Looks like you are the one who is clueless here. I work on corporate Financials. If the debt is on the parent company, you don't have to report against clubs liabilities which essentially means, you would have more money to report every year as earnings. Dividends - unless you are state backed, you can't expect not to take anything.
Club Sale | It’s done!
- Thread starter JB08
- Start date
-
In the latest episode of the United Hour Podcast, Nik (@Rood) and Jamie (@Vault Dweller) are here to talk about United's dreadful home defeat at the hands of Big Ange's Tottenham Hotspur. Should this have been the end of Ten Hag? How long does he actually have left? And does Nik finally want ETH out?!
- Status
United are indeed the only club in the premier League to pay dividends. The Glazers are special and uniquely detestable.
Last edited:
Reported on Sky. Looks like there’s momentum here as regards the Qataris.
It's 'good' of course, but sceptically if they're just moving it from Uniteds books to INEOS', the company isn't going to want to pay it off from their profits alone? thats the worry.
Are they gonna do the same thing and take their cut every season to pay back what they took on?
Are they going to invest in the training ground/youth facilities and help renovate the stadium, or are they going to make the club take out a loan to pay for it?
All these things are a valid concern with another company buying it.
Not all debt is bad people, especially when it’s INEOS debt not loaded onto the club. This sounds like a perfect scenario.
Bankrupt? Really? Slightly over dramatic, dear.
Looks like a ME Royyyaaaalll Ruuuumble
Not really. INEOS with their capital can invest their assets however they want and its backed by GS. From a club standpoint, our account will show as if we are running from our revenues. We still need more clarity on how infra development would be handled. If they say, we will take the debt but we will put the infra development cost of 1.5b on club, then we are back to square one.
I dont know that. My point was no one would.be willing to put free money without expecting any returns.
United’s debt isn’t that big in the grand scheme of things. It is for a football club where profits are tiny. But given Ineos’ revenue it would just be absorbed into their overall debt which is far higher than United’s. Of course they could try, but that wouldn’t really be smart. For what it’s worth regarding infrastructure City Football Group took out a €500m loan a couple of years back for developments around Manchester and the etihad. So who knows about any owners when it comes to that.
Not sure which logo I like - Qatar Airways or Aramco or Saudi Airlines ? 
Yes I absolutely agree but a lot of people seem to be getting confused and think dividends are the only way owners make money off clubs.
Fair enough. I'm just always wary about hearing about borrowings and loans to pay for things - but I guess that's more of a cashflow thing.
As long as United are left to operate at full potential, and not have to pay anybody a 'borrowing' fee to make up for it, then i'll be happy.
Do you really think they are going to come out and admit off the jump that Manchester United will be servicing the debt? Hell no. That's telling the supporters "yes we are going to just continuing running the club the same way that has made you want the glazers out"
Again it's just rearranging the chairs on the titanic. Ineos taking on the debt would simply mean down the road if they want to sell it there's no debt on the club so it's an easier sell off
I could see Ineos getting involved in part-ownership, the Glazers would raise cash for themselves, which is what they want, and then both they and Ineos would have the same objective as partners, to make money. Can't see the Quataris or Saudis doing that though, they want control and publicity.
This is a great post. The last paragraph is especially key.
Christ. Qatar vs the Saudis. If true, it would be the Glazers' wet dream (and many United fans' nightmare).
Do you know if leveraged takeovers are still a thing in the PL? Specifically, the parent company is not the one with the debt, the debt is still on the club.
I remember reading somewhere that post Glazer takeover of United, that pathway got banned (through the fit & proper test).
The mental gymnastics going on in here trying to make a distinction between INIOS debt and glazer debt is quite something to behold.
Well, we don't know that . There isn't enough details. So to completely dismiss Ratcliffe is bit immature, now.
Please no Qatari or Saudi criminals. Those regimes are buying the club only for sportswashing purposes. They don't give a feck about human rights. I really don't want my beloved United to be owned by such scumbags..
If Ratcliffe is the only other option, then so be it, INEOS it is!
If Ratcliffe is the only other option, then so be it, INEOS it is!
Many more fans would be fine with it.
Bit racist
He is really going big on this one,so looks like the 5 groups battling are
Ratcliffe (Ineos)
Qatari investors
Saudi investors
USA 1
USA 2
Last edited:
I was being sarcastic mate. Next time, I would leave a white text, promise.
How so when he explicitly mentions the regimes?
Not disagreeing with you but at this point it's just another assumption. I do see some good intent with Ratcliffe but again it's just not his decision. If it's INEOS, you will have a board making the call especially given that they are listed.
It's really not.
Twitter having a predictable freak out about debt. How many billionaires actually have their wealth sitting in cash? Even Musk bought Twitter via a bank
Interesting snippet from that piece regarding partial sale and strategic partnership, both of which have been mooted as potential options for the Glazers (in particular, Avram and Joel):
The Glazer family reportedly want £6bn for the club, although they have not gone public with a price. They are also open to two separate forms of investment. The first is in the shape of a standalone injection of cash in return for a stake in the club. The second is a more complex commercial partnership, in which expertise in such areas as media and retail would also be provided.
It is understood that these areas have attracted more than 20 parties. Such levels of interest strengthen the position of the Glazers, who could take a stake rather than oversee a full sale.
It's a private consortium. Entirely different things. Obviously they will have the blessings of the state but I doubt they would service the money required.
This. It's a vanity project or a PR machine for these types of owners...they're in it to win it for their own pride and that of their country. They have no intention of making money on a yearly basis outside of the club increasing in value over time.
He accused them of being criminals based on them being from Saudi or Qatar.
He also bangs on about human rights then mentions Ratcliffe as if he’s free from any of that…
Jim barely gets a sentence at the end, he must not be the source of the sale progress
Stephen Pagliuca and one other group I forget the name of.
It'll be coming from Raine.
HSBC
Not sure how real this is, but I like those odds.
- Status