Ducker can't resist a negative end to his articles
Club Sale | It’s done!
- Thread starter JB08
- Start date
- Status
Ducker can't resist a negative end to his articles
'the club intends to take advantage of the break in LaLiga schedule, caused by the World Cup in Qatar, to demolish part of the stands. Other minor renovation works have been ongoing since July this year. The timetable for the more than €1.5 billion upgrade of Spotify Camp Nou will be pushed forward'.
More than I thought.
More than I thought.
Yeah that's definitely not happening. Glazers would set fire to Fred if it meant more money. Abramovic cared about the club Glazers don't give a feck.
Radcliffe sounds like a "balance the books" kinda gut that's effectively what's he done at Nice. Certainly don't expect a spending spree right way if he takes over.
is the new owner obliged to pay off the debt?
The important question is are the new owners going to level out the side of the pitch so there isn't a death trap ditch?
Surely the Chelsea owners are hoping the club increases in value so they can make a hefty profit in a few years?
I wonder, do we know what are the likely parameters to be named ‘preferred bidder’ by Raine group?
Is it literally fattest wallet wins, or will there be other criteria that might see a lower bid accepted?
Maybe @Messier1994 has insight? Anyone else?
Is it literally fattest wallet wins, or will there be other criteria that might see a lower bid accepted?
Maybe @Messier1994 has insight? Anyone else?
No one's giving you that info. This is not the Chelsea sale.
So is that set by Raine/Glazers as a condition of sale, or is their an industry template that is followed?
Expensive for sure, but still much less than a new stadium while keeping all the history (which is a big deal!). It's one of those things that are ultimately needed anyway, and it'll be through a mixture of some investment I'm sure and the rest being club refinancing which is fine. The main thing is for the new owners to clear the debt, which they don't have to do but is something that they'll have to deal with regardless, so it depends on their motives. My prediction would be the debt gets cleared and then a new debt is tossed on for refinancing for renovations, but we keep ~150m a year net spend for the next bit.
Yeah a few have come a cropper down there
I think we can safely say there is no owners that everyone is going to be happy with.
There is understandable concern about ME because of human rights and whether they will ditch Erik,on the other hand they aren't concerned about profit and are all about just letting manager spend.
Then you have Ratcliffe who is a lifelong fan and sentimental choice,however there is concern he will run it like a business to want a return on investment and has also made some worrying decisions running OGS Nice.
There is understandable concern about ME because of human rights and whether they will ditch Erik,on the other hand they aren't concerned about profit and are all about just letting manager spend.
Then you have Ratcliffe who is a lifelong fan and sentimental choice,however there is concern he will run it like a business to want a return on investment and has also made some worrying decisions running OGS Nice.
Last edited:
In terms of pure business it makes no sense to buy United. Its not just the cost of buying but all the associated infrastructure costs which require billions.
Is this good news or bad news?
Jim isn't that rich. How do we know hes not a "profit first" owner?
Jim isn't that rich. How do we know hes not a "profit first" owner?
Last edited:
Yeah I am concerned about that too
Why would they ditch our most promising manager since SAF ?
Please feck no to the last option
Yeah Ducker and Stone bringing us out in cold sweats with those last lines of their tweets
I'll fecking quit football if these rats try to weasel their way out of this by remaining owners.
The Saudis did but were disqualified on a technicality. So hard to know how much should be read into that. In a sense, you could understand Raine letting people know that look, the bidding isn’t closed for anyone, but we can’t promise that the politicians with the ultimate say on this sale won’t be vary if taking the club from an oligarch and selling it to a state that can be accused of X, Y and Z. Right? So could be that some of them stayed out of the bidding for that club for that reason.
Last edited:
I'll fecking quit football if these rats try to weasel their way out of this by remaining owners.
Trouble is journos have to say it to cover themselves but hate to see it being suggested
I would be careful before backing any potential new owner. Using media at this early stage while other bids are not declared sounds like negotiating tactics. They know they are “preferred” choice because of the “fan” factor. I would like to see how they handle our existing debt and if they are doing leveraged buyout. If you thought 600m leveraged buyout was bad, imagine what 5bn leveraged buyout would turn out to be.
Basically we need someone who will clear the debt, improve our cash reserves and invest in stadium and our training facilities while investing what we normally do (not insane like Chelsea) for first few years.
Basically we need someone who will clear the debt, improve our cash reserves and invest in stadium and our training facilities while investing what we normally do (not insane like Chelsea) for first few years.
I would just guess at highest bid wins. But if bids are really close — which is a possibility, perhaps the Glazers could be influenced by other factors.
But it also depends on what type of transaction is made. The Glazers own 67%, the rest of the shares are traded on the NYSE. The Glazers could sell their shares if they wanted to, to any bidder of their choice. Then that bidder can decide what to do with the remaining 33% of the shares. The share price is still way way below the discussed 6bn valuation, which indicate that the market think that there is a big risk for their shares not being part of a 6bn merger. And if you were Ineos — would you care about the remaining 33%? Not necessarily. But at the same time, the share price have of course gone up almost 100% from summer low, which definitely indicates that the market hasn’t ruled out a bidder taking their 33% too.
And my point with this is just, if it’s a merger of which the board takes a fairly big share of responsibility for — and for which they can be held accountable for by the minority owners — then there is very little room for any other consideration than the price.
Im not british, i know nothing about sir jimmy. Google says his networth is 15bil. Assuming he's buying United for 5bil, that is 1/3 his nw.What state we're in that a multi billionaire is not that "rich".
God have mercy
He's mega rich for you, me or any average person but not that rich for United.
Dont get me wrong. I want a british person to own british club too but maintaining United is going to cost a lot.
Poor FredSomebody like Steve Ballmer would not be bad... retired, net worth $88B - mainly Microsoft stock, owns another sports team (LA Clippers) who he is building a $1.8B arena for with no public money.
So… that’s not really how Clearlake view sports ownership. When they said European models for leveraging some of the most popular IPs in the world were archaic …. They were being kind.
I was talking about alternate revenue streams with a friend who is a Liverpool fan the other day and he was like “so .. Jersey sales?”
Clearlake create successful
cultural and sporting platforms from which they can launch other projects, attachments and ventures. They don’t want to sell the team. They want to grow Chelsea AND the Premiere League to the point it has monetary leverage undreamed of in prior generations.
You could put a Chelsea lion in adopt me right now and probably make a mint. Maybe PL clans and skins in Fortnite?
I mean, I’m just throwing out a few random suggestions.
They own their own networks and cable stations, and they operate them JUST for content related to their teams.
I guess the best example is still the Dodgers. They make a mint being the owner of the Dodgers, but the Dodgers themselves lose 500 m a year on average.
We live in age where YouTube “content” creators make tens of millions or more yearly filming videos from their moms basement (at least until they get enough money to buy a house …).
FSG are a good example as well, they own 4 sports teams, most notably the Boston Red Sox, they also probably make a loss on the team, they have a small stadium which holds mid 30K, but they also own the TV station that has the rights to Red Sox games, they make a fortune out of merchandising and advertising, they just gave 1 player an 11 year $300 million + contract - eat your heart out footie players!
So what? If there's one thing I can praise them with, it's that these rats are quite resilient. . If they think the club is not dry enough yet from all that blood sucking, I do believe they can give us the finger. How many protests have we already done and nothing has worked. Hell, we even created a football club out of all this. They don't care. They never have
The Premier League introduced an ‘owner’s charter’ and ‘owners test’ that requires ownership models to follow a set of rules: https://resources.premierleague.com...a4e95f2/PL_Handbook_2022-23_DIGITAL_13.12.pdf
Also, the Raine group negotiated ‘anti glazer clauses’ in the sale of Chelsea, so they will likely include similar with us while selecting the best potential ownership from a future investment and sustainability perspective.
Basically, with the premier league’s new rules on fit and proper ownership, the Raine group will have to select an owner who adheres to that. It won’t be just about the highest bidder, but that will obviously play a part.
All true and another protest on the scale of the one at the Liverpool home game would likely bring a ground closure, fine and points deduction
And put off any new potential owners.
I'm not sure it would TBH since they know they are likely to be viewed as the knights in shining armour by the majority of the fan base
Its worth remembering that the Raine Group were hired by Roman Abramovich to process the Chelsea sale once he knew he could lose control of the club via sanctions.
The numerous clauses that bidders were required to agree to (spending commitments, anti-glazer debt measures, dividend bans etc) were likely put in place by Roman because he actually cared about the club and didnt just want it sold to the highest bidder in case they ran it into the ground.
None of the clauses the Raine Group introduced to the Chelsea sale were about any kind of moral stance on their part. They are an investment bank that have been hired by the Glazers to sell the club. Any hoops bidders jump through will be for the Glazers benefit not ours. The most likely scenario is that they ship us off to the highest bidder.
As long as the bidder is likely to pass the relevant owner tests I highly doubt the Glazers will instruct the Raine Group to look out for future investment, debt repayment or future sustainability. They’ll take their money and couldn’t care less what the future holds for us.
The only way for us to guarantee good ownership is for fan groups to identify what good ownership for Manchester United looks like and apply enough pressure publicly for any prospective bidders to have to commit to things they demand.
I imagine one of the reasons Jim Ratcliffe has announced his interest first is that hes hoping to get the fans onside and use that fan pressure to help sway the process in his favour. If it comes to a straight bidding war he knows he wont be able to compete with an oil state.
But its not like the Raine Group will publically announce who has made it to the final cut of potential bidders/buyers. So how do you suggest fans 'pressure' potential winner?
Besides they could intentionally leak some rumour to encourage a different outcome or nudge a higher price.
- Status