Great post. Agree on so many levels.
Club Sale | It’s done!
- Thread starter JB08
- Start date
- Status
Great post. Agree on so many levels.
I am sure he knows them socially or professionally... and their reputation as the owners of the Buccs.
The lack of suitors looking for control is really a massive indictment of how poorly the Glazers have run the club, as well as a consequence of their insatiable greed.
I will welcome Mitchell with open arms and will give him my full support if he arrives or anyone else for that matter in the role of sporting director. And I've never said he was a spoofer but rather I've never really been impressed with his recruitment. And his only role as a DoF came when he joined Monaco. So he's a inexperienced DoF, which JPRouve quite correctly outlines in the posts below. At any well run club the recruitment will only be as good as the people who work within the recruitment department at the club. And a Sporting director can't just focus on recruitment when there's multiple other departments on the football side of the club that need attention. So like I've said before, the biggest difference can only come from a potential new owner.
Could we bring in Edwards and Mitchell but use them in different roles,so one being the Head of Recruitment and other a Sporting Director
Possibly, but isn't Edwards running his own shop now? The pull of United maybe significant but still not a certainty.
Agreed.
Depends who to.
I don't know exactly what it is you are reading, but it's highly unlikely Qatar would pull their state bid only to return to negotiations.
Any failure with Ratcliffe would not see Qatar swing back in at some reduced rate. Indeed, the terms they quit on would likely become enhanced. Sure, it is a state bid, so the money is obviously there, however ensuring it can remains crucially concealed is another issue altogether.
I think, and I certainly hope, Qatar's state bid remains off the table.
I'd say it's got more to do with the value of the asset and how the current owners are, well, you know exactly what they're like, the hard-nosed b-words.
Qatar were willing to spend twice as much as United were worth and another billion plus on public relations. Most investors would see such competition and balk.
It's why I'm impressed with Ratcliffe (I don't particularly want him at the club) and how he has, thus far, beaten off a state bid. Shows quite a lot of cunning, nous and ability, but can he get it over the line?
INEOS around 60 billion in a single year I believe in 2021 which is ridiculous money and proven money.
Jassim’s personal net wealth is lagging way behind Jim’s. It made little sense how he could be so cash rich unless he had a state behind him.
You see you are only reckless offering 6 billion cash and wiping out debts immediately when it’s not your money.
Jordan Belfort once said something similar about a Malaysian fraudster who was spending billions too straight out of his countries sovereign wealth fund.
Is Jassim doing as many business deals as Jim and is he as good a businessman? Proven no he is not on both fronts.
Why do folks keep quoting it's topline revenues?
It's meaningless or irrelevant in terms of personal wealth here esp ratcliffe.
Do you not know the difference between revenue and profitability?
Well to be fair you are going off only declared profit which for a lot of these bigger businesses will be very different to the actual money the business made that financial year in reality.
Jim’s wealth went up huge amounts recently yet his company only got a few billion in profits so there’s definitely more liquidity and assets than the balance sheet represents.
It’s all about getting taxes down though in any well run business so they will be smart about keeping profits low.
They do it cause it's a bigger number.
Neither number is that relevant to the discussion at hand, in theory it is an indicator of the maximum possible cash on hand for that year, but that ignores all sorts of realities.
They bought a company at the end of last year for 1.5billion, which would have impacted their profitability, cash on hand and net debt and still posted a profit of around the same amount. The proposed full purchase price of the club is 10% of their income in one year, they could, depending on how they choose to finance it, buy the full club and it barely appear to affect either number on a yearly basis.
Microsoft just bought ABK for 69billion, there won't be an exact 69billion sized hole in their accounts next year.
Last edited:
Didn't realise that Mercedes are basically the Man United of F1 - almost identical sponsors.
Anyway, back on topic. We're fecked, yay!
Would this shit hurry up and get announced ffs
The Glazers insane greed is what has ruined the whole sale process. I remember the joy I felt last november when they announced they were thinking of selling. United fans now despise them even more (If thats even possible). It would have been nice to see a few bidders but the Glazers were looking for double the market value. The only people who would be crazy enough to pay that are oil money or a mega rich United fan. A sane businessman would baulk at what the Glazers were looking for. Even the vulture funds wouldnt bid!
Why not? Investors don't invest with the sole aim of eventually owning the entire business.
Knowing the Glazers, it might take a month before we hear anything definitive.
Not long to go, it will be announced in November.
Personally I am happy Qatar didn’t win. Mainly because they are nothing like Saudi Arabia or UAE. Look how those two run Newcastle and Man City, compared to how the Qataris run PSG. Even in the Middle East, Qatar are looked down upon. Saudi Arabia are the big boys of that Region, similar to how the US runs the West and the UK is the lapdog
If it was Saudis or UAE, they would fix Man Utd easily. But the Qataris are not as competent as those two. So a lot of you should be happy they didn’t win
If it was Saudis or UAE, they would fix Man Utd easily. But the Qataris are not as competent as those two. So a lot of you should be happy they didn’t win
Behind a paywall but…
Seems it’s not INEOS funding it after all.
https://www.bloomberg.com/news/arti...&utm_campaign=twitter&leadSource=uverify wall
Seems it’s not INEOS funding it after all.
https://www.bloomberg.com/news/arti...&utm_campaign=twitter&leadSource=uverify wall
Article states it's coming from his personal wealth, not on credit.
Here's an excerpt from the article, since most of you aren't g enough to have a bloomberg subscription
Ratcliffe has an estimated net worth of about $16.8 billion, according to the Bloomberg Billionaires Index. He’s set to be joined in the Manchester United deal by fellow Ineos shareholders Andy Currie and John Reece, one of the people said.
Two Ineos Quattro creditors, who asked not to be identified discussing sensitive information, said they’re still concerned a Manchester United deal would mean paying more dividends to shareholders, if additional cash is needed for the investment. That’s a particular concern as the chemicals industry grapples with soaring production costs and weaker demand, they said.
A representative for Ineos said the group is in an “extremely strong position” despite the market downturn and is able to take a long-term view on its business.
“It was made very clear on the call that we will not see dividends payments for the purchase of Manchester United, which has nothing to do with Ineos Quattro,” the spokesperson said. “Any Manchester United transaction would come from sources of the owners.”
Ratcliffe has an estimated net worth of about $16.8 billion, according to the Bloomberg Billionaires Index. He’s set to be joined in the Manchester United deal by fellow Ineos shareholders Andy Currie and John Reece, one of the people said.
Two Ineos Quattro creditors, who asked not to be identified discussing sensitive information, said they’re still concerned a Manchester United deal would mean paying more dividends to shareholders, if additional cash is needed for the investment. That’s a particular concern as the chemicals industry grapples with soaring production costs and weaker demand, they said.
A representative for Ineos said the group is in an “extremely strong position” despite the market downturn and is able to take a long-term view on its business.
“It was made very clear on the call that we will not see dividends payments for the purchase of Manchester United, which has nothing to do with Ineos Quattro,” the spokesperson said. “Any Manchester United transaction would come from sources of the owners.”
So much for 'good guy Ineos will just take all of the debt onto its own books'
This keeps unraveling, not in a good way either
Jim Ratcliffe is going to buy some Glazer shares. What a development.
That would surprise me, but you never know, where did you see that
Come to think about it. Where did that notion come from? I can't actually remember why we were so trusting of something that ridiculous. A whole company with shareholders to report to agreeing to misappropriate billion dollar profits for the owner's pet project.
Last edited:
I will always support United and have very low expectations, like a Villa supporter.
But those parasites and that greenwashing knut will never see a penny of my money directly or indirectly.
But those parasites and that greenwashing knut will never see a penny of my money directly or indirectly.
There’s only 3 shareholders - Jim and his two partners. It’s a private company.
Why would he take the debt at 25%? That's just daft to expect that. I'm sure it'll get dealt with in time.
End of thread/UTD.
But there's other investors to answer to.
Hm, I see it as a good thing that he's using his own wealth to buy the 25%. He can still use Ineos to refinance the debt separately and it would have been worse if he was using Ineos debt to get the 25%.
Or am I wrong here? Someone have a different opinion?
Or am I wrong here? Someone have a different opinion?
The worry with Jim is that his personal wealth is no where near big enough to swallow up the rebuild needed we’re talking about 2/3bln off the pitch before we even touch the squad.
I can’t fathom how between them the three stakeholders plug that cash in for a laugh.
Let’s not forget his statement that INEOS doesn’t need the cash and makes 64bln per year.
If this article is correct? How do the two relate and connect on a cash from an investment point of view. I just don’t get it, it makes absolutely no sense at all.
I fear this is how it will go with INEOS and Ratcliffe.
I can’t fathom how between them the three stakeholders plug that cash in for a laugh.
Let’s not forget his statement that INEOS doesn’t need the cash and makes 64bln per year.
If this article is correct? How do the two relate and connect on a cash from an investment point of view. I just don’t get it, it makes absolutely no sense at all.
I fear this is how it will go with INEOS and Ratcliffe.
Nothing wrong here (for once). People getting mildly upset because he isn't draining Ineos for their resources are just being weird.
Eh? He’s paying for this share himself.
I’ve lost count of the amount of times this has been pointed out to people.
Will it also mean that INEOS could buy out more Glazer shares as their money as it stands is untapped in this investment in the very near future and liquidate them even further?
- Status