Club Sale | It’s done!

Status
Not open for further replies.
MadDogg said:
The bolded is the key part.

The instant they failed with their bid and pulled out, it became increasingly likely that it wasn't a state-backed bid. Not because of any PR reason, but simply because you'd expect a bid that was truly backed by Qatar to be able to go significantly higher than what they did. Not only through money directly to the Glazers for Utd, but also by giving the Glazers significant business advantages in or related to Qatar under the table.

The fact that they also seemed to refuse to provide funding just makes that seem even more likely.

Is it certain that it wasn't a state bid? No, and we'll probably never know 100%. But based on what has happened and the information coming out, I'd say it's a significant likelihood.

Also, as for your last sentence, when have the Glazers ever cared whatsoever about the fans supporting their business model? They couldn't care less, they just want what gets them the most money.
Click to expand...

Many people did argue that he clearly didn’t have the personal wealth to back up the claims of his bid and the investment promises. This is why the bid never really made any sense, unless it was a state backed bid.

Now looking at their failure to provide proof of funds, it looks more likely that many were right all along, this guy never had the funding to do anything like he was promising, and yet, my God, so so many were willing to get into bed with him and were convinced he would be better than SJR.
 
Regulus Arcturus Black said:
Many people did argue that he clearly didn’t have the personal wealth to back up the claims of his bid and the investment promises. This is why the bid never really made any sense, unless it was a state backed bid.

Now looking at their failure to provide proof of funds, it looks more likely that many were right all along, this guy never had the funding to do anything like he was promising, and yet, my God, so so many were willing to get into bed with him and were convinced he would be better than SJR.
Click to expand...
Yep. Maybe he thought that if he got far enough that Qatar would step in and help him out, with it then becoming a state-backed bid with him as the face but that never happened. Or maybe it was a small group of individuals pooling their money together with him as the face. Or maybe it was just him all along and he thought he'd be able to get the money together. Perhaps he wasn't even serious about it and just wanted to get his name out there. Maybe it started out as a state-backed bid but then Qatar decided to pull the pin leaving Jassim alone. Maybe it was a state-backed bid all along and Qatar just decided they didn't want to go any higher.

There's plenty of options that it could be. None of us know for sure which one it was. We can just judge which ones were more or less likely based on the information that we know.
 
Regulus Arcturus Black said:
Many people did argue that he clearly didn’t have the personal wealth to back up the claims of his bid and the investment promises. This is why the bid never really made any sense, unless it was a state backed bid.

Now looking at their failure to provide proof of funds, it looks more likely that many were right all along, this guy never had the funding to do anything like he was promising, and yet, my God, so so many were willing to get into bed with him and were convinced he would be better than SJR.
Click to expand...

I think your last sentence mostly comes down to PR during the bidding process and fatigue from Glazer ownership. Majority were desperate for a full sale and back then it looked like Jassim was the only viable option (with the pretence that it actually was a state-backed bid). Add to that the huge uncertaintly linked with SJR that mostly stemmed from bad PR. I have no trouble admitting that I never really warmed to SJR during the bidding process, even up to the announcement of the current deal. Then again he has done pretty much everything right since then and the SEC filing tells a completely different story about both bidders than what was fed to us through the media. Turns out it was SJR that REALLY wanted to own the club and that he tried everything to make it work, from bidding for full control to even agreeing to the deal we are now seeing. It also shows why SJR has reached the wealth and status he has today.

The only thing I can't fully understand yet is why Raine entertained the Qatari bid for so long if some sort of proof of funding weren't present. Maybe they genuinely believed he was a proxy for the main Al Thani branch? Or maybe it is linked to the fact that ME royals are notorious when it comes to not disclosing their wealth or the funds are tied to shady assets (offshore) via his more famous dad. Either way Jassim's family has lost a lot of credibility and I would expect the main Al Thanis to distance themselves from it all. And luckily for us it looks like we got the right owner for a change, hopefully with full ownership in the not so distant future.
 
I am shocked the Qatari bid turned out to be a load of bollocks. Don't think anyone saw that coming.
 
Qatar aside, I was surprised that no major state wanted to rock in and buy Manchester United. It's a unicorn up for sale, I was surprised that none made a move, or even large corporates for that matter.
 
VP89 said:
Qatar aside, I was surprised that no major state wanted to rock in and buy Manchester United. It's a unicorn up for sale, I was surprised that none made a move, or even large corporates for that matter.
Click to expand...
I think the money was too much to be sensible, buying out the Glazers, the debt, the investment needs on stadium etc. Then rebuild team. Plus a lot of focus now and push back on sports washing. Sadly we had missed the boat
 
Apparently Jassim was quoted a price of £4.55m by the Glasers. So the Ratcliffe deal was their best bet leaving on option off a drag alone 2025 onwards. Suppose Ratcliffe could help make United competitive again, making the club more appealing to potential bidders... if Ratcliffe can't match any bid, he still makes a good profit.
 
Gordon Godot said:
I think the money was too much to be sensible, buying out the Glazers, the debt, the investment needs on stadium etc. Then rebuild team. Plus a lot of focus now and push back on sports washing. Sadly we had missed the boat
Click to expand...


Glad we missed the sports washing boat.

How it pans out with SJR remains to be seen . But so far it has all been the right noises. We really can't expect much till the Glazer's have been rid off!
 
VP89 said:
Qatar aside, I was surprised that no major state wanted to rock in and buy Manchester United. It's a unicorn up for sale, I was surprised that none made a move, or even large corporates for that matter.
Click to expand...

Not many states that venture into sports ownerships. Qatar could probably do it now that they have "resolved" the dual-ownership issues. KSA has already used their sovereign fund by directly owning Newcastle, and they probably want to focus more on building their own league. None of the other GCC countries seems plausible even if they have the funds.
 
Werd. said:
So sounds like Glazers wanted out and gave Qatar every opportunity to close the deal but they just ended up wasting time and SJR swooped in with a more enticing offer in the end.
Click to expand...
HAHA! Really?
Some amount of posters look like absolute idiots now. And I remember you all.
 
GaryLifo said:
I don't think they have the funds mate. This isn't a state funded bid. I think it's a group of wealthy investors who have a limited budget. Why else would they try to haggle instead of just paying the asking price?
Click to expand...

just bumping this from a long time ago because for once in my life I was right about something even though I had no inside information at all :D

edit: this was in response to Berbaclass saying he thought Qatar would have it wrapped up soon
 
TrueRed79 said:
HAHA! Really?
Some amount of posters look like absolute idiots now. And I remember you all.
Click to expand...
Exactly did Jim not offer to buy 100% then 69% then 51% then settled on 25% because the Glazer did not want to give up any more control.
 
Gordon Godot said:
I think the money was too much to be sensible, buying out the Glazers, the debt, the investment needs on stadium etc. Then rebuild team. Plus a lot of focus now and push back on sports washing. Sadly we had missed the boat
Click to expand...
I don't find it sad at all.
 
VP89 said:
Qatar aside, I was surprised that no major state wanted to rock in and buy Manchester United. It's a unicorn up for sale, I was surprised that none made a move, or even large corporates for that matter.
Click to expand...

not the best time for spending money on vanity purchases. If we were put on sale before the war I’m sure Glazers would have gotten whatever money they asked for.
 
BarstoolProphet said:
The only thing I can't fully understand yet is why Raine entertained the Qatari bid for so long if some sort of proof of funding weren't present. Maybe they genuinely believed he was a proxy for the main Al Thani branch? Or maybe it is linked to the fact that ME royals are notorious when it comes to not disclosing their wealth or the funds are tied to shady assets (offshore) via his more famous dad.
Click to expand...
Yeah, I can only assume there was the same element of “he’s Qatari royalty, of course he’s got the cash!” that was ever present in the fan debate.
Seems a shoddy way to do business, but I guess Raine were perhaps touting their own services to the Qataris for future transactions too so may have been weary of upsetting them?
It’s certainly very interesting now to find out more of what has gone on and piece together what we were told at the time with the benefit of hindsight.
 
MadDogg said:
The bolded is the key part.

The instant they failed with their bid and pulled out, it became increasingly likely that it wasn't a state-backed bid. Not because of any PR reason, but simply because you'd expect a bid that was truly backed by Qatar to be able to go significantly higher than what they did. Not only through money directly to the Glazers for Utd, but also by giving the Glazers significant business advantages in or related to Qatar under the table.

The fact that they also seemed to refuse to provide funding just makes that seem even more likely.

Is it certain that it wasn't a state bid? No, and we'll probably never know 100%. But based on what has happened and the information coming out, I'd say it's a significant likelihood.

Also, as for your last sentence, when have the Glazers ever cared whatsoever about the fans supporting their business model? They couldn't care less, they just want what gets them the most money.
Click to expand...
It, conversely, likely means the opposite to this in my opinion.

The issue with proof of funds is you have to prove the source of the funds. We already know that raising enough money is possible privately (Jassim's dad + the $9b loan from UBS as a recent example) but to have it debt free and not state linked...no chance.
 
tomaldinho1 said:
It, conversely, likely means the opposite to this in my opinion.

The issue with proof of funds is you have to prove the source of the funds. We already know that raising enough money is possible privately (Jassim's dad + the $9b loan from UBS as a recent example) but to have it debt free and not state linked...no chance.
Click to expand...


That was the issue. Probably.
 
Plant0x84 said:
Yeah, I can only assume there was the same element of “he’s Qatari royalty, of course he’s got the cash!” that was ever present in the fan debate.
Seems a shoddy way to do business, but I guess Raine were perhaps touting their own services to the Qataris for future transactions too so may have been weary of upsetting them?
It’s certainly very interesting now to find out more of what has gone on and piece together what we were told at the time with the benefit of hindsight.
Click to expand...

Could just be that it was in Raine's (and the Glazers') best interests to have more than one bidder at the table, even if the only other one they could attract at the prices touted was never really a serious prospect. Basically a high-end version of the oldest estate agent trick in the book. Or like 95% of the transfer stories United get pulled into that end up with a contract extension.
 
tomaldinho1 said:
It, conversely, likely means the opposite to this in my opinion.

The issue with proof of funds is you have to prove the source of the funds. We already know that raising enough money is possible privately (Jassim's dad + the $9b loan from UBS as a recent example) but to have it debt free and not state linked...no chance.
Click to expand...

But it doesn't fit Qatar's MO of doing it. They spent, what 200 billion on the WC, yet didn't want to cough up a measly 4,5 billion to own the biggest brand in world football to continue their strategy of enhancing the country's worldvide reputation via sports investments? They even managed make it out like their investment funds are legally separated entities, paving the way for the sovereign wealth fund itself to own the club without any "official" ties to the PSG ownership.
 
BarstoolProphet said:
But it doesn't fit Qatar's MO of doing it. They spent, what 200 billion on the WC, yet didn't want to cough up a measly 4,5 billion to own the biggest brand in world football to continue their strategy of enhancing the country's worldvide reputation via sports investments? They even managed make it out like their investment funds are legally separated entities, paving the way for the sovereign wealth fund itself to own the club without any "official" ties to the PSG ownership.
Click to expand...
Not that they didn't want to but that they couldn't hide the fact it was state bid which makes their PSG ownership a massive issue for the CL. They haven't done the bolded by any stretch.
 
Plant0x84 said:
Yeah, I can only assume there was the same element of “he’s Qatari royalty, of course he’s got the cash!” that was ever present in the fan debate.
Seems a shoddy way to do business, but I guess Raine were perhaps touting their own services to the Qataris for future transactions too so may have been weary of upsetting them?
It’s certainly very interesting now to find out more of what has gone on and piece together what we were told at the time with the benefit of hindsight.
Click to expand...

So you think BofA wasted all that time when there was no funds or proof of funds...
Proof of funds was a pre-requisite to get past the first bidding round. Bank of America are also not going to go through multiple rounds of bidding without verifying this.
 
tomaldinho1 said:
Not that they didn't want to but that they couldn't hide the fact it was state bid which makes their PSG ownership a massive issue for the CL. They haven't done the bolded by any stretch.
Click to expand...

I think you give way too much credit to that issue. Look how it easy it was for Ratcliffe to legally distance this investment from the Nice ownership, by just setting up a shelf company. Assuming it will pass of course. QSI that owns PSG, is now considered an investment fund legally independent from QIA, the sovereign wealth fund. Think it was JPRouve who provided the documentation, as I also thought QSI still was a subsidiary of QIA. Add to that the fact NAK sits on the UEFA board and I'm sure they would manage to circumvent the rules if they wanted to own United also, even if it's sadly obvious for the rest of us that they are same.
 
I tried telling everyone from the start that the 92 foundation wasn’t a state backed bid
And it was a group of investors including the likes of Bank of America.

They had a maximum they could borrow not only that we would have been tied up in all sorts of bullshit “deals”.

They were definitely serious and wanted in but they didn’t have the wealth and backing that many would have you believe.

They had 5bln and that’s it nothing more.

No proof of funds means they hadn’t secured the investment ahead of completing a Deal which is a huge red flag to anyone thinking they would have wiped debt etc , they would have refinanced it at horrible rates.
 
tomaldinho1 said:
It, conversely, likely means the opposite to this in my opinion.

The issue with proof of funds is you have to prove the source of the funds. We already know that raising enough money is possible privately (Jassim's dad + the $9b loan from UBS as a recent example) but to have it debt free and not state linked...no chance.
Click to expand...
But surely they knew that the first hurdle for ownership would be the fit and proper test imposed by the Premier League. They’d have seen what Newcastle went through and would be extremely naive/stupid to think they could just hand over a bag of cash with no questions asked.

Its extremely convenient that United did have such a vocal (supposedly) state backed bidder. I’m sure that definitely put pressure on SJR to up his bid on more than one occasion. It’s also convenient that Sheikh Jassim was indicated to be a preferred bidder in spite of not being able to prove the source of his wealth. If he hadn’t been involved, United might have benefited from inventing him.
 
BarstoolProphet said:
I think you give way too much credit to that issue. Look how it easy it was for Ratcliffe to legally distance this investment from the Nice ownership, by just setting up a shelf company. Assuming it will pass of course. QSI that owns PSG, is now considered an investment fund legally independent from QIA, the sovereign wealth fund. Think it was JPRouve who provided the documentation, as I also thought QSI still was a subsidiary of QIA. Add to that the fact NAK sits on the UEFA board and I'm sure they would manage to circumvent the rules if they wanted to own United also, even if it's sadly obvious for the rest of us that they are same.
Click to expand...
Ratcliffe isn't our owner though? I'd imagine if he ever gets to majority owner it would be much easier to have 2 companies, in two separate jurisdictions versus 2 companies in the same country pretending they aren't linked.

I'd like to see that documentation but I have no idea how it will prove anything other than QSI are run as a separate fund to QIA, which in itself has hundreds of funds. Again, this goes back to the issue of source of funds that Jassim would have had, I guarantee you will never see a list of fund sources for QSI because essentially all the acronym loving banks and funds (QIA, QSI, QNB, QIB etc. all have the same source). That's not even a contested topic, it's just how the country is run. nothing wrong with it but for this specific instance, it complicates things.
 
didz said:
Could just be that it was in Raine's (and the Glazers') best interests to have more than one bidder at the table, even if the only other one they could attract at the prices touted was never really a serious prospect. Basically a high-end version of the oldest estate agent trick in the book. Or like 95% of the transfer stories United get pulled into that end up with a contract extension.
Click to expand...
Yes, that’s a possibility- trying to spark a bidding war to maximise potential price knowing full well that the Qataris were unlikely to complete.
 
TrebleChamp99 said:
I tried telling everyone from the start that the 92 foundation wasn’t a state backed bid
And it was a group of investors including the likes of Bank of America.

They had a maximum they could borrow not only that we would have been tied up in all sorts of bullshit “deals”.

They were definitely serious and wanted in but they didn’t have the wealth and backing that many would have you believe.

They had 5bln and that’s it nothing more.

No proof of funds means they hadn’t secured the investment ahead of completing a Deal which is a huge red flag to anyone thinking they would have wiped debt etc , they would have refinanced it at horrible rates.
Click to expand...

So you're saying it was a bunch of shams with no money hiding behind an AI generated sheikh in a United jersey?
 
Cassidy said:
So you think BofA wasted all that time when there was no funds or proof of funds...
Proof of funds was a pre-requisite to get past the first bidding round. Bank of America are also not going to go through multiple rounds of bidding without verifying this.
Click to expand...
It’s either that, or Raine and the Glazers have falsified the Sec filing and are going to jail at some time in the future.
There is also a huge difference between ‘no funds’ and ‘no proof of funds’ - and this isn’t the first or last time B of A will do business with the Qataris. Frankly as long as they got paid they don’t need to know, they are only there to advise.
 
VP89 said:
Qatar aside, I was surprised that no major state wanted to rock in and buy Manchester United. It's a unicorn up for sale, I was surprised that none made a move, or even large corporates for that matter.
Click to expand...
Easier to build a new big ship than get the Titanic off the ground of the ocean and renovate
 
Please update thread to reflect the new info on the potential Qatari buyer, something like "Anyone who was Qatar-in is a complete gowl" would be good
 
Reapersoul20 said:
Please update thread to reflect the new info on the potential Qatari buyer, something like "Anyone who was Qatar-in is a complete gowl" would be good
Click to expand...
As a complete 'Gowl' whatever that is, I wanted a full sale just to see the back of the greedy Glazers. I was even prepared to put up with the tired old 'sports washing' malarky. I suspect, although I have no proof, that politics may have also been an influence based on the Glazers religeous beliefs and the Qataries being the not of that ilk. I'm sure the Sheik could have laid his hands on the money if he really wanted to but the club. Anyhow, it is what it is and I'm sure SJR will sort out the issues with the personnel at the club and the stadium in time.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.