Club Sale | It’s done!

Status
Not open for further replies.
Sviken said:
'Debt on the club' or 'debt on INEOS' is the same thing - someone is gonna have to pay that. And before someone comes up to me with the 'INEOS has 60 billion revenue', that's not profit. They can have 1 trillion in revenue, it doesn't matter if their expenses are just as much.
Click to expand...


The value in this buy for the investment fund INEOS is the value will prob double in 5/10 years depending on growth into new markets, or super league etc.

That the bottom line for them.


This is what is driving this whole sale. Not the club making 50/100mil a season to help pay the overdraft off and hope to break even in 70 years time.
 
Regulus Arcturus Black said:
Based on?

Tell me exactly what we know about bid? We have been informed that neither will leverage any debt on club. INEOS are now leaking that yes, they will of course invest in stadium & infrastructure.

So what exactly in the Qatar bid is so great that we wanna be the next Man City?

I’m personally gonna wait for further down the line, when concrete promises/visions are laid out from all bidders.
Click to expand...
What they said in their official statement
 
Regulus Arcturus Black said:
Are they? What have they committed to do with OT and the infrastructure?
New Stadium?
Full refurb of stadium?
New training centre?

Or, a new South Stand?
Or a new roof and upgrades of hospitality?
Click to expand...

While their statement isn't legally binding, I would be very surprised if Qatar didn't invest in the stadium, facilities, academy and women's teams, because their main aim for buying the club is PR and to improve their image globally. This means it's in their interest to get fans on their side and invest in these areas that need addressing. INEOS will be bidding with aims of making profit first and foremost. They're already spending large amounts that have required them to add debt to help finance the acquisition. Even with a statement of an intention to invest in a stadium, etc, there would be a much higher chance of them reneging on that promise once they had ownership of the club, because doing so would align with their interests and main aim to make the most money possible. The fact that they didn't even make that sort of a statement initially is definitely a concern and probably suggests we shouldn't expect much investment in the facilities in the event of a takeover, certainly in the short term at least.
 
Sviken said:
'Debt on the club' or 'debt on INEOS' is the same thing - someone is gonna have to pay that. And before someone comes up to me with the 'INEOS has 60 billion revenue', that's not profit. They can have 1 trillion in revenue, it doesn't matter if their expenses are just as much.
Click to expand...

It absolutely isn't the same thing when it comes to FFP and the financial operation of the club. They make 2 billion profit a year. They can absorb the refinancing needed to buy the club.

We'll have to see as this thing develops and more information becomes available but that won't be an issue as far as I'm aware.
 
Castia said:
Chelsea aren’t loaded with debt? What a stupid fecking take and the nerve that you’re also getting annoyed by it to boot

Oh so we should just roll over and accept the incoming debt? Bring on the debt boys it’s not a problem? Fecking moron
Click to expand...

Ineos will be carrying debt their revenue was 50 billion with another 2.5 billion in profit, if Apple bought United they would do it with debt to as would any business, there are lots of sound business reasons for it, this thing of debt is bad needs to go away or some critical thinking needs to be applied. Ineos borrowing 4 billion to buy United would be nothing new in any kind of business acquisitions and will help them for tax reasons among many others.

No sane people would lend a football club 5 billion to leverage themselves to pay it back as no football club could ever imagine to pay it back a company with 50 billion revenue people will lining up to lend them money, the worse thing that could happen would be Ineos could just sell us again should they need to recoup the borrowing but I very much doubt a company as big as them with as much revenue would ever have a reason to have to sell.
 
Dazzmondo said:
While their statement isn't legally binding, I would be very surprised if Qatar didn't invest in the stadium, facilities, academy and women's teams, because their main aim for buying the club is PR and to improve their image globally. This means it's in their interest to get fans on their side and invest in these areas that need addressing. INEOS will be bidding with aims of making profit first and foremost. They're already spending large amounts that have required them to add debt to help finance the acquisition. Even with a statement of an intention to invest in a stadium, etc, there would be a much higher chance of them reneging on that promise once they had ownership of the club, because doing so would align with their interests and main aim to make the most money possible. The fact that they didn't even make that sort of a statement initially is definitely a concern and probably suggests we shouldn't expect much investment in the facilities in the event of a takeover, certainly in the short term at least.
Click to expand...

such drivel. You’ve just clearly showed your biases based on absolutely nothing.
 
Yeah that Elliot hedge fund can feck right off, we riot if that bid is accepted.
 
Regulus Arcturus Black said:
Are they? What have they committed to do with OT and the infrastructure?
New Stadium?
Full refurb of stadium?
New training centre?

Or, a new South Stand?
Or a new roof and upgrades of hospitality?
Click to expand...
You should have read the statements so I'm not going to repeat them. Whilst SJR was silent on the matter officially in his statement, Qatar made some wide ranging if not specific promises in theirs with regard to infrastructure and spending.
 
devilish said:
Elliott is not good news mate. Imagine the Glazers but worse
Click to expand...
First of all I don't think thats physically possible anymore because of the new Anti Glazer laws. Second, I'm just reading up on them right now but after they took over Milan, they won the title, can't be that bad!
 
Prodigal7 said:
You should have read the statements so I'm not going to repeat them. Whilst SJR was silent on the matter officially in his statement, Qatar made some wide ranging if not specific promises in theirs with regard to infrastructure and spending.
Click to expand...

Precisely, wide ranging, promising nothing in any detail.

Your biases make you believe Qatar will spunk money left right and centre is all.
 
I couldn’t wait for the Glazers to feck off, but now looking at the bidders, I don’t know what I want anymore.
 
Verminator said:
Not in any way to diminish a state's responsibility toward human rights, but we are an American-owned British club.
Our governments have been invading and bombing people in other countries, in the not too distant past.
What's Qatar's body count?
Click to expand...

Are you aware that Qatar have been part of military invasions and interventions in Iraq, Libya and Syria?

Also the governments of the UK and the US don't own United.
 
As much as I think Qatar would probably be better for us than JR, I would take him every day over that American lot who owned AC Milan
 
Regulus Arcturus Black said:
such drivel. You’ve just clearly showed your biases based on absolutely nothing.
Click to expand...

A very ironic accusation considering you just denied a pretty universal aim for any private investor. What private businesses don't want to make a profit from owning a club?

Only ones I can think of are owners like Abramovic who buy a club to give them protection through reputation against imprisonment or assassination.
 
A bit of a shit reason, but part of me is worried that if we don't end up with Qatar, they'd simply jet down the m62 and buy the Scouse. We'd then watch them, City and Newcastle battle it out for the league most seasons. Meanwhile we comfort ourselves with Brexit Jimbo winning the moral cup every year, as we slug it out with the likes of Spurs and Brighton, but hey we're not an oil club at least. And Manchester will fully be back in United considering we'd lose our global fanbase :lol:

Obviously this was mostly tongue in cheek, but the concern sticks.
 
Really amazing how 6 months ago debt was so bad, now 10 times our current debt is spun away as acceptable and great
 
Prodigal7 said:
They are still commitments to spend money on those areas, which is more than SJR has committed to.
Click to expand...

Commitment is a strong word. They are politicking. None of the bidders are duty bound to live up to these statements. It is a charm offensive to win over fan support. I'm surprised more are not suspicious of Qatar's statement after their broken promises with the World Cup.
 
Dr. Dwayne said:
Commitment is a strong word. They are politicking. None of the bidders are duty bound to live up to these statements. It is a charm offensive to win over fan support. I'm surprised more are not suspicious of Qatar's statement after their broken promises with the World Cup.
Click to expand...
The initial point was it is easier for Ratcliffe to go back on something which he didn't officially say though obviously. That is true. If you're being cynical it's possible he did that on purpose and I can believe that.
 
Giggsyking said:
Point me in the direction of any successful European team with American owners who is not suffering now or not suffered in the past?
Click to expand...

It would have nothing to do with the nationality, just as Arab owners being successful or not, has nothing to do with their nationality or ethnic background. Its about the specific individuals involved and their respective approaches and strategies that matters.
 
Dr. Dwayne said:
Commitment is a strong word. They are politicking. None of the bidders are duty bound to live up to these statements. It is a charm offensive to win over fan support. I'm surprised more are not suspicious of Qatar's statement after their broken promises with the World Cup.
Click to expand...
Atleast they put it in the statement. Thats the least expectation at the moment.
 
Dr. Dwayne said:
Commitment is a strong word. They are politicking. None of the bidders are duty bound to live up to these statements. It is a charm offensive to win over fan support. I'm surprised more are not suspicious of Qatar's statement after their broken promises with the World Cup.
Click to expand...

Just logically it would be strange for them to make those promises and then go against them though, simply because their aim is based around PR and improving the reputation of Qatar, which reneging on these promises would actually be counter to.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.