Club Sale | It’s done!

Status
Not open for further replies.
Infra-red said:
It'll be coming from Raine.
Click to expand...
I keep thinking this but it seems to be pushed by the Mail of all places. Wouldn’t it be a bit more wide spread that that?
It must be working because I haven’t seen one denial yet
 
Is sportwashing a real thing? Have there been any studies quantifying its impact?

Do people really believe that because Abu Dhabi owns City, a City fan would have a favorable impression of Abu Dhabi (despite their human rights records)? I like to think humans are smarter than that and the whole sportwashing thing is a typical liberal / elite paternalistic view of regular people as little children who don't know what they're doing.

Generally not denying that this is a phenomenon, just questioning sportwashing specifically. I've heard of greenwashing for example and that seems legit. Some projects go get a "green" certificate from some (potentially shady) NGO and use that to advertise their project to the community. People just look at the certificate, don't dive into the details and believe it must be good.
 
cyberman said:
I keep thinking this but it seems to be pushed by the Mail of all places. Wouldn’t it be a bit more wide spread that that?
It must be working because I haven’t seen one denial yet
Click to expand...

The Times have the exact same information (see above). It's Raine, trying to drum up interest/excitement.
 
Infra-red said:
At least getting tickets at Old Trafford next season will be easy (or should I say, "The Saudi Aramco Stadium").
Click to expand...
You actually suggesting people won’t flock in their droves if we get taken over and spend £200m on the first team? Weird take.
 
Debt at this level of money is a good thing.. INEOS get tax relief with this debt and it says right there in the article that the growth of their asset because of the United name would pay for said debt
 
711 said:
So Ineos would want extra dividends to repay 'their' debt. United would still be paying for it. Ineos want to make money, not give it away.
Click to expand...
If this is the case then feck that. Unless they plan to be paid back over a thousand years those costs would be insane every year.
 
Infra-red said:
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.
Click to expand...

Don't you dare accept minority you leeches
 
bond19821982 said:
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.
Click to expand...
You might be an accountant but that's why accountants are not investment bankers. If you seriously believe the debt won't be effectively paid for by us, you are naive as feck.

Reporting more profit does nothing for FFP, as it's the revenue that seems to be the new constraint. And in that sense, it doesn't matter what the annual report would say, we would be hampered by a British Glazer.
 
Marcelinho87 said:
Debt at this level of money is a good thing.. INEOS get tax relief with this debt and it says right there in the article that the growth of their asset because of the United name would pay for said debt
Click to expand...
Absolutely. People are not used to seeing a normal takeover anymore.
 
Tiber said:
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
Click to expand...
Hardly any. It’s mostly a valuation of assets.
 
Marcelinho87 said:
Debt at this level of money is a good thing.. INEOS get tax relief with this debt and it says right there in the article that the growth of their asset because of the United name would pay for said debt
Click to expand...
Good start but we need to know more about stadium plans etc. I’d be shocked if that wasn’t discussed and it’s a bit worrying on his side that it hasn’t been leaked out just as quick
 
Rightnr said:
You might be an accountant but that's why accountants are not investment bankers. If you seriously believe the debt won't be effectively paid for by us, you are naive as feck.

Reporting more profit does nothing for FFP, as it's the revenue that seems to be the new constraint. And in that sense, it doesn't matter what the annual report would say, we would be hampered by a British Glazer.
Click to expand...
Investment bankers /British Glazer /FFP - ffs :lol:. At this point, you are just assuming a lot of things and you have no idea what you are talking about.
Better agree to disagree and move on !
 
Jack_Daniels said:
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!
Click to expand...
You couldn’t have written more racist bollocks if you tried. So literally any person or organisation that comes from Qatar or Saudi is a criminal?
 
Marcelinho87 said:
It's not worrying it's how business generally works, the way ME states dish money about has skewed this.
Click to expand...

I don't think that's what the default is in football atleast. Usually out right takeovers w/o saddling clubs with debt. United were the exception.
 
bond19821982 said:
Investment bankers /British Glazer /FFP - ffs :lol:. At this point, you are just assuming a lot of things and you have no idea what you are talking about.
Better agree to disagree and move on !
Click to expand...
Personally, I don't care if you don't see it but I sure as hell hope the local United fans don't get behind Ratcliffe because he's a local lad and then go crying in their cornflakes when the chickens come home to roost a couple of years later.
 
Teja said:
I don't think that's what the default is in football atleast. Usually out right takeovers w/o saddling clubs with debt. United were the exception.
Click to expand...
The proposed Ratcliffe purchase does not saddle the club with debt.
 
Adam-Utd said:
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.
Click to expand...

I mean they own a number of different businesses don’t they so to assume it’s strictly United paying it back would seem a stretch no?

I’m struggling to see why people can’t see the upside in United being debt free and would sooner focus on something no one knows anything about.
 
There’s rumours Chelsea have asked to see the financials and are interested in hijacking the deal!
 
Status
Not open for further replies.