I'd like to caveat this as saying I think the Qtar bid is the best for the club but people need to understand - SJRs bid won't incur any debt on the club, all the debt would be incurred by Ineos, as far as we know. It shouldn't be a factor against SJRs bid as the debt repayments will be miniscule compared to Ineos' revenue.
Club Sale | It’s done!
- Thread starter JB08
- Start date
- Status
I’m not sure that would be the most appropriate name. It will just add more juice to the anti-Utd song “Oh Manchester is full of sh*t”.
Just as nothing prevents Nine Two Foundation doing exactly the same.
Apart from INEOS has already stated its intention to take the debt from Utd and leave the club debt free.
And the Daily Mirror
Qatar Airways Old Trafford. Everyone would be happy (except that angry person @Regulus Arcturus Black). We get bloody money and get to keep our club British.
Exactly but I answered a post making the point that INEOS wouldn't and that people are ignoring that fact. It's not a fact.
Depends how they treat the club.
Bye now. Hope you don't own any apple products or wear any mass produced clothed. On account of obviously not wanting you to be a massive hypocrite.
A couple of things. The value of the club will go up, presumably, but we are also in a need of a serious investment in the billions even ignoring the initial sale and possible clearance of debt. That value itself will take time - 10-20-30 years. It's not gonna happen tomorrow. Ratcliffe is already 70 years old, how long can he run the day to day operations at INEOS or United? 20-30 years at maximum? And even then, what's the point? It's a bad investment. And then what? We get sold again? I just don't buy this.
Let's just say INEOS books are alright and they do indeed make 2 billion of profit every year. We need around 10 billion as a whole investment (with the initial sale). I'm talking debt, infrastructure development, stadium. INEOS is literally going to pour a large share of its earnings for the next foreseeable future just for United? Look, Sir Jim might be the biggest United fan ever, I don't care, he's still a businessman and that ain't happening. There's also serious doubts to be raised on how he ran Nice. Now I understand the argument "but that doesn't mean he'll run United the same way" and I do agree, but is it a risk we should be willing to take? Scratch that, is it a risk we CAN take? I don't think so.
So i'm guessing thats the biggest difference between the two bids at the moment?
With SJR/INEOS, the debt would be moved to INEOS rather than United, but it'd be upto them how it's serviced, they could still take money from the club if they so wished?
With Qatar, the debt would be gone completely, we'd be absolutely debt free for all intents and purposes
At this point everyone should be happy.
If its Jim and Ineos then great. He will spend money on the team and hopefully any debt he uses to purchase the club will be serviced quickly and via Ineos. He doesn't come with the same moral dilemma as Qatar and is obviously a local lad.
If its Qatar then we get a massive injection of capital into the club and quite possibly rebuild the entire surrounding area including our training ground.
The most important thing is that we're finally getting rid of the glazers after almost 20 years of total mismanagement. That is the key for me.
Hopefully this gets done quickly and within the next month or so.
If its Jim and Ineos then great. He will spend money on the team and hopefully any debt he uses to purchase the club will be serviced quickly and via Ineos. He doesn't come with the same moral dilemma as Qatar and is obviously a local lad.
If its Qatar then we get a massive injection of capital into the club and quite possibly rebuild the entire surrounding area including our training ground.
The most important thing is that we're finally getting rid of the glazers after almost 20 years of total mismanagement. That is the key for me.
Hopefully this gets done quickly and within the next month or so.
You mean in a world of make-believe?
Wow strong opinions in here
If the bidders are Elliot, Ratcliffe/Ineos, and Sheikh al-Thani, I'd predict the Sheikh will win any bidding war. Elliot and Ratcliffe have bottom lines to consider and therefore bidding thresholds they won't be able to cross when push comes to shove. The Sheikh appears to be a fan with very deep pockets, and seems to be the most likely to be able to just outbid the others without worrying too much about financials. If the Glazers just want to extract the most money, I can only see one outcome here.
A quick Google tells he's worth $1, so he'd have to get help with finance to buy United.
We know nothing about the bids or the debt financing, only preliminary bids have been made. The bidders will now have access to the club finances and will decide how they want to pursue.
Pretty certain he would be received very well. Our match going fans at OT are very respectful.
I think INEOS see it as a long-term investment vehicle rather than a piggy bank as then Glazers did. The value of the club will go up if managed correctly and the share price should be increased too. The Glazers were seemingly uninterested in that as it barely budged in the whole time they owned the club but they're going to walk away with billions so that strategy worked for them.
I'm not sure about your 10 billion. City haven't even put 5 billion in since they were bought have they? They started from a lower base. There's still a lot of questions to be answered obviously but I'm hopeful someone other than a Nation state can come up with an acceptable proposal. I'm aware that may be a pipe-dream.
Maybe we should start a GoFundMe for a new stadium and training facilities considering it’ll be unfair for the owners to fund this. Pathetic point really.
Aaaah i get you, hopefully the process won't take too long and we'll know sooner rather than later who the preferred bidder is
I said wilfully ignoring - people are that intoxicated by the thought of Qatari dollars that they are spreading absolute rubbish. Scan back a few pages to see a couple of posters having to be convinced that Ratcliffe wasn’t born in London. It’s ridiculous.
Last edited:
Who gives a feck about what rival fans think. They'll find a way to bitch and moan about us regardless of who owns us.
The Elliot option is unacceptable. They were incredibly skint when they owned Milan. Unrealistic cost cap on wages, etc.
Should we complain that Spurs have a better stadium and training ground than us? how unfair.
What a silly reasoning. Chelsea had a brand new training ground in Cobham built by Abramovich, where were the complaints then?
Technically yes, but INEOS is way bigger than United so taking money from the club to pay of debt would
make zero sense.
Wow strong opinions in here
As soon as I hear hedge fund my asshole sense start tingling
Hedge funds really are one of the most predatory institutions out there.
Where in the INEOS statement does it mention them leaving United debt free?
It's precisely because City have started from a lower base that it doesn't cost much. They can barely fill their ground, what use would a stadium be for them? They needed to invest in their academies and training grounds and players that are basically chump change when it comes to the actual money. As United, even without the initial price, it's still gonna cost a lot to redevelop Old Trafford (whether simple renovation and expansion or building it anew) and the new training grounds. City's purchase costed like 200 million. That isn't even enough to cover 1/3rd of our debt.
By the same logic, Manchester United is debt free. Its parent (Manchester United PLC) is the one who has debt.
All is good guys, no debt in the club, yipes!
People are forgetting we already make tones of money from legitimate sponsors. This without any owner support whatsoever. Qatar or Ineos investment for stadium is not going to make us Mancity lite.
This is correct. INEOS is buying the club with loans taken from Goldman and JPMorgan. Qataris are buying the club with cash and likely clearing the current debt.
Not the statement, the muppetiers tweet about them gaining finance from GS and JPM.
If twitter had only cost 6bn Musk could have financed it through selling his tesla shares.
But far more problematic is that musk has realised hes oveaid vastly and has started a shitload of cost cutting. 4bn plus another 2 bn for stadium, faiclities, youth acacemy and first team additions, is hugely overpaying, do we want a twitter situation where we find ourselves needing to cut costs massively in order to make this profitable for INEOS
The key difference being that Ineos' revenue is circa USD61bn and it isn't a holding company
They probably already have over 10 billion in debt, like any other company of that size. a couple of billion debt for them is a drop in the ocean and not a significant financial consideration at all. It will make no material difference to their spending power.
INEOS statement for Chelsea was far better then the one for Manchester United. It had more details and quite frankly it was more generous that the one thrown at us. Which makes you really wonder. Is Sir Jimmy the Chelsea ticket owner truly a Manchester United supporter or is it the case that his split allegiance is more towards the blue then the red?
https://www.ineos.com/news/ineos-group/statement-from-ineos-on-the-acquisition-of-chelsea-fc/
https://www.ineos.com/news/ineos-group/statement-from-ineos-on-the-acquisition-of-chelsea-fc/
Elliot can feck right off. Not worth consideration at all.
Highest bid will win (taking into account any interest that Glazers can retain)
What are the chances that we can get a company to just buy us a new stadium? Their name can be plastered over it in perpetuity.
Bumface Industries @ Old Trafford. Stretford End gets renamed the Rear End. South Stand becomes the Bum Stand. Every seat is shaped like a bum.
I'm 35.
Except why would INEOS shareholders be OK with being on the hook for 4bn loans plus another 2bn in badly needed infrastructure and players? And being responsible for paying interest payments on these loans from their own revenue. He has a duty to shareholders which involves proving that United is worth 6bn, ie can be sold for more in future, or that they can make enough in dividends to make it worthwhile. I don't believe the first one, and fear the second
- Status