Club Sale | It’s done!

[Tarrou]

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.

we heard you the first ten times

 

[Drizzle]

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.

I think you're missing the point. Even if he did take dividends (which would be a pr disaster and unlikely), he'd still need to increase the value of the club. That's not going to happen without significant ongoing investment.

 

[stevoc]

According to some, Ineos will take on billions of loans to buy us, then leave us self-sustaining with all our revenue all the while they will service the loans out of their own pockets. Am I reading this right?

Leveraged buy outs aren't allowed under PL rules anymore or at least even if it isn't specifically stated in the rules it wouldn't be allowed to happen again. There's no club on the planet that could service a debt to the tune of 5-6-7 billion so I don't think anyone needs to worry about another leveraged buy-out or a parent company taking money from United to service billions worth of debt. Trying to buy United by lumping billions of debt onto the club wouldn't make any sense even if it was allowed.

If someone buys a football club for 4-5 billion then they are going to want that football club to be successful and generating lots of profits, so that the value of the club increases.

 

[Fahad Jawaid]

Well in an ideal world I would also want us to be owned by a rich billionaire who is morally right. But given the choice between American owners, Sir Red Cliff or whatever his name is and Qatari owners. I am inclined to go towards to Qatari owners.

All the American owners would be interested in dividends, plus they won't invest in the infrastructure because it would require 2b for the stadium and other renovation works.

Look at our January window, we signed Wout and Sabitzer because we had no money. Although I am glad that we manage to get somebody across as a body. But would be not have preferred a proper striker and not care about Martial and his injury problems or would have sold Mctominay and bought an able replacement.

But because of Leeches we have we had to resort to worrying about finances and it will be the same with these owners. Because they would all want return on investment.

I want my club to do well, win big trophies And compete in the champions League as potential winner. Instead of playing in the Europa League with little investment just enough for top 4 with no chance of trophies. Because with Arsenal, City, Chelsea and Liverpool also being owned by mighty rich owners we would be left far behind. Only then the righteous brigade will be happy I guess.

 

[P-Nut]

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.

Well be going to 5 CL spots soon anyway unfortunately with the new CL reforms coming in 2024

 

[cyberman]

Leveraged buy outs aren't allowed under PL rules anymore or at least even if it isn't specifically stated in the rules it wouldn't be allowed to happen again. There's no club on the planet that could service a debt to the tune of 5-6-7 billion so I don't think anyone needs to worry about another leveraged buy-out or a parent company taking money from United to service billions worth of debt. Trying to buy United by lumping billions of debt onto the club wouldn't make any sense even if it was allowed.

If someone buys a football club for 4-5 billion then they are going to want that football club to be successful and generating lots of profits, so that the value of the club increases.

Leveraged buyouts are allowed? It was just a proposed law that went nowhere

 

[loftyscott]

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.

He has no interest in winning
He went to see the Chelsea fan groups AFTER it was too late to submit a bid
He wants to be seen as the losing white Knight

 

[Green Arrow]

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.

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.

All valid points maybe I was too hasty to post what I said but I just don't want to go down the road and regret his takeover (If it happens with SJR). This is a big chance for us to get it right with the new owners (Even though we don't have a say in who buys us). I just want us to have a someone to get rid of the debt, invest in the infustructure, the mens and womens team.

 

[Camy89]

Funnily enough, a few months ago I had a dream I was given ownership of the club and I put us into administration by spending too much on ladies of the night and beer. I had no regrets.

Spoiler: IrishMcD's initial pitch for buying United

 

[redcucumber]

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.

He quite obviously does - it's been reported he's employed JP Morgan to oversee the process and Goldman Sachs are also involved. I get that people are stuck on this idea of Ratcliffe being some sort of media whore bluffer boogeyman, but c'mon.

 

[stevoc]

Leveraged buyouts are allowed? It was just a proposed law that went nowhere

As I said I don't know if it's specifically stated or if they technically still are allowed under PL rules. But in the case of United no one would be allowed to buy the club and load debt worth billions onto a club that it couldn't possibly hope to service.

 

[Infra-red]

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?

No. Anyone who purchases United will borrow the money to do it. Ineos, US Consortia, Qataris, anyone. The question is, where does the debt end up - if it is on United's balance sheet, then the club are responsible for it (eg the Glazer's LBO in 2005), if it is not, then it has no impact on the club.

 

[Samid]

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.

From a football perspective it's Qatar all the way. They'll immediately start modernising the facilities and infrastructure without restricting the war chest. With Ratcliffe there will always be the fear of the facilties/infrastructure money coming directly from the war chest.

Morality wise I've become a bit numb to the repetitive and boring 'sportswashing' arguments that get dished out every single time ME wants to host sporting events or invest in sports clubs around the world. You want to host the World Cup? Sportswashing. You want to buy a European club? Sportswashing. You want to buy Ronaldo? Sportswashing. At this point the word has lost all its meaning which is unfortunate because the premise of it was good until it became the default term for ME countries simply being interested in sports.

 

[redcucumber]

Well in an ideal world I would also want us to be owned by a rich billionaire who is morally right. But given the choice between American owners, Sir Red Cliff or whatever his name is and Qatari owners. I am inclined to go towards to Qatari owners.

All the American owners would be interested in dividends, plus they won't invest in the infrastructure because it would require 2b for the stadium and other renovation works.

Look at our January window, we signed Wout and Sabitzer because we had no money. Although I am glad that we manage to get somebody across as a body. But would be not have preferred a proper striker and not care about Martial and his injury problems or would have sold Mctominay and bought an able replacement.

But because of Leeches we have we had to resort to worrying about finances and it will be the same with these owners. Because they would all want return on investment.

I want my club to do well, win big trophies And compete in the champions League as potential winner. Instead of playing in the Europa League with little investment just enough for top 4 with no chance of trophies. Because with Arsenal, City, Chelsea and Liverpool also being owned by mighty rich owners we would be left far behind. Only then the righteous brigade will be happy I guess.

We don't need autocrat money to compete, or to have a thoroughly funded infrastructure.

Also, even if we did have loads of money, who could we have realistically signed as a striker in January?

 

[cyberman]

As I said I don't know if it's specifically stated or if they technically still are allowed under PL rules. But in the case of United no one would be allowed to buy the club and load debt worth billions onto a club that it couldn't possibly hope to service.

I actually think they do. The leveraged buy outs etc were put forward as possible rules set by the new regulator but they’re nowhere to be found.
For some reason Chelsea were immune to that last year which was fecking ridiculous, they were treated as some golden child independent from anyone else

 

[sullydnl]

 

[redcucumber]

From a football perspective it's Qatar all the way. They'll immediately start modernising the facilities and infrastructure without restricting the war chest. With Ratcliffe there will always be the fear of the facilties/infrastructure money coming directly from the war chest.

Morality wise I've become a bit numb to the repetitive and boring 'sportswashing' arguments that get dished out every single time ME wants to host sporting events or invest in sports clubs around the world. You want to host the World Cup? Sportswashing. You want to buy a European club? Sportswashing. You want to buy Ronaldo? Sportswashing. At this point the word has lost all its meaning which is unfortunate because the premise of it was good until it became the default term for ME countries simply being interested in sports.

The ME has a unique economic and geopolitical standing. They are trying to bolster their global influence so it's unsurprising that their goings-on are fairly discussed and analysed, moreso when it relates to Qatar potentially owning our football club.

 

[NK86]

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.

You may certainly feel that way and it's completely acceptable too. I feel that we deserve some good luck after 20 years of horrible owners.

Tell me this, if SJR takes on the debt to uplift our facilities and stadium, would you be against it or not want him as an owner of he wants to do that?

 

[Fahad Jawaid]

We don't need autocrat money to compete, or to have a thoroughly funded infrastructure.

Also, even if we did have loads of money, who could we have realistically signed as a striker in January?

I think we would have signed Felix with an option to buy in the summer or Mohammed Kudus who was really impressive at the world cup and young and upcoming from Ajax. Or we could have signed several other options that's just on top of my head.

 

[JJ12]

No minority nonsense, please

 

[NK86]

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.

I would not bother about listening or reading what opposition fans think about this. Not one beep from them lot when the Glazers were killing us for 2 decades, and suddenly they are worried about United getting rich owners.
I bet not one of them would have a worry if it was another Glazer-type buying us with a leveraged BO. Think they would be gleefully accepting our misery.

 

[sullydnl]

No minority nonsense, please

Sources with knowledge of the situation say an offer from the Gulf state is a genuine possibility — but there is uncertainty as to whether that would result in a full takeover.

Those sources believe a minority investment may be the starting point. That is the preferred route forward for Joel and Avram Glazer, who are leading the talks from the club’s side. Such an outcome would render UEFA rules about dual ownership redundant.

Worst of both worlds.

 

[TheReligion]

I would not bother about listening or reading what opposition fans think about this. Not one beep from them lot when the Glazers were killing us for 2 decades, and suddenly they are worried about United getting rich owners.
I bet not one of them would have a worry if it was another Glazer-type buying us with a leveraged BO. Think they would be gleefully accepting our misery.

Absolutely agree mate

 

[Drizzle]

Morality wise I've become a bit numb to the repetitive and boring 'sportswashing' arguments that get dished out every single time ME wants to host sporting events or invest in sports clubs around the world. You want to host the World Cup? Sportswashing. You want to buy a European club? Sportswashing. You want to buy Ronaldo? Sportswashing. At this point the word has lost all its meaning which is unfortunate because the premise of it was good until it became the default term for ME countries simply being interested in sports.

Yes, that is all sportswashing. It's up to you how you feel about it, but it sure isn't 'ME countries simply being interested in sports'!

 

[TheReligion]

Worst of both worlds.

Yeah agreed although fortunately the most noise is about a full take over which seems far more likely at this point.

 

[Telsim]

I think you're missing the point. Even if he did take dividends (which would be a pr disaster and unlikely), he'd still need to increase the value of the club. That's not going to happen without significant ongoing investment.

But that's my question - where will this investment come from and how big it will be? The value of the club increased astronomically with zero investment by the Glazers. Ratcliffe won't get away with zero investment like them, but he could get away with minimum investment beyond the initial purchase. In competitive football sense, he doesn't stand a chance against the spending of the oil clubs, so it makes a lot more sense to invest just enough to keep us barely relevant and keep the value slowly growing, while not actually going overboard and trying to win stuff. I don't believe for a second he will invest another 1 billion out of his own pocket to finance the refurbishing of the infrastructure. I'm absolutely certain the debt of that will be loaded onto the club, like with Tottenham. Which then raises the question how will that affect the funds available for squad buildup?

I'm sorry, but as I've said, I don't see a situation where INEOS, backed by GS and JPM, buys Manchester United and the club doesn't end up incurring futher debt or having money taken out of it. That's just not possible. And all of this is before questioning his actual competence in running a football club, considering how is other projects are going.

 

[Compton22]

I think someone said it earlier, but I think we need to come to terms with the fact that a Qatari investment fund or wealth fund is going to either own or invest in our club. The writing is on the wall as it is being backed by numerous sources now

 

[Infra-red]

Interesting piece from The Athletic, who were first to break the story that United are up for sale.

From the piece:

"Sources with knowledge of the situation say an offer from the Gulf state [Qatar] is a genuine possibility - but there is uncertainty as to whether that would result in a full takeover."

"Those sources believe a minority investment may be the starting point. That is the preferred route forward for Joel and Avram Glazer, who are leading the talks from the club's side. Such an outcome would render UEFA rules about dual ownership redundant."

 

[acrebo]

The reality of modern football is that there are only two realistic options available to us:

1. A leveraged buy-out with a tonne of debt (Ratcliffe)
2. An oil-rich state looking to greenwash (Qatar).

That's it. No football superfan is going to spunk >£5bn on a football club that requires loads more investing in it to bring it up to scratch, without then putting in place a plan to ensure it washes its face from a financial perspective.

As depressing as it is, the best we can hope for as far as I'm concerned is for Qatar to buy us, throw a load of money at infrastructure (stadium, training, staffing, etc.) and then leave us to our own devices.

 

[NK86]

Worst of both worlds.

I seriously doubt ME investors would want to get in bed with Glazer scum and let them retain controlling majority after what they have done to this investment for nearly 2 decades.

We have grown despite them and not due to their amazing stewardship. Plus I seriously doubt anyone would pump in a couple of billions on an enterprise which has rotting infrastructure and no clear direction of where it's headed.

 

[redcucumber]

I think we would have signed Felix with an option to buy in the summer or Mohammed Kudus who was really impressive at the world cup and young and upcoming from Ajax. Or we could have signed several other options that's just on top of my head.

If you want us to be feckless spenders like Chelsea, spunking tens of millions on short-term loans, that's your prerogative. I highly doubt Kudus was available in January - Ajax just took us to the cleaners for Antony so there's zero chance they would have entertained a move for their next biggest star as early as January. Money or not, we should still strive to act like a proper club. If we end up like Chelsea I'll be disgusted.

 

[Zed 101]

According to some, Ineos will take on billions of loans to buy us, then leave us self-sustaining with all our revenue all the while they will service the loans out of their own pockets. Am I reading this right?

Not that I am mad keen on this idea but there is big difference between the Glazers and INEOS:

The Glazers had to leverage debts to buy us, then used us to not only service that debt but to support the rest of their business ventures we were the cash cow, the solid asset they needed to secure loans for the Glazer corporation, we were/are their biggest and best asset.

INEOS already has assets worth far more than Utd and can leverage debts with or without us, they could afford to buy Utd without leveraging debts however most companies of that size do not have the liquid capital, just £20bn sat idling away in a nationwide cash builder, so it is normal business practice for them to obtain the cash through financing as opposed to liquidating assets, liquidating assets would reduce the value of the company, their revenue streams etc... the debt is then structured in a way which the business as a whole can service.

It is very knee jerk to poo-poo the INEOS bid based on debt, this is normal business practice, it would be interesting to see what the proposed structure and term of the debt is, for instance if the options available to INEOS were liquidate part of your business and lose a revenue stream of £5bn per year or take out a loan for £8bn which will cost £300m per year to service, it is a no brainer. Given that INEOS asset value is around £17bn, you would be talking about liquidating a 3rd of the business, their turnover is £60bnish pa, so the revenue loss even if the sold off the less profitable bits would likely be a lot more than £5bn, it is a certainty that financially it makes far more sense for INEOS to buy Utd with a loan than it does to liquidate assets. It does not mean that they would either fail to invest in the club, would be taking dividends or would be using Utd to service the debt. FYI INEOS already has a debt of about £6bn which they could theoretically clear in 3-4 years if they so chose, but why would they?

If given 2 options bought with financing or bought from liquid assets, I would obviously prefer the latter, however I would not be overly concerned

 

[Mani]

This thread deserve a poll.

 

[NK86]

Not that I am mad keen on this idea but there is big difference between the Glazers and INEOS:

The Glazers had to leverage debts to buy us, then used us to not only service that debt but to support the rest of their business ventures we were the cash cow, the solid asset they needed to secure loans for the Glazer corporation, we were/are their biggest and best asset.

INEOS already has assets worth far more than Utd and can leverage debts with or without us, they could afford to buy Utd without leveraging debts however most companies of that size do not have the liquid capital, just £20bn sat idling away in a nationwide cash builder, so it is normal business practice for them to obtain the cash through financing as opposed to liquidating assets, liquidating assets would reduce the value of the company, their revenue streams etc... the debt is then structured in a way which the business as a whole can service.

It is very knee jerk to poo-poo the INEOS bid based on debt, this is normal business practice, it would be interesting to see what the proposed structure and term of the debt is, for instance if the options available to INEOS were liquidate part of your business and lose a revenue stream of £5bn per year or take out a loan for £8bn which will cost £300m per year to service, it is a no brainer. Given that INEOS asset value is around £17bn, you would be talking about liquidating a 3rd of the business, their turnover is £60bnish pa, so the revenue loss even if the sold off the less profitable bits would likely be a lot more than £5bn, it is a certainty that financially it makes far more sense for INEOS to buy Utd with a loan than it does to liquidate assets. It does not mean that they would either fail to invest in the club, would be taking dividends or would be using Utd to service the debt. FYI INEOS already has a debt of about £6bn which they could theoretically clear in 3-4 years if they so chose, but why would they?

If given 2 options bought with financing or bought from liquid assets, I would obviously prefer the latter, however I would not be overly concerned

I think your last paragraph was key - if there's a choice one would always think that buying with liquid assets is definitely better. Hence why I prefer owners who can do that. The worry about the debt ever landing on our doorstep goes away that way.

 

[Rooney24]

No. Anyone who purchases United will borrow the money to do it. Ineos, US Consortia, Qataris, anyone. The question is, where does the debt end up - if it is on United's balance sheet, then the club are responsible for it (eg the Glazer's LBO in 2005), if it is not, then it has no impact on the club.

It certainly has an impact on the club. The club will be the security that the loan is approved on. If it all goes tits up on the lending side the club will be sold again to repay the loans.

And God knows who comes in then.

 

[TrebleChamp99]

Interesting piece from The Athletic, who were first to break the story that United are up for sale.

From the piece:

"Sources with knowledge of the situation say an offer from the Gulf state [Qatar] is a genuine possibility - but there is uncertainty as to whether that would result in a full takeover."

"Those sources believe a minority investment may be the starting point. That is the preferred route forward for Joel and Avram Glazer, who are leading the talks from the club's side. Such an outcome would render UEFA rules about dual ownership redundant."

I believe it was Sky News who had the scoop.
In terms of minority ownership that is how they initially purchased PSG albeit with a 70% stake.

Most other sources have indicated a full takeover is more likely and have since reaffirmed that stance, Mike Keegan being one who is Tier 1 for City, whatever that means.

 

[Champ]

Not that I am mad keen on this idea but there is big difference between the Glazers and INEOS:

The Glazers had to leverage debts to buy us, then used us to not only service that debt but to support the rest of their business ventures we were the cash cow, the solid asset they needed to secure loans for the Glazer corporation, we were/are their biggest and best asset.

INEOS already has assets worth far more than Utd and can leverage debts with or without us, they could afford to buy Utd without leveraging debts however most companies of that size do not have the liquid capital, just £20bn sat idling away in a nationwide cash builder, so it is normal business practice for them to obtain the cash through financing as opposed to liquidating assets, liquidating assets would reduce the value of the company, their revenue streams etc... the debt is then structured in a way which the business as a whole can service.

It is very knee jerk to poo-poo the INEOS bid based on debt, this is normal business practice, it would be interesting to see what the proposed structure and term of the debt is, for instance if the options available to INEOS were liquidate part of your business and lose a revenue stream of £5bn per year or take out a loan for £8bn which will cost £300m per year to service, it is a no brainer. Given that INEOS asset value is around £17bn, you would be talking about liquidating a 3rd of the business, their turnover is £60bnish pa, so the revenue loss even if the sold off the less profitable bits would likely be a lot more than £5bn, it is a certainty that financially it makes far more sense for INEOS to buy Utd with a loan than it does to liquidate assets. It does not mean that they would either fail to invest in the club, would be taking dividends or would be using Utd to service the debt. FYI INEOS already has a debt of about £6bn which they could theoretically clear in 3-4 years if they so chose, but why would they?

If given 2 options bought with financing or bought from liquid assets, I would obviously prefer the latter, however I would not be overly concerned

It's also interesting to note that INEOS cleared a healthy proportion of its debts a few years back, perhaps with the pretence of a big finance funded purchase moving forward....

 

[golden_blunder]

Ratcliffe/Ineos or anyone else buying United using borrowed money is only an issue if that debt is loaded on to the club's balance sheet.

Clearlake Capital have borrowed £800m to finance the spending spree at Chelsea - it's not a problem for Chelsea because Chelsea are not responsible for the interest or the capital repayments. Clearlake can comfortably support the repayments, without needing to withdraw funds from Chelsea to do so.

Ineos are substantially more wealthy than Manchester United - they make more money in an average five day period than United do in an entire year - they are perfectly capable of making an acquisition of this size. They too can comfortably cover the capital repayments on the bonds without recourse to United. The benefit to United in those circumstances is obvious - the club would finally be rid of the debt that has been a millstone around our neck for 18 years.

We currently don't know enough detail about the potential bidders to make any kind of informed decision about our preferences, but once we do, fans will be free to decide what they prefer. If you don't want Ratcliffe/Ineos, that's fine, but don't make that decision based on complete misunderstanding of the mechanics of the prospective deal. United under Ratcliffe/Ineos would likely be debt free, with no interest or dividends to pay, and free to use the club's operational cashflow for investment into football and infrastructure.

Let's wait for the detail from all the contenders.

I’d also love to see their plans going forward. For example Will any of them redevelop the ground and surrounding lands? Any plans to develop community facilities? Will they want to move to a new ground ala Man City? Will they upgrade training facilities as per Ronaldo’s call out. Will they rename the stadium? Will they change the badge? Will they sack the manager? Will they meet the fans? Etc. It’s not just about being able to buy shiny new toys without debt. What’s the overall plan for the club and company?

 

[sepulturite]

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.

Yep I agree with you there, especially the last bit, they're the most important things.

 

[crossy1686]

Without getting too political, I'm open to any investment, I just want the best deal for the club, but those of you claiming moral high ground against ME investment must also surely be aware that our friend over at INEOS is a stout Tory supporter and funds their party?

If we want to get into a debate about morally corrupt parties, austerity measures that have caused thousands of deaths in the UK, Brexit, plus the inequality and hatred projected towards minorities/LGBQT+ community etc, look no further than your own doorstep.