Club Sale | It’s done!

[Crackers]

Are we still going over which countries have horrible history of abuse/violations/colonization/mass murders/slave trade/starting wars/etc etc. And do you think the entire world other than ME/Qatar is pro- LGBT?

All I'm saying is people have a right to have some concerns/objections over supporting a team (or being unhappy with the ownership). There's no need to deride other posters for it.
And no, there's plenty of places that aren't pro-lgbt, but they're not planning to buy United. But that's not the point. Naturally a lot of people will have reservations about an oil state buying a club for a PR exercise, which many feel is the reason here. Myself included.
Just be kind and considerate of other people's perspectives, it's not an easy time and we're all United fans.

 

[GaryLifo]

Please no yank hedge funds. Better off with the Glazers... ffs

 

[Rado_N]

Calm down

 

[Regulus Arcturus Black]

The massive initial outlay and the fact that tv rights are surely near their peak short of a super league.

That’s just pure speculation.

 

[mu4c_20le]

Ratcliffe’s business plan doesn’t look good.

That’s the brutal reality and no further explanations can change the facts that’s in his bid. He needs economical backing from from JP Morgan and Goldman Sachs. That’s a huge red flag no matter how people try to downplay the significance of such cooperation. Someone has to pay the interest and if MU become a part of his imperium we’re also part of his liabilities.

Funny he didn't need them for the Chelsea bid.

Maybe, just maybe, he's rich enough to afford it on its own, but there are other... interests in getting them involved.

 

[owlo]

Great stuff, but I want to make one distinction that is very important to keep in mind — to understand the current events and analyze them properly.

Even when discussing long-term investments, a reference is often made to a 5 to 10 year horizon at the most. But when it comes to real long term investments — there is an idea that it is best to invest in strong sustainable brands that doesn’t have a shelf life.

Champagne is often used as an example. It’s not available to invest in, but many say that if they could invest in one thing long term, it would be champagne. There is a cap on how much that can be produced, and people will want to buy it in 350 years. Rolex. Infrastructure, air ports. Air lines. Power grids.

Another way to look at it is to look at what you as a ‘real’ long term investor is afraid of, and Nokia and Ericsson are good examples of that. The cell phone market is huuuge and growing, you have a clear 1 and 2, that seems to be hard to catch up. And then boom, over a 3-5 year period both those producers are more or less out of the market. The IBM stock has like been flat for 20 years.

Iconic brands that are immune to technical development are hard to find. MUFC is one of them. If someone sell MUFC in 50-100 years, I think that it’s a really good chance that the value of the club will have kept up with the economy as a whole. Can you say that for sure about Facebook, Google, GM or whatever? Maybe, maybe not.

But for an investor looking to spread the bets — it does make sense.

Consequently, the argument that ‘the only reason to invest in MUFC is sportswashing’ doesn’t hold water, for example.

In functional hedging terms, I can't really agree with your reasoning. I think that after the usual run of 'normal' AI (property, gold, whisky, horses, art, coins etc) they look for something else to do with their money which gives 'meaning to the world'. Bear in mind, 60% of their wealth or something is in AI, but sports make up a super tiny fraction of that, and almost always for personal sporting interest and not investment. Unless we're talking Bill Gates, Warren Buffet or Carlos Slim you're running out of theoretical runway. If I had that much money to hedge I'd run my own LP.

Of course we could extend the argument to cash rich companies like Apple, which I don't know a lot about. Perhaps it'd make sense for them.

 

[jm99]

Is there? I mean, from my perspective and yours, absolutely, but we have little to no concept of what 6b is. Someone whose net worth is double that and who owns a company worth 10 times that may not share our interpretation of opportunity cost. Maybe they view not acquiring United as the larger opportunity cost.

It's a much larger opportunity cost because of the quality capitalism works, the returns you can get on 6bn is enormous if put in safe, steady investments. Like I said this is a guy who was a brexiteer, he promoted a policy that's fecked the country but might help the super rich make a bit more. When you reach that level of money you're greedy, because anyone normal would retire with a couple hundred million to their own private island. They wouldn't use their wealth to push for policies that make every one else poorer while making themselves richer.

So no, the opportunity cost on 6bn is fecking massive, and it means he expects to profit from united

 

[LawCharltonBest]

There's a thread with only updates here.

Well yeah but you can’t get a feel for who’s favourite or what people are making of it.

 

[Tom Van Persie]

Qatar, which hosted the World Cup last year, has faced widespread criticism over human rights, including its treatment of migrant workers and of LGBTQ+ rights. During preparations for the World Cup, reports of worker abuse were widespread. Homosexuality in Qatar is illegal.

Cass Hyde of the Rainbow Devils said it wished to remain “diplomatic” in order to have a relationship with the owners, whoever they were. But she said there was no denying that Qatar’s record on LGBTQ+ rights was “genuinely dreadful”, which she said was of “massive concern”.

The group is planning a survey of its members in the coming days and has not ruled out protests or other action if it considers it necessary. “Whoever the club’s new owners are must commit to making football a sport for everyone, including LGBTQ+ supporters, players and staff,” she said.

Amnesty International’s Manchester offshoot said it had been contacted by several United supporters, who were “very worried and want to be involved in trying to make our voice heard”.

“The majority of United fans will probably be happy. Football is a joy for them; it’s not a priority to think about human rights in a faraway country,” said Kathryn Fletcher of the group. “But at what price are we prepared to have success at the club? We’re not asking people not to support the team, but to think about the implications of being involved with a country that’s got poor human rights.”

 

[Dan_F]

Ratcliffe’s business plan doesn’t look good.

That’s the brutal reality and no further explanations can change the facts that’s in his bid. He needs economical backing from from JP Morgan and Goldman Sachs. That’s a huge red flag no matter how people try to downplay the significance of such cooperation. Someone has to pay the interest and if MU become a part of his imperium we’re also part of his liabilities.

The second red flag is his wording of “majority owner”. A split ownership is always a split ownership and with financial partners like GP Morgan and Goldman Sachs is Ratcliffe’s maneuver space one way or another always restricted.

The third red flag is how unspecific he’s in his business plan. Listen to Warren Buffett and Charlie Munger and they will tell you that they hate vague and unsure promises and immediately turn down such business plans. Over 150 successful years of experience valuing business plans is good enough for me to trust their advices.

Jim Ratcliffe’s bid isn’t good and trustworthy enough compared to the bid from Qatar, not even close.

I perfectly understand that the HBQTI community is worried and probably rightly so regarding some aspects but if we just compare apples to apples and oranges to oranges it’s like chose between a brand new luxury Mercedes Maybach and a used old Opel Record.

Business plan? They’ve released a 3 paragraph statement and you’re complaining about its vagueness. That’s because it’s not a fecking business plan

 

[Regulus Arcturus Black]

Ratcliffe’s business plan doesn’t look good.

That’s the brutal reality and no further explanations can change the facts that’s in his bid. He needs economical backing from from JP Morgan and Goldman Sachs. That’s a huge red flag no matter how people try to downplay the significance of such cooperation. Someone has to pay the interest and if MU become a part of his imperium we’re also part of his liabilities.

The second red flag is his wording of “majority owner”. A split ownership is always a split ownership and with financial partners like GP Morgan and Goldman Sachs is Ratcliffe’s maneuver space one way or another always restricted.

The third red flag is how unspecific he’s in his business plan. Listen to Warren Buffett and Charlie Munger and they will tell you that they hate vague and unsure promises and immediately turn down such business plans. Over 150 successful years of experience valuing business plans is good enough for me to trust their advices.

Jim Ratcliffe’s bid isn’t good and trustworthy enough compared to the bid from Qatar, not even close.

I perfectly understand that the HBQTI community is worried and probably rightly so regarding some aspects but if we just compare apples to apples and oranges to oranges it’s like chose between a brand new luxury Mercedes Maybach and a used old Opel Record.

Every bid is bidding to be the majority owner, to buy only the Glazers shares. That’s what this process is about, not about buying 100% of the club.
The Raine Group is handling only the sale of the majority shares, the Glazer shares.

 

[Regulus Arcturus Black]

.

So no, the opportunity cost on 6bn is fecking massive, and it means he expects to profit from united

Pure speculation.

At 70 years old I think he’s likely more Jack Walker or Steve Ballmer than a guy looking for profit in sports. He just wants to have fun with his money.
Which of course, is also simply speculation.

 

[pacifictheme]

The United sub reddits are an absolute shambles at the moment, moreso than usual.

 

[jm99]

That’s just pure speculation.

No it isn't, there's only so high sky can bid for the rights before pushing it up to unaffordable levels for the general population. Piracy is getting easier, younger generations are more technologically adept and if they try and push a monthly fee to £200 to support even bigger TV rights deals, they'll lose more in subscribers leaving than they will gain on the extra money from people staying

 

[Greck]

People are wild if they think a bank is giving anyone that much money with no expectation of returns. In fact the involvement of a financial institution is the dead giveaway. Unless you're borrowing from some loan shark you have to at least show credible means for returns or plan for repayment, for them to even begin to consider parting ways with their money. Any hedgefund or bank funding is almost always a guaranteed call for returns on investment. Another thing is subsequently putting the debt in INEOS's name doesn't necessarily protect us if the loan is made with the holding company. The banks can still cripple the entire corporate structure. There are big questions being glossed over. Too much faith and not enough answers.

 

[Tom Van Persie]

Well yeah but you can’t get a feel for who’s favourite or what people are making of it.

Mike Keegan (Qatar mouthpiece) says Qatar are confident. It's hard to tell who is favourite at this point. Long way to go.

 

[Regulus Arcturus Black]

No it isn't, there's only so high sky can bid for the rights before pushing it up to unaffordable levels for the general population. Piracy is getting easier, younger generations are more technologically adept and if they try and push a monthly fee to £200 to support even bigger TV rights deals, they'll lose more in subscribers leaving than they will gain on the extra money from people staying

Again, speculation.

Personally think they are getting better at stopping illegal streaming for what it’s worth, well at least that’s what my friends tell me. TV rights in England are also only one part of it.

 

[Raoul]

The United sub reddits are an absolute shambles at the moment, moreso than usual.

How so ?

 

[Regulus Arcturus Black]

People are wild if they think a bank is giving anyone that much money with no expectation of returns.

eh? Of course the bank will fully expect the loans to be repaid with interest by INEOS, but as they make around 2bn a year, it’s not an issue worth discussing.

 

[jm99]

pure speculation.

No it's pretty basic economics, the opportunity cost on having 6bn liquid from banks to spend, is huge you could buy shitloads of property, particularly in the housing market where regular people are struggling to get mortgages and get an annual 5% return renting them out, plus the appreciation in value of your asset. You could invest it with any kind of investment fund, or start your own which tend to get 8-10% amnual returns. Almost anything is a better use of 6bn than buying us, upgrading the facilities and the stadium, plus the investment in the first team.

Unless you're planning to do as the Glazers did but on a bigger scale.

Newcastle wax a good investment, 300m cost, 1bn in investment on field and youve got a title challenging club that's worth 2-3bn. Buying a club at 4.5bn, that requires pretty substantial on team investment, investment in the infrastructure is not

 

[cyberman]

.

No it isn't, there's only so high sky can bid for the rights before pushing it up to unaffordable levels for the general population. Piracy is getting easier, younger generations are more technologically adept and if they try and push a monthly fee to £200 to support even bigger TV rights deals, they'll lose more in subscribers leaving than they will gain on the extra money from people staying

Sky doesn’t bid for rights at higher prices anymore, if I remember they have a deal with BT in place not to do so.

 

[jm99]

Again, speculation.

Personally think they are getting better at stopping illegal streaming for what it’s worth, well at least that’s what my friends tell me. TV rights in England are also only one part of it.

How the feck is it speculation? People's finances are being squeezed and no one will be able to afford subscriptions to sky if tv rights deals were to keep increasing at anything like the same rate

 

[jm99]

.
Sky doesn’t bid for rights at higher prices anymore, if I remember they have a deal with BT in place not to do so.

Well then, that backs up my point that the TV rights deals, short of a super league have peaked

 

[Rado_N]

Every bid is bidding to be the majority owner, to buy only the Glazers shares. That’s what this process is about, not about buying 100% of the club.
The Raine Group is handling only the sale of the majority shares, the Glazer shares.

The Qatar statement specifically stated 100% ownership.

If the public traded shares weren’t a part of the equation the stock price wouldn’t have rocketed.

 

[Regulus Arcturus Black]

No it's pretty basic economics

No, it’s speculation.

He’s 70 years old, cares about a legacy and loves being involved in sports.

It’s pure speculation to claim he is only going in for profit, you have zero idea. He might be going in for a fun way to spend his considerable wealth before he dies.

 

[cyberman]

Well then, that backs up my point that the TV rights deals, short of a super league have peaked

Foreign rights will overtake domestic rights for the first time next year when the deals up.
There’s still a lot of room for growth imo

 

[Plant0x84]

It, at least had some ideas of what the Qataris would do. Ineos' statement was xenphobic nonsense, what does "put Manchester back into Manchester United" mean? Do they not realise there are millions of non British supporters?

Xenophobic
I swear some of you have lost it. Do you think the lads protesting the Glazers and shutting down the Liverpool game are international fans flying in just for a ding dong or local lads who go to most of the games?
Yes we have a global following but the most important fans will always be the ones in Britain and more specifically Manchester because shock horror we are a British team based in Manchester.

 

[jm99]

Foreign rights will overtake domestic rights for the first time next year when the deals up.
There’s still a lot of room for growth imo

There's a but of room for growth, there's not enough to make 4.5bn plus a stadium plus infrastructure even close to being profitable

 

[Regulus Arcturus Black]

Xenophobic
I swear some of you have lost it. Do you think the lads protesting the Glazers and shutting down the Liverpool game are international fans flying in just for a ding dong or local lads who go to most of the games?
Yes we have a global following but the most important fans will always be the ones in Britain and more specifically Manchester because shock horror we are a British team based in Manchester.

They talk about a fan centered approach to ownership too so clearly the idea was to bring back traditional Manchester values and include the fans and local community more in decisions for the future of the club.

Was a bit of a shit soundbite though, but the reaction here

 

[jm99]

No, it’s speculation.

He’s 70 years old, cares about a legacy and loves being involved in sports.

It’s pure speculation to claim he is only going in for profit, you have zero idea. He might be going in for a fun way to spend his considerable wealth before he dies.

Pure speculation.

If he cares about legacy more than money, why did he help push for brexit, which will fcuk over a lot of people in this country but make people like him a bit more money?

If he cares about sports so much why has he barely invested in nice they've had a net spend of what £50m in 4 years?

Its really hypocritical to accuse anyone who disagrees with you of speculation, all the while you're claiming to be a mind reader who knows exactly what he's thinking

 

[Greck]

eh? Of course the bank will fully expect the loans to be repaid with interest by INEOS, but as they make around 2bn a year, it’s not an issue worth discussing.

Wait. Sorry. You think they are just going to flush their annual profit into paying the debt? Because 2-4 billion is chicken change to wipe out? They would wipe out their own debt if it was that easy to generate liquidity.

 

[Regulus Arcturus Black]

There's a but of room for growth, there's not enough to make 4.5bn plus a stadium plus infrastructure even close to being profitable

Actually, aren’t Spurs making an absolute feck tonne from their new stadium?

 

[Rado_N]

Regulus has to work at INEOS or something. It’s the only explanation.

 

[cyberman]

Regulus has to work at INEOS or something. It’s the only explanation.

That’s purely speculation

 

[kouroux]

When do we expect an announcement ? April, May ?

 

[Regulus Arcturus Black]

Wait. Sorry. You think they are just going to flush their annual profit into paying the debt?

no.

But with their profits, the debt is nothing to be even slightly concerned about.

 

[jm99]

Actually, aren’t Spurs making an absolute feck tonne from their new stadium?

I thought they had an enormous amount of debt from their new stadium and it cost a billion to build and took 3-4 years. They're also in London which is a lot more desirable for events to take place that aren't football than Manchester (nfl games and the like)

 

[jm99]

That’s purely speculation

 

[Regulus Arcturus Black]

Its really hypocritical to accuse anyone who disagrees with you of speculation, all the while you're claiming to be a mind reader who knows exactly what he's thinking

Nar, you’re making a statement of fact.
I’m clearly saying “he might”, and even posted that it was also pure speculation…..

Do follow along.

Pure speculation.

At 70 years old I think he’s likely more Jack Walker or Steve Ballmer than a guy looking for profit in sports. He just wants to have fun with his money.
Which of course, is also simply speculation.

It’s ok to say you don’t know, I don’t.

 

[JPRouve]

no.

But with their profits, the debt is nothing to be even slightly concerned about.

With their profits the debt is pretty big unless they have no intention to invest in the businesses that actually make them money and want to keep some reserves around.