Widow
Full Member
Legislation will not be passed for at least another year, I'd guess. Plenty of time for United to be sold.
I had a look through. It is stated that 76% of total shares are floated in the stock exchange. I could not find the part that mentions that 3/4 of the non-floated shares are held by QIA.
INEOS 2021 Financials
If you go to page 139/218, you will see INEOS balance sheet. Then look at Cash and Cash Equivalents under Current Assets. They have $2.1B in cash available. They will have to finance the purchase with bank debt. The good thing is that they have a low debt level ~$407M and brought in roughly $2B profit on $18B revenue.
One date set shows 40.5% being owned by QIA and a linked LLC combined with El Thani shares.Well, we have 2 different sets of data and none of them shows that QIA owns 50% of QIB as you claimed.
.
One date set shows 40.5% being owned by QIA and a linked LLC combined with El Thani shares.
So the point of my original post remains valid, regardless.
23.7 % of the shares aren't floated. QIA own 17.2 % of the totals shares, Jassim Al-Thani owns 6.78 %, totaling to 23.98 %.
Who do you think owns the non-floated shares, Geode Capital Management?
I have no idea, but it is not stated that "3/4 of the non-floated shares are held by QIA", as claimed so confidently by that poster.
I actually read your post and thought the same, that is a very healthy balance sheet. Then I looked up the skirt to see you are only mentioning short term loan of 407m, but what about interest bearing long term loans of another 7.3 billion and other lease liabilities of 800m and if you add all this the overall interest bearing debt is 8.5B and that is without considering other liabilities such as trade payable, taxes etc.
And their equity is around 3.5b only. Their gearing is already around 70 percent. Which is already high and they will be obtaining further debt looking at their cash position of 2.2 billion, they will probably only take out 1 billion for manutd acquiring and 1.2 b they will retain. So assuming our club selling price is 5b, they will need another 4b debt and then further 2b required for infrastructure and stadium refurbishment.
So my personal opinion is they will not carry out stadium refurbishment or infrastructure development initially because of their debt structure.
Who do you think owns the other 84%?When there's 84% non state? No.
And how do you arrive at that conclusion? Could it be that the roughly 23% of non-floated shares are in fact, owned by QIB itself?QIA and Jassim Al Thani, obviously.
Who has said this other than you?Qatari oil, gas and investment in the UK good. Qatari buying Manchester United bad. Qatari dude not a true fan. Chelsea season ticket holder Jimmy Brexit is.
And how do you arrive at that conclusion? Could it be that the roughly 23% of non-floated shares are in fact, owned by QIB itself?
Yes I can see that QIA has around 17%, while Jassim himself holds around 6%.
But this does not corroborate your claim, and I quote, "the fact QIA holds 3/4 of the non-floating shares".
It seems like this is not a fact, as you claim.
The people who own the bank are:
- QIA
- Jassim Al Thani
- Investment funds
- Random people
If the shares QIA owns are floated, then that means that the non-floated are owned by entities like Vanguard and me. You cannot believe this.
Who do you think owns the other 84%?
Let me share with you the an investor presentation prepared by QIB itself.
https://www.qib.com.qa/wp-content/uploads/2022/04/QIB-Investor-Presentation-Mar-2022-2.pdf
Please refer to page 3, bottom right hand corner.
It is stated specifically that:
1. QIA, through its fully owned Qatar Holding LLC, hold 16.7% of TOTAL SHARE.
2. The remaining 83% of the shares are owned by prominent Qatari individuals, families and institutions (collectively known as "others").
So, in its own word, QIA owns 16.7% of the total share, not as high as you claim.
Misquoted. This is directed at @Fluctuation0161Did you mean to quote me here?
so 76% are floating, which leaves 24%.. 17% of those 24 are owned by QIA
which part isn’t clear?
Presumably. Wasn't the idea that the Glazers might want to cling on, obviously not for love of the club or loyalty because they don't care about the club, but because they thought if the super league comes back in a few years, they could sell the club for significantly more.Because it bans breakaway leagues?
On overall scheme of things 16.2 percent is not enough. In terms of accounting QIA is not even an associate of QIB. Plus control is only established if shareholding is 50 percent.
Regardless of whether there is state influence or not. I will not get into this debate. From pure accounting prospective and what regulators will be reviewing it will probably term it differently from QIA.
I read they want to join forces with other investors to share the cost.I will argue with Ineos 2021 (latest) anual report as refrence that Ratcliffe's bid for MU is directly bad. I will also argue that Ineos could potentially be a similar or worse owner then the Glazers from a strictly finacial standpoint.
The reported cost to buy MU is at minimum 4,5 billion. To that MU have a debt of nearly 1 billion including transfer costs and then the cost of a renovated Old Trafford or building a new stadium of at least 1 billion. A total liability for the new owner of 6,5 billion pounds is what it takes to buy MU and fulfill all promises inside their written statement.
If we look at Ineos they have a cash reserve of approxematley 2 billion, give and take.
Their anual net profit from the last couple of years fluctuate between approxemetley 400 millions up to 1,5 billion. Let say their avarage net profit is somewhere in between those numbers. That means that the interest cost of owning MU would wipe out between 50-75% of their net profit.
As it stand Ineos needs to fund a purchase of MU with loans from "WallStreet-investors". (their own words) From reading Ineos latest anual report I assume they have to loan approxemetley 90-95% of the purchase in case they don't find other co investors. With a total loan of close to 5,5 billion with an assumed intrest rate close to 7-10% we talk about anual costs of 4-500 millions/year. I asume they will let United continue paying for their existing loans of nearly 1 billion and that means out financial situation would be similar as the Glazers owned us , depending on if they taking out dividens or not.
All numbers gives indications that Ineos would be an bad owner for MU, similar to the Glazers. The numbers speaks for itself.
https://www.ineos.com/globalassets/...-reports/ineos-quattro-2021-annual-report.pdf
Interesting post. I loved him as a player.Funny with Xavi publically stating he supports the Qatari bid because he "worked there" for 6 months. Reminded me of this story, Xavi had a nice surprise when he conveniently "won" a lottery organised by a Qatari bank (a bank with the State and QIA as large shareholders funnily enough).
Surprise
The very nature of company ownership in the country means that all the highest performing/most prestigious companies are owned by the same shareholders. There will always be an attachment to the state and the main state players. What people have to decide is if the state will have any influence in the day to day running of the club, other than possibly providing money.
On a side note I know people are concerned about the Glazers staying on but I genuinely don’t see that as logical given what we know so far.
The Qatari bid has come up with a solid PR campaign, created a foundation to finance the purchase and appears to have gone to extreme legal lengths to ensure it would create no issues with PSG.
INEOS have gone to the trouble of agreeing a full financial package with the relevant banks.
I genuinely don’t see this happening without some clarity from the Glazers that they intend to see. I also believe both bids will be in the region of what they want.
The other options of part investment will have been explored by Raine but as a fall back should no offers materialise. This was an important contingency plan for the Glazers given the financial difficulties they are in.
As it happened two full bids (we know of) have been received so the contingency is no longer needed.
I fully expect a total sale.
it’s a public company!
I give up, you lot are hopeless
I'm not sure what you mean by extreme legal lengths to ensure it would create no issues with PSG.
FYI: QIA announced plans to acquire equity ownership interests of up to 20% in domestic banks listed on the QE in October 2008 (the GFC?) If you're referring to the 16.7% ownership of QIB by QIA that would be some mental gymnastics.
The original discussion was about a youtube video that suggested the state predominately owned QIB. You shifted the discussion to having title within a company. If that is the basis the level or type of title shouldn't matter, right?
I'm not sure what you mean by extreme legal lengths to ensure it would create no issues with PSG.
FYI: QIA announced plans to acquire equity ownership interests of up to 20% in domestic banks listed on the QE in October 2008 (the GFC?) If you're referring to the 16.7% equity ownership of QIB by QIA that would be some mental gymnastics.
Mental gymnastics. A new Olympic event? Like it
I'd like to see sophistry and solipsism make a comeback.Mental gymnastics. A new Olympic event? Like it
I will argue with Ineos 2021 (latest) anual report as refrence that Ratcliffe's bid for MU is directly bad. I will also argue that Ineos could potentially be a similar or worse owner then the Glazers from a strictly finacial standpoint.
The reported cost to buy MU is at minimum 4,5 billion. To that MU have a debt of nearly 1 billion including transfer costs and then the cost of a renovated Old Trafford or building a new stadium of at least 1 billion. A total liability for the new owner of 6,5 billion pounds is what it takes to buy MU and fulfill all promises inside their written statement.
If we look at Ineos they have a cash reserve of approxematley 2 billion, give and take.
Their anual net profit from the last couple of years fluctuate between approxemetley 400 millions up to 1,5 billion. Let say their avarage net profit is somewhere in between those numbers. That means that the interest cost of owning MU would wipe out between 50-75% of their net profit.
As it stand Ineos needs to fund a purchase of MU with loans from "WallStreet-investors". (their own words) From reading Ineos latest anual report I assume they have to loan approxemetley 90-95% of the purchase in case they don't find other co investors. With a total loan of close to 5,5 billion with an assumed intrest rate close to 7-10% we talk about anual costs of 4-500 millions/year. I asume they will let United continue paying for their existing loans of nearly 1 billion and that means out financial situation would be similar as the Glazers owned us , depending on if they taking out dividens or not.
All numbers gives indications that Ineos would be an bad owner for MU, similar to the Glazers. The numbers speaks for itself.
https://www.ineos.com/globalassets/...-reports/ineos-quattro-2021-annual-report.pdf
Lot of supposition and guesswork in there, mainly around the funding, interest and debt.
Correct me if I am wrong but I vaguely remember one of the statements relating to the Qatari bid saying that "any debt would be interest free", or words to that effect, meaning there would/could be debt.
Lot of supposition and guesswork in there, mainly around the funding, interest and debt.
Correct me if I am wrong but I vaguely remember one of the statements relating to the Qatari bid saying that "any debt would be interest free", or words to that effect, meaning there would/could be debt.
“The bid will be completely debt free via Sheikh Hassim’s Nine Two foundation”
That’s the quote I think you’re referring to from the official press release.
I do enjoy the toing and froing within this group on the whole morality of it all.
It will make 0 impact unless people will sit up and take action.
You’d have to think so, especially given INEOS statement which was all about fan engagement and the club under them leading the regulation reforms. Can’t hurt to have the political elite on side!I'm sure it is but I'd also imagine both Qatar and Ratcliffe have the contacts to have already known what was going to be in it.
There is nothing pragmatic about being seduced by vast wealth and drooling over the prospect of signings and stadiums. That’s just greed, pure and simple.Dude... I think you over-idealise what a 'club' is supposed to be. That idea of what you think a club it's supposed to be, died decades ago. The idea of players doing it for the love of the game and then retiring gracefully, owning a pub or a record store too?
This sums up the last 600 pages. A discussion between folks who think what football/club is supposed to represent and actual reality. Idealism versus pragmatism.