By keeping them around?? How is that saving us from them
Club Sale | It’s done!
- Thread starter JB08
- Start date
- Status
People just don't want them at the club anymore in any way. Understandably. Also, they would be due more dividends I think no?
Glazers staying on, debt staying... this is madness 
I would say that people's heads have been turned to Qatar once they saw the INEOS bid and PR. If INEOS were offering the same things there wouldn't even be a discussion would there?
Everybody keeps saying SJR wouldn't take dividends out of the club, so if the Glazers keep doing it why wouldn't he as well?
That doesn't strike me as a serious problem, at all.
INEOS plus unnamed American shareholders. Does that sound better?
I have criticized PSG a fair bit especially when at some point people claimed that they were very well run, I said a long time ago that from 2015-16, they have not been run well in my opinion. But I have no reason to not question people when they make up things about circus or certain players.
The statement from Ineos is pretty shockingly bad ignoring Qatar. The incentives bit part of the offer also doesn’t sit well with me either.
I’d obviously take him over the Glazers but there’s a possibility he will keep them on board with a minority stake.
Owners can take money out of the club whenever they want in the form of "management fees". You can expect that to be an 'incentive' offered in the INEOS bid.
Depends on how much of the club they sell.
Adds nothing to the discussion
Anyone still advocating for Jim Ratcliffe’s debt ridden Brexit bid that would potentially see the Glazers waiting on can’t be considered a Utd fan imo.
I'll agree it's not ideal, but it would minority, so pretty much irrelevent, and quite possible temporary.
they won't get to decide that though
I am gay. If Qatar win this I genuinely hope the club goes to crap.
So I'm guessing that people would be happy to have the Glazers around and debt still there, albeit on INEOS apparently, than have the Qataris in charge?
United can be consistently very competitive at the top so long as we just have someone clear our debt. We already have a top manager in. Move all the interest and dividend payments into being just reinvested into the club and that's a massive boost. Get smart people in charge to make decisions and we are perfectly fine to compete. United doesn't need oil/unlimited money to get there.
The main impact between Ratcliffe/Qatari's in owning us will be who they hire to form the structure. That's it. The rest, football wise, won't make a big difference. Ten Hag and the coaching staff will remain the same, we'll have loads to spend on transfers regardless, so it's really the rest just who is hired to form a structure and if that is successful. There is literally nothing saying one will do it better than another, or even better than the Glazers. It's just blind hope there.
Also I'd rather compete fairly at the top with normal ownership than be a state run club and dominate through infinite money. Which isn't guaranteed either way. Jim or Qatar in charge, I'd be willing to bet that there is a very minor on the pitch difference between the 2 over the next 10 years. The biggest question with INEOS and Jim is how the infrastructure redevelopment is funded, but again, that hardly impacts how the team will play on the pitch or what FFP allows us to spend.
So the first Ratcliffe statement was short and explained feck all. His second statement is longer and it still addresses feck all.
Yet the Qatar statement is detailed enough for now and addresses majority of things we have moaned about for years.
Seems like Qatar actually done their homework.
You'd think it would be the other way around giving Ratcliffe is a big fan of United etc.
Yet the Qatar statement is detailed enough for now and addresses majority of things we have moaned about for years.
Seems like Qatar actually done their homework.
You'd think it would be the other way around giving Ratcliffe is a big fan of United etc.
Does "majority ownership" mean the Glazers are maintaining a percentage of their ownership?
This is very silly.
Fans keep going to the games
If he is willing to keep the GLazers in the club to buy the club then of course he would also take out money.
And in his statement they promise nothing about investring and not taking out money.
We're gonna go to crap anyway.
What's this incentive part? Didn't see any in the official statement.
Yes.
Comes across very poorly whatever way you look at it.
https://www.skysports.com/watch/vid...nchester-united-greenwashing-vs-sportswashing
Did they run a headline like this when city or Newcastle were taken over ?
Did they run a headline like this when city or Newcastle were taken over ?
Potentially, yes. That's why everyone is riled up.
That doesn't sound too good.
The bid said they were offering £4b with further 'incentives'. They didn't specify what they were.
A LOT of assumptions in here, where does it say he will keep glazers on?? If INEOS went for a majority then the minority would be the 30% that is floated on NYSE, no?
Why all the uproar over the Glazers staying.
Why all the uproar over the Glazers staying.
Nobody knows. Won't stop them having a proper melt though!
Are people really losing their mind at Ineos saying majority ownership, the Glazers themselves only have a majority ownership as shares have been traded on the stock exchange for a while now, what they likely mean is by buying the Glazers share which hold all the voting rights they don't expect to buy all the available shares on the stock market just yet as they can control the club without doing so.
Post Respectfully
I am not gay, and an absolute majority of fans are not gay. If Qatar win this, I genuinely hope the Club goes to become the most successful and profitable one in the world.
What? Where have you been for the last 10 years?
No, wanting Ratcliffe in charge with no guarantee of clearing the debt with the Glazers potentially remaining as minority stakeholders is very silly.
fecking hell mate.
I'm pro Qatar bid but that talk is by no means helpful.
A completely understandable view.
There is no best case scenario. Having a scenario where:
- we are not a state run club - big win
- Glazers removed as decision makers and someone else is making decisions/making the structure - win, with hope (and no difference to Qatar taking over)
- Debt removed from the club so the club doesn't have to pay interest payments on a stupid debt - biggest win
Ineos bid reads like it was written by our current government. Full of hot air and not much substance, but tries to get around this by appealing to the lowest common denominator with the Brexit style 'local club' stuff.
If the Glazers can make £4 billion and still stay at the table as a minority stakeholder to reap the benefits of the inevitable Super League then this is done I think.
- Status