Club Sale | It’s done!

[kaku06]

If Qataris bought us then I hope they feck off psg soon as I don’t want us to get lumped with them as brothers/sisters or something, not to mention the next time we meet them it would be called as “the Qatar derby” or “The EMIR derby”. Feck off. I don’t want the identity of our great club get tarnished or reduced to such extent.

 

[Tarrou]

Ineos doesn't have shareholders. It's limited so basically it's all Jim! And I couldn't care less if he's a United fan or not. He's a business man out to make money.

We don't need capital injection each year to fund transfers or anything else for that matter. We make more money than any legit club in the world which is enough to handle he transfers and wages we need.

If we want to rebuild the stadium etc then we can easily get the finance to do that (Spurs didn't find a billion under the sofa).

It has shareholders

Limited just means limited liability for the shareholders

 

[TheReligion]

The Guardian writer Jonathan Liew was annyoing on the Sky Sports last night explaining his article, where he says Qatar ownership would take more from United than the Glazers ever have, saying we should be some sort of beacon of light against ownership like this, and take a moral stand, etc.

Now I'm not saying his point is wrong, but the powers that be have stood by and watched us languish away under the Glazers, whilst knowing full well they are robbing us blind, they have also allowed Chelsea to do as they please, and City to run riot, etc.

All any United fan ever wanted was a fair owner who allowed the club to get on without towing a lead weight behind them all the time, but now we need the £1 billion replacing that should have been spent on the infrastructure already just to get back to square one, where do people think this money is coming from? So I can see why morals are going out of the window and the Qatar option is seen as the only way out, even though it gives me a very uneasy feeling, and will probably harm us long term.

Fully expect certain parts of the media to put pressure on the club and fans if a ME bid is successful.

The same goes for fans of other clubs.

 

[Acquire Me]

ha ha, I should clarify I love Norway, but the idea of a state owning a club just doesn’t sit, it’s wrong on so many levels.
Not least just the fan perspective and the simple fact that Liverpool’s recent success and Arsenal potential success means a million times more than City’s nonsense ever could. I don’t see any achievement in a state owning a club and winning shit, it’s simply an inevitability.

I am afraid we will get such owners now. They can probably go a bit further than any serious group. We just have to see.

 

[stw2022]

Out of the loop here but Ratcliffe owning OGC Nice is a non-issue?

Non issue as he hasn't bid and ain't going to bid. His dog in his fight is firmly outside the fence barking about how he intends to get in to anyone who'll listen.

 

[DevilRed]

Ineos doesn't have shareholders. It's limited so basically it's all Jim! And I couldn't care less if he's a United fan or not. He's a business man out to make money.

We don't need capital injection each year to fund transfers or anything else for that matter. We make more money than any legit club in the world which is enough to handle he transfers and wages we need.

If we want to rebuild the stadium etc then we can easily get the finance to do that (Spurs didn't find a billion under the sofa).

I stand corrected! Always thought Ineos was a listed entity.

I think what most fans are now asking for is an owner who won’t put further debt on the club whether it be for its acquisition or for its improvement.

We are all wary of another Glazer situation where we need to service debt.

It’s probably why the nation state interest in the club is so appealing to some. It’s assumed that the debts will be wiped out along with having significant capital injections to improve the club year on year.

 

[Bert_]

They did, but is that the reason they don't spend like the fans would like as well, despite having a full stadium at astronomic prices and it being used for all sorts of other events as well. Arsenal also suffered for years by not being able to spend because they were paying off the money borrowed to build the Emirates.

Spurs spend relative to their means regardless of stadium. The new stadium will be have been amortised over multiple years in some kind of capital asset pot separated from the sporting pot I imagine.

 

[stw2022]

Not convinced we're the best candidate for sportswashing. There's been a lul but our reputation is established. With City there was kudos to be had to be the ones that brought the club into prominence. With us we're kinda already prominent.

If a really bad person bought some obscure off-brand cola and turned it into one of the most successful beverage companies around then maybe if did rape his mums dog we'd think "yeah but look at what he's done to make this company successful. Morality is relative"

If an evil person bought Coca Cola then their attempts to cokewash their dubious activities wouldn't work because that brand is already established and successful

 

[Bert_]

I stand corrected! Always thought Ineos was a listed entity.

I think what most fans are now asking for is an owner who won’t put further debt on the club whether it be for its acquisition or for its improvement.

We are all wary of another Glazer situation where we need to service debt.

It’s probably why the nation state interest in the club is so appealing to some. It’s assumed that the debts will be wiped out along with having significant capital injections to improve the club year on year.

Someone coming in a wiping out debts and injecting loads of money sounds great on the surface. Especially when we've had leaches like the glazers sucking us dry for years. But we need to remember that there is no benevolence in this game. Whoever buys us, we become their assest. If it's some nation state that shoves dollars down our pants while we dance to their tune then we have to accept that as our future. Short and long term.

 

[Cloud7]

Yep but I do think it’s overstated. When money was more spread out throughout Europe the best team in Europe still had a team behind them who were second best and weren’t that far in front of them.
The closest I can think of is Ronaldos Madrid and even then Barca routinely won leagues off them. Only test I can see is that they didn’t replace Ronaldo and failed to sign Mbappe. An Oil club Madrid could have just kept that dominating success going ( I know they won last year but feck me that was a let’s get outplayed for 80 minutes and Hail Mary it for the last 10 performance wise)
Having a monster United isn’t a problem in itself but it’s a problem when the still richer than the rest of Europe clubs behind us spend to keep up. Almost by default they need to sign the best players in the world behind a fully successful superpower which leaves talent thin on the ground for Europe’s other clubs.
That’s why I think UEFA will look to stop it somehow.

UEFA are in bed with Qatar more than any other organization, and the two clubs outside of England who would be most opposed to this are Real and Barca, both of whom are currently in UEFA's dog house after the super league debacle. I don't think UEFA will be any sort of stumbling block.

 

[clarkydaz]

Fully expect certain parts of the media to put pressure on the club and fans if a ME bid is successful.

The same goes for fans of other clubs.

Funny how when we cancelled the Liverpool game and effectively ended the superleague the fans were called thugs though

 

[Cloud7]

Fully expect certain parts of the media to put pressure on the club and fans if a ME bid is successful.

The same goes for fans of other clubs.

They most definitely will, which is so disgusting after how much they all praised City.

However it won't be as depressing as how much pressure we will come under from chunks of our own fanbase as well.

 

[Tarrou]

Not convinced we're the best candidate for sportswashing. There's been a lul but our reputation is established. With City there was kudos to be had to be the ones that brought the club into prominence. With us we're kinda already prominent.

If a really bad person bought some obscure off-brand cola and turned it into one of the most successful beverage companies around then maybe if did rape his mums dog we'd think "yeah but look at what he's done to make this company successful. Morality is relative"

If an evil person bought Coca Cola then their attempts to cokewash their dubious activities wouldn't work because that brand is already established and successful

r/confidentlyincorrect

 

[Bert_]

It has shareholders

Limited just means limited liability for the shareholders

I know. But for all we know it might have just one shareholder. Or 100s. We don't know.

 

[Tarrou]

I know. But for all we know it might have just one shareholder. Or 100s. We don't know.

Yeah we do. Sir Jim has about 60% and the other two shareholders have about 20% each.

 

[DevilRed]

I know. But for all we know it might have just one shareholder. Or 100s. We don't know.

It’s 61% Jim and the rest are his co founder and another bloke. At least that’s in the publicised Annual report.

So essentially Jim can do what he likes.

 

[Von Mistelroum]

Do you really want a Qatari owner? Should it happen the connotations of oil club will stick.

Ratcliffe seems much more credible in maintaining integrity.

And no, im not some Arsenal fan motivated by self-interest. Believe it or not I support the Kroenkes so long as Josh Kroenke is the figurehead, much more than I ever would some Arabian prince.

If you think you can accept Qatar ownership, and not be tossed in the same pot as Newcastle and Man City, your wrong.

Dont do it. You will regret it in time.

Oil club connotations Vs Tory connotations. Honestly don't know which is worse.

 

[GregM40]

https://www.theguardian.com/footbal...-from-manchester-united-than-glazers-ever-did

This article has ruffled some E-reds on Twitter, I thought it was relevant.

 

[NK86]

Oil club connotations Vs Tory connotations. Honestly don't know which is worse.

Or don't listen to a rival fan who couldn't care less if we go bust under the Glazers.

 

[Bert_]

Yeah we do. Sir Jim has about 60% and the other two shareholders have about 20% each.

It’s 61% Jim and the rest are his co founder and another bloke. At least that’s in the publicised Annual report.

So essentially Jim can do what he likes.

Not read the annual reports but thanks for clarifying. It's still 60% Jim but not full Jim!

 

[Tarrou]

I'm guessing that's from Jim or someone from INEOS. Only directors and significant shareholders (25%+) are declared for LTDs.

honestly have no idea what you're going on about here

declared for what?

 

[acnumber9]

I just don't like how United fans love falsely attributing City's success to them splashing cash alone, ignoring their academy, facilities, scouting, etc and so on.

Ah, how do you think they got those things? City are a product of there being no consequences for their mistakes.

 

[Judas]

It’s beyond fecking sad that it’s come to this, and the more I think about it the sadder it gets. But it sadly was only a matter of time, this sport is totally fecked. Or more precisely, the premier league is totally absolutely fecked. It’s a horrible monster.

 

[WalkerTheRed]

Absolutely. Debt is debt. Unless there is some ironclad agreement that he will spend X amount on the club over a number of years (see: chels) and that he will not take money out of the club to service such debt.

But who would be stupid enough to do that. Even if he did, you wouldn’t be able to do anything if he deviates from such an agreement in the future.

No, "Debt is not just debt". Stop listening to people that know nothing about corporate finance.

For companies the likes of INEOS, debt is financial instrument. Brings down their tax burden and keep their liquidity high.

 

[Escobar]

No, "Debt is not just debt". Stop listening to people that know nothing about corporate finance.

For companies the likes of INEOS, debt is financial instrument. Brings down their tax burden and keep their liquidity high.

While for us it means an extreme outflow each year

 

[sullydnl]

No, "Debt is not just debt". Stop listening to people that know nothing about corporate finance.

For companies the likes of INEOS, debt is financial instrument. Brings down their tax burden and keep their liquidity high.

This is correct.

 

[cyberman]

https://www.theguardian.com/footbal...-from-manchester-united-than-glazers-ever-did

This article has ruffled some E-reds on Twitter, I thought it was relevant.

https://amp.theguardian.com/footbal...s-light-on-manchester-uniteds-also-ran-status
A lot of stuff here about Uniteds moral strength and status as a shining Beacon…
Wait no. Nothing there but piling on
Not only that but he strips away everything he holds up in moral stance today with this. He can literally separate the status of the club with the quality in the pitch whenever he want to

And here again we come to the crux. Strip away the hubris and the history, the money spent and the words expended, and is this United side really any better than – say – Ajax or Napoli or Marseille? Perhaps we need to stop thinking of United as profligate underachievers. This is where they are: a second-rank side, an also-ran, a makeweight. Well tried, lads. Better luck next year.

 

[DevilRed]

No, "Debt is not just debt". Stop listening to people that know nothing about corporate finance.

For companies the likes of INEOS, debt is financial instrument. Brings down their tax burden and keep their liquidity high.

So for Ineos it’s a financial instrument but for Manchester United it’s not?

Would be interested to hear you elaborate as to the differences.

 

[el3mel]

Is there time for us to delete our old posts about City and PSG? I know they are a lot but that's better than becoming the laughing stock of other clubs fans when we ultimately have to defend Qatar.

 

[pseudo_canadian]

I have no feelings about the morals of our next owners. Pretty much everyone at that level is no saint. All I want is for our debt to be zero after a sale. Based on reports coming out that Ratcliffe does not have all the cash for a realistic bid and is planning to part-fund his bid with big loans from some American banks, I don't want him anywhere near the club. That is exactly the type of bid we should be aggressively trying to avoid.

It should almost be a stipulation for anyone bidding that all our debt will be zeroed out. If they don't have the cash to make that happen, then the bid shouldn't even be considered.

This is my stance as well

 

[TrebleChamp99]

Emir of Qatar is a United fan is he not?
Multi Billionaire who wants the club to be successful..

Was PSG sports washing? I don’t believe their reputation or the reputation of Qatar has improved since they took over there?

 

[croadyman]

I hope you are right. I don’t want us to start playing FM with a cheat code.

I don't see that happening due to the new FFP regulations,just look at what Howe said in his Newcastle presser yesterday

 

[BluesJr]

Is there time for us to delete our old posts about City and PSG? I know they are a lot but that's better than becoming the laughing stock of other clubs fans when we ultimately have to defend Qatar.

Here’s the thing… we don’t have to defend shit. We don’t have to support the owners. We support the club and the team.

 

[Bert_]

honestly have no idea what you're going on about here

declared for what?

Random rules around filings for limited companies and privacy of individuals. Irrelevant though if they've published annual reports detailing ownership.

 

[croadyman]

I'd rather us be run as a community asset. If that's not possible then I'd rather us be ran an actual business rather than a hedge fund.

Either of those would be preferable to whoring ourselves out to a feudal overlord who will never let us go.

Community asset this isn't Bayern where the 50+1 rule is applied so unless these US consortium's reveal anything it's still a choice of two right now

 

[Judas]

Here’s the thing… we don’t have to defend shit. We don’t have to support the owners. We support the club and the team.

Exactly. If people on here start defending Qatar I’d hope they’re still called out and rightfully giving a slagging off.

 

[WalkerTheRed]

So for Ineos it’s a financial instrument but for Manchester United it’s not?

Would be interested to hear you elaborate as to the differences.

United's debt atm amounts to basically 100% of their annual revenue.

Even a £5b loan would amount to just about 10% of INEOS' annual revenue. There's a difference in scale and most likely in terms offered.

 

[sullydnl]

United's debt atm amounts to basically 100% of their annual revenue.

Even a £5b loan would amount to just about 10% of INEOS' annual revenue. There's a difference in scale and most likely in terms offered.

And on top of their annual income INEOS hold other assets worth billions as well.

When I see people say things like "they'll have to take money out of the club to pay for that debt anyway" I don't think they comprehend just how small the amount of money they could take from the club is relative to their annual income.

 

[Andy_Cole]

Can we not have a middle ground? Get someone rich from the Middle East (oil money yes but not necessarily the whole state). Then we’re not playing like it’s a cheat code. The new owners just spend within our legitimate means in terms of salaries and transfers. Then maybe puts in their own money for academy, stadium refurb and gets rid of our debt.

I’m sure a lot here are uncomfortable with ME owners due to agendas. But that’s where the money is. I do not want a leveraged buyout.

 

[croadyman]

ABU’s are terrified at the prospect of Utd being owned by someone who’s main goal is to make us the best team in the world. So they’re praying either UEFA stop the Qatari’s taking over or the fans will kick up enough shit it puts them off buying us. It’s as simple as that really.

Yeah just look at that Liew for proof of it,remember him waxing over rival teams in the old days of Sunday Supplement