Club Sale | It’s done!

Status
Not open for further replies.
putzmcgee123 said:
At this point, I think it's safe to presume one or two Glazers (at minimum) had only an outlandish "feck you" price that it would have taken for them to sell now, which was not even approached. In effect, this means the full sale now was never "truly" an option.

I thought the £10B reports were fabricated at the time but given what has taken place, it has become a lot easier for me to believe that is what it would have taken for Joel and Avram, if not more of them.

If a majority of the Glazers genuinely believe they are better off holding onto their shares, I don't know why they would want to sell anything to Ratcliffe right now. I would think it makes more sense to issue new shares to INEOS and inject the cash into the club. If they want to hold on, I figure they could alternatively make INEOS only buy the Class A shares as part of his tender offer and agree to give him the same voting rights as their Class Bs.

Of course, we have seen how they operate and these trust fund babies are simultaneously too short sighted to use cash to invest rather than take the cash now via dividends, yet are also too greedy to want to sell up a controlling majority. It seems they want to keep their majority, find someone to buy a minority, collect a payday as part of that deal, expect that minority investor to pony up and invest outside funds in the asset while the Glazers collect their salaries as directors and try to fire up the ol' dividend machine. Absolutely maddening. It feels like Ratcliffe either comes out of this as a hero who (eventually) pries the majority away from these utter bellends, or becomes the villain that facilitates their stay. I feel the former is more likely, but the Glazers are dug in deep and it may take some time.

"How to Have Your Cake and Eat It Too: Life as a Glazer Trust Fund Baby."
Click to expand...

Ye something along these lines sounds about right, a sad state of affairs all round.
 
sglowrider said:
And depiste it all, folks hear still think the Glazers are dumb. They have suckered in one of the richest man in the UK/Monaco
Click to expand...

Maybe, they haven't yet? Nothing is signed. I do not think Ratcliffe will partake in anything that does lead to him getting eventual control.
 
MackRobinson said:
That’s not what I’m saying. I believe it was a state bid and they could afford. But if it’s not a state bid why the bullishness for Qatar? Makes no sense
Click to expand...
Because with Jassim’s pledges he thought United had won the lottery…and now it feels like the ticket was left in a trouser pocket and put in the washing machine.
 
JagUTD said:
They're not. They can be two separate POV.

Jassim as an individual cannot afford to buy United.

Jassim with the backing of Qatar can, but cannot pass the leagues checks because of the backing.

Qatar cannot just dump billions into an account for him either, because that flags up a number of issues well above the remit of the Premier League or UEFA.
Click to expand...

Forgive my ignorance but does this mean that if the UAE City bid was to happen now then it wouldn't be possible because of rules in place now? So how did SA buy Newcastle and why would it apply to SJ's bid for United?
 
Rood said:
He said he wasn't a football fan but that his sons were and wanted to push for this investment.
Click to expand...
If that's the case, what level of continued investment in the club could he sustain in the long term if he doesn't even have the backing of the family patriarch?
 
Kinsella said:
Because with Jassim’s pledges he thought United had won the lottery…and now it feels like the ticket was left in a trouser pocket and put in the washing machine.
Click to expand...
I see. He's just going through the stages of grief. Are we still in the anger phase?
 
cannot think of worse ownership combo than glazers-ratcliffe. who is going to take responsibility when thing went south in the football department? for all we know the rats people can always point finger at the glazers who is still in control of financial including budgeting.
 
garelo said:
cannot think of worse ownership combo than glazers-ratcliffe. who is going to take responsibility when thing went south in the football department? for all we know the rats people can always point finger at the glazers who is still in control of financial including budgeting.
Click to expand...
I can, Mel Morris and Mike Ashley. Just be more imaginative.
 
Yorke to Cole said:
So who would be Thomas Zilliacus? Boris Johnson?
Click to expand...
That guy is an absolute clown. Some of the egotistical stuff he comes out with on Twitter. Like he’s glad Jassim walked away like he did before.

Thomas never had the money to begin with let’s be real.
 
Rhyme Animal said:
How odd… you’re arguing two completely different points, quoting yourself, yet both from the same profile / account.

What gives?
Click to expand...

Its not two different points though is it?

Jim got the right intentions but the way this is set up it’ll fail. He wanted the club at any costs and this is the deal with the devil. Glazers have made the thing too complicated and inefficient like the always do.
 
Rhyme Animal said:
Mate, that’s (Corbyn's) blatantly Jassim.

Demonised as the bad guy by people suckered into spin and then everyone spends the next 4 years desperately wishing they’d gone with him.
Click to expand...

Offensively wrong.

If Corbyn's anyone in this sorry mess he is the sadly reviled and ridiculed Finnish lad who wanted supporters to have a say in how the club is ran. A bit like Corbyn's take on public ownership.

Jassim and his crew are to the right of brexit, with journalists, democrats, trade unionists, political opposition and other supposed 'subversives' dealt with in an extremely harsh fashion. Mouthpieces like The Sun pandering to him. Whilst Tory's will build '40 hospitals', Qatar will gentrify Trafford.

Raab and Hancock level cronyism (Nev n' Becks). The circle is complete.

Those 'feeling Qatari' are the same 'wanting brexit done'.
 
kidbob said:
Forgive my ignorance but does this mean that if the UAE City bid was to happen now then it wouldn't be possible because of rules in place now? So how did SA buy Newcastle and why would it apply to SJ's bid for United?
Click to expand...
Newcastle and City and were bought by the investment arms of Saudi / Abu Dhabi.

It was an individual Qatari trying to buy United. The Qatari investment arm already bought PSG.

So some say Jassim was a front man, some say he was an individual. A few know he was an individual who had a few individuals supporting him.
 
JediSith said:
What’s INEOS profits? I keep hearing the turnover but never profits.
Click to expand...

INEOS expect Fitch-adjusted EBITDA to trough in 2023 at EUR1.7 billion, before increasing gradually to EUR2.5 billion by 2026. EBITDA contribution from P1 will become material from 2027 as the asset ramps up.

I suspect the groups recent large acquisitions in Asia and current P1 to be the reason they can’t/won’t spunk 10bn on United currently. Likely as we move closer to 2030 they’ll be in a much better position to acquire a larger share of the club.
 
Anyone that’s worked for a considerable time at a medium to large organisation will of had experience that too many tiers above and too many people is terrible for business and usually makes everything slower then what is desired.

Too many cooks, spoil the broth. That would be my initial thought from experience. I’m not buying the PR guff that’s to weasel his way through the door as he knows the fans are going to be disgusted with him.
 
GoldanoGraham said:
Don’t think you quite understand what I’ve been saying.

Also you seem to have an inherent belief that the Glazers want to be enemy’s with Ineos and want to repel everything they want.

How about they want to bring on board new investment that takes on the sporting side as they realise they ain’t that good at it? Maybe they want to work with Ineos on this front?

Nobody wants Glazers but they don’t seem to get the message. New investment, new ideas that may help grow their investment they are interested in.

Maybe they are trying to change the sporting process as they realise it hasn’t been great? Everyone seems to think these guys are idiots - they are not - they want the best for their investment?

Maybe, just maybe, they think adding in a new stakeholder and invested partner this can help propell the club forward?

Im no Glazer fan - want them gone - but just look at the reasons why and the thought process for them to get this decision?

They are prepared to take on external input, just not give it all up. Jim and his team wouldn’t entertain what’s gone on before. If, and I think it’s still a big if, they go ahead with Ineos, then they are also prepared to change direction. That’s means change to what’s gone on before.
Click to expand...

The point you make is very easy to understand, it just isn't a good one. You on the other hand do not seem to understand the arguments made against it, and just continue to assume that as long as the Glazers want to work in some way together with INEOS on the sporting side, that's going to be a positive change. So, for one last time: It's a question of structure, not personalities. And inserting a power-sharing committee between the part of the organisation that runs the club on a day-to-day basis and the part of it that makes ultimate decisions (the board) is not by any stretch of imagination a clearer or more efficient structure, it is the exact opposite.
 
Bosws87 said:
Anyone that’s worked for a considerable time at a medium to large organisation will of had experience that too many tiers above and too many people is terrible for business and usually makes everything slower then what is desired.

Too many cooks, spoil the broth. That would be my initial thought from experience. I’m not buying the PR guff that’s to weasel his way through the door as he knows the fans are going to be disgusted with him.
Click to expand...

Too many piglets and not enough teats.. :devil:
 
macheda14 said:
I can, Mel Morris and Mike Ashley. Just be more imaginative.
Click to expand...

What do the glazers do well that fans benefit from their competency’s ?

I wonder what they could do worse when you factor in the size of the club and our financial advantage that has all but been pissed away by their mismanagement of things.

I don’t get people who think “well the glazers allow money to be spent”.

Ok, so who decides how the football side will be run? Who signs off on players/managers signings and contract extensions? Who appoints the people who signs off on these things? Who decides on infrastructure projects ? Who hires the people who decides on these things?

Every single decision at the club; from the tea lady, up to the manager and CEO, is affected by the glazers, even if they aren’t actually making any decisions , because they are empowering the wrong people.

Id argue that United the last10 years, have been a monumental failure of epic proportions. We were a far and away top 3 valued club , 2-3 times the value of our nearest rivals when SAF retired. The money in theEPL didn’t matter because we were so far away from our nearest rival we should of, on paper, been able to blow every rival apart for all the top players of the world.

And we signed Fellaini to make that statement of intent.

Since then one can argue we’ve always chosen the wrong manager, but we’ve also always let our managers down with the wrong signings or poor signings or no signings that derailed any progress.

The lack of success, relative to money spent, is a savagely damning Indicment of how bad the glazers actually are. They’ve broken the mould in making a super club into one of the clubs in the hunt for top 4. It takes some level of incompetence to do that, but they have achieved it.

and that’s not even looking at infrastructure in terms of the stadium and youth setup. I mean even spurs and arsenal were able to remain at decent levels (not far from us) and build up infrastructures we can only dream of:

i can’t think of worse oweners really because their mismanagement has left United in danger of becoming irrelevant. Newcastle were no worse off when Ashley left and at least they have a stadium that’s not falling apart. As bad as he was; they weren’t really doing any worse under him, certainly not like going from Barcelona levels in football to West Ham like Uniteds fall,
 
Regulus Arcturus Black said:
I suspect the groups recent large acquisitions in Asia and current P1 to be the reason they can’t/won’t spunk 10bn on United currently. Likely as we move closer to 2030 they’ll be in a much better position to acquire a larger share of the club.
Click to expand...

So in 2030, a spritely 79 y.o Ratcliffe can really show true his magic then.

Can't wait
 
Last edited:
JediSith said:
I keep hearing about INEOS £65b yearly turnover. Why didn’t they just buy 100% if they are that committed and passionate.
Click to expand...
I read their actual profit was down 1/3 over a 12 month period.
Have no idea why but could be why he’s branching out here
 
MackRobinson said:
If that's the case, what level of continued investment in the club could he sustain in the long term if he doesn't even have the backing of the family patriarch?
Click to expand...

Beyond the purchase price and commitment to clear the debts & invest in the stadium, absolutely no further investment is required
 
Regulus Arcturus Black said:
INEOS expect Fitch-adjusted EBITDA to trough in 2023 at EUR1.7 billion, before increasing gradually to EUR2.5 billion by 2026. EBITDA contribution from P1 will become material from 2027 as the asset ramps up.

I suspect the groups recent large acquisitions in Asia and current P1 to be the reason they can’t/won’t spunk 10bn on United currently. Likely as we move closer to 2030 they’ll be in a much better position to acquire a larger share of the club.
Click to expand...

TBH I don’t think they want too much cash in hand as it will get taxed, so they will reinvest it in assets and grow further.
 
I love how so many posters on here were so dead against Qatar that they are now trying to dress this whole shit show up as a positive.

This is literally the WORST outcome. No full sale and no investment in the actual club.

Thanks to Ratcliffe we are likely stuck with the Glazers for the next 10 years at least.

For those that reply to this post with “Sir Jim won’t agree to purchase 25% without a written agreement to buy 100%” need to wake up. A 100% sale likely ended when The sheik withdrew. Sir Jim wouldn’t pay £6 billion now so what makes you think he’ll pay £8-£10 billion 4-5 years from now?

The Glazers are going nowhere and we have “lifelong supporter” SJR to thank for that.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.