Club Sale | It’s done!

Status
Not open for further replies.
Just because they failed to provide proof of funds, doesn’t mean it wasn’t a state backed bid. The proof of funds thing is another way of saying the source of the financing, and perhaps exposing that the money was state provided, and so essentially PSG’s owners, was something they were trying to avoid due to the obvious complications.

Either way, the whole thing was dodgy as feck. And I am so happy not to become another sports washed club.
 
GBBQ said:
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.
Click to expand...
Well they saw Newcastle takeover get stopped and then MBS threaten BoJo and get it done the second time, so were probably not too worried about getting it done if they wont the bid.
 
Offsideagain said:
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.
Click to expand...
What's tired and old about it, exactly?
 
So it’s pretty obvious now that I , along with a few others , were led up the garden path with the Qatar bid and I guess it was too good to be true. The only thing that seduced me was the promise to get rid of the rats once and for all and clearing the debt.
It was NEVER about untold riches and a team full of superstars but the Glazers gone, now SJR is here I must admit I’m cautiously optimistic given what’s been reported lately though I will never be happy until they are cleansed from the club forever.
 
lifted said:
MMU is anything but elite.
Click to expand...
TheReligion said:
Explain?
Click to expand...
Maybe he is UofM alumni.
paDq8qAlcIj4hNAhTt6QLYcgGPaOJGh7bqS2HFXXeM4.jpg
 
arthurka said:
60th best in the UK, 750th in the world.
Click to expand...
The relevant context here is they’re one of the best for sports research in the U.K. (6th) which I assume interests United more than the Times University rankings…

Just a hunch mind you.
 
devilish said:
Maybe you're right, however you can only discuss and build an opinion upon based on the evidence being put forward to you. If the evidence change then your opinion change with it. Honestly the Jassim's bid is irrelevant at this point. Its at par to discussing how United would fare if a consortium built by Bezos and Gates were to buy the club. INEOS are in town and we should focus on their bid and how the club fare under them
Click to expand...

Of course we all do that mate, but some people (not saying you personally) were getting carried away and buying into the Qatar will pump in billions theory based on nothing more than the Qatari groups own press release saying as much.

Was there ever any reputable source that confirmed they had the money to spunk on a football club that they said they did?
 
devilish said:
I don't care about the Qatari bid at this point. My interest in them ended the moment INEOS won. However I find it very hard to believe that such bid would reach the latter stages without passing from all the proof of funds hoops first. Raine Group has a reputation to protect and SJR is not that dumb to end up bidding against himself either. If its true then the Glazers ended up the clear winners here. They took INEOS to a massive ride thus forcing them to overspend on a 25% minority stake with no clear path to full ownership
Click to expand...
Regardless of the number of live bids, Ratcliffe was bidding more because his first three bids were rejected by the Glazers, as is their right.

£1Bn ish for 25% isn’t overspending, partly because of value, partly future value, partly as money isn’t just for 25%… it’s for the clauses Ratcliffe wanted in
 
Last edited:
Strangest Tribe said:
So it’s pretty obvious now that I , along with a few others , were led up the garden path with the Qatar bid and I guess it was too good to be true. The only thing that seduced me was the promise to get rid of the rats once and for all and clearing the debt.
It was NEVER about untold riches and a team full of superstars but the Glazers gone, now SJR is here I must admit I’m cautiously optimistic given what’s been reported lately though I will never be happy until they are cleansed from the club forever.
Click to expand...
Nothing wrong with wanting a different buyer for the right reasons.

And yes, be cautiously optimistic. I am :)
 
Moriarty said:
Let's suppose for a minute this is true and certain shareholders were not apprised of the bid - as unlikely as that may sound. What could be the possible outcomes?
Click to expand...
Pay a fine to the SEC, if at all it's true and proved. This is what I understand, may well be wrong.
 
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...

You dont know that for sure.

And if it is true that they needed financing, why say "The bid will be completely debt free via Sheikh Jassim's Nine Two Foundation" in the statement?
 
What do people think of Jim Ratcliffe the person?

Seems another rags to riches sellout like Alan Sugar to me. Wonder if he will be using Man United as a way to try and generate positive PR and improve his image.

Another James Dyson brexiter who moved production out of the UK, dodges taxes and treats his employees like shit to increase his own personal wealth.

"Better the devil you know than the devil you don't" comes to mind. Whether he brings success (doubt it) to the club or not, it won't change my opinion of this self obsessed pr**k.
 
Offsideagain said:
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.
Click to expand...

I believe gowl is a term of endearment on the Emerald Isle.
 
It’s clear now it was not a state bid. However the more his camp cry without action the less weight their claims hold.

When I say action, the club is still up for sale. There is clauses in place making the club available. The way I see it, if you beat £5.2b they will talk.

Otherwise take the L and move on. The price is going up. Stop crying because the Glazers played you. Put the money up or shut up.

There is no way the state of Qatar would have let this happen. They would happily throw £6b at Mbappe to get him to stay the rest of his career at PSG. The state of Qatar would happily overpay for Utd. (In my humble opinion…lol)
 
Plant0x84 said:
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.
Click to expand...

I've seen plenty of cases where SEC filings are incorrect and must be corrected (does not lead to going to jail unless they intentionally lied). It also seems that the 92 Foundation will now seek a corrective statement from the SEC, according to reports.
 
Moriarty said:
Let's suppose for a minute this is true and certain shareholders were not apprised of the bid - as unlikely as that may sound. What could be the possible outcomes?
Click to expand...

Lawsuit from shareholders
 
BristolMick said:
What do people think of Jim Ratcliffe the person?

Seems another rags to riches sellout like Alan Sugar to me. Wonder if he will be using Man United as a way to try and generate positive PR and improve his image.

Another James Dyson brexiter who moved production out of the UK, dodges taxes and treats his employees like shit to increase his own personal wealth.

"Better the devil you know than the devil you don't" comes to mind. Whether he brings success (doubt it) to the club or not, it won't change my opinion of this self obsessed pr**k.
Click to expand...
More importantly, what do YOU think? Stop sitting on the fence.

And the "Better the devil you know than the devil you don't" bit…. no, it isn’t.
 
Cassidy said:
Lawsuit from shareholders
Click to expand...

That's what I was thinking. Malfeasance by a corporate officer should be subject of a derivative action on behalf of the corporation. If a legitimate offer was made and not communicated to all of the shareholders, it could well be subject to a derivative action under NY Business Law. Now it has been donkey's years since I took my corporate law class but that much I remember.
 
Hearing Jim say he doesn't need any money from United is a winner. He is in it to restore us and enjoy the ride in his 70's. INEOS is running well and here he can be an owner that millions of people love. Would be intoxicating to be honest, especially at his age to "restore" us to what we used to be. Sir Matt and Sir Alex type status.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.