Club Sale | It’s done!

Status
Not open for further replies.
So let me get this right. There are people on this forum that genuinely, truly believe INEOS will take on an X billion debt, with presumably high interest rates, on their own books, and more importantly use their own money to service it and they will absolutely not use the club's money. Then they are going to take on another X hundred million or perhaps another 1 billion debt to invest into the infrastructure, and this will also end up on their books and not the club's. And they will also end up serving that debt as well and absolutely not use the club's money? Meanwhile, they will also keep investing in the squad and presumably not take any dividends. Or they take dividends, leaving us again the only club who pays dividends to their owners. And all of this because Ratcliffe is a local lad and a United fan? A man who had no qualms about poisoning the people and the environment and steering the entire country towards Brexit purely in the name of profit, while also moving to Monaco to avoid paying taxes?

:lol: :lol: :lol: :lol: This is genuine, uncut dreamland stuff. I feel like some people have not spend a second out in the real world and just have absolutely no clue how it functions. Like, this is as realistic as getting an email by a Nigerian prince.
 
Last edited:
My biggest issue with Jim Ratcliffe is that he''s 70 years old. He might protect us from the business side of INEOS while still alive but what happens once he kicks the bucket?
 
B. Munich said:
Reading through this thread is really depressing.

In the end the only choice you have, either stay a proper football club and become less and less competitive over the years. First dropping out of the annual title race (that's the phase where United currently are), then, while more clubs become state or sugar daddy owned, dropping out of top 4 and eventually settle as mid tier EPL club nobody much cares for.
The alternative is to give up the moral high grounds and sell your soul to a ME oil state or dubious sugar daddy like Abramovich and therefore compete for titles and trophies again. However, your titles and trophies won't be worth more than the ones of City, which you now deem to be worthless and just bought with unlimited funds and creative financial engineering.

It's a hard choice and, as we say in Germany, it's a choice between pest and cholera.
Bundesliga struggles to stay competitive and many Germans look with envy over the canal to England. However, I must say with all the money pouring into the EPL, you got your own nasty problems to solve.

These billionaire and state owners won't stop spending, bending the rules or cooking up the books as long the FA doesn't come up with strict financial rules and severe penalties for breaking them. And of course they must have the willingness to implement and apply them strictly regardless who the offender will be.
Click to expand...
That's a really strange take comparing any titles Utd would win in the future to the ones that City cheated their way too. Utd wouldn't need to cheat and for the first time in almost 20 years Utd could generate their money and use it instead of funding loans and leeches. I don't like the modern football model anymore them the next man but comparing there two is a bit daft. Utd is a powerhouse of a football club and the price to buy the club shows it.
 
Coops73 said:
I’m no financial expert but to me he’s gone from being the ideal candidate, minted, Mancunian, supports united, someone I thought could clearly afford us with his own or Ineos’ money, to borrowing even more to get the club.

These banks are going to want their cash back and whether it’s from us directly or Ineos, surely it’s going to affect us again somewhere down the line.

We’ll be back at square one no?
Click to expand...
With the added bonus debt of acquiring an 6bn club instead of the Glazers 800m (?)
 
Liverpool fan in peace
I do enjoy reading this forum, but the subhject if ownership made me want to finally register


TLDR - in my opinion Ratcliffe is a publicity whore and would be a terrible owner
Don’t forget, he actually announced his bid for Chelsea AFTER the deadline was over
Maximise press coverage, but zero chance he would actually win
What serious business man does that?

Ineos are a B2B business - there is no sales need for Ineos to sponsor Nice, or a cycling team, an Americas Cup Yacht or make a car under their name
He is doing it because he is incredibly wealthy but realised he has zero cultural relevance in the UK
He wants to be a Richard Branson personality in the press- reality is he runs a Petro Chemicals business that no one knows about (really)

He is pro Brexit but is a tax exile
When he announced he was making the Ineos car it was under the Brexit banner and with a factory UK
That was quickly changed to an EU factory - the car is now less British than Honda (who do have a plant here)

Why does that matter? As any deal structure he promises to placate fans will likely change, for the worse, as soon as the ink is dry
 
Tarrou said:
they’ll just sell us
Click to expand...

That's what I think as well. Considering that they will see us as a business and that all ME ruling families would probably own a club at that point then the most likely scenario would be that we will end up being bought by another Glazer family
 
arthurka said:
Utd wouldn't need to cheat and for the first time in almost 20 years Utd could generate their money and use it instead of funding loans and leeches.
Click to expand...

If the football of tomorrow would be like the football of the past 10 years you might be right.

However, times are changing rapidly. If United and Liverpool will also be owned by ME oil states there will be already 5 in the EPL but only 4 CL places. Competition will get even harder, much more money will have to be spend.
Look at Boehly who spend over 600 million in new players alone in less than a year!

That's almost as much as the debt that allegedly strangles United in one season. If the trend continues there necessary investments will skyrocket in the future.

No idea were it all will end but I'm not looking with optimisms into the future of football.
 
sepulturite said:
It's crazy reading some of the takes in this thread, posters stating things like they're facts without even reading up on anything that's posted, it's hilarious. The simple fact is none of us know who's going to buy the club and we have absolutely no say in it anyway so all this silly arguing back and forth with people making up stuff to back their arguments is completely pointless.

Me personally, I'm completely on the fence on who buys us, because whoever it is isn't going to be perfect, I don't think there's a billionaire in the world who is. The most important thing for me though is we don't end up with another glazer situation with someone taking dividends from the club.
Click to expand...
This!


My personal preference is simple. I want an owner who cares about the club, not only the money.

That’s why I definitely don’t want an owner like Ratcliffe together with Goldman & Sachs. Just another Glazer type of capitalist with a more English name. If the private investors from Qatar present a reasonable business plan for the club with no debts, no dividends, a new stadium for both the men and women team, new training facilities and a vision how to cooperate with the local supporters then I’m positive for that solution.
 
7even said:
This!


My personal preference is simple. I want an owner who cares about the club, not only the money.

That’s why I definitely don’t want an owner like Ratcliffe together with Goldman & Sachs. Just another Glazer type of capitalist with a more English name. If the private investors from Qatar present a reasonable business plan for the club with no debts, no dividends, a new stadium for both the men and women team, new training facilities and a vision how to cooperate with the local supporters then I’m positive for that solution.
Click to expand...

Good luck finding an actual private investor from Qatar that 1. Has the kind of money needed to buy and fund us and 2. isn’t just a proxy for the Qatari royals.

If Qatar is the buyer then no matter what happens, we are no better than City whom we have pilloried for years about their ownership. Even if we don’t have to cook the books, we are nothing more than an attempt by a rotten regime to camouflage their wrong doing.

I can’t see Qatar being able to stomach the up front cost. That’s not been the sportswashing model to date. But you never know.
 
Telsim said:
So let me get this right. There are people on this forum that genuinely, truly believe INEOS will take on an X billion debt, with presumably high interest rates, on their own books, and more importantly use their own money to service it and they will absolutely not use the club's money. Then they are going to take on another X hundred million or perhaps another 1 billion debt to invest into the infrastructure, and this will also end up on their books and not the club's. And they will also end up serving that debt as well and absolutely not use the club's money? Meanwhile, they will also keep investing in the squad and presumably not take any dividends. Or they take dividends, leaving us again the only club who pays dividends to their owners. And all of this because Ratcliffe is a local lad and a United fan? A man who had no qualms about poisoning the people and the environment and steering the entire country towards Brexit purely in the name of profit, while also moving to Monaco to avoid paying taxes?

:lol: :lol: :lol: :lol: This is genuine, uncut dreamland stuff. I feel like some people have not spend a second out in the real world and just have absolutely no clue how it functions. Like, this is as realistic as getting an email by a Nigerian prince.
Click to expand...
They've changed the rules regarding this. The debt used to buy a club can't become the clubs debt anymore. He would have to service it himself, technically
 
harms said:
Surely it’d be a common knowledge if there was an independent Qatari billionaire capable of spending 6-8 bn? Maybe it is and may be there is one but I haven’t seen any names mentioned yet.
Click to expand...
Even if there was, or even if they had links to the state or royal family but not involved in the decision making matrix of the state they would never get a fair chance judging by the condemnation going on here.
Telsim said:
So let me get this right. There are people on this forum that genuinely, truly believe INEOS will take on an X billion debt, with presumably high interest rates, on their own books, and more importantly use their own money to service it and they will absolutely not use the club's money. Then they are going to take on another X hundred million or perhaps another 1 billion debt to invest into the infrastructure, and this will also end up on their books and not the club's. And they will also end up serving that debt as well and absolutely not use the club's money? Meanwhile, they will also keep investing in the squad and presumably not take any dividends. Or they take dividends, leaving us again the only club who pays dividends to their owners. And all of this because Ratcliffe is a local lad and a United fan? A man who had no qualms about poisoning the people and the environment and steering the entire country towards Brexit purely in the name of profit, while also moving to Monaco to avoid paying taxes?

:lol: :lol: :lol: :lol: This is genuine, uncut dreamland stuff. I feel like some people have not spend a second out in the real world and just have absolutely no clue how it functions.
Click to expand...
The extent people are willing to lie to themselves to deny reality is staggering. On top of the United debt how is Ratcliffe planning to fund the acquisition, the facilities renovation and other things? Would other INEOS shareholders allow him to put debt on the company just to fund the purchase of United, which doesn't earn enough to beat other investment avenues and would still need massive funding to mordenize and then not take money out of the club?

The Qataris aren't angels and they didn't need to be to do business in London, if they want the club badly enough they have the means to take it and there is nothing anyone of us can do about it either.

Judging by the history of posters dead against ME buyout you will see lots of Ole inners, the same lot that were defending Moyes back in the day and there is one common denominator - they were wrong then and they are likely wrong now. They are letting sentimentality and exceptionalism cloud their judgment - there is now way an owner that has to borrow to do this deal will effectively compete with what we are up against.
 
B. Munich said:
Reading through this thread is really depressing.

In the end the only choice you have, either stay a proper football club and become less and less competitive over the years. First dropping out of the annual title race (that's the phase where United currently are), then, while more clubs become state or sugar daddy owned, dropping out of top 4 and eventually settle as mid tier EPL club nobody much cares for.
The alternative is to give up the moral high grounds and sell your soul to a ME oil state or dubious sugar daddy like Abramovich and therefore compete for titles and trophies again. However, your titles and trophies won't be worth more than the ones of City, which you now deem to be worthless and just bought with unlimited funds and creative financial engineering.

It's a hard choice and, as we say in Germany, it's a choice between pest and cholera.
Bundesliga struggles to stay competitive and many Germans look with envy over the canal to England. However, I must say with all the money pouring into the EPL, you got your own nasty problems to solve.

These billionaire and state owners won't stop spending, bending the rules or cooking up the books as long the FA doesn't come up with strict financial rules and severe penalties for breaking them. And of course they must have the willingness to implement and apply them strictly regardless who the offender will be.
Click to expand...

I mean I think you’re blending two things together here.

City have broken the rules for almost 15 years and cheated title after title.

United would potential be owned by a group from the ME, either the state or state linked.

The issue with it is the morality of where the money comes from. Much like Chelsea under Abramovich and now Newcastle under the Saudis.

Its also a stretch to suggest the Bundi stays competitive isn’t it? Your team just wins everything and hoards all the best players?
 
B. Munich said:
If the football of tomorrow would be like the football of the past 10 years you might be right.

However, times are changing rapidly. If United and Liverpool will also be owned by ME oil states there will be already 5 in the EPL but only 4 CL places. Competition will get even harder, much more money will have to be spend.
Look at Boehly who spend over 600 million in new players alone in less than a year!

That's almost as much as the debt that allegedly strangles United in one season. If the trend continues there necessary investments will skyrocket in the future.

No idea were it all will end but I'm not looking with optimisms into the future of football.
Click to expand...
On that we are in full agreement.
 
More loans the Glazers bought us on loans and it's effected us ever since. Now SJR wants to buy us with loans it's the same thing happening again. He's so desperate to buy us that he is going exactly what the Glazers did to us do not want him at all.
 
arnie_ni said:
They've changed the rules regarding this. The debt used to buy a club can't become the clubs debt anymore. He would have to service it himself, technically
Click to expand...
Don't think it has come into effect yet. Also, he does not need to lug it on us, but he can definitely use our revenues for servicing it. Why are people so blindly accepting that he will use his other businesses to service the loans for a football club.
 
arnie_ni said:
They've changed the rules regarding this. The debt used to buy a club can't become the clubs debt anymore. He would have to service it himself, technically
Click to expand...

Yes, the debt won't be on the club's books, which means it won't be reported against the club's revenue. Okay, that's great. And in the case of a sale of the club by INEOS down the line, the potential new buyer won't have to deal with this debt directly, like it's happening right now with the Glazers, where the debt is on the club's books and the new buyer also has to deal with that. But there's absolutely nothing stopping INEOS from taking money out of the club to service that debt, unless somehow explicitly stated in the contract and they don't have a reason to do that. INEOS could technically take the money out as dividends and then use that money to service the debt.

But for the sake of argument, let's say INEOS take on that debt and also service it entirely out of their own pockets. How willing they would be then to invest into the squad? How willing they would be to invest into the infrastructure, which would need to be a substantial investment? They could easily decide to fund the stadium rebuild/refurbish/whatever by loading it onto the club. And what stops them from taking out dividends?

I'm sorry, but I don't see any outcome, any reality where Manchester United gets bought out by INEOS, backed by the likes of Goldman Sachs and JP Morgan, and then doesn't end up having money taken out of it or incurring further debt. Something like this doesn't exist within the realms of reality. Which puts us back pretty much back where we are.
 
Green Arrow said:
He's so desperate to buy us that he is going exactly what the Glazers did to us do not want him at all.
Click to expand...
He isn't. Please please please can people educate themselves before coming out with this stuff.

The differences:
1) the debt will not be on United at all. Debt-free.
2) no interest payments
3) no dividends (Ratcliffe has previously stated this)

That's maybe another £70-80m pa freed up to invest from club revenues without any investment required.

Ineos would aim to recover their investment over a longer term by growing the value of the club (NOT by draining it like the Glazers), and it will have to do this by investing in its success. A completely different model.
 
loftyscott said:
Liverpool fan in peace
I do enjoy reading this forum, but the subhject if ownership made me want to finally register


TLDR - in my opinion Ratcliffe is a publicity whore and would be a terrible owner
Don’t forget, he actually announced his bid for Chelsea AFTER the deadline was over
Maximise press coverage, but zero chance he would actually win
What serious business man does that?

Ineos are a B2B business - there is no sales need for Ineos to sponsor Nice, or a cycling team, an Americas Cup Yacht or make a car under their name
He is doing it because he is incredibly wealthy but realised he has zero cultural relevance in the UK
He wants to be a Richard Branson personality in the press- reality is he runs a Petro Chemicals business that no one knows about (really)

He is pro Brexit but is a tax exile
When he announced he was making the Ineos car it was under the Brexit banner and with a factory UK
That was quickly changed to an EU factory - the car is now less British than Honda (who do have a plant here)

Why does that matter? As any deal structure he promises to placate fans will likely change, for the worse, as soon as the ink is dry
Click to expand...

Fully agree.

Ratcliffe at the moment would be the worst outcome for the club. Not only is he a terrible person, but the fact that he needs to borrow to buy the club, which is indirect debt basically, means that any investment following the takeover will most likely be through adding more debt.

I don't want a state backed ownership, but it's in the best interest of the club to avoid any leeches like Ratcliffe. At the end of the day even if we're bought by the Qataris, we don't really need their money. We aren't City, Psg, or Newcastle. We don't need fake sponsorships or a sugar daddy. If we're debt free we could easily compete with anyone.
 
Telsim said:
But for the sake of argument, let's say INEOS take on that debt and also service it entirely out of their own pockets. How willing they would be then to invest into the squad? How willing they would be to invest into the infrastructure, which would need to be a substantial investment? And what stops them from taking out dividends?
Click to expand...
Why would they invest so much, and take on that debt, to then not invest in the value of the club? That would be insane. They would require United to be successful.

Dividends wouldn't touch the sides, and Ratcliffe has said they wouldn't consider those anyway. They couldn't use us as a cash machine like the Glazers even if they wanted to. They have to grow the value of the club.
 
NK86 said:
Don't think it has come into effect yet. Also, he does not need to lug it on us, but he can definitely use our revenues for servicing it. Why are people so blindly accepting that he will use his other businesses to service the loans for a football club.
Click to expand...
Telsim said:
Yes, the debt won't be on the club's books, which means it won't be reported against the club's revenue. Okay, that's great. And in the case of a sale of the club by INEOS down the line, the potential new buyer won't have to deal with this debt directly, like it's happening right now with the Glazers, where the debt is on the club's books and the new buyer also has to deal with that. But there's absolutely nothing stopping INEOS from taking money out of the club to service that debt, unless somehow explicitly stated in the contract, and they don't have a reason to do that. INEOS could technically take the money out as dividends and then use that money to service the debt.

But for the sake of argument, let's say INEOS take on that debt and also service it entirely out of their own pockets. How willing they would be then to invest into the squad? How willing they would be to invest into the infrastructure, which would need to be a substantial investment? They could easily decide to fund the stadium rebuilt/refurbish/whatever by loading it onto the club. And what stops them from taking out dividends?

I'm sorry, but I don't see any outcome, any reality where Manchester United gets bought out by INEOS, backed by the likes of Goldman Sachs and JP Morgan, and then doesn't end up having money taken out of it or incurring further debt. Something like this doesn't exist within the realms of reality. Which puts us back pretty much back where we are.
Click to expand...
That's why I used the term technically.

They could service it through via intercompany loan or dividends as mentioned but I'd imagine the PL would be all over that if they are serious about the changes in how club's are owned. I'd like to hope they'd pull the pin on the deal if the buyer can't actually service their own debt which is what they've said they won't allow to happen again, i think...
 
Drizzle said:
He isn't. Please please please can people educate themselves before coming out with this stuff.

The differences:
1) the debt will not be on United at all. Debt-free.
2) no interest payments
3) no dividends (Ratcliffe has previously stated this)

That's maybe another £70-80m pa freed up to invest from club revenues without any investment required.

Ineos would aim to recover their investment over a longer term by growing the value of the club (NOT by draining it like the Glazers), and it will have to do this by investing in its success. A completely different model.
Click to expand...

Good post.

Whilst I’m not overly enamoured by the thought of loans it’s far from unusual when purchasing a football club. Clearlake, for instance, took out one for £800m just recently to purchase Chelsea.

Loans are part of business and the key is United being debt free and no dividends being taken out year upon year.

I imagine anyone who purchases the club, other than ME wealth funds, will utilise a loan of sorts.
 
Green Arrow said:
More loans the Glazers bought us on loans and it's effected us ever since. Now SJR wants to buy us with loans it's the same thing happening again. He's so desperate to buy us that he is going exactly what the Glazers did to us do not want him at all.
Click to expand...

It’s not exactly the same. His company is taking on the debt, not United.

Debt financing has various advantages and its not indicative of him being “desperate” as you described it.
 
NK86 said:
Football clubs also don't get exploited like we have been for close to 2 decades now. So it's not too much to ask for lady luck to shine on us with benevolent owners who can make up for the shite we have had to endure under these parasites.
Click to expand...

Well no not all clubs some do though, United have been very unfortunate to have been one of them and that the British government and the Premier League allowed a guy who didn't have the money to buy Manchester United which lead to his incompetent sons running it into the ground.

It wasn't fair but such is life. Almost everything United have has been built organically, personally I would prefer that to continue.
 
I'm interested in whether the people who are against Ratcliffe are pro Qatar and vice versa?

Or are some just against everybody because the world of rich people is nasty and we should be run by a local charity staffed by Stretford Enders.

Honestly, take your pick. Middle East sportswashers or investment from Western businesses/consortiums that will all take on some debt which is standard for these buyouts.

From a football perspective (not morally), both are infinitely better than the current ownership and both would give united good prospects of success.
 
TheReligion said:
United would potential be owned by a group from the ME, either the state or state linked
Click to expand...

The question is if you as fan can live the knowledge the club you love and support is owned and financed by an autocratic regime that violates human rights.
I can say for myself I couldn't.

TheReligion said:
City have broken the rules for almost 15 years and cheated title after title.
Click to expand...

It's not only City just look at Chelsea under Boehly. If even more clubs will be taken over, it will even get worse as competition for the limited slots of CL football will only become more fierce.
If one is cheating, you will be forced to follow or just be left behind.

In the end transfer fees and salaries will go up and up only.
 
NK86 said:
Football clubs also don't get exploited like we have been for close to 2 decades now. So it's not too much to ask for lady luck to shine on us with benevolent owners who can make up for the shite we have had to endure under these parasites.
Click to expand...

I totally agree.

Part of the reason I’m finding it amusing that we have fans of Bayern, Chelsea etc posting in here with their concerns about United and ME ownership.

Now I’m not saying that’s what I want but it’s interesting these folks haven’t raised any concern about the Glazer take over or what they’ve done to United year after year. It suits them to have us hamstrung.
 
Rojofiam said:
You really think there are Qatari / Saudi / etc. billionaires without ties to the murderous regime? You're dreaming if you think so.
Click to expand...

You really think any owner who is paying £4bn is clean? You are dreaming too then.
 
Godfather said:
It will make feck all difference for us if the debt is on us or if INEOS took a huge sum to finance the deal. The loan won't pay for itself. Nor won't any potential growth for INEOS' business that might result from their acquisition of our club although I highly doubt there will be any. It will be United servicing the debt. Our revenues and the dividends taken out. Only difference is that the loan to buy us will be way bigger than our current debt

Some absolute waffle being sputed on the last pages from the Ratcliffe camp. I see that the Qataris would be far from perfect owners. But this guy isn't the answer either
Click to expand...

They confirmed they wouldn’t take dividends out of the club? Obviously you can call them liars but he’s made that clear and we can only discuss what we know.

The debt will no longer be the clubs and no dividends will be taken.
 
Drizzle said:
Why would they invest so much, and take on that debt, to then not invest in the value of the club? That would be insane. They would require United to be successful.

Dividends wouldn't touch the sides, and Ratcliffe has said they wouldn't consider those anyway. They couldn't use us as a cash machine like the Glazers even if they wanted to. They have to grow the value of the club.
Click to expand...

You are putting way too much stock into what Ratcliffe has said. The good word of billionaires is worth less than shit. Ratcliffe perhaps even less so. The man is 100% profit driven. His word could change as soon as the ink dries.

What constitutes successful to Ratcliffe? As successful as possible or just successful enough, like the Glazers? These kind of people won't invest any more than they believe is absolutely necessary to meet their goals. When will his investment end then? Unlike an oil club, he can't keep investing infinitely. So how much will he be willing to invest after already paying 5 billion? The club needs at least another billion into infrastructure and squad. So who is going to fund that? Something tells me it will be the club by taking on another debt after just being freed, and not Ratcliffe.

I don't believe him for a second.
 
B. Munich said:
The question is if you as fan can live the knowledge the club you love and support is owned and financed by an autocratic regime that violates human rights.
I can say for myself I couldn't.



It's not only City just look at Chelsea under Boehly. If even more clubs will be taken over, it will even get worse as competition for the limited slots of CL football will only become more fierce.
If one is cheating, you will be forced to follow or just be left behind.

In the end transfer fees and salaries will go up and up only.
Click to expand...

The morality question is fair and can be levelled at many clubs.

Bayern for instance have close ties to the ME in terms of training camps (since 2011) and a deal with Qatar Airways. Not sure what that generates for the club but I don’t think it’s loose change. How do you feel about that and has it had any impact on your support for your club over the past 12 years?

In terms of the rule breaking you’re predicting that might happen due to increased competition. Fair assumption although Chelsea and City are much different to United and probably feel they have to bend the rules to catch up.
 
Drizzle said:
I'm interested in whether the people who are against Ratcliffe are pro Qatar and vice versa?

Or are some just against everybody because the world of rich people is nasty and we should be run by a local charity staffed by Stretford Enders.

Honestly, take your pick. Middle East sportswashers or investment from Western businesses/consortiums that will all take on some debt which is standard for these buyouts.

From a football perspective (not morally), both are infinitely better than the current ownership and both would give united good prospects of success.
Click to expand...

Jim Ratcliffe would be my preference despite the issues

Controversial but Imo, the debt isn't necessarily the worst thing about the Glazers. The club makes enough to function with it and still spend plenty. The main issues for me post 2005 were things like:
The automatic cup scheme being introduced.
The initial fairly substantial price hikes between 2005 and 2009
The European Super League
Lack of decent football men being appointed so hundreds of millions wasted on dross
No post Fergie succession plan
Refusal for a long time to engage with fans
 
TheReligion said:
The morality question is fair and can be levelled at many clubs.

Bayern for instance have close ties to the ME in terms of training camps (since 2011) and a deal with Qatar Airways. Not sure what that generates for the club but I don’t think it’s loose change. How do you feel about that and has it had any impact on your support for your club over the past 12 years?

In terms of the rule breaking you’re predicting that might happen due to increased competition. Fair assumption although Chelsea and City are much different to United and probably feel they have to bend the rules to catch up.
Click to expand...

Worth pointing out that Bayern's hardcore support/ultras have been protesting about the Qatar links for years
 
Ratcliffe has never had intention of bidding. He was caught out by claiming his last approach was rejected as the owners didn't want to sell. Unless this was an impulse decision by the Glazers to sell they would very much have been interested in offers when Jim claimed he was rejected.
 
It's Qatar. Unless they decide against it, its them. The noise is getting louder, more sources backing it up. People need to make their peace with it, or get their anger out, it's happening.
 
I get the feeling Ratcliffe is more interested in the publicity his name/Ineos gets from being linked to a takeover, than actually owing us. Could be wrong of course, but there's something about him I don't trust.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.