Spoony
The People's President
Nick Harris is using the same tone “ foreign fans are not real”.
It's the Mail. So...
Nick Harris is using the same tone “ foreign fans are not real”.
No surprise that the media are going all brexity on an “English bid” or however it was phrasedNick Harris is using the same tone “ foreign fans are not real”.
It also shows we will have a genuine fan on the board, somebody that thinks with his heart and not just financially.It seems to me he’s been handpicked by Qatar to front this bid. There must be lots of rich Qatari United fans - so I’d be pretty shocked if he wasn’t a fan. I think it’s likely the 1992 thing is creative license but I’d be amazed if he wasn’t actually a supporter.
If the glazers stick to wanting a higher price, I can only see 1 raising their bid and it won’t be JRApparently the ratcliffe bid is £1billion less than the Qatar bid.
Apparently the ratcliffe bid is £1billion less than the Qatar bid.
Sir Jim isn't exactly a regular there either.Again, not that it matters but if this guy is claiming to have been United fan since 92 and has been to OT, he must surely have some pictures or videos at OT or in a United shirt (before this season). Maybe we will see another picture leaked but if he's making it all up, just seems a bit weird to be honest.
Yep. First English team in Euro final after the Heysel ban.1991 we beat Barcelona in the European cup winners cup final. It was an exciting time. I don’t see why people are getting their knickers in a twist
You would think the Qatari bid will just keep increasing if that's what it takes to win, it will most likely come down to who the Glazers want to sell to and for what reason if it's ultimately not about the final sale price. Like do they want to still be involved in some capacity or do they want to sell to Americans etc.If the glazers stick to wanting a higher price, I can only see 1 raising their bid and it won’t be JR
You were not born in 68, but you do know about our European Cup winning team don’t you?I wasn’t born then. How would I know?
But certainly not how it was perceived in MEYou were not born in 68, but you do know about our European Cup winning team don’t you?
Calm down mate. The way you are getting hyper about it, you'll get an aneurysm.What the PR spin and the 92 thing shows is that they are—to some extent—anxious to bring fans aboard. Sportswash demands good PR, not protests. This is an opportunity—one and maybe only—to say no to this. You can imagine the brainstorming. Can we take the most loved aspect, glory days, and tap into that? It says here in Google ‘Class of 92’. Okay let’s get 92 in the name. Now let’s get a story to go with the bye line. From the corner of the room, the new guy says nervously ‘I have an idea’. Right; we need to tie Sheikh Jassim Bin Hamad Al Thani to the club, and make him sound less like a lawyer and entitled son, and more like a down-to-earth, bona fide football supporter. There’s a pic here of him in the shirt….
Bit of a difference between knowing about a European Cup victory in 1968 and knowing how many middle eastern fans we had in 1992.You were not born in 68, but you do know about our European Cup winning team don’t you?
Yet many on here are confident that Jassim was definitely not a United fan and all of this is a lie, based on what then?But certainly not how it was perceived in ME
Quatar are a complete no-no. Nation state sports wash get fecked. This is the club of the Busby Babes. Of Newton Heath. Of Charlton, Law and Best. A club with soul. Ratcliffe sounds not great. Brexiteer, fracking, finger in many pies, Nice, etc. But the bubble will burst. No one knows how long before oil money, sportswash crashes into the law of diminishing returns. Better stay outside the plastic world. Better keep SOME vestige of dignity, while doing our best on the field and in the stands. The PR of both parties, mostly can be taken with a pinch of salt. Therefore I give a reluctant, uncertain, qualified yes to Ineos and Ratcliffe.
Apparently the ratcliffe bid is £1billion less than the Qatar bid.
I started following United because of hype around Beckham in 2002 world cup. That was the first year i actually watched football and got to know post world cup that there is some english league where he plays. Next few years, Chelsea blew everyone apart in transfer window and results and Beckham left the following year. But it didnt change the club i had decided to follow.I mean as a 10 year old from a different country, it's not that far fetched, is it? How many 10 year old English folks do you know who support Gladbach or Valencia?
If that’s true then we have nothing to worry about. The Glazers will sell to the highest bidder no matter what.
Agree with all of it. The bids will change after seeing the books. This was just throwing in their hats so that they make the initial cut. We'll see how this unfolds.These aren't real bids anyway. They could also be factoring in 100% of the shares which aren't actually up for sale right now as the Glazers only own around 67%.
After the first round they will get a look at the books and things will change. I don't think there's a chance the Glazers are getting the 6 Billion figure they've been bandying about.
In 1992, Man United were relatively unheard of with no real history to speak of so it’s impressive that anyone outside of Greater Manchester had even heard of them let alone supported them.
Is there any further context in the Athletic piece about Ratcliffe's bid not stating they'll clear the Glazer debt?
Both bids are for Glazer share only. For other A class share, they dont need to bid to Glazers.These aren't real bids anyway. They could also be factoring in 100% of the shares which aren't actually up for sale right now as the Glazers only own around 67%.
After the first round they will get a look at the books and things will change. I don't think there's a chance the Glazers are getting the 6 Billion figure they've been bandying about.
Is there any further context in the Athletic piece about Ratcliffe's bid not stating they'll clear the Glazer debt?
People said this stuff 30 years ago when Sky got involved, just because you can't see where football is going doesn't mean others can't. In 10 years time most teams in the top 6 will be owned by states or billionaires, there may even be some sort of super league by then that replaces the Champions League with a bigger prize pot. A lot of the talk on here reminds me of what my grandad used to say when the TV money came into football, and yet here we are...Quatar are a complete no-no. Nation state sports wash get fecked. This is the club of the Busby Babes. Of Newton Heath. Of Charlton, Law and Best. A club with soul. Ratcliffe sounds not great. Brexiteer, fracking, finger in many pies, Nice, etc. But the bubble will burst. No one knows how long before oil money, sportswash crashes into the law of diminishing returns. Better stay outside the plastic world. Better keep SOME vestige of dignity, while doing our best on the field and in the stands. The PR of both parties, mostly can be taken with a pinch of salt. Therefore I give a reluctant, uncertain, qualified yes to Ineos and Ratcliffe.
Thanks! So it seems that the "fresh debt" line came from Ineos. Could just be a miscommunication but they'll need to clear that one up as that should be the minimum bar for any bid to clear.As a result of the Glazers’ leveraged buyout in 2005, as well as credit facilities, the net debt of Manchester United sits at £656million. This would need to be wiped to make the club debt-free, although the club also owes more than £200m in transfer fees.
The Qatari bid on Friday night spelt out an intent to rid the club of debt. They said: “The bid will be completely debt free via Sheikh Jassim’s Nine Two Foundation.”
The Ratcliffe bid made no formal statement about debt but, behind the scenes, it has provided assurances that no “fresh debt” (ie, any money borrowed to acquire United) will be landed onto the club’s balance sheet and will instead be borne by INEOS.
However, the Ratcliffe bid has not said it will wipe existing debt from United, which is, from a communications perspective, tricky to overcome. Debt has been regarded as a dirty word at Old Trafford due to the years of vast repayments that have leaked out of the club to serve the interests of the owners.
The Ratcliffe bid was also unable to clarify whether any interest owed on borrowings to acquire the club would be burdened upon United, although it would be highly unusual for another company to shell out on INEOS’ behalf.
The flipside to this is that it is unusual (to put it mildly) for a multi-billion dollar acquisition to happen without some debt involved. Even Elon Musk, for example, borrowed money to acquire Twitter last year, and in the football world, it is unusual, outside the world of sovereign funds or Russian oligarchs, for deals to not have any financing by debt. Ratcliffe is keen to state that the debt will be his, rather than the club’s.
The Ratcliffe bid insists he does not want to take money out of Manchester United and says he is seeking to achieve a personal ambition of controlling his boyhood team.
I know United were popular. I just don’t know how I’m supposed to know they were popular in the ME before 92, when we hadn’t been successful for a long time.I literally know feckall about the ME culture back then.
We should be worried about City's spending should they win the case and go on a spending spree in retaliation. They will dominate for decades and other clubs will actively seek investment to compete. I'd rather be ready for that scenario before it happens in all honesty than be scrambling after the fact.So, as an aside, has anyone considered that City's defence against FFP charges, could end up being a campaign to free up Qatari spending, should their bid be successful?
That could be hilarious.
Surely that will be cleared up in the next round of bidding as they know not clearing existing debt is a deal breaker for most United fans. Ratcliffe's face was on the banner made by the 1958 fan group back in August, he's been paying attention to Glazer out protests so he knows what United fans want. They got it right with the line about making fans the centre of his proposed ownership. He needs to clear up the debt situation next.Thanks! So it seems that the "fresh debt" line came from Ineos. Could just be a miscommunication but they'll need to clear that one up as that should be the minimum bar for any bid to clear.
They've probably specified that in their bid but not released it in the PR. It will get out at some point though, surely someone from the press is going to ask them to clarify.Surely that will be cleared up in the next round of bidding as they know not clearing existing debt is a deal breaker for most United fans. Ratcliffe's face was on the banner made by the 1958 fan group back in August, he's been paying attention to Glazer out protests so he knows what United fans want. They got it right with the line about making fans the centre of his proposed ownership. He needs to clear up the debt situation next.
Both bids are for Glazer share only. For other A class share, they dont need to bid to Glazers.
Think the confusion came from the wording of statement. Qatar may have plans for 100% ownership later, but the bid will take all of Glazers shares. Same as SJR. Just in SJR case they might not intend to take the share that is publicly traded. Hence they used “majority “ stake.
Yes it's a sad state of affairs for modern football in England. Should've been regulated much better like Germany, instead is a free for all with despots. Alot like the country as a whole.City are in the middle of a fraud case with the EPL right now for doing exactly this. [offbook activity] You have to declare everything.
(and it should be ok to go through a club if the owners inject $$$ to cover it)
They probably can do it through the club with ffp, because presumably equity injection will cover it.
Absolutely. But we are powerless either way. so may as well accept they are both utter cnuts and try to live with it. What else can we do? I don't think there's much value in playing the 'who is worse' morality game. (even though the answer is Qatar) - Qatar not buying us won't hurt them, or help anyone they hurt. Ditto to Ratcliffe.
We should be worried about City's spending should they win the case and go on a spending spree in retaliation. They will dominate for decades and other clubs will actively seek investment to compete. I'd rather be ready for that scenario before it happens in all honesty than be scrambling after the fact.
It's all just words though and clearing over £500m in debt is no simple promise even for someone as wealthy as SJR. For Qatar its pocket change.Surely that will be cleared up in the next round of bidding as they know not clearing existing debt is a deal breaker for most United fans. Ratcliffe's face was on the banner made by the 1958 fan group back in August, he's been paying attention to Glazer out protests so he knows what United fans want. They got it right with the line about making fans the centre of his proposed ownership. He needs to clear up the debt situation next.
That is irrelevant because he lived and was educated here as a child/young man.