Only if your view was state owned bad, business owned good. Otherwise it is all the same.Whoever was begging for SJ..
Again, I wanted neither, but the SJ begging and subsequent meltdown is completely shameless
I'm having a 'hissy fit' because the club's ethos built up by SAF of competing to win is dead in the water. We've gone from a scary club to a laughing stock in the past years. With this, we're truly on the path of fallen giant.Pot calling kettle black, much?
You’re having a right old hissyfit cause King Jim of MUFC has won.
Deal with it!
You are once again talking from an anti-state owned point of view. Qatar is out and that discussion is done.You, like many others are just thinking that money = success. Not true.
The Glazers have spent a fortune on the team and look at the state of it. We could have spent 1/3 of that wisely and been in a much better position.
The Qatari's were putting forward a faceless nobody as the club buyer, someone there is what, 3 pictures of? It's totally weird.
People are too quick to abandon their morals for some money, it's sad.
Ratcliffe is already talking about employing Michael Edwards, one of the best football operators. If he follows his lead, I'm fairly positive about it all. The Glazers are clueless.
The only man whose facial expression remains the same whether he is putting it in or pulling it out (the bid).Is this the only image of this guy? Looks like a stock photo if you were to Google "sheikh at a desk".
Honestly, does this guy exist?
You, like many others are just thinking that money = success. Not true.
The Glazers have spent a fortune on the team and look at the state of it. We could have spent 1/3 of that wisely and been in a much better position.
The Qatari's were putting forward a faceless nobody as the club buyer, someone there is what, 3 pictures of? It's totally weird.
People are too quick to abandon their morals for some money, it's sad.
Ratcliffe is already talking about employing Michael Edwards, one of the best football operators. If he follows his lead, I'm fairly positive about it all. The Glazers are clueless.
You are once again talking from an anti-state owned point of view. Qatar is out and that discussion is done.
My point was that there is no proof what control Glazers are giving to Ineos or what control Ineos wants right now. It is too premature to say "All is well now".
I'd rather everyone pulled out. We're at our financial limits, the Glazers wouldn't be able to hold onto United for too many years longer and would be in a weaker position when having to put the club up for sale again. This is why I can't stand the INEOS bid, we could be looking at the Glazers having a strangle hold on our club for a further 10 years or more. They can talk about how they plan to buy them out by 2026 and all that, but unless Sir Jim worked a flanker and have some sort of cast iron obligations that the Glazers have to sell by a certain time, what's to force them to sell in the future?
I personally couldn't think of a worse case scenario that what we have right now
I agree with your first 3 sentences.
I just wish people would stop talking about morals. Jim isnt some saint. His company is a terrible company that has close ties to the Saudis. Neither Qatar fans nor Jim fans should pretend to have some moral highground. Its nonsense.
IF he employs Michael Edwards that is indeed very good. So far that is all pr talk to speak to the fans, much like Qatars pr babble.
I don't disagree with that in principle, if Qatar had taken over I would accept it and get on with it, but if we can avoid being reduced to a sportswashing operation, that is a positive in my book...
Is this the only image of this guy? Looks like a stock photo if you were to Google "sheikh at a desk".
Honestly, does this guy exist?
Think it wasn’t state backed like PSG was. It was more of one rich family looking to do private investment.Was the Qatar bid even legit?
I say that because of Qatar lack of flexibility around the deal - 100% or nothing. Why not find a compromise, as it was clear some of The Glazers wanted to remain?
Why tell the world you are about to spend an extra $2.5bil on stadium, training ground, players, city redevelopment etc? You are dealing with The Glazers - why tell them you have more money allocated to this project? They have no interest in what happens to the club once they are paid out. Appealing to the fans means nothing to The Glazers.
Ben Jacobs reported ... "One of the issues Nine Two Foundation faced was a lack of face time with Sheikh Jassim." Why would that be?
He has also said "while insiders close to the sale have continually argued the reality of Qatar's bid didn't match the PR."
So, was this all a PR move for Qatar?
Our spend may not be sustainable without more money from outside flowing in. We've been buying on credit the last two summers where we pay off the transfer spend with the matchday proceeds the following June.Our absolute spend was never the problem. It was how well the money was allocated. To quote you - "How this is hard to grasp for some of you is beyond me."
Hopefully by the end of the week we will be a bit more familiar with the details given the requirements of the process and obligations to the stock exchange.
The process
Glazers
- It was commenced by the club. The Raine Group acted on behalf of the club and not the Glazers.
- The club will need to formally end that process, we assume this will follow the forthcoming board meeting.
- The directors are technically supposed to act in the best interest of the club and not for their personal interests. Obviously, the Glazers have their personal interests at heart however they cannot be seen to be openly acting out of self-interest.
- You would assume that the directors would need to explain why the Sir Jim deal is in the best deal for the club and in so doing for the shareholders.
- The main details of the deal would need to be released accordingly there cannot be any suggestion that there is a side deal for Sir Jim to do something extra in the future.
- No doubt they will need to explain, in some manner, to the Class A investor groups why they turned down a better deal from Jassim, however, you can guess that they will say that the alternative Jassim bid would never have seen the light of day because the largest shareholders would not be agreeable.
- If it is a deal to purchase the whole of the club, a structured purchase over a number of years, as per some wiser forum members, Woziak, and Gaffs, who referenced an American lawyer commenting in the Athletic that the argument of dissent becomes material.
- It will be interesting to see how the investor groups respond.
Class A investors
- If they are receiving 1 billion, then that could be divided by them in whichever way they choose. It may be that Joel doesn't take any money now etc.
- They also lose their ability to give to a new buyer overall control, 67%. It will no longer be available to a prospective purchaser accordingly they will be looking for compensation for the loss of that element. For this reason there must be a longer term agreement with Sir Jim?
Sir Jim
- The only real motivation for investing is to see a return and not waiting for a stadium to be rebuilt. The return on the table is less appetising than the one that has been turned down, no doubt they will examine the director's duties and examine if there was any, obvious, conflict of interests.
Jassim
- Hopefully has some money in his back pocket to upgrade the facilities in addition to the team. If he does clear the debts it will only be replaced by new debt payable to him, no way is he simply just giving away money when he doesn't own the club in its entirety. What is of interest will he charge or will he provide some sort of discount.
- We're told he has withdrawn. In withdrawing he has essentially ended the process however will the club return to him if the proposed deal is not as good as we believe.
- You would assume that he has spoken to the Class A investors and has been told there is little leverage for them to pursue legal action?
Is this the only image of this guy? Looks like a stock photo if you were to Google "sheikh at a desk".
Honestly, does this guy exist?
Good post and really good points.
The most interesting, I still believe, is how the minority shareholders will be satisfied by this deal.
Unless Ineos 25% is targeted largely towards the class A shares that the speculators have bought, they cant be happy about not being bought out fully by Jassim.
That may suggest that there is a mechanism / guarantee for Ratcliffe to buy them out in the near future.
There has to be a way to satisfy the class A shareholders, otherwise they will be sitting on stock that will rapidly devalue.
Our spend may not be sustainable without more money from outside flowing in. We've been buying on credit the last two summers where we pay off the transfer spend with the matchday proceeds the following June.
Unless you think Ratcliffe will have close to 100% success on both incomings and outgoings Liverpool-style and we won't ever waste money, we're going nowhere fast.
This is assuming no transfer inflation and no accounting for the fact we need to spend MORE than our rivals just to catch up. This while City are spending €100m on a single defender.
Ineos is borrowing all the money to buy 25% of the business.
Which is sensible, they make around 2 billion a year on average, gross profit, so they cannot blow cash at the levels needed to buy Manchester United.
But it does suggest a quick acceleration of their purchase is very unlikely.
Qatar is one of the Wests biggest energy suppliers and hosts thousands of soldiers, on top of being a huge defence spender on western arms. The likelihood of Qatar being sanctions is close to 0%.Not sure if anyone has mentioned this already, but we may have dodged a bullet with a Qatari investment given the current situiation in the Middle East. Qatar are in bed with Iran and provide safe haven for Hamas' leaders. If things were to escalate further, then sanctions against Qatar could be a real option for the West, and we could end up in a situation similar to that which Chelsea found themselves in last year.
What makes you think our spend is not sustainable?Our spend may not be sustainable without more money from outside flowing in. We've been buying on credit the last two summers where we pay off the transfer spend with the matchday proceeds the following June.
Unless you think Ratcliffe will have close to 100% success on both incomings and outgoings Liverpool-style and we won't ever waste money, we're going nowhere fast.
This is assuming no transfer inflation and no accounting for the fact we need to spend MORE than our rivals just to catch up. This while City are spending €100m on a single defender.
Joke?Really? This again?
Right?! This guy was a complete unknown until the last few months. I can't imagine someone like him making the big decisions.Bit emotional. He doesn't come across business smart.
Maybe someone needed to teach Jassim the very basics such as what should come first.
1. Takeover
2. /3. Investment in infrastructure, clearing debt, signing players, PR and even more PR, …
Turns out insisting on 2nd/3rd step before the 1st and doing PR linked to class of 92 and Becks isn’t enough to take over one of the biggest football clubs in the world.
Ineos are paying nowhere even close to £6billionIneos reportedly will, for a sizable portion of the club.
Exactly. He knew the situation. He knew Glazers own United. Everyone knew. He still acted like an amateur or rather like a spoiled child. Or a Phantom.Not with the Glazers around no
to be fair, it;'s quite hard to take over a club where the vampiric owners never had any real intention of sellingMaybe someone needed to teach Jassim the very basics such as what should come first.
1. Takeover
2. /3. Investment in infrastructure, clearing debt, signing players, PR and even more PR, …
Turns out insisting on 2nd/3rd step before the 1st and doing PR linked to class of 92 and Becks isn’t enough to take over one of the biggest football clubs in the world.
Ineos are paying nowhere even close to £6billion
You are once again talking from an anti-state owned point of view. Qatar is out and that discussion is done.
My point was that there is no proof what control Glazers are giving to Ineos or what control Ineos wants right now. It is too premature to say "All is well now".
The United Stand is actually the same as the Glazers, they are an absolute shit stain of a channel and completely thick conspiracy theorist wankers.
Then start with part ownership. Find a way if you really want United. Or maybe his/their real motivation and prime target was always the real estate potential around OT.to be fair, it;'s quite hard to take over a club where the vampiric owners never had any real intention of selling
