Club Sale | It’s done!
- Thread starter JB08
- Start date
- Status
More divided than owners who also control PSG? Or are we back to pretending this isn’t state backed?
I think there was a scandal some years ago which resulted in a regulatory (government forced maybe?) restriction that fans must own 50+1% of all the clubs. So they have far less scope for debt and stuff. Bayerns debt is just transfer/infrastructure debt and stuff. It's quite impressive but its also quite limiting. Does it make football there more pure? I'm not sure.
In Oct 2022: Added club president Herbert Heiner: "FC Bayern is completely debt-free, and what's more: we own 100% of the Allianz Arena and the FC Bayern Campus; everything is paid off." https://www.forbes.com/sites/manuel...nces-profit-for-third-pandemic-year-in-a-row/
It’s not as simple as pumping in cash hand over fist. City proved that before they got the boardroom/back room set up right, and PSG still can’t buy the CL despite all the money they spend. They’ve even failed to win the French title in the last few seasons.
Exactly. Thanks for posting.
Article 89.01 and 89.02 are very clear and Swiss Ramble is wrong.
The more I think about it the less I want Ratcliffe anywhere near the club.
He will make the debt the Glazers had look like an overdue water bill.
I don't buy the "but I'm a United fan" act. A wolf in sheeps clothing.
He will make the debt the Glazers had look like an overdue water bill.
I don't buy the "but I'm a United fan" act. A wolf in sheeps clothing.
You don't need to buy it, that's basically why he would be looking to add it to the INEOS investment portfolio. It be an asset that will double or more in the future and won't take 20/30 years to happen.
The investment in the infrastructure will also pay back over time ie more turnover, and will cover itself.
I'm bit baffled why he's getting ridiculed as a buyer like he hasn't a washer, and his money not as good as Qatar money.
He will be playing the long game, he could die tomorrow, same for whoever is buying it, won't affect the club value and operation day to day
Yes they do, which is why the one that’ll be better for the football club would be the favourable outcome. Qatar for me.
Jim Ratcliffe in a nutshell
The parent company makes around 2bn a year. I wouldn’t worry about our finances with either bidder, we’ll be very very rich either way.
They can't even buy the club without corrupt methods
Are people sure this is what they want?
no one's going to claim Ratcliffe would be a perfect owner, but I'll take the lesser of two evils, thank you very much.
Ineos own two and he wants another one.
He's not wrong. It's just his read on it. It's murky and there's no toolkit yet. https://www.uefa.com/returntoplay/n...a-s-new-financial-sustainability-regulations/ is where he's got his information from, specifically: The requirements are strengthened in that a club’s costs of relevant investments (infrastructure, youth development, etc) must now be covered with existing equity or contributions.
89.01 simply defines relevant investments
89.02 seems to say that it can be covered by equity injection. (And frankly speaking, his read on it is the most logical way to translate the words vertabim. "Or equity at the end of reporting period T that has not already been used to cover the acceptable deviation")
Last edited:
To be fair they've had the joy of no competition in the Bundesliga, and managing to steal all their rivals best players for pennies or free transfers.
If the league was more competitive they'd have to spend more.
None of which are a direct competitor to us, like PsG are.
You making different rules for each due to your hatred of Jim & desperation for ME money.
They can't even buy the club without corrupt methods
Are people sure this is what they want?
Considering the shit thrown at INEOS/Jim in here, yes clearly.
They can kindly feck off.
Why is there always extra scrutiny when it comes to Ratcliffe? All we know so far is that the guy from Qatar is a "united fan" and was pictured wearing a top at Old Trafford once.
Sir Jim was actually there in 1999
This Elliot bloke needs to do one.
That's a good take but who is the lesser evil?
Aye, needs to get back on his bike with ET and feck off to the moon.
Elliott has been in contact with Raine, the investment bank that is handling the takeover process, and is available to provide financing.
They have put forward a proposal for possible financing to the Glazer family, in the event that they do not sell the club, and to Raine, for a bidder.
feck that.
but Ratcliffe was a Chelsea ticket holder, and to some, that's apparently as bad as it can get
it's hilarious, really.I’m just against state ownership. I believe it should never have been allowed.
It’s kind of hard to square eco-warrior with wanting us to be bought by a country that’s made it’s money almost entirely out of fossil fuels.
Please let me know when you work out the answer to that. I'm already feeling somewhat sportswashed.
There's no scrutiny about Qatar? Seriously? And hey he spoke about split loyalties not me
to me? The one that isn't state-owned. Like, it's that easy ... how can I support something that I have heavily criticized for over a decade? Just because now it's affecting "my" club? Nah.
Let's be honest here there are much wiser ways to invest £5b than buying a fecking football club. So short term profits wouldn't be the main priority in this endeavour for Ratcliffe/Ineos.
Lets be real. They are both scum. One is just more inhibited by laws and regulations in the evil he can do.
It's more in fear that the Qatari's will buy Liverpool if they don't buy us tbh. I think that's the main issue.but Ratcliffe was a Chelsea ticket holder, and to some, that's apparently as bad as it can get
Ratcliffe is certainly no angel either. He's polluting the planet with plastic galore - if you care about humans you should care about nature too.
Psg are direct competitors (actually they are not yet as they are in the CL) because their owner actually bother investing well in them. You can't blame the Qatari because they put actually back the commitment they took as 'custodians of the club' can't you?
The guy is 70, he’s already done great things in cycling, F1, helped a guy run a marathon under 2 hours.
It’s all about his legacy and spending his silly sums of money on things he enjoys, he can do feck all with it once he’s dead.
That's not why he's a cnutbut Ratcliffe was a Chelsea ticket holder, and to some, that's apparently as bad as it can get
I can’t say anything good about state owning PSG. I couldn’t be more against state ownership in football.
- Status