Club Sale | It’s done!

Status
Not open for further replies.
wolvored said:
Yes I know the glazers debt will pass on and hopefully cleared by whoever owns us, but if you are having to take on more borrowing to buy the club as Ratcliffe has, he's had to go to two banks to help finance his bid, it looks ominous from the start.
Click to expand...
Not really. It’s no different to INEOS borrowing to purchase a rival business or refinery somewhere. It’s a perfectly normal reasonable business practise. It’s only because it’s United that anyone gives a hoot.
The key difference is that it won’t be leveraged against the club and won’t be United debt to repay.
 
Seems like there's enough news coming out now that a dedicated "Takeover Tweets" thread solely for updates could be made.
 
sullydnl said:
That doesn't really answer my question. Whose money would be impacted going into the team in your mind? The club's or INEOS'?
Click to expand...
The clubs money. If Ineos cant afford the buyout of the club, as in Ratcliffe borrowing money to buy the club, how long is it going to clear the Glazers debt? Rebuild the ground, transfers, other infastructure etc. Ineos will have to use money that could have could have gone to Utd to clear the borrowing as well as everything else.
 
NotThatSoph said:
OK.

LGBT+ people in Qatar are being followed, harassed, assaulted and tortured by state actors. When you said that "it's not as though they're not welcome" I thought it might be relevant that they're very much not. Some specific LGBT+ people are very partially tolerated at certain times in certain contexts, for image reasons.
Click to expand...

If this Qatari sale goes through, we can only hope it shines more light on such things, and may help change their ways.
 
Rightnr said:
These morons.. their stadium is called 'The Emirates' ffs.
Click to expand...
To be fair we seem to have that exact same sentiment here amongst our fanbase. As long as Qataris or other oil state is not an official owner of the club, it's fine to take their "blood money" in form of a sponsorship or a minority stake.
 
dove said:
To be fair we seem to have that exact same sentiment here amongst our fanbase. As long as Qataris or other oil state is not an official owner of the club, it's fine to take their "blood money" in form of a sponsorship or a minority stake.
Click to expand...
You don't understand, it's different...

Well, it's not but it helps some people sleep at night.
 
red thru&thru said:
If this Qatari sale goes through, we can only hope it shines more light on such things, and may help change their ways.
Click to expand...
This is my point of view as well.

Without a doubt the World Cup catalysed various social and legal progressions within Qatar.

I'd even go so far as to say that it's rather selfish position to take, not wanting Qatar involved in football simply because of the discomfort your own personal interpretation of "morality" causes you.
 
dove said:
To be fair we seem to have that exact same sentiment here amongst our fanbase. As long as Qataris or other oil state is not an official owner of the club, it's fine to take their "blood money" in form of a sponsorship or a minority stake.
Click to expand...
Rightnr said:
You don't understand, it's different...

Well, it's not but it helps some people sleep at night.
Click to expand...

Barca were sponsored by Qatar, Bayern train in the gulf each year and have sponsors there…
 
dove said:
To be fair we seem to have that exact same sentiment here amongst our fanbase. As long as Qataris or other oil state is not an official owner of the club, it's fine to take their "blood money" in form of a sponsorship or a minority stake.
Click to expand...
Can you tell me which one of our sponsors (they’re all listed at the bottom of the clubs homepage) are from Oil states, because I’m struggling.
 
Señor Sloppy said:
I'd even go so far as to say that it's rather selfish position to take, not wanting Qatar involved in football simply because of the discomfort your own personal interpretation of "morality" causes you.
Click to expand...

When I read stuff like this intellectually and morally bankrupt nonsense from people who joined the caf two months ago I just assume they're paid astroturfers. Qatar can do what they like in Qatar, not in Manchester.
 
Señor Sloppy said:
This is my point of view as well.

Without a doubt the World Cup catalysed various social and legal progressions within Qatar.

I'd even go so far as to say that it's rather selfish position to take, not wanting Qatar involved in football simply because of the discomfort your own personal interpretation of "morality" causes you.
Click to expand...

I can understand why people have this view. And they're not wrong. What I don't appreciate is, questioning people's morality, who do not share their values. It's not everyone, but there some.
 
Plant0x84 said:
Hopefully but doubtful when it’s them calling the shots.
Click to expand...

I do wonder what kind of reforms have happened post World Cup. I would like to say we could somehow help in some type of reform, with the spotlight that would be on them via us. Let's see.
 
wolvored said:
The clubs money. If Ineos cant afford the buyout of the club, as in Ratcliffe borrowing money to buy the club, how long is it going to clear the Glazers debt? Rebuild the ground, transfers, other infastructure etc. Ineos will have to use money that could have could have gone to Utd to clear the borrowing as well as everything else.
Click to expand...

First, INEOS can absolutely afford to buy the club. Their annual income last year was something like $17billion, with a similar amount held in assets. Their wealth dwarves anything required in this deal.

But it's normal practice for even extremely wealthy businesses to finance purchases they could nonetheless buy outright, because factors like liquidity carry more value to them than the cost of borrowing and allow for further reductions elsewhere (e.g. in how they are taxed). It's important to understand that the concept of debt you have from your everyday life (like getting a loan to buy something you couldn't otherwise afford) isn't its only function.

Understanding that, would money need to be taken from Manchester United to fund the repayments INEOS have to make? No. Because again, their annual earnings are so vast that any money they could take from United is a relative pittance. Always keep in mind, the total cost on us of the Glazer's entire time here is a fraction of what INEOS make in a year. United doesn't have to pay for its own purchase in this scenario any more than any other asset INEOS buy does.

Whether they would actively put money into United is a different question, but in truth we wouldn't particularly need them to. If the debt is cleared, stadium rebuild financed and the club keeps what it earns then we are wealthy enough to be competitive without additional investment beyond that.
 
sullydnl said:
First, INEOS can absolutely afford to buy the club. Their annual income last year was something like $17billion, with a similar amount held in assets. Their wealth dwarves anything required in this deal.

But it's normal practice for even extremely wealthy businesses to finance purchases they could nonetheless buy outright, because factors like liquidity carry more value to them than the cost of borrowing and allow for further reductions elsewhere (e.g. in how they are taxed). It's important to understand that the concept of debt you have from your everyday life (like getting a loan to buy something you couldn't otherwise afford) isn't its only function.

Understanding that, would money need to be taken from Manchester United to fund the repayments INEOS have to make? No. Because again, their annual earnings are so vast that any money they could take from United is a relative pittance. Always keep in mind, the total cost on us of the Glazer's entire time here is a fraction of what INEOS make in a year. United doesn't have to pay for its own purchase in this scenario any more than any other asset INEOS buy does.

Whether they would actively put money into United is a different question, but in truth we wouldn't particularly need them to. If the debt is cleared, stadium rebuild financed and the club keeps what it earns then we are wealthy enough to be competitive without additional investment beyond that.
Click to expand...
Great post. Shame most will ignore it, because Mbappe :rolleyes:
 
Plant0x84 said:
Can you tell me which one of our sponsors (they’re all listed at the bottom of the clubs homepage) are from Oil states, because I’m struggling.
Click to expand...
In our case it's a hypothetical scenario as of this moment I don't think we have any but knowing that a lot of clubs do, I think it's not crazy to suggest we will have one in the near future, we were negotiating with Saudis not too long ago... So will the same people who say they will stop supporting United if Qataris buy us, do the same if Qataris or Saudis or whoever becomes our kit sponsor?
 
red thru&thru said:
I can understand why people have this view. And they're not wrong. What I don't appreciate is, questioning people's morality, who do not share their values. It's not everyone, but there some.
Click to expand...
Disagree. The need for positive development within a country of 2.8m people should hold much more importance than one's own personal emotions relating to a football club.
 
dove said:
In our case it's a hypothetical scenario as of this moment I don't think we have any but knowing that a lot of clubs do, I think it's not crazy to suggest we will have one in the near future, we were negotiating with Saudis not too long ago... So will the same people who say they will stop supporting United if Qataris buy us, do the same if Qataris or Saudis or whoever becomes our kit sponsor?
Click to expand...
One mans hypothetical is another’s ‘made up’. I don’t want blood money, oil money or whatever anywhere near United, whatever form it takes.
 
Bert_ said:
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).
Click to expand...

True, I think its Jim and one or two more. But its really hard to get a grip of that companies' finances, its an advanced web of companies and many JV's (i.e. companies that Ineos owns 50% of and like an Indian Company owns the other 50% of, or a Chinese Company owner 50% of). Ineos probably have the knowhow, so they join up with a local business in Asia and take 50% of the ownership/profits, and the local business have the customers and established infrastructure in that country.
 
sullydnl said:
First, INEOS can absolutely afford to buy the club. Their annual income last year was something like $17billion, with a similar amount held in assets. Their wealth dwarves anything required in this deal.

But it's normal practice for even extremely wealthy businesses to finance purchases they could nonetheless buy outright, because factors like liquidity carry more value to them than the cost of borrowing and allow for further reductions elsewhere (e.g. in how they are taxed). It's important to understand that the concept of debt you have from your everyday life (like getting a loan to buy something you couldn't otherwise afford) isn't its only function.

Understanding that, would money need to be taken from Manchester United to fund the repayments INEOS have to make? No. Because again, their annual earnings are so vast that any money they could take from United is a relative pittance. Always keep in mind, the total cost on us of the Glazer's entire time here is a fraction of what INEOS make in a year. United doesn't have to pay for its own purchase in this scenario any more than any other asset INEOS buy does.

Whether they would actively put money into United is a different question, but in truth we wouldn't particularly need them to. If the debt is cleared, stadium rebuild financed and the club keeps what it earns then we are wealthy enough to be competitive without additional investment beyond that.
Click to expand...

Brilliant post, people equate Ineos taking debt to the Glazers and its such a bad comparison to make, The Glazers vehicle that owns the club only owns the club so the money the club makes is the only money they have to service the debt whereas Ineos is a multinational corporation with income from all over that dwarves that of not just only the our football club but probably all of the top teams in world football put together
 
Alonzo said:
A) The Glazers are not the US state and are not directly linked to the US state.

B) there were massive concerns at the time of sale, that proved to be well founded as time went in, and protests before they bought United, and literally ever since.
Click to expand...
The concerns were not about the history of America being steeped in destruction, slavery, war and imposition.
 
Maureen-yo said:
The club is owned by Americans now and there was no concerns regarding the above when they bought the club though was there?
Click to expand...

You edited your original comment in order to make my comment seem less relevant.
So if a singular Qatari billionaire purchased the club you you’ll have no issue?
 
cyberman said:
Click to expand...

How could we possibly compete with Newcastle if private investors from Saudi bought us?

Mohammed bin Salman is the Crown Prince of Saudi Arabia and owns Newcastle. He would have incredible power over the private investors even if he wasn't directly 'connected'. We could never act in a way that would upset Newcastle. Incredibly unhealthy dynamic imo.
 
HarryP said:
How could we possibly compete with Newcastle if private investors from Saudi bought us?

Mohammed bin Salman is the Crown Prince of Saudi Arabia and owns Newcastle. He would have incredible power over the private investors even if he wasn't directly 'connected'. We could never act in a way that would upset Newcastle. Incredibly unhealthy dynamic imo.
Click to expand...
I’d say Newcastle would be out the door. I have no idea how this works, does every ruler in these countries run every investment group?
 
HarryP said:
How could we possibly compete with Newcastle if private investors from Saudi bought us?

Mohammed bin Salman is the Crown Prince of Saudi Arabia and owns Newcastle. He would have incredible power over the private investors even if he wasn't directly 'connected'. We could never act in a way that would upset Newcastle. Incredibly unhealthy dynamic imo.
Click to expand...

That assumes they're actual private investors rather than "private investors".
 
HarryP said:
How could we possibly compete with Newcastle if private investors from Saudi bought us?

Mohammed bin Salman is the Crown Prince of Saudi Arabia and owns Newcastle. He would have incredible power over the private investors even if he wasn't directly 'connected'. We could never act in a way that would upset Newcastle. Incredibly unhealthy dynamic imo.
Click to expand...
If there was Saudi control over Man United...I doubt they would be focused on Newcastle over us :lol:

One was 200m and the other 5 billion
 
Sparky Rhiwabon said:
We might be stuck with the Glazers yet

Click to expand...


Doubt it. Most of the reported interested parties when the vast majority, if not all the pie. Glazers can want whatever the feck they want to, doesn't mean the other parties will be interested in keeping around other owners.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.