QSI will only have a minority stake if they go for us
Club Sale | It’s done!
- Thread starter JB08
- Start date
- Status
I don’t think they’ll share with the Glazers.
It will be a consortium
I don't think it matters the size of the investment, I take the rule to be no one person (or entity ) can have his or her hands in two pies.
Unless of course they are two different legal entities with different owners - so in the case of say Ineos, they couldn't own both Nice and then want to purchase United as well.
But I might be completely wrong as I'm sure there are owners who own multiple clubs (eg City) - I just can't think of any owners who own 2 UEFA clubs
They can own 49% of United and a consortium 51%
A partial sale is in no one’s interest.
Glazers need to have no grubby fingers left on Utd after this process and a full ownership is the best option - a consortium means too many voices at the top table.
Glazers need to have no grubby fingers left on Utd after this process and a full ownership is the best option - a consortium means too many voices at the top table.
City do. They own 5 teams in UEFA.
Going by reports I would think we would be the least likely option for Qatar out of Spurs,us and Liverpool.
That's good news.
That's good news.
I've gotten so excited about the prospect of being rid of the Glazers, I don't think I could deal with the disappointment of a partial sale and them still being the ones in charge. It would be the most disheartening thing in the whole post SAF era.
Hopefully running down the stadium works wonders in that regard!
devastating for the soul of a traditional big club and english football, yes
Really? They publish quite a lot of quantity too, right?
Probably been heavily debated, but Red Bull solved this (Salzburg/Leipzig), right?
In what way do you mean this?
A) Standing your ground when we're already taken over and our results comes off billions of oil-money? (Protest when things maybe are going great? Sounds like yelling in the wind to me)
or
B) Before the take-over.. So like protesting now?
(I'm for B if we can somehow organize us fans - but I'm not sure I want to be part of sportswashing, which all fans eventually will be, unless they constantly for the next 40 years of ownership blabber constantly about the wrong-doings of the owners)
Yeah as far as I’m aware that’s correct isn’t it?
Man knowing how they acquired the club and how much they have invested just makes me fecking sick reading that title talk about absolute savage levels of greed
We really need this to be sorted by the summer window if this one is indicative of how available funds will be made. Need to be supporting the excellent work ETH is doing.
I looked into the case law regarding the provisions to ensure integrity of the game by banning a club owning another club or one owner controlling two clubs -- in UEFA tournaments.
The first important ruling came in decision CAS 98/200 AEK Athens and SK Slavia Prague v UEFA (the “ENIC Case”). The deliberations in this case basically lead to the current rules. In this decision, the CAS considered various ways in which the integrity of a competition may be threatened by the common ownership of football clubs. For example, the CAS considered the interest of clubs which find themselves sharing a qualification group with two commonly-owned clubs and observed that there would be a possibility that the commonly-owned clubs could conspire to obtain results that were mutually beneficial to them, at the expense of other teams. Overall, the CAS stressed the need for transparency and legitimacy in all UEFA competitions, noting that the supporters’ perception of a particular game could be damaged by the differing business aims of two clubs in the same competition in which the same person or company has an interest.
The second available ruling came in 2017 in AC-01/2017 (the "Red Bull Case") in which it was considered if Red Bull held controlling influence over both FC Red Bull Salzburg ("Salzburg") and RasenBallsport Leipzig GmbH ("Leipzig") (both referred to as the "Clubs)". The Red Bull Decision was triggered by an UEFA investigation finding:
(a) that Red Bull has the ability to control access to the ordinary membership of the General Assembly of Salzburg, that Salzburg garners an unusually high level of income from Red Bull via sponsorship agreements and that Salzburg rents its stadium (and offices) from a subsidiary of Red Bull,
(b) that Red Bull has the ability to exercise decisive influence over Leipzig, that Leipzig garners an unusually high level of income from Red Bull via sponsorship agreements and that considerable loan financing is given to Leipzig by Red Bull on favourable terms; and
(c) a formal cooperation agreement entered into by the Clubs, the unusually high level of player loans/transfers which have taken place between the Clubs in past seasons, the past involvement of certain individuals who are allegedly connected to Red Bull in the operation of both Clubs and the common visual identity/similar branding of the Clubs, as well as noting certain public statements regarding the Clubs made by the CEO of Red Bull.
As a first step -- the UEFA "court" ("CFCB") -- looked at the meaning of “decisive influence”, which has no definition in the rules. The CFCB found that in light of the purpose of the rule, it is necessary to limit the nature of the decision making under scrutiny to decisions that impact on the integrity of a competition. It is implicit therefore that such decisions must necessarily relate to matters that affect the performance of a club in a competition and not simply generic corporate, commercial, financial or other business activities which do not directly affect sporting performance. In addition, the CFCB found that the rule was a "strict test", resulting in that nothing short of a legal power to control decision making -- which might impact the performance of the club in competitions -- is required under these provisions.
As a second step, the CFCB noted that the clubs had made several changes, including removing persons performing duties for both clubs, terminating some loans, terminating the cooperation agreement and Red Bull's membership in the general assembly of Salzburg as well as Salzburg undertaking "to address the situation" regarding the lease of its stadium from a Red Bull-related entity. Hence the CFCB found that Red Bull could not be found to have a controlling influence over Salzburg. Both Leipzig and Salzburg were allowed to participate in UEFA tournaments.
The conclusion that can be drawn from these cases are that UEFA will not interpret the rules broadly and that there must be a danger for the integrity of a club in relation to its participation in competitions for the rules to be triggered. In addition, it can be noted that Red Bull largely -- at least formally -- severed ties with Salzburg in light of the decision by UEFA.
Again, I am fairly certain that you quite easily can work around these provisions by for example creating some kind of fictional "50+1" environment. It simply is not in place to interpret the rules broadly and in reality there is no risk for the integrity of how a club like for example PSG and Man Utd would perform in UEFA tournaments. But, it could definitely end up being looked at by UEFA and it could take some time before you know the exact parameters. It is a bit of a nuisance for a buyer already owning a UEFA club for sure. But ultimately, no serious owner will want to have the ability to impact a managers' selection of his team or in game coaching anyway. In a normal cooperate structure, you can however assume that a CEO or at least the board has the formal power to do so. Create a separate entity in control of the managerial aspects -- and you should be home free.
The first important ruling came in decision CAS 98/200 AEK Athens and SK Slavia Prague v UEFA (the “ENIC Case”). The deliberations in this case basically lead to the current rules. In this decision, the CAS considered various ways in which the integrity of a competition may be threatened by the common ownership of football clubs. For example, the CAS considered the interest of clubs which find themselves sharing a qualification group with two commonly-owned clubs and observed that there would be a possibility that the commonly-owned clubs could conspire to obtain results that were mutually beneficial to them, at the expense of other teams. Overall, the CAS stressed the need for transparency and legitimacy in all UEFA competitions, noting that the supporters’ perception of a particular game could be damaged by the differing business aims of two clubs in the same competition in which the same person or company has an interest.
The second available ruling came in 2017 in AC-01/2017 (the "Red Bull Case") in which it was considered if Red Bull held controlling influence over both FC Red Bull Salzburg ("Salzburg") and RasenBallsport Leipzig GmbH ("Leipzig") (both referred to as the "Clubs)". The Red Bull Decision was triggered by an UEFA investigation finding:
(a) that Red Bull has the ability to control access to the ordinary membership of the General Assembly of Salzburg, that Salzburg garners an unusually high level of income from Red Bull via sponsorship agreements and that Salzburg rents its stadium (and offices) from a subsidiary of Red Bull,
(b) that Red Bull has the ability to exercise decisive influence over Leipzig, that Leipzig garners an unusually high level of income from Red Bull via sponsorship agreements and that considerable loan financing is given to Leipzig by Red Bull on favourable terms; and
(c) a formal cooperation agreement entered into by the Clubs, the unusually high level of player loans/transfers which have taken place between the Clubs in past seasons, the past involvement of certain individuals who are allegedly connected to Red Bull in the operation of both Clubs and the common visual identity/similar branding of the Clubs, as well as noting certain public statements regarding the Clubs made by the CEO of Red Bull.
As a first step -- the UEFA "court" ("CFCB") -- looked at the meaning of “decisive influence”, which has no definition in the rules. The CFCB found that in light of the purpose of the rule, it is necessary to limit the nature of the decision making under scrutiny to decisions that impact on the integrity of a competition. It is implicit therefore that such decisions must necessarily relate to matters that affect the performance of a club in a competition and not simply generic corporate, commercial, financial or other business activities which do not directly affect sporting performance. In addition, the CFCB found that the rule was a "strict test", resulting in that nothing short of a legal power to control decision making -- which might impact the performance of the club in competitions -- is required under these provisions.
As a second step, the CFCB noted that the clubs had made several changes, including removing persons performing duties for both clubs, terminating some loans, terminating the cooperation agreement and Red Bull's membership in the general assembly of Salzburg as well as Salzburg undertaking "to address the situation" regarding the lease of its stadium from a Red Bull-related entity. Hence the CFCB found that Red Bull could not be found to have a controlling influence over Salzburg. Both Leipzig and Salzburg were allowed to participate in UEFA tournaments.
The conclusion that can be drawn from these cases are that UEFA will not interpret the rules broadly and that there must be a danger for the integrity of a club in relation to its participation in competitions for the rules to be triggered. In addition, it can be noted that Red Bull largely -- at least formally -- severed ties with Salzburg in light of the decision by UEFA.
Again, I am fairly certain that you quite easily can work around these provisions by for example creating some kind of fictional "50+1" environment. It simply is not in place to interpret the rules broadly and in reality there is no risk for the integrity of how a club like for example PSG and Man Utd would perform in UEFA tournaments. But, it could definitely end up being looked at by UEFA and it could take some time before you know the exact parameters. It is a bit of a nuisance for a buyer already owning a UEFA club for sure. But ultimately, no serious owner will want to have the ability to impact a managers' selection of his team or in game coaching anyway. In a normal cooperate structure, you can however assume that a CEO or at least the board has the formal power to do so. Create a separate entity in control of the managerial aspects -- and you should be home free.
The Raine Group calls up Jimmy Ratcliffe, but he won't bite, its too much money. Then they call up QSI, and present a creative corporate structure which enables then to own both PSG and Man Utd plc. But they don't want to go there. Beckham gets wind of the process going slow, in between handling family feuds on social media. Could he link together his connections with the QSI and Ratcliffe?
The thing is, I do not any contradictory interest between Ineos and QSI. Sure on some level in the Qatar structure, there will be entities in the petrochemical industry which are direct competitors with Ineos, but Ineos is in the European market while the ME's refinement activities have just filled the need for its product in the extremely fast growing Asian market -- and have never had any need to go into the European market. Both QSI and Ineos are into sports science -- but cooperating in that field is of course not exclusive. QSI is interested in the tourism and arranging sports activities side, which Ineos is not. Ineos is starting to sell their first 4x4 car, the Grenadier, right now. Qatar doesn't make any cars. Branding power? Of course its interesting for both -- but hardily anything that would exclude a cooperation.
Why should QSI make a minor investment in Man Utd instead of in Liverpool or Tottenham or Notts County or some other club? The usp Manchester United have is it ability to generate 100% legit revenues. A team like PSG will get into a lot of FFP problems. They were what, minus 385m last season? Owning a football club has proven lucrative -- if the club can be successful. To be successful, you need to spend. To be able to spend with the new FFP rules, you must generate revenue. The City Football Group is limited in the sense that only one of their clubs can compete in European cups (unless making RB type of changes, which I am sure they would). Create a Football Alliance instead. But wouldn't QSI favor PSG which they own 100% of instead of Man Utd in which they only own a minority stake? I don't think its an issue. The limiting factors for these teams will be the FFP rules.
The thing is, I do not any contradictory interest between Ineos and QSI. Sure on some level in the Qatar structure, there will be entities in the petrochemical industry which are direct competitors with Ineos, but Ineos is in the European market while the ME's refinement activities have just filled the need for its product in the extremely fast growing Asian market -- and have never had any need to go into the European market. Both QSI and Ineos are into sports science -- but cooperating in that field is of course not exclusive. QSI is interested in the tourism and arranging sports activities side, which Ineos is not. Ineos is starting to sell their first 4x4 car, the Grenadier, right now. Qatar doesn't make any cars. Branding power? Of course its interesting for both -- but hardily anything that would exclude a cooperation.
Why should QSI make a minor investment in Man Utd instead of in Liverpool or Tottenham or Notts County or some other club? The usp Manchester United have is it ability to generate 100% legit revenues. A team like PSG will get into a lot of FFP problems. They were what, minus 385m last season? Owning a football club has proven lucrative -- if the club can be successful. To be successful, you need to spend. To be able to spend with the new FFP rules, you must generate revenue. The City Football Group is limited in the sense that only one of their clubs can compete in European cups (unless making RB type of changes, which I am sure they would). Create a Football Alliance instead. But wouldn't QSI favor PSG which they own 100% of instead of Man Utd in which they only own a minority stake? I don't think its an issue. The limiting factors for these teams will be the FFP rules.
Did vanderpants get banned or quit Redcafe after being caught out about working for United?
His profile and posts have gone
His profile and posts have gone
Would have been good if he was legit.
This is like United transfer news I feel. A lot of throwing out theory’s and fake links and hope one is true. Radcliffe, Qatar, Apple, Saudis. Who knows. I do think things are happening in the background. Maybe Glazers are pimping United out and talking to everyone. Looking for the highest bid.
Why can't Vimto buy us?
Or something classy like Special Brew.
Have you seen how Qatar have been handling PSG?
Advantages are all to the glazers. The hope is the Qatar investment could help finance an OT and Carrington revamp, which should increase the value of the club further. Even as majority shareholders, the gimps would be exposed to a takeover by a rich minority owner like the Qataris. This may conceivably allow the gimps to pocket more in a future and compete takeover over their majority shares.
Not sure where to post this as don’t think there is a Woodward thread still, but:
It’s really depressing the state of the Prem these days.
Two great english institutions (and Spurs) are just getting whored out to the highest bidder. These potential owners don’t even care about our club that’s the sad part.
All the history we have I don’t even think means anything to these people so it makes it very hard to get behind them.
Two great english institutions (and Spurs) are just getting whored out to the highest bidder. These potential owners don’t even care about our club that’s the sad part.
All the history we have I don’t even think means anything to these people so it makes it very hard to get behind them.
I’m not sure if I’m right but assuming this option is our worst case scenario and the Glaziers keep a majority shares and PSG become a stake holder of maybe 20 to 25% which would be the least shares allocation the Qatar group would be interested in. This would give the Glaziers a few more years to milk the value out of the club and look to get a higher sale value in 2-3 years.
The issues surely must be the existing debt and the current financial model of the club, you sell 25% for let’s say £1.5bn, the club still has a debt to service and they will want at least half the £650m paid off to a generate robust business model.
The problems with this model only become our worst nightmares as the Glaziers, by using the new capital and pre agreed deal to sell the club to Qatar in 2-3 years once they have got rid of PSG, invest the £1bn in stadium and training grounds and £300-400m in transfers we will still have a debt of £600m in the club with the whole the investment has got as back to regular Champions League participants and challenging for the title every season,
It’s a huge risk that could easily backfire with the incompetent owners continuing to bleed the club and cutting corners, the £1bn for stadium and training grounds becomes £800m, the transfer budget £250m overt 2 seasons, the £200k wage cap becomes reality, players, manages , execs not knowing who will run the club in the next three years and how to treat visiting Qatari delegates. There’s no smoke without fire and this is turning from a seriously bad dream to our worst nightmare!
The issues surely must be the existing debt and the current financial model of the club, you sell 25% for let’s say £1.5bn, the club still has a debt to service and they will want at least half the £650m paid off to a generate robust business model.
The problems with this model only become our worst nightmares as the Glaziers, by using the new capital and pre agreed deal to sell the club to Qatar in 2-3 years once they have got rid of PSG, invest the £1bn in stadium and training grounds and £300-400m in transfers we will still have a debt of £600m in the club with the whole the investment has got as back to regular Champions League participants and challenging for the title every season,
It’s a huge risk that could easily backfire with the incompetent owners continuing to bleed the club and cutting corners, the £1bn for stadium and training grounds becomes £800m, the transfer budget £250m overt 2 seasons, the £200k wage cap becomes reality, players, manages , execs not knowing who will run the club in the next three years and how to treat visiting Qatari delegates. There’s no smoke without fire and this is turning from a seriously bad dream to our worst nightmare!
Why would you spend £5 billions and not care about your investments, are you saying City investors don`t care about them, they have invested in the club and the surrounding area. Of course, they care about the club, maybe it`s people who borrow on the club that care more for the returns in their investment.
Is that the same as when they talk about modernising public services when they are slashing funding?
There are a lot of issues whoring the club out to oil money (most serios concern if it is to to the murderers in Saudi Arabia) but them not caring is definitely not a big concern. Historically we've seen oil money owners actually caring about wins a lot. As opposed to Glazers, they usually understand the game, are passionate about the game and buy the club because they want to win, not just as cash cow source. Also, it is very unlikely anybody else will treat us the way Glazers did, for the simple fact that Glazers never invested their own money, they bought us on loan (and paid interests on that loan from our revenues, so basically got us free). That kind of deal is not allowed in Premier League anymore, as far as I know. Anybody who invests their own money and has an ounce of love for the game won't treat United the way Glazers do. The likelihood of us improving, with any new owner are high. The only question is - if anybody will actually buy hugely overpriced United at 6 billion + or if Glazers will accept more realistic 4-5 billion price.
I am gettin increasingly concerned that Glazers won't sell and they actually prefer to get "minority investment" so they can continue fecking around.
I am gettin increasingly concerned that Glazers won't sell and they actually prefer to get "minority investment" so they can continue fecking around.
I'm pretty sure it won't be any worse than what it is at the moment in time. Heck, I'd bet it would get better and more in tune with our history under Sir Matt and Sir Alex.
We would see some heavy protests if this happens.
Just to bad that we will only be able to do it after the fact, since none of the journalists covering this team can stop surfing Twitter to seek up Ratcliffe, Beckham and co and ask what is going on…
Spot on
“Project Bethlehem? I fink it’s you what wants to be a star. But I’d settle for even one wise man right about now.”
“Project Bethlehem? I fink it’s you what wants to be a star. But I’d settle for even one wise man right about now.”
Sad they have been hounded out.
Hopefully they have been given a new identity and can post bits of info without everyone trying to catch them out at each opportunity.
So the Glazers are set to sell a minority stake?
No. Nobody would spend billions to buy in and fund all the capital investment just for the Glazers to sit on their sweaty fat ginger arses taking their investments back out of the club and back into their own pockets. And no sensible billionaire businessperson would work with the Glazers knowing that they are terrible football club owners who've run the club into the ground for their own greed. Thanks.
- Status