Club Sale | It’s done!

Status
Not open for further replies.
Tarrou said:
I don't think there is any doubt there. If they don't guarantee him a route to a full-takeover then he'd be absolutely crazy to give them any money.
Click to expand...

Or Jim comes in as an investor as a Plan B.

With his investment of 1.3billion quid for 25% it then establishes the minimum base price for the next round or full sale. He could sell out to some sovereign fund when the new CEO cooks the books and hits some mythical 1billion in revenue target -- something that Arnold thinks is unrealistic.
 
sglowrider said:
Or Jim comes in as an investor as a Plan B.

With his investment of 1.3billion quid for 25% it then establishes the minimum base price for the next round or full sale. He could sell out to some sovereign fund when the new CEO cooks the books and hits some mythical 1billion in revenue target -- something that Arnold thinks is unrealistic.
Click to expand...

so why would he invest in those circumstances?
 
Tarrou said:
so why would he invest in those circumstances?
Click to expand...

To flip it later together with the Glazers when they do sell out.

There is an actual price now that Ratcliffe has not bought in, not something plucked from the air or the various valuation models.
 
sglowrider said:
To flip it later together with the Glazers when they do sell out.

There is an actual price now that Ratcliffe has not bought in, not something plucked from the air or the various valuation models.
Click to expand...

but there is one other interested bidder after a year and that person dropped out

maybe Jim is the worst businessman ever and will think the Glazers are a great group of lads to invest his money in, but lets be serious here.. he obviously does not think that
 
sglowrider said:
Why is INEOS relevant anymore? I thought its a Sir Jim's privately funded venture now?
Click to expand...
Because his personal wealth is mostly tied up in INEOS, billionaires don't have bank accounts with billions sitting in them, they own shares and and other assets which they sell to raise money to buy something else
 
putzmcgee123 said:
No worries mate. As a privately held company, I was not too familiar with them beyond seeing their name plastered on the Spuds benches.

This would hardly be the first go-around at M&A for Ratcliffe/INEOS, and they have at least one deal worth more than what Man Utd will reportedly be valued at.

On the off chance anyone reads the article I shared, I am sure some will love reading:

“Employees were operating in a cloud of uncertainty but that uncertainty shifted from going public to being acquired by a largely unknown chemical company on the back of 100% debt finance”
Click to expand...
greenoffpearson said:
It certainly does calm the nerves knowing that Ineos can play the debt market with such expertise.
Click to expand...

From their point of view they will get a far bigger return by borrowing than building up cash reserves. If they can borrow at say 6% to buy an asset, they know they can make a far bigger return than that. They have done it time and time again which is why their revenues are so high, but no particularly huge profits (more profit means more tax) - it all just goes back on more acquisition and further growth.

Having said that I think United is more of a community/PR project than and investment to Jim.
 
A question for people far better with numbers than I. At current loss rate, with no investment, at what point would we be looking at insolvency/administration?
 
Pes6Monster said:
As ever, if people say things you don't want to be true, or 'don't sit right with me' because of some aesthetic, relatable or even prejudiced viewpoint, the only conclusion you can possibly generate is that they are lost, brainwashed, incapable of independent thought, whatever works to satisfy oneself.

Neither Ineos/Ratcliffe or Qatar, or even the Glazers for that matter, are in any way qualified to run a club like United, with all the attendant pressure and expectation.

People who want Qatar are obviously going to have a go at those highlighting legitimate human rights concerns. They have to.
Click to expand...

There is the option to not support Man Utd if people actually did care that much. People could have used the ownership publicity to protest agaisnt the Qatari regime's human rights record. People at the very least could (SHOULD) have boycotted watching the world cup if thats how deeply they feel, but we already know no one did that. In fact, it wasn't even important enough for almost anyone on here to want Harry Kane to risk a yellow card against Iran. A lot of people on here got angry at the mere suggestion from the odd journo at the time that maybe an England player getting booked to highlight human rights concerns, was more important than the fact they'd then have a yellow card in a world cup group game. So the do gooding stopped at even the most mild, indirect, meaningless possible hint of real life consequence or having to actually do or sacrifice anything.

If Man Utd was owned by Qatar, 99%+ of the same people pitching the moral highground, would put 100× the effort into criticising the ownership for a draw at home to Everton, than they ever would for a state backed act of cruelty. Basically I just think either put your opinions and values/actions in at least vaguely the same stratosphere, or stop trying to take a high road that's so visibly shallow most politicians would have to steer away from it.

This is "lost" if you like. People don't even know what they want from what they pretend they want, and as a result don't seem to have a clue what it looks like they are getting either.

I don't want Ratcliffe involved in Man Utd because he would facilitate the Glazers continuing to leech off the club and isn't going to give a f*ck about the fans. He has barely even bothered to pretend to. I find the idea people are happy about this quite maddening. I mean, why? A lot of you actually HAVE been protesting against the Glazers for years. Everyone hates them with a passion...i would guess a lot more than they'd hate Harry Kane getting a yellow card for England. Be bloody consistent at least. Making up some bs about what might happen in 5 years time to justify suddenly wanting to keep them isn't going to do any good in the real world.

It's not about what "Suits" me or whatever you put. I think its weighing up the best of some bad options by assessing their actual impact, which is a consequence of football being so money orientated. Think whatever you want I just get depressed by reading bullshit.
 
Spot on, you can care about your fellow being and still hold your hands up and say Qatar for United as a football club who wants to be at the top out of the options available was the best significantly.

There’s nothing wrong with saying that, although a lot of people will try and tell you otherwise!
 
Wezzaldo said:
A question for people far better with numbers than I. At current loss rate, with no investment, at what point would we be looking at insolvency/administration?
Click to expand...

Never. That is not on the cards at all. Without investment, United are looking at continued stagnation rather than collapse. Stagnation is still something to be avoided, of course.
 
Infra-red said:
Never. That is not on the cards at all. Without investment, United are looking at continued stagnation rather than collapse. Stagnation is still something to be avoided, of course.
Click to expand...
Never say never, it's not likely but it can't be totally discounted, at present the club can services the debts it has, but failure to move forward on the pitch will ultimately cause income to fall, once the income falls below a certain level it won't be able to service the debt, I don't think it'll happen but the world is full of businesses that no one thought would fail but they did
 
goalscholes said:
The Glaziers are the type of people that would buy an orange, let it rot, try to sell it for 5x the price and find a buyer. But then convince themselves that their rotting orange must have magical powers and continue raising the price until all bidders drop out.

They’ll be sitting there right now, smug that they turned down ludicrous amounts of money whilst expecting 10x the amount they paid for it next year, all whilst rotting it further.
Click to expand...
They are clueless about transfers so this shouldn't surprise us I guess.

Also says a lot about how desperate and sleazy they might be if they can even consider taking Jim's billion with no solid intent to fulfil his one condition. Give him legally enforceable conditions for a future sale or leave the money. Sir Jim's legal team better get it detailed and all on paper because the saga is one big red flag on the glazers heads. Actually thought they would find anyone to give them a billion for the prestige of owning a club they've run into the ground.
 
Bosws87 said:
Spot on, you can care about your fellow being and still hold your hands up and say Qatar for United as a football club who wants to be at the top out of the options available was the best significantly.

There’s nothing wrong with saying that, although a lot of people will try and tell you otherwise!
Click to expand...
But I don't think you'd get many people claiming that Qatar owning united wouldn't make success more likely on balance, assuming they'd plow unlimited funds into it. It's not a certainty but on balance of probabilities it's more likely. I do think that the people against the Qatari takeover - me included - would argue that there are some things more important than on-field success. I think you're arguing against a point that not many people are making.
 
Guarantee if United start winning things over multiple seasons with SJR at the club with only 25% but controlling the football side. No one would give a shit about the Glazers anymore.

They were around when we won lots of trophies under Sir Alex. Yes the Glazers out movement were there under Fergie but they were nowhere near as loud and as prominent as they are now.

Football fans are fickle and will quickly move on if trophies and success is there.
 
UnitedSofa said:
Guarantee if United start winning things over multiple seasons with Sir James Arthur Ratcliffe FIChemE at the club with only 25% but controlling the football side. No one would give a shit about the Glazers anymore.

They were around when we won lots of trophies under Sir Alex. Yes the Glazers out movement were there under Fergie but they were nowhere near as loud and as prominent as they are now.

Football fans are fickle and will quickly move on if trophies and success is there.
Click to expand...
Spot on
 
I'm just an average guy who makes a comfortable living but definitely does not play in Sir Jim's league so I need some help understanding what's going on here.

Sir Jim (or his investment vehicle, INEOS) proposes to buy a 25% stake in United with the Glazers and other shareholders holding the remaining 75%. The idea is that with this 25% he will have his foot in the door to eventually take control of the remaining 75%, but that in the meantime he will somehow have operational control of the business even though he would only hold 25% of the value of the club, presumably not having any responsibility for the disposition of the 725m or so of debt that is still loaded into the enterprise value of the club.

Exactly how does this lead to the conclusion that under this arrangement that United will be able to field a stronger competitive squad on the pitch in the near or distant future? Even if assume management genius, how does holding 25% of the club enable him to take control of the operations of the club?
 
UnitedSofa said:
Guarantee if United start winning things over multiple seasons with Sir James Arthur Ratcliffe FIChemE at the club with only 25% but controlling the football side. No one would give a shit about the Glazers anymore.

They were around when we won lots of trophies under Sir Alex. Yes the Glazers out movement were there under Fergie but they were nowhere near as loud and as prominent as they are now.

Football fans are fickle and will quickly move on if trophies and success is there.
Click to expand...
Tbf It's not like it's fans putting the club on the market. Fans are fickle but creditors are not. Those debt is the road to ruin banners from the height of the Green and Gold campaigns have proven prophetic. It's mismanagement that started decades ago and finally caught up to them. You can only borrow so many times before your model starts to look like a pyramid scheme.

All these things are why we can't just go back to winning things before SJR or any new owner has settled them. That's almost 2 billion in debt and stadium neglect before the next owner can even begin to talk about buying players and winning things
 
greenoffpearson said:
Possibly, however a stadium/rebuild costs 1 billion plus, it takes at least 3/4 years plus to complete.

You have increased revenue and attention, but for these Glazers that is a minimum of 3/4 years of interest payments then a fractional return over many years.

They haven't shown any ambition to make that type of investment, even if it was available.

Their last (prior to the sale circus) search for investment was, apparently, to buy out other members of the family that wanted to move on.
Click to expand...
I never meant that the Glazers would be doing the investment - they would look to get it funded from outside and most of the chat and planning would most likely be just that - to allow them to appear to be doing something.

They are the masters of growing their investment while investing none of their own.

Nothing would surprise me and they are financially very astute owners.

I think the whole for sale agenda was just a charade. They won’t relinquish power until after the next World Cup and once they’ve drained the most of that uplift.
 
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...

I understand this point of view but I'd love to hear what you and all the other posters against Qatar or any state bid do about their atrocities on a day to day basis. Or does it only come into your line of sight because they want to take over utd?

Rhyme Animal said:
Absolutely spot on.

I’ve felt for some time that if you step outside the emotional lens of fandom, and just look objectively at how the Glazers have squandered - by their own decisions - literally every single advantageous position they were gifted with the club, it’s quite clear that something is very, very wrong with them and their ability to operate at this level…

Most successful club of last 20 years - Squandered

Competitive advantage on pitch -Squandered

Celebrated, revered stadium - Squandered

Coveted training facilities - Squandered

Most respected PL club - Squandered

All of these advantages were gifted to them - all they had to do was maintain them, not achieve them for themselves, just maintain them to a respectable level.

Yet, in every possible case, each advantageous point they inherited has been squandered - unforced - to the point of ruin, and they now find themselves with unmanageable debt, a footballing laughing stock, with a stadium falling to pieces and a need to grovel for money - publicly - from outside sources…

Thus, for me, the notion that they’re structuring a highly convoluted, needlessly complicated ‘multi year takeover’ with a 71 year old man, that’s propped up by bizarre, pie in the sky valuations of their own and the belief that they’ll get 8-10b in a few years is very hard to take seriously.

I would imagine, like literally all of their decisions and moves regarding Utd, that it’ll end up in ruin, with yet another golden opportunity… squandered.
Click to expand...

Great post.

noodlehair said:
There is the option to not support Man Utd if people actually did care that much. People could have used the ownership publicity to protest agaisnt the Qatari regime's human rights record. People at the very least could (SHOULD) have boycotted watching the world cup if thats how deeply they feel, but we already know no one did that. In fact, it wasn't even important enough for almost anyone on here to want Harry Kane to risk a yellow card against Iran. A lot of people on here got angry at the mere suggestion from the odd journo at the time that maybe an England player getting booked to highlight human rights concerns, was more important than the fact they'd then have a yellow card in a world cup group game. So the do gooding stopped at even the most mild, indirect, meaningless possible hint of real life consequence or having to actually do or sacrifice anything.

If Man Utd was owned by Qatar, 99%+ of the same people pitching the moral highground, would put 100× the effort into criticising the ownership for a draw at home to Everton, than they ever would for a state backed act of cruelty. Basically I just think either put your opinions and values/actions in at least vaguely the same stratosphere, or stop trying to take a high road that's so visibly shallow most politicians would have to steer away from it.

This is "lost" if you like. People don't even know what they want from what they pretend they want, and as a result don't seem to have a clue what it looks like they are getting either.

I don't want Ratcliffe involved in Man Utd because he would facilitate the Glazers continuing to leech off the club and isn't going to give a f*ck about the fans. He has barely even bothered to pretend to. I find the idea people are happy about this quite maddening. I mean, why? A lot of you actually HAVE been protesting against the Glazers for years. Everyone hates them with a passion...i would guess a lot more than they'd hate Harry Kane getting a yellow card for England. Be bloody consistent at least. Making up some bs about what might happen in 5 years time to justify suddenly wanting to keep them isn't going to do any good in the real world.

It's not about what "Suits" me or whatever you put. I think its weighing up the best of some bad options by assessing their actual impact, which is a consequence of football being so money orientated. Think whatever you want I just get depressed by reading bullshit.
Click to expand...

Great post.
 
noodlehair said:
There is the option to not support Man Utd if people actually did care that much. People could have used the ownership publicity to protest agaisnt the Qatari regime's human rights record. People at the very least could (SHOULD) have boycotted watching the world cup if thats how deeply they feel, but we already know no one did that. In fact, it wasn't even important enough for almost anyone on here to want Harry Kane to risk a yellow card against Iran. A lot of people on here got angry at the mere suggestion from the odd journo at the time that maybe an England player getting booked to highlight human rights concerns, was more important than the fact they'd then have a yellow card in a world cup group game. So the do gooding stopped at even the most mild, indirect, meaningless possible hint of real life consequence or having to actually do or sacrifice anything.

If Man Utd was owned by Qatar, 99%+ of the same people pitching the moral highground, would put 100× the effort into criticising the ownership for a draw at home to Everton, than they ever would for a state backed act of cruelty. Basically I just think either put your opinions and values/actions in at least vaguely the same stratosphere, or stop trying to take a high road that's so visibly shallow most politicians would have to steer away from it.

This is "lost" if you like. People don't even know what they want from what they pretend they want, and as a result don't seem to have a clue what it looks like they are getting either.

I don't want Ratcliffe involved in Man Utd because he would facilitate the Glazers continuing to leech off the club and isn't going to give a f*ck about the fans. He has barely even bothered to pretend to. I find the idea people are happy about this quite maddening. I mean, why? A lot of you actually HAVE been protesting against the Glazers for years. Everyone hates them with a passion...i would guess a lot more than they'd hate Harry Kane getting a yellow card for England. Be bloody consistent at least. Making up some bs about what might happen in 5 years time to justify suddenly wanting to keep them isn't going to do any good in the real world.

It's not about what "Suits" me or whatever you put. I think its weighing up the best of some bad options by assessing their actual impact, which is a consequence of football being so money orientated. Think whatever you want I just get depressed by reading bullshit.
Click to expand...
It’s always a choice. There were quite a lot of people I know who did actually boycott the WC - completely aware it makes no difference but not wanting to be part of what it represents. Maybe it’s just people getting older and realising football is so corporate these days it’s easier to not watch. I would stop watching games if we were owned by a state (regardless of which state it was) because I just don’t see the point. I don’t get - genuinely at all - how a City fan can celebrate what they are, the entire point of sport is that it’s competitive and it’s bloody hard to win things. United with unlimited money would become nigh unstoppable, there’s no one left in Europe with any clout bar 1 maybe 2 teams and the size of the club if state backed would blow City/Newcastle out of the water. It would be the least inspiring thing ever.
 
Hadn't checked news on this in over a week. I see there's still no news and the minority owner having sporting control is still unclear (from the beginning this part sounded like nonsense to me, especially with the news of a 3-person panel with Joel Glazer on it). Glazers will still own the club and have ultimate say on decisions while they own the majority of the shares. That's how business works. If Ratcliffe buys 51% and the Glazers stay it's a different story but haven't seen any suggestion of that being a possibility. Also don't see a clear legal way for any sort of guarantee Ratcliffe could purchase full control in the future (nor any benefit it would give to the Glazers).
 
Hopefully Jassim will come back in and let jim be a pretend ceo or something for a few hundred million.
 
spwd said:
I understand this point of view but I'd love to hear what you and all the other posters against Qatar or any state bid do about their atrocities on a day to day basis.
Click to expand...

Aye man, if you can't beat fact based analysis with other facts the best thing to do is attack with whataboutery, non-sequiturs and false equivalences.

Don't forget to endorse others deploying the same modus operandi with either anonymous upticks or detail-free exclamations like:

spwd said:
Great post.
Click to expand...

It is, after all, the 21st Century.

Dazzmondo said:
Hadn't checked news on this in over a week. I see there's still no news and the minority owner having sporting control is still unclear (from the beginning this part sounded like nonsense to me, especially with the news of a 3-person panel with Joel Glazer on it). Glazers will still own the club and have ultimate say on decisions while they own the majority of the shares. That's how business works. If Ratcliffe buys 51% and the Glazers stay it's a different story but haven't seen any suggestion of that being a possibility. Also don't see a clear legal way for any sort of guarantee Ratcliffe could purchase full control in the future (nor any benefit it would give to the Glazers).
Click to expand...

Reckon this was always going to take time.

Ratcliffe's 25% was never going to be a love payment, so thise viltures will need time
to figure their next move. Probably hoping Saudi Arabia or The Crab People fancied throwing eighty-five billion at them, so don't let septuagenarian Jimmy throw the whole heft just yet.
 
lex talionis said:
I'm just an average guy who makes a comfortable living but definitely does not play in Sir Jim's league so I need some help understanding what's going on here.

Sir Jim (or his investment vehicle, INEOS) proposes to buy a 25% stake in United with the Glazers and other shareholders holding the remaining 75%. The idea is that with this 25% he will have his foot in the door to eventually take control of the remaining 75%, but that in the meantime he will somehow have operational control of the business even though he would only hold 25% of the value of the club, presumably not having any responsibility for the disposition of the 725m or so of debt that is still loaded into the enterprise value of the club.

Exactly how does this lead to the conclusion that under this arrangement that United will be able to field a stronger competitive squad on the pitch in the near or distant future? Even if assume management genius, how does holding 25% of the club enable him to take control of the operations of the club?
Click to expand...
It's quite simple, it goes something like this

I give you xx billion for 25%, I have 100% control of the football operations, you continue with everything else

I agree to buy the 75% left in x years for xxx billion

Or you get the princely sum of feck all

The real problem with United isn't really the money, it's about how it's spent and the people who decide, appoint competent people and a stronger competitive squad will emerge
 
Reality is that the parasites can’t go with a minority investment from a hedge fund or someone like Elliott as any problems with financing repayments would see them lose the club for virtually nothing so that’s not something we need to worry about.

I think if the reports are true then it’s Ratcliffe putting the pressure on the parasites to contractually agree to the phased full takeover or he’ll pull out, he knows no one else wants to work with the parasites as they’re incompetent and they don’t want to allow a finance group in as they’ll likely lose the club.

I won’t lie I wanted Qatar as it was a full takeover but at the same time Ratcliffe is clearly a very clever and astute businessman and has successfully negotiated bigger takeovers than United already and is clearly far more intelligent than the parasites.
 
Red in STL said:
It's quite simple, it goes something like this

I give you xx billion for 25%, I have 100% control of the football operations, you continue with everything else

I agree to buy the 75% left in x years for xxx billion

Or you get the princely sum of feck all

The real problem with United isn't really the money, it's about how it's spent and the people who decide, appoint competent people and a stronger competitive squad will emerge
Click to expand...

I get all that, but it’s hard to see how the Glazers would ever agree to a 25% shareholder having operational control of a business enterprise.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.