniping really. But it does annoy me how rarely this “sign the stars” thing gets mentioned when we all know, deep down, that’s a primary motivation for wanting Qatari ownership. I’d be lying if it wasn’t something I occasionally think positively about myself.

There’s no harm in it. I have an angle on your last point there in a post I’ve just submitted so I won’t type it out again.

 

[Suv666]

Owners come and go but debt is forever.
Once the debt is wiped off at least we won’t ever be in the danger of getting repoed

Who knows we might even get new proper owners 10-15 years down the line when the Qatari’s get bored of the footballing experiment.

But with Radcliffe we would be forever saddled with debt ripe for the scavenging hedge funds and Glazer like parasites.

 

[Partridge]

I think, on a general level, the casual fans will be thinking in terms of tops players coming in, the facilities and toilets being made of gold, our own " smell my cheese" room, moving sidewalks into Carrington so nobody has to walk. That sort of stuff.

It's is quite appealing admittedly. You could charge fans extra for use of the solid gold toilets for example..include the usage as part of the "premium fan" pass. What a bonus.

 

[BarstoolProphet]

I want Qatar despite their horrible human rights record because capitalism can't make the club competititve. Only fan ownership or state ownership can do that. I've given up on the idea that premier league football is in any way a moral enterprise - it self evidently isn't.

Yeah, after calling the region uncivilized I bet you do.

 

[Ødegaard]

It’s a myriad of reasons from a myriad of posters. I completely understand why people don’t want Qatar and completely respect those concerns. It does feel like the pro-Ratcliffe side have their head in the sand over the concerns people have about his ownership. I won’t list them because they’ve been raised numerous times but to summarise they’ve been incompetent owners at Nice, are purchasing with debt albeit against the parent company and that raises concerns over future investment in our legacy and decrepit infrastructure. Then you have their motivation. Why do they want to buy United? They wanted to buy Chelsea a year ago so let’s not pretend it’s for footballing reasons. It all points to Glazers mk II. If that is preferable to Qatar that is more than reasonable but it’s worth understanding the concerns that rather than being desperate to frame it as a juvenile and reductive “want Mbappe” position.

It isn't a heads in the sand situation, more so a "being a sportswashing tool owned by a state is unacceptable and ruins everything more so than even relegation would" kind of situation. I would rather the Glazers stay on as parasites for eternity than accept state ownership.

Anyone who argues that the Qatari bid is a private bid are just full of shit.

Ratcliffe appears to be a twat of the highest order. But he isn't involved in all the shit any country in the world is.
Then there are those morons on here talking about Ineos effect on the planet, as if Qatari oil and gas do nothing.

We have 2 absolutely fecking horrible choice and 1 non-choice. That is all it is.

No matter the state by the way.
I'd be livid if Norway bought United for many reasons as well.

 

[Berbaclass]

Some people want Qatar. Some people want Ratcliffe. I don’t understand why by now we can’t just accept that. The constant battle for moral superiority is getting old. The points for both have been discussed over and over to the point of tedium.

 

[Cantona in disguise]

Some people want Qatar. Some people want Ratcliffe. I don’t understand why by now we can’t just accept that. The constant battle for moral superiority is getting old. The points for both have been discussed over and over to the point of tedium.

Amen to that and I don't care either way. Just want us to get a fresh start and hope that whoever takes over allows united to function the correct way.

 

[Zora]

Some people want Qatar. Some people want Ratcliffe. I don’t understand why by now we can’t just accept that. The constant battle for moral superiority is getting old. The points for both have been discussed over and over to the point of tedium.

Agree, well said.

In fact, there’s a thread for that tedious discussion. I don’t want to be owned by a state but it’s the modern landscape now when it comes to owning and running football club.

Can mods delete or move any of that discussion to its relevant thread and allow this one for focusing on news and rumours related to the takeover and the takeover only?

If I have to read the same argument to why Qatar is evil and how Sir Jim is old one more time, then I might throw something.

 

[TheGodsInRed]

Some people want Qatar. Some people want Ratcliffe. I don’t understand why by now we can’t just accept that. The constant battle for moral superiority is getting old. The points for both have been discussed over and over to the point of tedium.

Almost needs a sperate thread where people can argue about that stuff and one where people can talk about takeover news, because any updates get lost with the bickering, which is the same on page 500 as it is on 1777.

I'm anti stake takeover but aren't going to change anyone's opinion, so no point bickering.

 

[Maticmaker]

Some people want Qatar. Some people want Ratcliffe. I don’t understand why by now we can’t just accept that. The constant battle for moral superiority is getting old. The points for both have been discussed over and over to the point of tedium.

I agree with you, both sides (in fan support) are digging in already, when we don't know for certain what will happen with either bid, if and when one is successful. I am not sure what the motivation is for either bid, at least with the Glazers you knew it was pure greed.

 

[stw2022]

I agree with you, both sides (in fan support) are digging in already, when we don't know for certain what will happen with either bid, if and when one is successful. I am not sure what the motivation is for either bid, at least with the Glazers you knew it was pure greed.

Sportswashing from Qatar, normal capitalist "greed" from Ratcliffe.

I don't see the ambiguity. It only seems to exist if we pretend, as so many seem to want to, that Ratcliffe is more akin to David Attenborough than Alan Sugar. He isn't. He's a hard- nosed, ruthless businessman who isn't borrowing £4bn to effectively use us like a retirement train set.

 

[Fitchett]

I know hindsight and all that but what was Fergie thinking taking McManus to court over horse jism, at the time it was obvious it wasn't going to end well and twenty years later here we are. Defintely an over reach on Fergie's part, but it is what it is, hopefully soon we can expunge all trace of them grifters and focus on a new direction for the club, whoever the owners may be.

Yes, he should have listened to Roy Keane. If reports are correct from the time, Keano advised him that he wouldn't beat the race horse owners.

 

[Tarrou]

I want Qatar despite their horrible human rights record because capitalism can't make the club competititve. Only fan ownership or state ownership can do that. I've given up on the idea that premier league football is in any way a moral enterprise - it self evidently isn't.

how Is it possible to believe this whilst we’ve spent more than anyone under the Glazers? Genuinely curious

 

[stw2022]

Murdoch in 1998 agreed a deal to buy the club in fear that within the next 5 years that there might be an argument over a horse. Indeed that fear has driven every corporate takeover since. Its not like McManus hasn't sold other investments over the last few years. How many rows has that guy had over horses to facilitate those? Seems clumsy.

I honestly find the whole horse narrative bizarre. Those who didn't fall out with Ferguson over a horse also sold their shares and shares have been bought and sold by minority investors before and since. Glazers initially bought their stake in the club presumably waiting for a fall out over a horse, or possibly a cat, and struck gold.


They owned 28% of the club at the time. Did the remaining 72% selling because Ferguson tried to nick their animal's sperm too?

Even if McManus was breeding Sir Alex himself at the time the Glazers would have bought the club. The "they bought the club because of a horse story" is bollocks. At most it may have encouraged a minority investor to sell.

 

[DRJosh]

Whether you’re in team Ratcliff or team Qatar, people should remember that football is now a game of ruthless capitalism. Long gone are the days where football was just about football and about celebrating one’s fervent passion for the working man’s (or woman’s) game.

 

[Rhyme Animal]

What a load of shit this is. I could easily post saying there's a lot of dancing around from the pro jim lot who won't admit they just want a white British owner and then pretend that only I know when people are being honest about their motivations and it would be just as disingenuous as this.

Well said mate. Great post.

 

[Baxquux]

Murdoch in 1998 agreed a deal to buy the club in fear that within the next 5 years that there might be an argument over a horse. Indeed that fear has driven every corporate takeover since. Its not like McManus hasn't sold other investments over the last few years. How many rows has that guy had over horses to facilitate those? Seems clumsy.

I honestly find the whole horse narrative bizarre. Those who didn't fall out with Ferguson over a horse also sold their shares and shares have been bought and sold by minority investors before and since. Glazers initially bought their stake in the club presumably waiting for a fall out over a horse, or possibly a cat, and struck gold.

Don't know ins and outs of all of this, though read about it at time... but my general understanding is that there was loads of potential for growth even then in their model, and they would have stayed on if the row over the horse hadn't been instigated, for who knows how long. Apparently it wasn't just looking at practicalities of the working relationship, but , according to reports, a sense of spite or revenge in acquiescing so easily to majority purchase by Glazers whose business model they knew would essentially undermine the club/SFs chances of competing at highest level: something like 'the worst people in the world to sell to' was the line I saw quoted/paraphrased.

 

[dacore]

Neither Qatar nor SJR is optimal in a perfect world. But right now we have to choose. For me the most important things is getting rid of the Glazers, getting rid of the debt, invest in the infrastructure and the team. One of the bidders have promised to solve all those problems. The other have not. So for me it´s an easy choice. But let´s say Apple or Musk had put in a bid. I would most likely have preferred that bidder over these two.

 

[Pogue Mahone]

how Is it possible to believe this whilst we’ve spent more than anyone under the Glazers? Genuinely curious

It’s such a mystery. So many people missing the bleeding obvious. We’ve been a terribly run club. Not an under-funded club (in terms of investment in the playing squad anyway). And the messiah is someone who has precisely zero experience of running a football club? WTF?!

 

[CallyRed]

Why does everyone hate that song?

Sexism.

 

[SteveCoppellFan]

People getting on their high horse about Qatar etc need to look closer to home.

These days the Western World is just a place where corruption and greed is as rife as ever with morality at a all time low.

Qatar etc have been quick to see this and now you wonder why they are using their money to get involved in many sports ?

The Western World can be bought and they know this.

 

[Ottawa MLS Fan]

PL clubs have voted Leveraged Buyouts are capped at 65% of club's value which would ban the Glazer style takeover of MUFC, a buyer will have to show a proof of significant funds and not put the debt from the LBO onto the club itself.

I don’t remember the exact numbers from the Glazer’s takeover, but if LBOs are capped at 65% that wouldn’t have stopped Malcolm. He might have needed to tweak his purchase and chuck in a few more quid, but the debt placed on the club would still have been significant.

It doesn’t seem like a strong regulation to me. Why don’t they just ban LBOs all together?

 

[Berbaclass]

Sexism.

For real?

I don’t remember anything like that

 

[glazed]

Yeah, after calling the region uncivilized I bet you do.

It's not a value judgement. A hundred years ago those oil sheikhs' ancestors were Bedouins living in tents. They're fairly proud of all that so I don't know why your nose is out of joint at obvious facts. Go watch Lawrence of Arabia then get back to me.

 

[glazed]

how Is it possible to believe this whilst we’ve spent more than anyone under the Glazers? Genuinely curious

Because the nature of the Glazer ownership meant the money had a far higher chance of being spent badly because of a management structure geared towards commerce not football. For example, buying Ronaldo

It’s such a mystery. So many people missing the bleeding obvious. We’ve been a terribly run club. Not an under-funded club (in terms of investment in the playing squad anyway). And the messiah is someone who has precisely zero experience of running a football club? WTF?!

We have been under-funded where it matters. We bought according to a prism that only saw commercial value and resale value, not how much we needed the player or any notion of a coherent style of play.

 

[Rhyme Animal]

The Glazers taking over/taking up a significant role in Liverpool would be absolutely amazing. Truly the happy ending this story deserves.

With Jim as partner, please.

You joke, but think of all the footballing ‘romance’ Liverpool fans would be treated to, as has been pointed out by some posters in here.

We’ll all be ‘cheerleading for Qatar’ in novelty kafiyehs and pom-poms and hysterically screaming ‘announce Mbappe’, cuz that’s what every person who prefers the 92 Foundation bid does and is.

Meanwhile Liverpool fans will be enjoying a dignified and superior fandom, a fandom of ‘romance’ where football actually means something to them (it won’t mean anything to us anymore, that’s the rules) and old men in flat caps ruffle the hair of their grandchildren and say, ‘let me tell ye the story of Olde Jim Brexit, a great man who saved our club from the bad people’, while the music from the old Hovis advert plays in the background, eternally.

So yeah, think on ffs.

 

[aganley]

People getting on their high horse about Qatar etc need to look closer to home.

These days the Western World is just a place where corruption and greed is as rife as ever with morality at a all time low.

Qatar etc have been quick to see this and now you wonder why they are using their money to get involved in many sports ?

The Western World can be bought and they know this.

The same people complaining about Qatar and morality, will be the same people buying iphones that are built in some Chinese sweat shop, while wearing sports gear made by some 12 year old Indian kid. While filling their car up with fuel sourced from the middle east, while driving to Starbucks and buying their groceries from Sainsbury's. Then ordering products from Amazon.

 

[Berbaclass]

You joke, but think of all the footballing ‘romance’ Liverpool fans would be treated to, as has been pointed out by some posters in here.

We’ll all be ‘cheerleading for Qatar’ in novelty kafiyehs and pom-poms and hysterically screaming ‘announce Mbappe’, cuz that’s what every person who prefers the 92 Foundation bid does and is.

Meanwhile Liverpool fans will be enjoying a dignified and superior fandom, a fandom of ‘romance’ where football actually means something to them (it won’t mean anything to us anymore, that’s the rules) and old men in flat caps ruffle the hair of their grandchildren and say, ‘let me tell ye the story of Olde Jim Brexit, a great man who saved our club from the bad people’, while the music from the old Hovis advert plays in the background, eternally.

So yeah, think on ffs.

I’d be quite interested to see how Ratcliffe would spin Liverpool considering he’s nailed his loyalty to United. Also the Chelsea situation.

 

[Baxquux]

You joke, but think of all the footballing ‘romance’ Liverpool fans would be treated to, as has been pointed out by some posters in here.

We’ll all be ‘cheerleading for Qatar’ in novelty kafiyehs and pom-poms and hysterically screaming ‘announce Mbappe’, cuz that’s what every person who prefers the 92 Foundation bid does and is.

Meanwhile Liverpool fans will be enjoying a dignified and superior fandom, a fandom of ‘romance’ where football actually means something to them (it won’t mean anything to us anymore, that’s the rules) and old men in flat caps ruffle the hair of their grandchildren and say, ‘let me tell ye the story of Olde Jim Brexit, a great man who saved our club from the bad people’, while the music from the old Hovis advert plays in the background, eternally.

So yeah, think on ffs.

Liverpool fans would be up in arms. If they were faced with the Glazers, the protests wouldn't be stopping at Anfield (or the clubs new corporates headquarters). The lead Glazers - presumably only two of them would be involved in any purchase, given the reports about general lack of interest in 'soccer' across the family as a whole - would be hiring home security and bodyguards at Rushdie fatwa-era levels, as well as potential and current commercial partners facing the kind of social media ordure and protests even the most high-profile 'cancellations' or 'anti-woke' backlashes of recent note couldn't measure up to...

Scousers may be sentimental, but they also have a stronger 'will to power' as a fanbase - compared to the fretting and susceptibility to concern-trolling of many fans on here or online (at least amongst British and adjacent sections) - because they want to win and they're prepared to perfectly contradict themselves if needs be.

 

[jm99]

Neither Qatar nor SJR is optimal in a perfect world. But right now we have to choose. For me the most important things is getting rid of the Glazers, getting rid of the debt, invest in the infrastructure and the team. One of the bidders have promised to solve all those problems. The other have not. So for me it´s an easy choice. But let´s say Apple or Musk had put in a bid. I would most likely have preferred that bidder over these two.

I get what you're saying but there are no circumstances where I would ever want musk as United owner, he'd be far worse than Qatar, Ratcliffe, probably even the Glazers

 

[Chesterlestreet]

People getting on their high horse about Qatar etc need to look closer to home.

These days the Western World is just a place where corruption and greed is as rife as ever with morality at a all time low.

Qatar etc have been quick to see this and now you wonder why they are using their money to get involved in many sports ?

The Western World can be bought and they know this.

This doesn't work as an argument against the "high horse" lot unless the premise is that those people (the supposed "moralists") actually argue/maintain that the "Western World" is a paragon of moral virtue (compared to the "Arab" or "Muslim" world). But they (the vast majority of them) clearly do not claim/maintain this.

I mean, seriously, if you ask 100 random people who are against Qatari ownership how they feel about...let's say: a) the war in Iraq (frequently brought up), b) the Uyghur situation (ditto) and c) the Israeli-Palestinian situation (ditto)...how do you predict that would go? Do you think their responses would reveal a general anti-Muslim bias or a bias against "non-Western" people?

 

[alexthelion]

There’s been a hell of a lot of dancing around the “sign Mbappé” motivation from the Qatar cheerleaders, that’s for sure. “We’re worried about the debt… Look at Nice… We just want the Glazers gone…” etc etc

 

[OmarUnited4ever]

I don’t remember the exact numbers from the Glazer’s takeover, but if LBOs are capped at 65% that wouldn’t have stopped Malcolm. He might have needed to tweak his purchase and chuck in a few more quid, but the debt placed on the club would still have been significant.

It doesn’t seem like a strong regulation to me. Why don’t they just ban LBOs all together?

It would have stopped a full takeover and they wouldn't be able to takeover the entirety of the club's assets as collateral, therefore it would've definitely prevented them from taking over the club via LBO scheme.

In this case of the club's sale, SJR is using his own assets (INEOS) as collateral to secure loans to fund the purchase of MUFC, so if he is successful, he or INEOS will still be on the hook for those loans, while Malcolm used the club's assets, when he had the 57% to secure loans to takeover the rest of the club in 2005, see below.

By the end of 2003, Glazer had increased his shareholding from 3.17% to around 15%, which he almost doubled in the year up to October 2004. His acquisition of John Magnier and J. P. McManus's 28.7% stake in May 2005 pushed his own up to around 57%, well over the 30% threshold that would force him to launch a takeover bid. A few days later, he took control of 75% of the club's shares, allowing him to delist the company from the London Stock Exchange, and within a month, the Glazers took 98% ownership of the club via their Red Football parent company, forcing a squeeze-out of the remaining 2%. The final purchase price of the club totaled almost £800 million.

Most of the capital used by Glazer to purchase Manchester United came in the form of loans, the majority of which were secured against the club's assets

As you can see above, most of the capital were loans against the club, and after securing 98%, they restructured the club which allowed to list in NYSE where they created 2 types of shares, they controlled the share that allowed highest voting power (Class B Shares) even after they reduced their % to 69%, they still have full control, they couldn't have done any of that of they only had 65% of the club via loans without putting their own money or borrowing against their own assets/businesses.

 

[Mas Risky]

The key to Man City's success is the recruitment of Txiki Begiristain and Ferran Soriano.

My only concern is who will be our CEO and DoF.

If we want to beat City at their own game, Murtough and Fletcher are not good enough.

 

[MDFC Manager]

I don’t remember the exact numbers from the Glazer’s takeover, but if LBOs are capped at 65% that wouldn’t have stopped Malcolm. He might have needed to tweak his purchase and chuck in a few more quid, but the debt placed on the club would still have been significant.

It doesn’t seem like a strong regulation to me. Why don’t they just ban LBOs all together?

Cynical view - they've just tried to strike a balance between fan appeasement and protecting their investments. If they block 100% LBO, they decrease their own prospects of selling their ownership in the future.

 

[alexthelion]

It’s such a mystery. So many people missing the bleeding obvious. We’ve been a terribly run club. Not an under-funded club (in terms of investment in the playing squad anyway). And the messiah is someone who has precisely zero experience of running a football club? WTF?!

We've spent OK on transfers but been woefully underfunded on the infrastructure. Seems it was a case of one or the other, not both as a proper owner would have done.

 

[Baxquux]

The key to Man City's success is the recruitment of Txiki Begiristain and Ferran Soriano.

My only concern is who will be our CEO and DoF.

If we want to beat City at their own game, Murtough and Fletcher are not good enough.

Well, football exec strategy, plus 'grey area' and possibly just complete corruption, along with gaming system before FFP was more stringent and they had reservoirs of cash, but you're right that this is significantly underplayed by most of fan base. Direction starts with the top, including who you hire to hire other people and oversee them and the culture that instills. Ours has been a bit of 'cleaning' (or 'reform') within a diseased and infection-spreading tooth, when we need extraction and new implant along with short-term proper antibiotics.

 

[stw2022]

Don't know ins and outs of all of this, though read about it at time... but my general understanding is that there was loads of potential for growth even then in their model, and they would have stayed on if the row over the horse hadn't been instigated, for who knows how long. Apparently it wasn't just looking at practicalities of the working relationship, but , according to reports, a sense of spite or revenge in acquiescing so easily to majority purchase by Glazers whose business model they knew would essentially undermine the club/SFs chances of competing at highest level: something like 'the worst people in the world to sell to' was the line I saw quoted/paraphrased.

They owned 28% of the club. Maybe the row did encourage them to sell more quickly than they would but the Glazers still had to buy the other 72% of shares. Unlikely the horse people would have held out, established the People’s Republic of Mancunia with a green and gold national flag and turned up at every match to march against the Glazer's.

Or maybe they would have sold like every other investors and shareholder did voluntarily until the compulsory purchase threshold was met.

The horse thing is a good story though.