Club Sale | It’s done!

Status
Not open for further replies.
I mean lenders just want repayment

Yes and, for the purposes of mitigating risk, suitable collateral. In United's case, the club would be unable to service a debt of, say, £3bn+ from its operating cash flow and any lender would probably rather have the debt collateralised against Ineos' assets, since the company is significantly larger and more valuable than Manchester United. To answer your question, Ineos could therefore probably get away with transferring some but not all of the acquisition debt obligation to United, if they wanted to.
 
Why is the thread title becoming harder to understand? this time its for book readers and librarians only.
 
I mean lenders just want repayment
Interesting point.

The Glazer’s, if I’m not mistaken, initially took external loans to purchase United and then following the purchase dumped them on the club.

So here, Sir Jim, initially takes the loans on INEOS what would stop him dumping them on the club?

Found this from Kieran Maguire

“The news from the Premier League is a lot of smoke and mirrors,” Maguire told Football Insider’s Sean Fisher.

Once you start to look at the small print, by all accounts, you’re not allowed to borrow more than two-thirds of the purchase price at the initial acquisition date.

“But that only lasts for 12 months.


So therefore after a year what we could have is, in fact, a worst-case scenario where a bidder effectively borrows from a third party or non-traditional sources for the first year and then revamps to a 100 per cent owned LBO after a year.

https://www.footballinsider247.com/...917m-man-united-reveal-not-good-for-football/
 
Leveraged buyouts are up to 65% of clubs worth, so SJR can leverage a buyout up until that amount however im not sure how it would effect any future buyout attempts, I think it would throw a spanner in the works considering SJR does not have 2bln capital to throw at the club and considering the club will be worth more in the proposed staggered deal he would need even more cash.

What's more is INEOS has the cash on hand but he would have a hard time convincing shareholders and his partners to simply let a one off payment of that size go out without some sort of repayment structure (leveraged buyout) significantly he would also need to fund future expenditure (probably on borrowing) so once you add this to the legal challenge from an inflated stock price on other stock owners his bid is effectively over.
 
Appreciate the response, thanks, but I’m asking why not specifically to this point.
My limited knowledge is that because the club would still be a separate legal entity it is very difficult to move the liability on them. I think Manchester United (the club) would have to voluntarily ask for the the debt or Ineos itself get into financial hardships and the debt be restructured (but then you'd assume they would have to sell the club). There are likely other ways but I don't think it makes sense, I don't really understand how it would benefit Ineos (or whatever subsidiary of Ineos buys United) even if they could because the debt remains the same, they still have to pay the same amount and (I think) they can still choose to use United's profits to pay that debt anyway without needing to physically move the liability.
 
If the Sheikh overpays £2.5 Billion for United (we arent valued anywhere near 6 billion), there's no way on earth he aint coming in and just rocking this club to its core. Why would you pay that much for a club and not essentially be a cheat code within 3 years? If you overpay that much for the actual club, what is he going to do when its his (or his families) actual asset?
It's hard to gauge considering the promised investment and debt servicing, but in current economic value of United might well be 5-6bln.

Each sale is different but the Suns got $4bln valuation just half an year ago and they have the half of United's revenue. On top of that NHL, NBA and other teams that we recently bought out are limited to probably one market, whilst United's appeal is very much global hence a lot more alleys for profit and more of a global brand. United also hold 1.6bln worth of assets, so yeah valuation around the 5bln mark is fair.
 
Yes and, for the purposes of mitigating risk, suitable collateral. In United's case, the club would be unable to service a debt of, say, £3bn+ from its operating cash flow and any lender would probably rather have the debt collateralised against Ineos' assets, since the company is significantly larger and more valuable than Manchester United. To answer your question, Ineos could therefore probably get away with transferring some but not all of the acquisition debt obligation to United, if they wanted to.
That’s the nature of the beast with United and a problem with it’s enterprise value being far lower than it’s apparent market value.

It’s probably not for this thread anyway but if an EPL side was being sold for £350m for example then it becomes more relevant.
 
If Sheikh Jassim were appearing in any other context than to potentially be United's (likely state-backed) sugar daddy, most people here would probably despise him. He's a nepo baby that's never earned any of the jobs he's had nor any of the wealth he's acquired.
 
If Sheikh Jassim were appearing in any other context than to potentially be United's (likely state-backed) sugar daddy, most people here would probably despise him. He's a nepo baby that's never earned any of the jobs he's had nor any of the wealth he's acquired.
Ah, I see you're familiar with most billionaires.
 
If Sheikh Jassim were appearing in any other context than to potentially be United's (likely state-backed) sugar daddy, most people here would probably despise him. He's a nepo baby that's never earned any of the jobs he's had nor any of the wealth he's acquired.

So, a like for like replacement of the glazer sons?
 
If Sheikh Jassim were appearing in any other context than to potentially be United's (likely state-backed) sugar daddy, most people here would probably despise him. He's a nepo baby that's never earned any of the jobs he's had nor any of the wealth he's acquired.
All billionaires are cnuts.
 
The media are really trying to portray that both parties are still in the race, gotta be incredible naive to think both parties are just sat there twiddling their thumbs waiting for the phone to ring.

The Brit media are not clued in at all by looks of it. So just playing it safe...
 
The media are really trying to portray that both parties are still in the race, gotta be incredible naive to think both parties are just sat there twiddling their thumbs waiting for the phone to ring.

They’re clueless. They just keep releasing filler pieces that say nothing to generate clicks because they’ve got no new information of any substance.
 
The media are really trying to portray that both parties are still in the race, gotta be incredible naive to think both parties are just sat there twiddling their thumbs waiting for the phone to ring.

Well you'd look like a right twat if you called it wrong. It's not worth the reputational risk. Lots of journalists predict stuff in private they would never say publicly. The average morning news conference is a million times more informative than what goes public as final product.
 
I really hope I'm wrong but I can´t get out of my head that Joel and Avram would go over corpses for SJR to get back with a similar bid as Jassims (full buyout) just so they could accept that as a final "feck you" to most (well many at least) of us fans.
 
Interesting point.

The Glazer’s, if I’m not mistaken, initially took external loans to purchase United and then following the purchase dumped them on the club.

So here, Sir Jim, initially takes the loans on INEOS what would stop him dumping them on the club?

Found this from Kieran Maguire

“The news from the Premier League is a lot of smoke and mirrors,” Maguire told Football Insider’s Sean Fisher.

Once you start to look at the small print, by all accounts, you’re not allowed to borrow more than two-thirds of the purchase price at the initial acquisition date.

“But that only lasts for 12 months.


So therefore after a year what we could have is, in fact, a worst-case scenario where a bidder effectively borrows from a third party or non-traditional sources for the first year and then revamps to a 100 per cent owned LBO after a year.

https://www.footballinsider247.com/...917m-man-united-reveal-not-good-for-football/
That’s exactly what I was talking about - great find thanks.
 
The thing I find bizarre is how his Dad’s instagram account always has pictures of all the family including a lot of Jassim’s brother, but literally none of Jassim himself, other than the recent sat round a table brain fart photo. Even at the WC he was nowhere to be seen but both his Dad and Brother were. Does anyone have an explanation for this?

The actor hadn't been cast in the role of Jassim yet.
 


pablo-escobar-Vogue-15Sept15-PA_b.jpg
 
The thing I find bizarre is how his Dad’s instagram account always has pictures of all the family including a lot of Jassim’s brother, but literally none of Jassim himself, other than the recent sat round a table brain fart photo. Even at the WC he was nowhere to be seen but both his Dad and Brother were. Does anyone have an explanation for this?

Watching MUTV at the time
 
The thing I find bizarre is how his Dad’s instagram account always has pictures of all the family including a lot of Jassim’s brother, but literally none of Jassim himself, other than the recent sat round a table brain fart photo. Even at the WC he was nowhere to be seen but both his Dad and Brother were. Does anyone have an explanation for this?
Maybe he just doesn’t spend a lot of time with his family because he lives abroad?
 
My limited knowledge is that because the club would still be a separate legal entity it is very difficult to move the liability on them. I think Manchester United (the club) would have to voluntarily ask for the the debt or Ineos itself get into financial hardships and the debt be restructured (but then you'd assume they would have to sell the club). There are likely other ways but I don't think it makes sense, I don't really understand how it would benefit Ineos (or whatever subsidiary of Ineos buys United) even if they could because the debt remains the same, they still have to pay the same amount and (I think) they can still choose to use United's profits to pay that debt anyway without needing to physically move the liability.

You can’t really just directly move a liability to a different company, there has to be an asset transferring as well, which is how double entry accounting works. In Ineos’s case it would take on the debt liability, but would hold the investment in Manchester United (formerly plc).

As Tomaldino says, what you can absolutely do is get your subsidiary to pay its parent company dividends out of its profits, or any other sort of management charge, to provide its parent company with sufficient cash to service the debt used to buy it. Comes to much the same thing, but there is a distinction.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.