Club Sale | It’s done!

Status
Not open for further replies.
You guys need to just accept it's over and hope for the best with Ratcliffe. It is what it is.
 
MrBest said:
Hmm we was told Thurs there was an announcement, now there will be some thrashing about. What possibly could you thrash around with after 12 months of the same rubbish. Maybe Qatar is back and the delay is for Mr Sheik to increase again. Wishful and hopeless thinking but if I learnt anything about this deal, the impossible is possible and the possible is impossible. Complete mind fudge the whole thing.
Click to expand...
Maybe Saudis or another middle east oil rich country late bid?
 
Wilt said:
Didn’t think Liverpool were interested in selling, but suppose everything has a price.
Click to expand...
There was massive reports they were up for sale. They shoulda sold after the CL win
7even said:
2. When it comes to the relationship between a minority and a majority shareholder nothing is set in stone. Legally binding or not.

The majority owners can change any agreement, legally binding contract or whatever by restructuring, sale, loan or whatever that belongs to the company. We talk about for example naming rights, all sorts of assets, financial rights or obligations or whatever with worth. If there's a disagreement between the minority and the majority shareholders how to interpret so-called legally binding agreements, contracts, obligations or anything they may disagree on, the majority owner always has more power and more legal room for maneuver for changes. Doesn’t mean they will always win but a majority position definitely have more power.
Click to expand...
It actually depends on the deal. If the deal states Radcliffe has to dump a bunch of money in it may be due to lesser profits but increased control on the footbal side of things. It’s the incentive for him to jump in with lower profits.
wolvored said:
Maybe Saudis or another middle east oil rich country late bid?
Click to expand...
Elon musk would be so ambitious with who he would hire to put in charge and other aspects of the brand. Imagine a Red Devils flag in space!
 
Lyng said:
Well we will, no doubt, be used as a political tool here as well. I am not quitting United over Ineos, and I wouldnt have done with Qatar either. What grinds my gears are the posters on here who actively mock the posters who wanted Qatar, and act like Jim and Ineos are such saints compared to Qatar. They simply are not. They are cnuts. You dont get to where Jim is, especially in that business, without blood on your hands one way or the other.
Click to expand...

Well said.
 
Mr Pigeon said:
Will be interesting if this is true. But, I swear, the Glazers would sit their arses on the pan and still delay taking a shit if there was some extra money in it for them.
Click to expand...

They caught someone who meets their target. Now they will squeeze more out of him.

But like I said earlier how do u put value of the club in like 3-5yrs time based on something that they have no control .. the footballing side.

That's the risk for the Glazers.


Will be a big gulf in future valuations.
 
TheRedHearted said:
There was massive reports they were up for sale. They shoulda sold after the CL win

It actually depends on the deal. If the deal states Radcliffe has to dump a bunch of money in it may be due to lesser profits but increased control on the footbal side of things. It’s the incentive for him to jump in with lower profits.

Elon musk would be so ambitious with who he would hire to put in charge and other aspects of the brand. Imagine a Red Devils flag in space!
Click to expand...
If Musk's track record is anything to go by he'd fire everyone and get us relegated to the Conference
 
Last edited:
VP89 said:
Nice spent a lot more after Ratcliffe came in no?
Click to expand...
Probably , I don't know. My point is, you have no rights to question our Casemiro recruitment when your own club is doing deals like that.
 
Red in STL said:
If Musk's track record is anything to go bye he'd fire everyone and get us related to the Conference
Click to expand...

If league One had last weekends matches postponed due to international matches ie they had a bunch of players away, league one would be ok for me.
It's all about competition
 
Lyng said:
Well we will, no doubt, be used as a political tool here as well. I am not quitting United over Ineos, and I wouldnt have done with Qatar either. What grinds my gears are the posters on here who actively mock the posters who wanted Qatar, and act like Jim and Ineos are such saints compared to Qatar. They simply are not. They are cnuts. You dont get to where Jim is, especially in that business, without blood on your hands one way or the other.
Click to expand...

They might very well be cnuts. Compared to Qatar, though, they are definitely saints.
 
sglowrider said:
Like the actual qatari sovereign fund and not some pleb banker?
Click to expand...
I assume you are being sarcastic, but also worth noting, for the record, that Sheikh Jassim is

1. The chairman of Qatar's largest bank
2. His daddy Sheikh Hamad bin Jassim bin Jaber bin Mohammed bin Thani Al Thani (or shortly HBJ) was formerly Qatar's foreign minister, prime minister, and also chairman if the sovereign wealth fund being referred to
3. HBJ's older brother, and Sheikh Jassim's uncle is Jassim bin Mohammed Al Thani, the founder of modern Qatar

Considering all these ties and the fact that personal net worth of Sheikh Jassim is only $1B, way less than price he was bidding, while his daddy is worth several hundred billions, it is clear that United was effectively being bought by Qatari ruling family with very thinly veiled connections with the sovereign wealth fund and owners of PSG

And Qatar is factually and openly the largest sponsor of Hamas, if anybody cares

All that said, if the deal had gone through they obviously had more power to take United to winning trophies than Sir Jim will ever have, let alone with his 25% "ownership".

But it's all water under the bridge. The reality is what we have today - Glazers still here and Ratcliffe doing who knows what to stoke his ego
 
Last edited:
NewGlory said:
1. The chairman of Qatar's largest bank
2. His daddy Sheikh Hamad bin Jassim bin Jaber bin Mohammed bin Thani Al Thani (or shortly HBJ) was formerly Qatar's foreign minister, prime minister, and also chairman if the sovereign wealth fund being referred to
3. HBJ's older brother, and Sheikh Jassim's uncle is Jassim bin Mohammed Al Thani, the founder of modern Qatar
Click to expand...
Maybe he is not daddy's favorite child.
 
I think the current situation is, with the Briefing of offer withdrawal from the Qatari , the media assume that the restructured INEOS offer will go through as there is only one bidder in process. With Q4 result pending to be discuss on the thursday boarding meeting, all things add up together suggesting the INEOS offer should be discussed on the boarding meeting and proceed to vote.

The real thing, there are still details of the transaction to be discussed and the Glazers could still not say a affirmative yes to this deal.
 
NewGlory said:
I assume you are being sarcastic, but also worth noting, for the record, that Sheikh Jassim is

1. The chairman of Qatar's largest bank
2. His daddy Sheikh Hamad bin Jassim bin Jaber bin Mohammed bin Thani Al Thani (or shortly HBJ) was formerly Qatar's foreign minister, prime minister, and also chairman if the sovereign wealth fund being referred to
3. HBJ's older brother, and Sheikh Jassim's uncle is Jassim bin Mohammed Al Thani, the founder of modern Qatar

Considering all these ties and the fact that personal net worth of Sheikh Jassim is only $1B, way less than price he was bidding, while his daddy is worth several hundred billions, it is clear that United was effectively being bought by Qatari ruling family with very thinly veiled connections with the sovereign wealth fund and owners of PSG

And Qatar is factually and openly the largest sponsor of Hamas, if anybody cares

All that said, if the deal had gone through they obviously had more power to take United to winning trophies than Sir Jim will ever have, let alone with his 25% "ownership".

But it's all water under the bridge. The reality is what we have today - Glazers still here and Ratcliffe doing who knows what to stoke his ego
Click to expand...
The interesting thing is, when you look up the family tree of Al Thani, you can't find the name of Sheikh Jassim bin Hamad.

And in his daddy's wiki page, his name is not in the list of his children.

The only place I can found his name is in the page of board of Director page of QIB
 
I don't believe for one second Sheikh Jassim is completely out of the race.

The Glazers are trying to smoke him out.
 
Stobzilla said:
State of this.

Football was never for you.
Click to expand...

Yet many people like him, who has spent 27 years buying merchandise, generating online clicks for advertising etc… will disappear. The revenue the club makes globally is from fans exactly like this.

Most people choose their team as a child and stick to it through life. I can’t see todays children around the world choosing United over City. So in another 10 years we’ll see
the effect. That’s where the Glazers are completely out of touch and don’t realise they’re going to shrink their investment.
They don’t understand football and many of the dynamics of the fans.
 
Anyone got the Sheikh’s email address? Gonna tell him Rat-boy hasn’t got the ammo to get the job done, and most of the fans want to give him some encouragement to go again.
 
laughtersassassin said:
Until we get further details we have no idea if the remaining 3.95 billion is guaranteed or not. It very well might be. Only time will tell.
Click to expand...
It’s still less than hard cash deposited in a Uber high interest account in the Cayman Islands, are these delays now down to the fact that INEOS are borrowing the money to invest for 25%, whilst this debt is not leveraged on the club, there may be some issues with the EPL and UEFA?

I would also guess that the small print in the INEOS contract proposal states that should INEOS pay off chunks of the existing club debt, then before any future dividends can be paid out to the Glazers, this loan must be repaid first.

I keep saying if SJ really did increase the bid to £5.6-5.7m with the debt included thus was a much better deal than the £1.35m for 25%, especially in light of current world affairs.
 
Highlyevolved said:
Anyone got the Sheikh’s email address? Gonna tell him Rat-boy hasn’t got the ammo to get the job done, and most of the fans want to give him some encouragement to go again.
Click to expand...

He cocked up his original bid appealing to 'most of the fans', letting the glazers know he had 'investment money'. The only way he is returning to the race is if he gives out more money, which will have to be procured from outside sources.

They've realised it isn't worth it, Jassim can't play the glazers, and pulled out.


Highlyevolved said:
That’s where the Glazers are completely out of touch
Click to expand...

Considering most matches are sold out, season tickets are like gold dust and merch selling rightly, the Glazers understand football enough. Look at how they dealt with Qatar's state bid.

They don't care about fans past money, and why would they?
 
gaffs said:
Which makes me think, why couldn't they just push through the sale when INEOS came in for majority ownership?

I know the minority shareholders were threatening to take legal action, but one would think they could threaten the same for only selling a portion of their shares to INEOS, as opposed to them all to Qatar.

I have to think there is something rock solid in place that guarantees the class A shareholders are made whole. If they hold onto class A shares indefinitely, they will go down the toilet.

Or, as i have suggested before, the 25% split is not equal between class B and A, and the 25% is a way to quash class A investor feats. You take them out of the picture and INEOS and Jim can cut their own deal.

We know Jim has the money to buy a larger % now, as per his earlier bid. And we know The Glazers were ready to accept. So why isn't he buying more now? There has to be a reason.



Stadium expenses have nothing to do with FFP, but increased revenue from a larger stadium will.

Jim won't do it just to increase the value of The Glazer stock, thus costing him more to buy them out down the line.

The only way INEOS loans or injects cash into the club is if there are future guarantees to buy the club.



If and when INEOS get full control/ownership, I expect a cut and paste job. Cut the loans from MUFC PLC and paste them over to INEOS. That way the club have more FFP headroom.

My guess, as i have said since the 25% news broke, that this is INEOS's first step to majority ownership and total control of the club.
Click to expand...
Your missing a huge important part with an increased stadium effecting FFP , which is now FSP as your revenue grows potentially on a 90,000 stadium by 15,000 extra seats at 25 home games all paying £40 gives you about another £15m in gate receipts call it £25m with merchandising. The revenue goes up to £700m in 2027 from £650m in 2023 - However FSP dictates that you can only spend 70% of that £700m in 2027 but you could have spent 80% £650m in 2023 which year are you better off and able to invest in more players to improve the team?

Ratcliffe will brief the media with whatever he thinks will appease the fan base, then if and it’s still an if he takes a minority control he will do the opposite to what he’s promised that’s he’s remit, that’s his track record, I’m yet to see him touch something in the sporting world and it become mega successful!
 
VP89 said:
Nice spent a lot more after Ratcliffe came in no?
Click to expand...

He’s not paying the existing debt off. It’s just my opinion but I think that our transfer spending will be majorly cut so that the club has money to pay the debt.
 
That Ben Jacobs interview posted earlier was interesting. According to him the Glazers/Raine never really knew who the feck they were actually dealing with during negotiations with the Qatari's. Initial early discussions were with people associated with the QIA, then an ex government official, then when Jassim emerged as the figurehead it was apparently an endless list of 3rd party intermediaries. To the point they felt the need to contact Al-Khelaifi to try to get an idea of the people they were really dealing with.
 
stevoc said:
That Ben Jacobs interview posted earlier was interesting. According to him the Glazers/Raine never really knew who the feck they were actually dealing with during negotiations with the Qatari's. Initial early discussions were with people associated with the QIA, then an ex government official, then when Jassim emerged as the figurehead it was apparently an endless list of 3rd party intermediaries. To the point they felt the need to contact Al-Khelaifi to try to get an idea of the people they were really dealing with.
Click to expand...
This coupled with the repeated media briefings. Thoroughly unprofessional bid.
 
I've seen a lot of assumptions online that the delay is due to the Glazers. What if, the delay as actually on the Ratcliffe side... With Qatari bid now pulled, he's the ONLY option for the Glazers and we know from looking at the books that the Glazers cannot afford to run the business alone anymore. It actually puts Ratcliffe in a better position to ask for more out of the deal now.
 
Frankly, this lot couldn't organise an orgy in a brothel... probably delaying because they fear SJR is planning to throw them all out on their arses - let's hope so

DAILY TELEGRAPH

Manchester United's board is unlikely to make a final decision on Sir Jim Ratcliffe's 25 per cent purchase of the club when they meet on Thursday with a deal more likely to be rubber-stamped in the next fortnight.
 
I'm not surprised all these stories are coming out now, it's easy to believe from how its gone that it was a bizarre jumbled mess. Think about it logically, why would Glazers or anyone trust such an operation with such a huge amount of money?
 
WPMUFC said:
Because if INEOS/Brexit Jim are seen to be "running" the football side, the blame is shifted away. If the glazers can get the fans hating on someone else whilst they are seen as "the guys bringing in the commerical money" then you think they are going to keep having reporters and fan channels flying over the US to ask them questions?

It's a win-win for the glazers. If INEOS fixes the footballing side and we win, the glazers win. They also just got paid massive overs to do nothing AND shift the blame.

If we continue to suck.....Brexit Jim is going to become the fans next big slur.
Click to expand...

This is a problem. The pressure needs to stay on the Glazers and not be shifted.
 
Garethw said:
He’s not paying the existing debt off. It’s just my opinion but I think that our transfer spending will be majorly cut so that the club has money to pay the debt.
Click to expand...
The debt hasn't drastically increased, and we have signed on key sponsors. We spend 150-200m every summer, even in periods of FFP austerity it seems. I strongly doubt that changes.
 
RedRocket9908 said:
Whether dividends are paid wont be his choice, the decision to pay a dividend is decided via a board vote each year.
Click to expand...
It’s more dependent on the rights to different classes of shares set out in the Articles. These can be unbelievably convoluted!

Since Radcliffe’s non-sporting companies are cash generative he’s hardly going to be bothered about getting dividends while the club is in need of investment. Additionally, he isn’t going to stand by while the Glazers squeeze every drop of cash income out of their remaining investment so his lawyers will ensure there’s some sort of cap on their dividends.
 
During the due diligence for the sale of Chelsea. Ineos had come into the bidding late on, when Todd Bohely had already shook hands on the deal.

But what they thought would swing it for them was the fact that they had the money upfront. It wasn't a loan deal or complicated by multiple investors. They had 4bn in cash. It was broken down as 2.3bn to buy the club and 1.7bn to invest in the team etc..

They still have this money available. And their first bit for MUFC was 4.5bn. No loan debts or finance. They had the money.

Interestingly, Sheikh Jassim's first bid was 3bn. And it has been rumoured that their final bid was 5bn, with assurances of 1.3bn to invest on the team and infrastructure. Although, it has also been rumoured, (Ben Jacobs) that the finances involved in Sheikh Jassim's bid were not as bona fide as you would believe.

Whereas, Ineos had the money in the bank. And they could demonstrate this.

Sheikh Jassim had assurances from others that they could provide the money, should push come to shove. This is a very different set of circumstances when you are taking about such a huge deal. The Glazers even went to PSG owner Nasser Al-Khelaifi, to see if he would vouch for Sheikh Jassim.

They wouldn't have done that if they weren't concerned with his credentials.

It is also very interesting that the money that Sheikh Jassim promised to invest in the club. Is the exact same amount that INEOS are going to hand over for the 25% stake in the club.
 
If this does fall through I am going to seriously regret the Sir Jim Ratcliffe tattoo I had done yesterday.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.