Club Sale | It’s done!

[stevoc]

Part. Not the whole bank. But the point is, they do not believe in western banking. Islamic banking is something they work with. They would not borrow for interest. United can absolutely pay back if we are not hampered with interest payments. We paid over 1 billion for the Glazers's debt in mortgage and interest.

How much of the bank?

United have only been servicing a £600m debt for the last 18 years and after 2 decades its sitting at about £600m.

Even without interest payments how long would it take United to pay off a debt worth billions?

 

[romufc]

Part. Not the whole bank. But the point is, they do not believe in western banking. Islamic banking is something they work with. They would not borrow for interest. United can absolutely pay back if we are not hampered with interest payments. We paid over 1 billion for the Glazers's debt in mortgage and interest.

That is not the reason. The reason is in their culture and religion gambling is not permitted, having something with interest falls into that category, which is why Islamic banks have 0% interest rate.

 

[DOTA]

Wonder if that changes the tune of some who felt he was the best possible custodian for the club.

He's only really got our current lot as competition for me there, so this particular news doesn't really affect that dynamic a great deal.

 

[stevoc]

Not necessarily. From my reading of this, the Qatar takeover would be backed through an investment fund - that's money that is available and sitting ready to be pumped into a project or asset and wouldn't appear as any outgoing liability that United were responsible for paying back.

There won't be any loan that needs 'paid back'. It's locked into the asset and will grow with it. The value for Qatar is in the long term appreciation of the asset.

Pay the asking price of 5b now, clear the debt and invest in the infrastructure and allow United to grow.

Yeah that's my thinking too probably the QIA.

But what I'm saying if it isn't state backed and if it isn't coming from an investment fund and if it really is a private bid then it's possible Sheikh Jassim and his father are borrowing the money.

 

[Rood]

interesting that Chelsea had so many bidders and we only have two it seems

It's possible there are others, these 2 are just the ones who went public and we know the Glazers weren't happy about the publicity either

 

[cyberman]

Do we have much money though?

United are making losses, we apparently owe £300m in transfer fees, have only £24m in cash reserves, borrowed more money last year and will reportedly have to sell before being able to buy this summer due to FFP.

Story was that without CL we could make one big signing but if we got CL we would be fine. The 300m is already on the books, it isn’t a factor. We spent 250m odd last year without CL money!
That story has lingered but the worst part is people not remembering what the story actually was.
We aren’t in danger of FFP. We can sell players to buy but that’s because Ten Hag didn’t sell last season since he wanted to assess the squad himself so we have a bloated, expensive squad that’s a season late in sales.

 

[Devil_forever]

It's possible there are others, these 2 are just the ones who went public and we know the Glazers weren't happy about the publicity either

Surely the glazers want people going public with their bids to create a bidding war and attract potentially more buyers?

 

[Kinsella]

Not good

A far wealthier owner than the current incumbents, and one that crucially doesn’t taint the club with state ownership. All good for me.

 

[7even]

Not good

It was obvious from the first second that Ratcliffe didn’t have any serious intentions to buy MU. Forget about him. It’s Qatar or nothing.

 

[LawCharltonBest]

Not good

Glazer's obviously won't care about that

Qatar could bid £6bn up front and offer to clear the debt, Ineos could offer £6bn and 6p and keep the debt and they'll take the Ineos bid so that they personally get 1p more each. They won't give a toss about United once they're gone

I'll also say that keeping the Glazer debt there isn't a deal breaker for me. It's to be expected under normal circumstances. So long as new debt isn't added, they care about the success of the club and make plans for capital investment.

 

[Cassidy]

It was obvious from the first second that Ratcliffe didn’t have any serious intentions to buy MU. Forget about him. It’s Qatar or nothing.

There are other private bids

 

[laughtersassassin]

Not good

I'm not gonna be picky. I'd prefer the Qataris but would for sure take Jim over the Glazers every day of the week

 

[LawCharltonBest]

I understand that this isn't Football Manager 2023, but I struggle to understand why they'd need a 2 week window to arrange a first sit-down meeting. They could both easily be done over this weekend.

And surely the Glazers will want any deal agreed before the second quarter financial results

 

[sglowrider]

Not good

He said that in his original statement. This ain't news.

All new debts (to buy out the Glazers) will be carried by INEOS -- which implies that he will not buy up the existing Glazer debt.

 

[bringbackbebe]

Those are the regulations in the UK but they are not in the US which is where they are listed

In the US, once a majority is taken, there can be a vote to approve the sale to take the company private. Once 50% is crossed, it's a formality from there, isn't it? Similar to what happened with Musk twitter.

 

[stevoc]

Story was that without CL we could make one big signing but if we got CL we would be fine. The 300m is already on the books, it isn’t a factor. We spent 250m odd last year without CL money!
That story has lingered but the worst part is people not remembering what the story actually was.
We aren’t in danger of FFP. We can sell players to buy but that’s because Ten Hag didn’t sell last season since he wanted to assess the squad himself so we have a bloated, expensive squad that’s a season late in sales.

I read a recent article by Kieran Maguire who said we're in an ok but not great position with FFP. Obviously the club will be able to spend some money but the squad probably still needs another £200-300m invested in it to make us proper challengers. So some creative selling will have to occur if we want to spend big again this summer.

Losing Teamviewer as the main sponsor is also a consideration. New owners might want a say in the new sponsor, if it's Jassim it could well be a Qatar related company.

 

[sglowrider]

The level of debt squeezing the club is the single most important thing that is holding us back from investing where we need to.

The position SJR is taking is that in effect, he's content with the Glazer business model that's currently in place (albeit maybe without extracting dividends etc).

No thanks.

“Meet the new boss, same as the old boss.”

 

[thebelfastboy]

Glazer's obviously won't care about that

Qatar could bid £6bn up front and offer to clear the debt, Ineos could offer £6bn and 6p and keep the debt and they'll take the Ineos bid so that they personally get 1p more each. They won't give a toss about United once they're gone

I'll also say that keeping the Glazer debt there isn't a deal breaker for me. It's to be expected under normal circumstances. So long as new debt isn't added, they care about the success of the club and make plans for capital investment.

If the totality of current debt remains and the repayment structure continues as is (which is what I assume SJR will do), then nothing really changes.

The money we should be investing into infrastructure and improved facilities will be spent servicing debt.

 

[sglowrider]

Do we have much money though?

United are making losses, we apparently owe £300m in transfer fees, have only £24m in cash reserves, borrowed more money last year and will reportedly have to sell before being able to buy this summer due to FFP.

I think the cash reserves get boosted towards the end of the season when the different tranche TV money etc comes in.

 

[RedDevilUnited369]

So SJR deal means we still have to service the debt in the same way as the Glazers? Meaning it will come out of revenue streams which will mean more winter windows of loan signings…

 

[sglowrider]

If the totality of current debt remains and the repayment structure continues as is (which is what I assume SJR will do), then nothing really changes.

The money we should be investing into infrastructure and improved facilities will be spent servicing debt.

We can assume that the outstanding debt owed by United will eventually get more expensive too due to raising interest rates.

 

[Coops73]

With the FBI and CIA investigating the PIF the QIA and QSI needing to adhere to UEFA rules. To buy MUFC. IMO QIA or QIB are TBH the SO and SJR will get this done ASAP, OMG it gets confusing.

From my POV Im not ITK, and IDK WTF WGO I’m just a C.U.N.T.

 

[DOTA]

I understand that this isn't Football Manager 2023, but I struggle to understand why they'd need a 2 week window to arrange a first sit-down meeting. They could both easily be done over this weekend.

And surely the Glazers will want any deal agreed before the second quarter financial results

I'd guess the answer is it's relatively recent that the bidders were given access to Utd's financial records and so a bit more time is needed between that and the next stage.

 

[sglowrider]

So SJR deal means we still have to service the debt in the same way as the Glazers? Meaning it will come out if revenue streams which will mean more winter windows of loan signings…

Yes. It was implied in his ''putting the Manchester back into Manchester United'' statement. (at a cost!)

That's why it was clear the Qatar bid was always the better one for the financial sustainability of the club.

 

[cyberman]

I read a recent article by Kieran Maguire who said we're in an ok but not great position with FFP. Obviously the club will be able to spend some money but the squad probably still needs another £200-300m invested in it to make us proper challengers. So some creative selling will have to occur if we want to spend big again this summer.

Losing Teamviewer as the main sponsor is also a consideration. New owners might want a say in the new sponsor, if it's Jassim it could well be a Qatar related company.

But we will replace TeamViewer?
I’ve read the article, it’s all perhaps and maybe and without CL when we will qualify for CL this season anyway
https://www.footballinsider247.com/...ed-by-kieran-maguire-as-uefa-visit-looms/?amp

It’s based off a UEFA visit that they flat out admit not knowing what the purpose of it was. If we were as close as these guesses suggested we would be on UEFA ffp watchlist which we’re not.

 

[LawCharltonBest]

If the totality of current debt remains and the repayment structure continues as is (which is what I assume SJR will do), then nothing really changes.

The money we should be investing into infrastructure and improved facilities will be spent servicing debt.

It really does depend on the detail, yeah

Even with the Glazer debt, United have been competitive in the market. But the Glazer ownership model means they won't give the club any money or invest in any facilities.

Hypothetically, if Ineos replaced the Glazer debt with their own debt at much healthier and manageable interest rates with a commitment to never add to it. With an understanding it'll all be paid off in X time and gone forever. Then were willing to invest their own money into the stadium and facilities (which doesn't affect FFP) then I'd say that's all more than reasonable.

Raine and the Glazers are disgusting for not letting the bidders discuss their intentions any further. They have zero regard for any of us who have allowed them to live a billionaire lifestyle while sitting on their fat ginger hairy stinking arses for 18 years. I hate them all so much.

 

[thebelfastboy]

So SJR deal means we still have to service the debt in the same way as the Glazers? Meaning it will come out of revenue streams which will mean more winter windows of loan signings…

We can assume that the outstanding debt owed by United will eventually get more expensive too due to raising interest rates.

Yes agreed on both points.

 

[TrebleChamp99]

But we will replace TeamViewer?
I’ve read the article, it’s all perhaps and maybe and without CL when we will qualify for CL this season anyway
https://www.footballinsider247.com/...ed-by-kieran-maguire-as-uefa-visit-looms/?amp

It’s based off a UEFA visit that they flat out admit not knowing what the purpose of it was. If we were as close as these guesses suggested we would be on UEFA ffp watchlist which we’re not.

What people always forget is that whilst City are being done for artificial inflation on deals, United could well get a world record breaking sponsorship deal and it would hold up to scrutiny.

I think TeamViewer pay us something like 50/60m a year but we could easily fetch a 10 year 1bln deal with Qatar Airways or something similar. QIB anyone?

 

[stevoc]

I think the cash reserves get boosted towards the end of the season when the different tranche TV money etc comes in.

Yeah no doubt, but just 3-4 years ago we had £300m+ in cash reserves.

Covid threw a real spanner in the works of the Glazers ''business plan''.

 

[Green Arrow]

So SJR's bid will come from money borrowed from JP Morgan and Goldman Sachs and that debt will go to INEOS but the debt that club got from the Glazers will still remain on the club......so nothing changes then still need to service the debt.

 

[stevoc]

But we will replace TeamViewer?
I’ve read the article, it’s all perhaps and maybe and without CL when we will qualify for CL this season anyway
https://www.footballinsider247.com/...ed-by-kieran-maguire-as-uefa-visit-looms/?amp

It’s based off a UEFA visit that they flat out admit not knowing what the purpose of it was. If we were as close as these guesses suggested we would be on UEFA ffp watchlist which we’re not.

I have no doubt we'll get a new sponsor, there will always be a company that want to sponsor United. Whether or not they'll want to pay as much or more than Teamviewer is another matter.

 

[Plant0x84]

With the FBI and CIA investigating the PIF the QIA and QSI needing to adhere to UEFA rules. To buy MUFC. IMO QIA or QIB are TBH the SO and SJR will get this done ASAP, OMG it gets confusing.

From my POV Im not ITK, and IDK WTF WGO I’m just a C.U.N.T.

L.o.L

 

[BuzzKillington]

So 2 plus 3 plus 4 = could equal 9 but only for the right price due to the fact that he’s not mega wealthy and he has strong business principles. His wealth is probably £10-20b range, his advantage would probably be access to %0 loans from an Islamic bank

Sharia financing isn’t free. They just front load the interest and call it a fee because calling it interest is the un-Islamic part, it’s a fudge.

If he can secure it fee-free it’s because he’s being given the money by someone. No business/banks make money by giving somebody £5bn for no gain.

 

[Appletonred]

Too many red flags regarding the Ratcliffe offer, combined with the fact he is a Chelsea season ticket holder just isn't palatable.

For the overall good of the club, one has to probably admit that the Qatar offer is the most attractive.

 

[red thru&thru]

With the FBI and CIA investigating the PIF the QIA and QSI needing to adhere to UEFA rules. To buy MUFC. IMO QIA or QIB are TBH the SO and SJR will get this done ASAP, OMG it gets confusing.

From my POV Im not ITK, and IDK WTF WGO I’m just a C.U.N.T.

M.U.F.C O.K

 

[MegadrivePerson]

interesting that Chelsea had so many bidders and we only have two it seems

The location would have been another factor. London clubs appeal more to overseas investors.

 

[antohan]

Part. Not the whole bank. But the point is, they do not believe in western banking. Islamic banking is something they work with. They would not borrow for interest. United can absolutely pay back if we are not hampered with interest payments. We paid over 1 billion for the Glazers's debt in mortgage and interest.

Forget about the vagaries of Islamic banking.

When you have Glazer-like owners who use debt to buy the club then the club need to service that debt PLUS deliver dividends to the Glazers.

Even before you factor in PR motives, these people can put their own money and focus solely on dividends as their return. You cut out the middleman's income.

Ultimately, with the 5bn valuation, a reasonable dividend would ultimately work out at roughly what we have been wasting on servicing a 600mn loan + Glazer dividends.

Other things equal, the relative upside is

1) there's no 3rd party strangling you with an interest commitment come what may (flexibility),

2) they have the funds to invest further with a longer term view on improved returns (e.g. more tickets sold, not really "asset appreciation" as there is no realistic exit/eventual buyer beyond them)

For those two alone the club is better off.

Then you factor in what people dislike (sportswashing) and of course it has the relative upside for the club of that arguably offering value beyond financial considerations. Some see it only from a sinister perspective, but it is also true all these oil-wealth funds are hugely focused on investing in alternative businesses and business models to keep them on top when oil inevitably dries up or is superseded by other energy sources. I know this to be the case first hand from business dealings 20 years ago. It struck me then as quite forward-looking, imagine how much more relevant it is now.

Personally what worries me about state ownership isn't washing anyone's rep. From an early age I was tought not to mix up apples and pears. It is the potential for a nilly-willy approach to transfers and wages that I don't want.

I like seeing teams form, emerge, evolve... It's a huge part of what keeps you engaged with your club and team's fortunes. Not what they've done at PSG, mind. Have they learned from that or are they delighted with the results? That's what it boils down to for me.

 

[Infra-red]

Yeah no doubt, but just 3-4 years ago we had £300m+ in cash reserves.

Covid threw a real spanner in the works of the Glazers ''business plan''.

Indeed. United will have some money in the summer for transfers, but borrowing money to fund transfers (which is what we have been doing) is not really a long term strategy.

We of course have the outstanding £570m Glazer takeover debt sitting on the balance sheet, plus we have drawn down £200m of our £300m revolving credit facilities (additional £100m drawdown on 3 October 2022) - that is a lot of debt to be loading on to the club. We already owe £306.8m in outstanding transfer fees, of which £134m is due to be paid within the next 12 months (even if we sign no players at all this summer, we will still spend £134m on transfer payments). It's not a great picture.

 

[MegadrivePerson]

No, he's been dreadful. Up until the Friday deadline for indicative offers, he was still running with the line that the Emir himself was personally buying the club, which is obviously untrue.

Jackson is in general not worth listening to on any topic.

Agreed.

He's no better than the clickbait stuff you see on Twitter.

Considering its the third of March its very unlikely that a takeover will be agreed and ratified before the summer transfer window opens. There's a zero percent chance this would be a dealbreaker for new owners though!

 

[Ducklegs]

Ratcliffe doesn’t have the money to do what is required with the club.

You have to either accept that if we dont get state ownership it will be almost impossible to compete in this league going forward and that we will be relegated to also rans. Qatar wont just go “oh well, what a shame” and go home, they will 100% snap up another club, maybe Spurs, maybe even something out of the blue like a decent championship club and fund them into the premier league.

Then you are fighting against the unlimited resources of City, Newcastle, Chelsea + an other, plus every other decent club that doesnt have nearly a billion quid of debt round its neck (glazer mortgage plus owed transfer fees).