Club Sale | It’s done!

Status
Not open for further replies.
This Jim's 25% stake purchase with conditions set for a full takeover at a later date sounds like the biggest bullshit ever.

We are being led to believe that this guy will buy 25% now, get full control of the footballing operations and then will improve it to increase the club's valuation so that he can buy the remaining shares at a lofty price at a later date. How does that make any business sense? Why will help improve something to increase its value to buy it a couple of years down the line for a much higher price? Logic says that he'll try to worsen it further so that he can buy it cheaper later.

This all sounds like a hogwash concocted by Jim and the Glazers to placate the fans for the time being. Jimmy boy wants a piece of the pie and the Glazers are looking to raise some cash for themselves. Both are envisaging new revenue streams opening up with streaming, revival of the super league, new bigger broadcasting contracts etc which will send the club's value soaring so that they can keep milking it to fill their coffers.

Don't expect massive improvements from this operation with regards to debt reduction or improvement of facilities or the footballing structure. Things will remain more and less the same with at most some cosmetic changes being made on the surface. Good Times!
 
Insanity said:
This Jim's 25% stake purchase with conditions set for a full takeover at a later date sounds like the biggest bullshit ever.

We are being led to believe that this guy will buy 25% now, get full control of the footballing operations and then will improve it to increase the club's valuation so that he can buy the remaining shares at a lofty price at a later date. How does that make any business sense? Why will help improve something to increase its value to buy it a couple of years down the line for a much higher price? Logic says that he'll try to worsen it further so that he can buy it cheaper later.

This all sounds like a hogwash concocted by Jim and the Glazers to placate the fans for the time being. Jimmy boy wants a piece of the pie and the Glazers are looking to raise some cash for themselves. Both are envisaging new revenue streams opening up with streaming, revival of the super league, new bigger broadcasting contracts etc which will send the club's value soaring so that they can keep milking it to fill their coffers.

Don't expect massive improvements from this operation with regards to debt reduction or improvement of facilities or the footballing structure. Things will remain more and less the same with at most some cosmetic changes being made on the surface. Good Times!
Click to expand...

This is exactly my fear. Jim and co just dont have the financial pull required to compete with the big boys, and repair the existing damage. Wish we had other buyers for full 100%, but Glazers are a leech and just dont wanna sell, so now we are stuck in this limbo situation.
 
Insanity said:
This Jim's 25% stake purchase with conditions set for a full takeover at a later date sounds like the biggest bullshit ever.

We are being led to believe that this guy will buy 25% now, get full control of the footballing operations and then will improve it to increase the club's valuation so that he can buy the remaining shares at a lofty price at a later date. How does that make any business sense? Why will help improve something to increase its value to buy it a couple of years down the line for a much higher price? Logic says that he'll try to worsen it further so that he can buy it cheaper later.

This all sounds like a hogwash concocted by Jim and the Glazers to placate the fans for the time being. Jimmy boy wants a piece of the pie and the Glazers are looking to raise some cash for themselves. Both are envisaging new revenue streams opening up with streaming, revival of the super league, new bigger broadcasting contracts etc which will send the club's value soaring so that they can keep milking it to fill their coffers.

Don't expect massive improvements from this operation with regards to debt reduction or improvement of facilities or the footballing structure. Things will remain more and less the same with at most some cosmetic changes being made on the surface. Good Times!
Click to expand...

doesn’t make sense though, nothing United do can make anywhere near any money that SJR already has access to.

the price set out in the terms will be set with a high point and a low point where both parties are happy, that’s exactly how these things work.
 
Rood said:
This is the daftest argument of the lot - Sheikh Jassim has walked away, are human rights in Qatar improving now ?

Obviously not - so in reality, there is no connection between the human rights situation in Qatar and who owns Manchester United football club
Click to expand...

As has been pointed out many times - this is one of the most mental arguments ever seen.

You could justify anyone owning us using this logic. It’s baffling. Of course there is a connection.
 
Stock price between 17 ~ 18.5, which implied the deal isn't expected to go through in market view
 
Wumminator said:
If (as most do) you think that this is a state bid and you think the state (as most do) commit human rights abuse then of course it’s logical you don’t want them owning your football club and supporting them.
Click to expand...

Now English is not my native tongue so if I am reading wrong please correct me. But what i understood from Rood was that the human rights abuse in Qatar isnt going to get worse or better whether or not they own United. I fail to see how that is wrong?

And, while I agree with you on not wanting to be owned by a state, I am not sure I think it was a state bid. Given that they have pulled out I honestly think this was a banker who's father has made a lot of money on the state but still was an individual bid. Much like Jim's company is making a lot of money of the Saudi state, but that is also an invididual bid.
Personally I believe if it was the state they wouldnt have left the table already.
 
Zora said:
Well said. That guy isn't even a Utd fan either - I think he's a troll.
Click to expand...

United fan for over thirty years, pal. As ever, you thought wrong.

Rood said:
This is the daftest argument of the lot - Sheikh Jassim has walked away, are human rights in Qatar improving now ?

Obviously not - so in reality, there is no connection between the human rights situation in Qatar and who owns Manchester United football club
Click to expand...

With respect, this is the dumbest argument I have read upon this thread. No wonder it appealed to Zora.

Qatar wanted to buy United so it may improve its reputation as something other than an autocratic dictatorship. A 24/7 marketing gimmick.

It's atrocious record on human rights has not and will not be dependent on their buying United.

Nobody has ever thought it would.

Rood said:
there is no ideal scenario, all have major issues so we just have to choose the best
Click to expand...

We don't actually have to do this.

Anyway, taking you at your game, there is virtually no guarantee Qatar's state bid would improve anything.

Considering they failed to beat Jim Ratcliffe in a one-horse race, and their psg shitshow, there's not much evidence in their favour past having shitload of dodgy cash.

Lyng said:
Now English is not my native tongue so if I am reading wrong please correct me. But what i understood from Rood was that the human rights abuse in Qatar isnt going to get worse or better whether or not they own United. I fail to see how that is wrong?
Click to expand...

Again, Qatar's human rights abuses have never been contingent on their owning United. However, United will become directly complicit if Qatar take over. How you 'fail to see' it is wrong is concerning enough, but thinking it is somehow right because you'll get Mbappe out of it is infinitely worse.

Lyng said:
And, while I agree with you on not wanting to be owned by a state, I am not sure I think it was a state bid. Given that they have pulled out I honestly think this was a banker who's father has made a lot of money on the state but still was an individual bid. Much like Jim's company is making a lot of money of the Saudi state, but that is also an invididual bid.
Personally I believe if it was the state they wouldnt have left the table already.
Click to expand...

Jassim's a banker of the majority state owned QIB, and is a direct relative of the ruling, hereditary dictatorship in Qatar. There is simply no feasible way he could embark on this project without the prior consent of any higher-ups, nor the so-called 92F's investors, either.

Most know he is but a plant, a friendly face to pawn it off onto. The reality is, of course, Qatar encroaching onto some prime real estate.

Please don't attempt any whataboutery arguments in response, if you care to provide anything. I can't be arsed picking them apart for the eighth billion time.
 
Highfather_24 said:
This is exactly my fear. Jim and co just dont have the financial pull required to compete with the big boys, and repair the existing damage. Wish we had other buyers for full 100%, but Glazers are a leech and just dont wanna sell, so now we are stuck in this limbo situation.
Click to expand...

We don't need a bottom pit of money to be competitive.

We just need to be debt free and we would be both competitive and self sustaining. The fact that we have an increasing level of debt, forces the club to prioritise commercial stuff ahead of actual football stuff is what is weighing us down. Having more people in the club isn't going to solve anything - its going to make things worse if the debt is still remains.

Under the Glazers there has never been a plan to pay off any of the debt, because they don't understand football. Debt isn't the reason a football club loses football matches, but debt is the reason that the culture at our great club has shifted from money being a by-product of football, to where we are today, which is money and revenue first and football second.
 


According to sources familiar with the bids, who spoke anonymously because they do not have permission to divulge commercially sensitive information, United’s £1bn forecast excluded any potential benefits from developing the club’s Old Trafford stadium. Instead, the £1bn would be earned through increased commercial and broadcast revenue and matchday income.

Sources familiar with the bids for United claimed the club’s billion-pound revenue forecast was deemed highly ambitious, even withstanding an enhanced broadcast rights package in the new format of the UEFA Champions League from next season, as well as the introduction of the FIFA Club World Cup. The bidders felt such numbers would also require vastly improved on-field performances
Click to expand...
 
Pes6Monster said:
Qatar wanted to buy United so it may improve its reputation as something other than an autocratic dictatorship. A 24/7 marketing gimmick.

It's atrocious record on human rights has not and will not be dependent on their buying United.

Nobody has ever thought it would.



We don't actually have to do this.

Anyway, taking you at your game, there is virtually no guarantee Qatar's state bid would improve anything.

Considering they failed to beat Jim Ratcliffe in a one-horse race, and their psg shitshow, there's not much evidence in their favour past having shitload of dodgy cash.



Again, Qatar's human rights abuses have never been contingent on their owning United. However, United will become directly complicit if Qatar take over. How you 'fail to see' it is wrong is concerning enough, but thinking it is somehow right because you'll get Mbappe out of it is infinitely worse.



Jassim's a banker of the majority state owned QIB, and is a direct relative of the ruling, hereditary dictatorship in Qatar. There is simply no feasible way he could embark on this project without the prior consent of any higher-ups, nor the so-called 92F's investors, either.

Most know he is but a plant, a friendly face to pawn it off onto. The reality is, of course, Qatar encroaching onto some prime real estate.

Please don't attempt any whataboutery arguments in response, if you care to provide anything. I can't be arsed picking them apart for the eighth billion time.
Click to expand...

Then explain why they pulled out? 6 or 8 billion is not really much of an issue for the state of Qatar.
Also I never wanted Qatar so no need to spout that Mbappe nonsense at me.

Also you first say that their human rights abuses where never contingent on them owning United...thats his entire argument.

Funny how you start talking whataboutery. I could turn that around on you. If Jims money isnt a problem, even though its partly Saud money, then why is Qatar? Why is being owned by a disgusting company a good thing, but a state a bad thing??
Surely if you care anything about how humans are treated you would be like me and want neither?
 
Lyng said:
Then explain why they pulled out? 6 or 8 billion is not really much of an issue for the state of Qatar.
Click to expand...

They pulled out because of the Glazers. Today it's six billion, then eight, then ten, then twelve. They also didn't expect the Glazers would sell them the club, either.

Qatar made two supreme mistakes:

A) promising 'investment' money to do the stadium and gentrify Salford with. Once the Glazers knew this was absolutely in play, they wanted a fair slice of that pie, too.

B) tacitly criticising the Glazers rule on United. Notice how Slim Jim did not do as such.

You have alluded to something rather interesting. Their pulling out indicates to many proof it isn't a state bid. They could come back in later to 'break the deadlock' with that narrative established.

They are a political body. You can't put it past them.

Lyng said:
Funny how you start talking whataboutery. I could turn that around on you. If Jims money isnt a problem, even though its partly Saud money, then why is Qatar? Why is being owned by a disgusting company a good thing, but a state a bad thing??
Surely if you care anything about how humans are treated you would be like me and want neither?
Click to expand...

Precisely why I don't particularly want Ratcliffe, either, but his is a company. Read my posting history for proof I am not pro-Ratcliffe.

A company can be an unscrupulous arsehole but it does not have to be. Same with hedge funds. It helps, definitely, but it isn't necessary. Furthermore, despite their malign influence they do not ultimately set laws.

There is no such leeway with dictatorships.

Both are fairly awful candidates. Qatar are much, much worse than Ratcliffe and would stain the club forever, but Ratcliffe aligned with the Glazers is also terrible.

Lyng said:
Also you first say that their human rights abuses where never contingent on them owning United...thats his entire argument.
Click to expand...

I don't 'say' this. It's a fact. Like other sportswashing entities, they're using football to manufacture consent.

Furthermore, it isn't an argument more of a false equivalence. Some of the favourable replies Rood has had are, em, interesting. The one about Peter Sutcliffe is particularly so.

You'd hope such a thing is a joke, a wind-up evincing the method, but, well.
 
Pes6Monster said:
They pulled out because of the Glazers. Today it's six billion, then eight, then ten, then twelve. They also didn't expect the Glazers would sell them the club, either.

Qatar made two supreme mistakes:

A) promising 'investment' money to do the stadium and gentrify Salford with. Once the Glazers knew this was absolutely in play, they wanted a fair slice of that pie, too.

B) tacitly criticising the Glazers rule on United. Notice how Slim Jim did not do as such.

You have alluded to something rather interesting. Their pulling out indicates to many proof it isn't a state bid. They could come back in later to 'break the deadlock' with that narrative established.

They are a political body. You can't put it past them.



Precisely why I don't particularly want Ratcliffe, either, but his is a company. Read my posting history for proof I am not pro-Ratcliffe.

A company can be an unscrupulous arsehole but it does not have to be. Same with hedge funds. It helps, definitely, but it isn't necessary. Furthermore, despite their malign influence they do not ultimately set laws.

There is no such leeway with dictatorships.

Both are fairly awful candidates. Qatar are much, much worse than Ratcliffe and would stain the club forever, but Ratcliffe aligned with the Glazers is also terrible.



I don't 'say' this. It's a fact. Like other sportswashing entities, they're using football to manufacture consent.

Furthermore, it isn't an argument more of a false equivalence. Some of the favourable replies Rood has had are, em, interesting. The one about Peter Sutcliffe is particularly so.

You'd hope such a thing is a joke, a wind-up evincing the method, but, well.
Click to expand...
Obviously I am joking about that. :lol:

The joke being that by the logic of 'it doesn't matter if Qatar own United human rights abuses will continue' can be extended to anything and anyone.

I should have known better than to come into this thread. :lol:
 
Pes6Monster said:
Jassim's a banker of the majority state owned QIB, and is a direct relative of the ruling, hereditary dictatorship in Qatar. There is simply no feasible way he could embark on this project without the prior consent of any higher-ups, nor the so-called 92F's investors, either.

Most know he is but a plant, a friendly face to pawn it off onto. The reality is, of course, Qatar encroaching onto some prime real estate.

Please don't attempt any whataboutery arguments in response, if you care to provide anything. I can't be arsed picking them apart for the eighth billion time.
Click to expand...
There's a difference between having consent and probably even being encouraged by the rulers, and being a front for the rulers to actually take control. Obviously he would have had the former, but the latter was never certain and the fact that he seems to have gone slinking out without increasing his bid further does decrease the likelihood of it further. I'm certainly not saying that it wasn't, but I do disagree with you and others who are saying it's basically a certainty that it was.

We'll likely never know for sure.
 
Berbasbullet said:
Completely agree, so what if Peter Sutcliffe wants to buy us?! Does that make us all murderers? Hell no!
Click to expand...

I get that you are trying (and failing) to be funny but, on a serious level, Peter Sutcliffe is a convicted criminal so would not pass the PL owners test

The PL owners test now includes a section on human rights violations, AFAIK no one from Qatar appears on the banned list and certainly Sheikh Jassim doesn't
 
Rood said:
I get that you are trying (and failing) to be funny but, on a serious level, Peter Sutcliffe is a convicted criminal so would not pass the PL owners test

The PL owners test now includes a section on human rights violations, AFAIK no one from Qatar appears on the banned list and certainly Sheikh Jassim doesn't
Click to expand...

Elephant in the room: Sutcliffe is ded. Moot point and even if he was I bet it would be the Saudis who will front him. Qataris are the southern softies of the gulf
 
Berbasbullet said:
Obviously I am joking about that. :lol:
Click to expand...

It'd be some craic if Sutcliffe threw his hat in the ring, especially on this thread.

'Sutcliffe may be dead, but anything is better than the Glazers.'

'Here, we've all broken the law in some way or the other. Stop being hypocrites.'

'Didn't he support Leeds?'

Rachel Riley's take would be something else.
 
sullydnl said:
Click to expand...


City will likely be presenting £700M+ revenue numbers, and the US TV deals are ramping up - so it's definitely doable if fortunes on the pitch change drastically. Without that, it's a pipe-dream. So unless the Glazers have a master plan to change the fortunes of the club, it ain't happening.
 
Insanity said:
This Jim's 25% stake purchase with conditions set for a full takeover at a later date sounds like the biggest bullshit ever.

We are being led to believe that this guy will buy 25% now, get full control of the footballing operations and then will improve it to increase the club's valuation so that he can buy the remaining shares at a lofty price at a later date. How does that make any business sense? Why will help improve something to increase its value to buy it a couple of years down the line for a much higher price? Logic says that he'll try to worsen it further so that he can buy it cheaper later.

This all sounds like a hogwash concocted by Jim and the Glazers to placate the fans for the time being. Jimmy boy wants a piece of the pie and the Glazers are looking to raise some cash for themselves. Both are envisaging new revenue streams opening up with streaming, revival of the super league, new bigger broadcasting contracts etc which will send the club's value soaring so that they can keep milking it to fill their coffers.

Don't expect massive improvements from this operation with regards to debt reduction or improvement of facilities or the footballing structure. Things will remain more and less the same with at most some cosmetic changes being made on the surface. Good Times!
Click to expand...

My thoughts exactly. Jim is known for investing, a 25% investment at just over a billion for sporting control in Manchester United is the best outcome possible for him and the Glazers.
 
I think in the long term the best outcome is this deal failing. Ratcliffe is giving them a lifeline here when it looked like they were struggling and in dire need of investment as their ownership model was coming back to bite them.

So honestly I'm praying Ratcliffe walks away, leave them out to dry, even if it's at the cost of short term pain.
 
Laurencio said:
City will likely be presenting £700M+ revenue numbers, and the US TV deals are ramping up - so it's definitely doable if fortunes on the pitch change drastically. Without that, it's a pipe-dream. So unless the Glazers have a master plan to change the fortunes of the club, it ain't happening.
Click to expand...
Glazers kids are hilarious. The kind who would never be in a boardroom if they didn't strike the genetic lottery. It's especially insulting to be telling buyers this when they first have to pay off your 1 billion in debt and other billion in stadium maintenance. That money isn't coming back anytime soon unless paying salaries, bills, loans and co stops being a thing in business. They should be selling at a discount but are demanding a premium. I beg JR to not fund any of this without assurances. The whole saga shows glazers are financially insane and can't be trusted. I can see how Woodward was the real brains behind the acquisition.
 
Pes6Monster said:
It'd be some craic if Sutcliffe threw his hat in the ring, especially on this thread.

'Sutcliffe may be dead, but anything is better than the Glazers.'

'Here, we've all broken the law in some way or the other. Stop being hypocrites.'

'Didn't he support Leeds?'

Rachel Riley's take would be something else.
Click to expand...
:lol:
 
Kaos said:
I think in the long term the best outcome is this deal failing. Ratcliffe is giving them a lifeline here when it looked like they were struggling and in dire need of investment as their ownership model was coming back to bite them.

So honestly I'm praying Ratcliffe walks away, leave them out to dry, even if it's at the cost of short term pain.
Click to expand...

this.
 
Kaos said:
I think in the long term the best outcome is this deal failing. Ratcliffe is giving them a lifeline here when it looked like they were struggling and in dire need of investment as their ownership model was coming back to bite them.

So honestly I'm praying Ratcliffe walks away, leave them out to dry, even if it's at the cost of short term pain.
Click to expand...
If the details of the deal comes to light and we find Ratcliffe has a route to majority ownership within 3 years or so, would your opinion be the same?
 
VP89 said:
If the details of the deal comes to light and we find Ratcliffe has a route to majority ownership within 3 years or so, would your opinion be the same?
Click to expand...
I'll be onboard with that. However if Glazers actually think we'll hit 1bn revenue, I don't think they'll ever encash fully.
 
Laurencio said:
City will likely be presenting £700M+ revenue numbers, and the US TV deals are ramping up - so it's definitely doable if fortunes on the pitch change drastically. Without that, it's a pipe-dream. So unless the Glazers have a master plan to change the fortunes of the club, it ain't happening.
Click to expand...

We will lose out quite a bit if we arent doing well -- never mind not appearing in the CL but also domestic TV revenues will be hit as we wont be shown on TV as much. United used to be on prime time and always on TV but nowadays we will be playing in off-peak slots or sometimes not. We lose revenues then.
 
MDFC Manager said:
I'll be onboard with that. However if Glazers actually think we'll hit 1bn revenue, I don't think they'll ever encash fully.
Click to expand...
I genuinely don't think they have Ratcliffe on board unless they give him the sure route to majority.

He's not a dunce, and he's 71. In my opinion he didnt want to dick around much longer with an unnecessary bidding process and started with 25% to get the ownership situation moving quicker and have him make the changes he wants early.
 
sglowrider said:
Elephant in the room: Sutcliffe is ded. Moot point and even if he was I bet it would be the Saudis who will front him. Qataris are the southern softies of the gulf
Click to expand...

True indeed - most probably dont realise any difference between Saudi Arabia, UAE, Qatar etc.
 
VP89 said:
If the details of the deal comes to light and we find Ratcliffe has a route to majority ownership within 3 years or so, would your opinion be the same?
Click to expand...
Then I'd obviously reconsider my stance, but as it stands we have nothing to suggest that's going to be a likely scenario.
 
Kaos said:
Then I'd obviously reconsider my stance, but as it stands we have nothing to suggest that's going to be a likely scenario.
Click to expand...
Even reports and interviews with the likes of Ornstein and the Athletic which have insinuated this?
 
Kaos said:
I think in the long term the best outcome is this deal failing. Ratcliffe is giving them a lifeline here when it looked like they were struggling and in dire need of investment as their ownership model was coming back to bite them.

So honestly I'm praying Ratcliffe walks away, leave them out to dry, even if it's at the cost of short term pain.
Click to expand...
Then the investment funds will come in to loan the glazers more money and there will be bigger debt on the club and we will be stuck with leeches for another 10 years.
 
jasT1981 said:
Click to expand...

:lol: - exactly what I thought. This is a minority investment which is what Glazers has always wanted. Where were the guys who argued that's not the case.

Jim isn't going to take over the full control for 8+ billion.
 
VP89 said:
Even reports and interviews with the likes of Ornstein and the Athletic which have insinuated this?
Click to expand...
We've also been told by surefire sources that the Glazers were looking to sell, and there were times it looked like we were certainly Qatar-bound too. So I'm treating speculation as exactly just that.

My stance is very straight forward, the only acceptable solution for me is to Glazers ceding complete control, and ideally - fecking off entirely. Ratcliffe offering a 25% deal while keeping the Glazers in the picture tells me he cant afford a full buyout, so why are we confident that he'll have an easy path to majority ownership within a few years?
 
Status
Not open for further replies.