Legislation will not be passed for at least another year, I'd guess. Plenty of time for United to be sold.
Club Sale | It’s done!
- Thread starter JB08
- Start date
- Status
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 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.
.
You've still not answered my first question, how 100% of the company is owned?
The point of my original post remains valid, regardless.
One date set shows 40.5% being owned by QIA and a linked LLC combined with El Thani shares.
You've still not answered my first question, how 100% of the company is owned?
The point of my original post remains valid, regardless.
So Jassim is part of QIA now?
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.
QIA and Jassim Al Thani, obviously.
All that risk to make his boyhood dream come true?
Who do you think owns the other 84%?
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?
Who has said this other than you?
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.
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.
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.
so 76% are floating, which leaves 24%.. 17% of those 24 are owned by QIA
which part isn’t clear?
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.
Did you mean to quote me here?
Never heard of a "buyout financier", but:
THE SUN
A buyout financier worth £290bn has offered funds to at least one bidder to support a potential takeover of Manchester United, according to reports.
https://www.thesun.co.uk/sport/21478944/company-offers-man-utd-glazer/
PS I also rarely believe much in The Sun...
THE SUN
A buyout financier worth £290bn has offered funds to at least one bidder to support a potential takeover of Manchester United, according to reports.
https://www.thesun.co.uk/sport/21478944/company-offers-man-utd-glazer/
PS I also rarely believe much in The Sun...
Misquoted. This is directed at @Fluctuation0161
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.
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.
Not saying any super league is dead, but if they cling on now, at the very least it's going to complicate things for them a lot more down the road than it will right now, and it seems unlikely they'd get a huge field of bidders again (for not selling this time and wasting everyones time and because buying the club will be a different process). Surely it's best to sell before the regulators come in?
How come we keep hearing about the Al Thani takeover and PSG being a potential problem but Ratcliffe there is no mention at all of Nice being a problem?
Am I missing something that makes it ok for Ratcliffe to own Utd & Nice but it`s not ok for "Qatar" to own Utd & PSG?
Am I missing something that makes it ok for Ratcliffe to own Utd & Nice but it`s not ok for "Qatar" to own Utd & PSG?
Last edited:
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
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
I read they want to join forces with other investors to share the cost.
Interesting post. I loved him as a player.
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.
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 didn’t shift the discussion at all. Someone replied saying QIA have a small minority therefore not much say, and I corrected them.
no idea what you’re going on about a title within a company, must have me confused with someone else
Last edited:
Mental gymnastics. A new Olympic event? Like it
Thanks for clarifying what you refer to as "extreme legal lengths to ensure it would create no issues with PSG"
I'd like to see sophistry and solipsism make a comeback.
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.
Qatar are that rich they would just wipe the debt....peanuts to them. It`s like you or me spending £5
“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.
It will make 0 impact unless people will sit up and take action.
The majority of it is so people can appease themselves when they carry on supporting us.
I was against them, but…
I see many people are okay with United becoming a circus again (ETH finally got rid of the circus and United are an actual team, for now) and slowly turning into a plastic club like PSG and City. Everything about the Qatari bidder sounds shady as feck and people are okay with it, leave morality aside and actually think about who the guy is, what connections he does or doesn't have with the Qatari ruling family, what other connections he has, much finance he has, who backs him, how will he run the club, etc. People are completely ignoring the cons and focusing only on the pros.
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!
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.
Given the potential similarities and City's legal problems, should we consider merging the 2 Manchester clubs to create one middle east super club? Not sure what we should call it though.
- Status