Over one billion in dividends have been took out mate. One billion
Club Sale | It’s done!
- Thread starter JB08
- Start date
- Status
Over one billion in dividends have been took out mate. One billion
So I’m drinking kool-aid and trying to spin this as being good news?
I’m trying to work out who you have an issue with or if you’re arguing with yourself somewhat.
I’m not sure if you’re attempting to be obtuse on purpose. I’m fully aware of that.
Read what was written again.
This is becoming tedious.
No... Almost one billion has been taken out on interest repayments AND the dividends. The interest repayments do most of the lifting. The dividends are like.. 10mil a year? It's not great, it's not nothing, but we are rich enough to handle that and still be a top club. That's not what is stopping us from competing at the top. Dumb management, dumb decisions are why we aren't good and in a mess.
Source?
You literally call the deal great in your post. I’m arguing it isn’t.
I’ve been around this forum long enough to know you’re not that stupid & this is your usual play at subversion.
Let’s both agree to take a day off from this point as you’re not willing to discuss the post anymore so it will just go wayward from here.
Obviously fake twitter quotes that people make up and then children believe because common sense is lost from this world
Can someone explain the significance of Trawler?
I guess the 300m is from Sir Ratfcliffe personally, so he set up Trawler to put in 300m by gaining shares. So after that investment, there will be INEOS, Glazers and Trawler with class B shares?
Why do this? Can they not just fund it from INEOS?
I guess the 300m is from Sir Ratfcliffe personally, so he set up Trawler to put in 300m by gaining shares. So after that investment, there will be INEOS, Glazers and Trawler with class B shares?
Why do this? Can they not just fund it from INEOS?
I think it’s great that the Glazers have diluted their ownership and lost control of footballing matters. That’s what I think is great. I’ve already said the deal itself wasn’t what we all wanted.
Stop being so angry. It must be tiring!
The irony of this will fly way over that head of yours.
As a not so angry poster told me a few posts ago.
Have a day off.
INEOS' other shareholders might have opinions or influence that Ratcliffe isn't interested in I suppose.
Surely the 240m quid towards the stadium won't be the end of it? I mean it's not as if they'll hand over the whole amount and get a receipt upon completion. Perhaps it will allow the club to get a massive loan for a complete rebuild?
That’s not a gift he’s getting more shares for that money
The club need billions and Jim has buttered people up with a measly 300m
The beginning of a new era at Manchester United. We will be back to the top of football before too long, where we belong.
It's Christmas guys, get a room.
I will be optimistic about this. Looking at it purely from a footballing point of view it appears on the face of it to be very positive and exactly what we have been crying out for. A complete overhaul of the football operations side.
What currency is this One billion?
Agreed.
If Ratcliffe is in charge of football operations and has designs on owning the entire club, wouldn't it make sense for him to run it into the ground and pick the whole thing up for pennies to the pound. Will also leave him with more cash for transfers.
No point asking this question. Been asking it for months. You’ll get called pro-Qatar, a moaner & all things before anyone admits this is a steep climb down from what we’d all hoped for when the statement came out.
I said Merry Christmas many posts ago. Enjoy it.Okay. I’m not going to argue with you dude. I’ll leave you be
The thing is the parasites agreed a budget anyway that they fecked up by being too slow. If the same budget is agreed and given to Ratcliffe and his men then surely he will be quicker off the mark, without overpaying and giving stupid contracts
Merry Christmas to you too! X
This fella has been on the Christmas spirit
The club is run into the ground and the Glazers are still barely willing to sell a margin of their shares on a huge premium.
That’s not really true. They take around 25m/year and they started doing that in 2016. So it should be around 200m overall dividend payments.
Not insignificant, far from it, after all we could have bought Antony, Mount and Hojlund with that money, but not 1 billion as you claimed.
His ass.
INEOS won't own anything.
Ratcliffe is buying the shares himself (both the original 25% and the new shares issued for the $300m), not INEOS. He's doing that under the company Trawlers Limited, a company he set up (the name is a nod towards Cantona's old quote about seagulls following the trawler) which he owns 100% of. Effectively, Trawler = Ratcliffe. I presume it's just more tax effective to own them through a company rather than directly under his name.
So at the end of the day, the 6 Glazer siblings and Trawler/Ratcliffe will be the ones with Class B shares.
Is Ratcliff any good? Being a supporter doesnt make one a Florention Perez by default.
He might be another Woodward with his oen idea
He might be another Woodward with his oen idea
Sorry to poke holes in your argument but it was never a full sale process.
Only time will tell if its going to make any difference.. imo no it won't until the Glazers are gone altogether.
That is now a long way off, there just going to throw Ratcliffe under the bus now when it goes more pear shaped.
£300 million for the Staduim ? I've read 1 Billion on what else ? Let's see, I've got no excitement at all about any of the news until there are clear results on the pitch to show for it...that won't be for a while imo.
That is now a long way off, there just going to throw Ratcliffe under the bus now when it goes more pear shaped.
£300 million for the Staduim ? I've read 1 Billion on what else ? Let's see, I've got no excitement at all about any of the news until there are clear results on the pitch to show for it...that won't be for a while imo.
He is ultra successful and is a self-made billionaire. You cannot make a company of that size without being able to delegate to the right people, and that is all we need him to do. Hire experienced talented people.
I wouldn’t want him to do a Perez and decide what players we should sign. There are not many Perezs around.
The important thing is that he seems to be putting in place a good team to fill the important roles at the top of the football pyramid. Preferably he himself won't actually be making any further decisions (other than deciding to invest more money in), as chances are the people he is putting in charge will be better at that than he himself would be.
We won't know for sure for a couple of years, but the first 6 months or so should give us a decent idea.
He may well be bad, his record in sports ownership is not very impressive, but he has at least shown a willingness to put serious people in to key positions. That's unlike Woodward whose ego meant he decided to cosplay as a key football figure for years before making Murtough the Director of Football seemingly for no reason other than that Murtough had threatened to join Phil Neville in Miami if he didn't get the job.
We will see who the appointments are and how they work out but Blanc as CEO and presumably a new Director of Football and potentially a new Head of Recruitment to come in gives us a better chance of being competent.
Sorry to poke holes in you poking holes but did you actually read my post? If so where do I say it was a full sale or do I say it’s a steep climb down from what people wanted when the statement first dropped.
The state of this place. Comprehension matters lad.
Last edited:
If something isn't working, you have to change your approach even if there are no guarantees. How workable the proposed approach is remains to be seen.
The 300m dollar cash injection into the club is unreservedly a good thing.
The control issue is as yet an untold story; we have to see what changes have been made to the club's constitution in preparation for this deal. Changes to the AOA will be required to address the transferability of B shares and the power of B shares in the event of key decisions will have to be amended- prior to this deal, B shareholders could alter the voting ratio, from 10/1 upwards, to ensure that remaining B shareholders had at least 2/3 of the voting power for special resolution issues. Changes would have to be acceptable to all the major players.
We'll get to see that info soon enough.
- Status