So I just looked up this Al Thani fellers Wikipedia and it says he has 8 children. 3 Sons and 5 daughters.
Quite the feat in this day and age.
Quite the feat in this day and age.
Club Sale | It’s done!
- Thread starter JB08
- Start date
- Status
Probably done it for the child benefit and universal credit.
I'm an expert on corporate deals. Well, I'm watching the second season of Succession which is pretty much the same thing. Surely on the balance sheets we would just be seen as another part of INEOS? When big companies buy smaller companies it doesn't seem like the small one ends up paying back what it owes the big one because they're now part of the same conglomerate. Debts are centralised, surely?
According to many people in this thread INEOS has just three shareholders and Sir Jim is the majority shareholder.
But Elliot aren't even bidding are they? I don't really understand what it is they are doing.
Let's not kid ourselves that Ratcliffe is in in for the love of the club. He tried to buy Chelsea and was a season ticket holder there for years. This is business for him.
At this point it's pretty unlikely that anyone but Qatar are buying the club unless the Saudis suddenly pile in. I'm not going to stop supporting so might as well get it over with and accept there's nothing to be done.
At this point it's pretty unlikely that anyone but Qatar are buying the club unless the Saudis suddenly pile in. I'm not going to stop supporting so might as well get it over with and accept there's nothing to be done.
I'm not an accountant but I believe that's correct and better explained than my attempt. The debt part of the SJR bid is not significant enough compared to Ineos' revenue to warrant any concern about the financials.
This is obviously separate from the argument that Qatar as a state are much wealthier than even Sir Jim.
Did it tell you how many wives he's got?
Stop talking out of your arse.
I think people assume any debt would be glazer style junk debt. But part of ineos capital structure it wouldn't be like that.
That’s where I’m at and to be honest if you take both statements at face value the Qataris have me sold. The Ineos statement doesn’t really tell me too much.
Yeah, I think everyone is looking at how the Glazers bought us and treating it like the norm. Hopefully a financial expert can explain it better @esmufc07
They also have 60B operating expenses, I believe their profits were around 700m last year. So the money to buy the club, stadium, clear the debt, invest in infrastructure is essentially their profits for the next 10 years. With 5% interest rates going right now, it is more like their profits for the next 20 years.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.
Forgive me for finding the completely debt free Qatari offer more appealing. I mean it isn’t rocket science, is it. One offer is people who have the money to buy the club, the other is people who are borrowing money to buy the club.
Oh, we also have an example on how Qatari lead a club to glory (PSG), and how Ineos does feck all (Nice). With both clubs being in the same farming league.
You don't get why gay fans would like to see a football club owned by a regime that treats gay people so badly do poorly? Really?!
Yup. It’s a nonsense that United would pay a debt in INEOSs name. The way the Glazers have profited on the club seems to have mentally scarred everybody and one or two have popped a fuse cos of the words debt and majority.
It's a private company.
They've invested in a lot sport ventures, some of it can be small but steady returns similar to real estate, gathering up growing assets, one can only earn so much and needs to be put elsewhere. Another angle is in just rich people having a growing asset and leisure interest for their own lives and marketing which can be hard to quantify and very valuable for a dodgy state or companies or people. Taking on United isn't that big of a deal for Ineos as a broad asset.
Some of the posters in here have made me remember why I was just a lurker on this site for so many years 
That's FFP, which was replaced last summer by UEFA's new Financial Sustainability Regulations (FSR). Spending on infrastructure was exempt from the 'break-even' calculations under FFP, but this is no longer the case under the new regs:
Spurs funded that stadium themselves though. They'll be making payments on that for years to come.
If a new owner builds and funds a new stadium for United then that's really no different to financially doping.
INEOS do not have ‘shareholders’. They are a Ltd company, not a PLC.
If you once supported the club, if the values it upholds are no longer aligned with yours, a clean separation is always better for your own sake. The team doing badly and the negative impact it would have on the fanbase is never something I'd wish for. I'd just put it behind me, I don't see what wishing it to do badly would accomplish for myself
And they're about to be taken over and have all their debt cleared.
Where do we complain?
Ah OK. Even still though, they aren't so rich, either Jim or the other two shareholders that they'd be OK spending 6bn or so on a football asset that has likely reached peak value, without expecting some kind of return. I mean even with nice, no one expects they can compete with psg, but he could have made the advantage of turning them into a CL side, but they seem to have made no strides towards that have they?
Have there been any decent articles comparing the bids and bidders? I don't really know anything about either except that one's Qatari and one is British.
What exactly has Qatari ownership achieved in football that is impressive in comparison?
Does not matter anyhow. In the end, it only depends who owns how much of a company.
I guess that's easy for someone like you to say.
Would you have no opinion of a club owned by people who imprisoned and killed people based upon the darkness of their skin? You wouldn't want the project to fail?
Clubs have three years to adapt.
It does t really make a difference since the permitted losses have been doubled.
Forget the morality aspect for a second if you can.
Ratcliff has to borrow to just buy the rights for the club. Clearly, he would need to borrow more for investment into the clubs stadium, facilities and players. Even if he borrowed, the investment would be much less than the Qatari bid.
Ratcliff has to borrow to just buy the rights for the club. Clearly, he would need to borrow more for investment into the clubs stadium, facilities and players. Even if he borrowed, the investment would be much less than the Qatari bid.
They took a psg side that hadn't sniffed a league title in a two decades to the dominant side in their country, and they've reached the semi finals and final of the CL within the last three years. Ratcliffe took a team that had finished in the CL spots and 4th place to lower positions
Ratcliffe wants a legacy. Putting Utd back at the top of world football and winning the CL is the target, which sounds good to me. The progress at Nice has been hindered by losing managers to bigger clubs like Favre to Dortmund, Viera to Palace and most recently Galtier to PSG. They haven’t been perfect owners but I’m not sure that exists really.
Indeed
I would have an opinion but quickly move on to something else because I'd realize wishing it to fail would bring no happiness to me, more like frustration and continued anger. I prefer to focus on things that I can impact
Ineos 2010 was created to replace Ineos founded in 1998. It has a correspondence address in Hampshire, 2 Directors and 1 secretary, none of which are Radcliife. However there is only 1 'Person with Significant Control', Racliffe with between 50-75% of shares. I would guess its more than 66% to ensure only he can pass any type of motion within the company. It is for all intents and purposes his vehicle to do what he wants with.
Looking at past loans/investments around the world by Ineos, its clear that clearing United's current loan and investing in a new stadium is not going to difficult for Racliffe. Ineos being a £60bn turnover company and probably right now swimming in cash given price movements in the energy field.
Yeah but you would think with his financial strength and thr comparative weakness of the French league that making them the 2nd team in France along with the consistent CL revenues should be a no brainer really
Well technically there are two minority shareholders, and Sir Jim needs a supermajority to make any decisions.
As i said though, even as majority shareholder, he still has a fiduciary duty to the rest of the shareholders, now if they're both on board, fair enough, but if they aren't they could probably sue him
- Status