Club Sale | It’s done!

Status
Not open for further replies.
Rightnr said:
I don't really care what you think.

I've been spot on on most of my takes and have taken personal decisions based on it. It's not ended badly and the UK is a shitshow.

But continue, maybe you also live in the same neighbourhood as Ratcliffe.
Click to expand...
Im not pro brexit but I am laughing at the lunacy that one brexiteer is akin to BJs ethics of what brexit was about.

Its lazy ignorant thinking. As is the thinking that those not wanting Qatar were doing so solely for moral reasons.
 
Ratcliffe is just giving the Glazers 1.5 billion for them to line their pockets with. I know this because some guy with a Qatar flag in his Twitter name told me so.
 
Mmm-Qatarian said:
I find it quite funny that so many on here are convinced that Ratcliffe, who whatever else he might be has somewhat proven himself to be a very competent businessman, has just decided he's going to give the Glazers 1.5 billion to spaff away because why the feck not.

There are quite obviously going to be certain conditions that come along with this offer. What they will be is anyone's guess, but Ratcliffe and INEOS aren't doing this out of generosity.
Click to expand...
Absolutely. You don’t become a billionaire without knowing how to play the game.

Ultimately nobody knows yet how this will pan out, both on and off the pitch, but feck it, it’s something.
 
Just seems like vanity from the Glazers. They didn't want to give up the club completely, they probably see it as their dad's legacy.
 
I don’t believe that 25% nonsense.

These 2 despicable cnuts will likely outlive Ratcliffe so what exactly does he gain for 25% going up slowly over so many years.
 
Rojofiam said:
When you guys are proven wrong in the future, I hope you'll acknowledge how bad your takes were on this whole situation.

I'll do the same if Jimmy lad really is just a "7th Glazer" and things won't get better for United...but that's fortunately so much more unlikely than your predictions.
Click to expand...

I wasn’t wrong, I never said Qatar would win I said they would bid £7- 7.2 billion to buy for 100% of the club and this has or will be proven very soon, but what I did say is that this will divide the fanbase more than any other decision and here we are Johnny smart asses want to feel Good about themselves that Ratcliffe will keep the Glazers in charge for at least another 3 years.

Let’s all have a f….party because the Goblins are going continue to destroy the club in the next three years. Some fans would support the club who ever owns them and I’m one of them.

I genuinely believe that INEOS has basically just made a very significant error, if he bought 51% the fans would have given him a chance, this deal will be the death of the club, the only positive is Paul Mitchel will be appointed as a sweetener in the next few weeks. And now he could go back in with a 51% without any objection as there is no rival bid?
 
Swedish_Plumber said:
Absolutely. You don’t become a billionaire without knowing how to play the game.

Ultimately nobody knows yet how this will pan out, both on and off the pitch but feck it, it’s something.
Click to expand...
You're absolutely correct. I think it's reasonable, though, to be confident that Ratcliffe and INEOS are not "just giving the Glazers 1.5 billion to line their pockets with" as some of the Qatar flags on Twitter have been claiming. Mega-corporations don't just throw around that sort of money for no reason; they will be getting some fairly big concessions from the Glazers as part of this and I imagine it will eventually lead to a majority takeover.
 
Pscholes18 said:
I'd almost rather watch us get relegated so the club would become so devalued, they'd have to do a full sale. Can't believe these cnuts turned down 7 bil.
Click to expand...
Someone in one of my WhatsApp group chats said this, we would have some wild Away Days!
 
Amarsdd said:
No its not. Its just an online vernacular; I think mainly popularized through twitch where chatting in emotes is a big thing
Click to expand...

Probably, I've only seen it used by far right morons on Twitter though.
 
dannyrhinos89 said:
I don’t believe that 25% nonsense.

These 2 despicable cnuts will likely outlive Ratcliffe so what exactly does he gain for 25% going up slowly over so many years.
Click to expand...
It would be 100% in 3-6 years and majority control in as little as 1 year. That's what's been reported.
 
Seveneric said:
Glad that the Qataris won’t be getting in, reserving my judgment on Ratcliffe until details of the deal is clearer.

Condolences to the fans who might not get to watch the club sign FM-style transfers every summer window invest in its infrastructure, as I'm sure that was the primary reason they wanted the Qataris :(
Click to expand...

Because the crossed out has worked so bad for City, Chelsea (under Abramovich) and Newcastle?
 
Swedish_Plumber said:
Absolutely. You don’t become a billionaire without knowing how to play the game.

Ultimately nobody knows yet how this will pan out, both on and off the pitch, but feck it, it’s something.
Click to expand...

doesn’t take a genius to workout how it pans out. Glazers remain in full control, limited investment, debt remains and united remain a cash cow for the leeches to line their pockets. That’s how a SJ R 25% bid works in the short/medium term. Don’t believe the glazer spin this week, they’ve played us all brilliantly again.
 
SirAF said:
"Copium" is such an alt right online thing to say.
Click to expand...
What alt right political movement has claimed copium? Last I saw it was something meme traders used to describe clinging to the slimmest of margins that something positive would happen from a very bad trade they took.
 
Looks like this decade of mediocrity will continue for a while longer I guess.

I don't see much changing with INEOS and Ratcliffe if they win the bid and they sure as hell won't be clearing the debt.
 
crossy1686 said:
What alt right political movement has claimed copium? Last I saw it was something meme traders used to describe clinging to the slimmest of margins that something positive would happen from a very bad trade they took.
Click to expand...
What an incel thing to say.
 
crossy1686 said:
What alt right political movement has claimed copium? Last I saw it was something meme traders used to describe clinging to the slimmest of margins that something positive would happen from a very bad trade they took.
Click to expand...

I'm conceding defeat. I'm probably colored by a few far right nerds I've seen use it.
 
R'hllor said:
Love how people act like they have knowledge of deal makings on that level
Click to expand...
Some journo (pundit, random guy who posts from mother's basement) told them. Because he obviously knows all details about this deal. I mean...he tweeted. It must be true.
 
Prepare for lots of ownership drama in the next years. Who is undermining whom, who has vetoed that, who is in charge of what, why the full ownership is taking so long to be completed and so on.

A lifeline was given to the leeches, instead of demanding a full sale. Apparently it was the only way Ratcliffe could compete with Jassim’s offer but who knows if he realizes the big picture and in what complicated mess he is getting into along with fecking United‘s future.
 
JediSith said:
One of the main business reasons for it not being bad business for INEOS is that football revenue will rise , United value will rise. Assuming this is true, why will the Glazers sell in 3 years? If they go how much more will the glazers have ask for? Considering they refused $6.5b (Jassim’s reported final offer)
Click to expand...
Hence my post earlier about having Ole Jimmy over a barrel. Cnut will will end up paying more than Jaseem would of.
 
Mmm-Qatarian said:
I find it quite funny that so many on here are convinced that Ratcliffe, who whatever else he might be has somewhat proven himself to be a very competent businessman, has just decided he's going to give the Glazers 1.5 billion to spaff away because why the feck not.

There are quite obviously going to be certain conditions that come along with this offer. What they will be is anyone's guess, but Ratcliffe and INEOS aren't doing this out of generosity.
Click to expand...
The past few years have shown us that competent businessmen can too often actually be remarkably incompetent and powered almost entirely on ego, and can cause total chaos when suddenly thrust into a new level of limelight. The wedding of United-Jimmy-Glazers seems like a frightening mismatch and it's difficult to imagine any sort of functioning structure will be in place for many years.
 
Could someone clarify whether SJR taking a 25% share would still be challenged by the class A shareholders. From reports it sounds like he is buying only the Glazers shares. It also sounds like the path to ‘majority ownership’ will be to buy out the remaining Glazer shares of the next few years which would still discriminate against the class A shareholders.

It seems to me that the only way to get around the class A shareholder issue was to play the long game in the hope SJ would drop out from the bidding so it would become a non issue.

But my question is, Is this not still an issue for the class A shareholders as the offer for full ownership was on the table at a premium. Just because it is not there now and the Glazers have decided to enrich themselves can they still not take legal action?
 
Stretfordender said:
doesn’t take a genius to workout how it pans out. Glazers remain in full control, limited investment, debt remains and united remain a cash cow for the leeches to line their pockets. That’s how a SJ R 25% bid works in the short/medium term. Don’t believe the glazer spin this week, they’ve played us all brilliantly again.
Click to expand...
you're not really making a good case for that
 
SJR cannot afford the club without borrowing.
It doesn’t matter if it’s a holding company or a secured loan 25% or full ownership it doesn’t matter. The club is finished as a top player in this new football era.

Love United but I’m done.
 
Wednesday at Stoke said:
Jim isn’t putting up any money without a pathway to owning majority shares and having some input on where his money will be spent. He doesn’t need United as an investment and he certainly isn’t here for a passive investor status.
Click to expand...


This a thousand times. There's no way Jim is putting his money into a club unless it leads to him having complete b control over it.

I suspect his bid was accepted a while ago as for one thing we know he has the funds.
 
jadaba said:
The past few years have shown us that competent businessmen can too often actually be remarkably incompetent and powered almost entirely on ego, and can cause total chaos when suddenly thrust into a new level of limelight. The wedding of United-Jimmy-Glazers seems like a frightening mismatch and it's difficult to imagine any sort of functioning structure will be in place for many years.
Click to expand...
I mean sure, the fact that he's a competent businessman is no guarantee at all that everything is going to turn out well for the club.

What I'm saying is, I'd be absolutely staggered if Ratcliffe is "just giving the Glazers 1.5 billion to line their pockets with" like so many are claiming. I'm reasonably certain that INEOS will not be making this investment without assurances from the Glazers' end, and that's supported by news stories we're seeing about the offer.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.