Who does though? Successful football clubs are not and never have been a financial gold mine.
Club Sale | It’s done!
- Thread starter JB08
- Start date
- Status
The SJR ownership for me would be no different than the Glazers staying. The main benefit of selling the club was the hope that the debt would be cleared, which should help make the club competitive without the need of any added investment. If SJR gets the club and keeps the debt, what has changed exactly here? And of course since he won't be buying the club fully, any additional investment in the stadium will be through additional debt.
The debt isn't the issue.
How the debt has been serviced amongst years upon years of syphoning money out is what has affected us.
Had the Glazers set up a proper debt plan and paid it off properly it would be gone by now but they had no interest in doing so.
I believe under SJR (and I want Qatar btw) that the debt would be serviced in a proper business like way and the dividends and others other takings would go.
There was a video that sky put up a couple of weeks back where he was talking about the Al Thani bid and made a slip up and said ‘what he’s told me….’ Then quickly recovered and said ‘what I’ve been told…’
Quite possibly a link. He was in Qatar for the World Cup wasn’t he?
Fixed.
I didn’t say he twisted his words. By using that sound bite the original journalist knew exactly what he was doing. It was cheap when the the interview offered so much more.
Funnily enough, if you saw my post straight after the interview you’d see I had some concerns. Namely he mentions “leaving something for his children to work together on” who are the children? We’ve only seen the face of one, as we know when children takeover the family enterprise it can lead to disagreements and turn into a circus.
I have no concerns with him, in fact him not being a fan of football is actually a good thing. I also think he’ll keep his children on a leash even if it’s not in his name. But one day it will be entirely theirs with no daddy to answer to.
We’ve actually been relatively fortunate with the Glazers in that most of the siblings were happy not to be involved and left it to Avram and Joel. What if this guy has 5 kids who all want to be involved?
These are the questions journalists should actually be asking and things fans should be thinking as possible unforeseen long term negatives of the Qatar bid.
You fail to realise propaganda does work both ways. There has been a huge anti Qatar propaganda campaign by many segments in the media.
In 1982, Hamad married Sheikha Jawaher bint Fahad Al Thani. He subsequently married Sheikha Noor Al Subaie, the daughter of the former minister of education, in 1996 as his second wife.
He has 15 children, seven sons and eight daughters.
- Sheikh Jaber bin Hamad Al Thani
- Sheikh Jassim bin Hamad bin Jassim bin Jaber Al Thani
- Sheikh Mohammed bin Hamad Al Thani
- Sheikh Fahad bin Hamad Al Thani
- Sheikh Tamim bin Hamad Al Thani
- Sheikh Falah bin Hamad Al Thani
- Sheikh Abdulaziz bin Hamad Al Thani
- Sheikha Maryam bint Hamad Al Thani
- Sheikha Al Anoud bint Hamad Al Thani
- Sheikha Noor bint Hamad Al Thani
- Sheikha Lamya bint Hamad Al Thani
- Sheikha Sharifa bint Hamad Al Thani
- Sheikha May bint Hamad Al Thani
- Sheikha Hayfa bint Hamad Al Thani
- Sheikha Alya bint Hamad Al Thani
well hopefully women’s rights are as bad in Qatar as some make out… then that leaves just 7 kids to worry about
The guy has 2 wives - make of that what you will.
I have spent a lot of time the last weeks trying to analyze how we would fare if we got bought by Qatar or by JR, and what the difference really would be.
We don’t know what either owner’s exact plan would be, but it’s not that hard to guess and fill in the blanks. I am assuming the Qatari’s would finance the club themselves and pay of the current debt, and that Ratcliffe would relieve the club of its current debt and take it from there. There have been some talks about how he won’t add “new debt” to the club, which could indicate that he would leave the old debt. But that is not how I interpret it, if anyone buys this club the entire debt of it falls due immediately. All loan agreements have so called Change of Control clauses. So either that debt is refinanced by the owner or by the club, it would be “new debt” if kept by the club.
My conclusions are the following:
(1) With both SJR and Qatar, our spending would basically not be limited by the new FFP regulation. Next summer, we can’t do what CFC did this season since we haven’t been in the CL. We couldn’t build a galacticos/PSG team, but I don’t think that would work in the PL anyway.
But — not assuming that we rush into build a new stadium this summer — we could spend 400m per summer a few transfer windows and then say 220m on average with both SJR and the Qataris. We have a really expensive squad as it is, and we could make it more expensive. In terms of total Squad Cost, I.e. amortization + wages, we could easily be top 3-4 with either owner.
But how is this possible if we are bought by SJR, everyone around has are state owned? It is very simple, we can today despite extreme mismanagement and low revenues from national and European competitions — still spend more or less as much as the other top clubs in the world. Why? We have an extremely large fan base and we generate a ton of revenue from home games.
LFC can spend a little bit more than us if they finish top 2 in the PL and CL. MCFC can do it if they cheat a ton. PSG is already under heavy scrutiny by UEFA and are cutting significant costs yearly. The Spanish giants are in trouble, Real barely break even despite winning the CL. Barca, let’s not even go there.
(2) But couldn’t we spend much more with Qatari ownership? Yes, but would we? I am 100% sure that with Qatari ownership, we would spend enough to get to the top. To become a true PL and CL challenger. Like to get to the stage Real, Barca and City have been the last handful of years. Bayern is also there.
But just like PSG and City, we wouldn’t spend just for the sake of spending.
PSG has the last three seasons spent — an average — of €100m per season, ie €60m in 2020, €90m in 2021 and €150m in 2022.
City has spend an average of €150m per year the last three years.
You can buy a pretty decent starting XI for 1.1bn, right? 100m per player. But if you spent 1.1bn one window, there wouldn’t be a point in doing it the next summer again, nor the summer after that, right?
How much “could” you spend on this team, if you do a reasonably good job at it, like I think we will under ETH? If you refrain from buying like a Mbappe for 250m, our success is not dependent on that we spend at least 500m per summer three years in a row. Right?
With Rashford, Antony, Bruno, Casemiro, Shaw, Martinez, Varane and Dalot we basically have 8 core players from at least the coming 3 years. Add in guys like Garnacho, Sancho and Malacia we got some depth in place. I would like to add Amad to that group too. That is 12 names. Let’s say we really invest in the squad and pay 100m per player to get elite options at all positions (except back-up goalie), over the coming 3 years, that would make it say 400m in 23’, 300m in 24’ and 200m in 2025’.
With Qatari ownership — would we spend 400m per summer 6-7 years in a row instead? Of course not.
(3) But how about building a new stadium and turn Carrington into a state of the art facility? With the Qataris, this wouldn’t impact our finances at all. They would finance the stadium internally, and we could probably spend up towards 500m per transfer window the coming 10 years if we/they wanted to. But would we? I very much doubt it. Right.
But how about SJR? I don’t think Ineos would finance a new stadium out of the pocket, it’s not how they do business.
The math is pretty simple. Say it takes 2bn. There is a ton of hullabaloo about it, and we raise say 200m up front by selling naming rights, sucking up to the city (we would of course create a ton of jobs etc, some subsidies would be coming our way), we might sell some leasing rights to business areas for up front payment. Stuff like that.
The other £1.8bn is somehow debt financed. The cost for paying off that debt over 15 years with today’s interest rates is about 175m per year.
Of those 175m, I would estimate that our revenue would increase with 75m per year. That is moderate compared to Tottenham, but their capacity increase was bigger and they host a lot of profitable events in London (NFL, concerts etc). That leaves 100m that still must be financed.
Could SJR/Ineos support the club to an extent that we still could be a top spending club in Europe despite 100m in charges per year for the stadium?
The simple answer is definitely — yes, no doubt. Our squad cost (amortization plus salary) has been among the highest in Europe despite debt costs, the Glazers taking out dividend — and — poor results on the field. Given that we keep doing well under ETH, long term stadium related debt wouldn’t hold us back.
The long answer is, without getting creative, we would have much less flexibility. Out spending could for example probably not be 450m one year even if we only intend to spend 200m the next. The first handful of years, we might — if nothing else is done — not even be able to spend much more than 200m per year (let’s say we spend 350m in the summer of 23’ and then start the building project within the coming 12 months). That is a little thin.
4. But it still doesn’t really bother me. Here is why. Let’s say Ineos buys Glazers shares at a £6bn enterprise value (EV) valuation. That means that the Glazers get paid (6bn - 0.6bn (debt)) * 69% (Glazers ownership share) = Ineos pays £3.7bn to the Glazers.
The Manchester United plc’s debt will immediately fall due when this transaction takes place. Ineos writes an interest free IOU to the club of 640m, and refinance the debt in its group. Manchester United plc then issues shares to Ineos worth 640m for which Ineos pays for by setting of its claim on the club. This results in Ineos ownership of the club going from 69% to 80% (if we assume the club would be valued at 5bn on the NYSE). SJR would surely not be afraid of taking in outside investments. With an ownership of 80%, he could let the club issue another 10% of shares, ie 560m worth of shares, to some US or Chinese minority investor. With that money — the transitional first 4-5 years after the building of the stadium has started, would be a walk in the park.
5. At the bottom line, what matters by far more than whether we are owned by SJR or the Qataris, is how the club is run. MCFC and Liverpool have had success because they have been managed extremely well. Barca and Real have also done a really good job, albeit they having much bigger margins given that they don’t face a top 4 issue.
PSG have built an insane squad, but they are still not winning the CL and they would never walk away with a PL title several years in a row. What is most important, is to spend right. Barca leads the development of the game, could just as well have been AC Milan if they had done an insanely good job like Barca did for a while with their golden generation.
In addition, tremendous gains can be made if you build up a Multi-club ownership group like City or academy like CFC. Chelsea have sold players for 200m the last two years. City is averaging big incomes from player sales per year too. We are talking 15-20% of all income per year.
This is what will make or break us. Spend 150m on Bellingham, to have him come in and struggle with the pressure and not be a top 10 player in the world, and we would struggle. If we sign him or someone else for 150m, and they come in and becomes a top 10 player in the world — we will do well. It’s as simple as that.
We don’t know what either owner’s exact plan would be, but it’s not that hard to guess and fill in the blanks. I am assuming the Qatari’s would finance the club themselves and pay of the current debt, and that Ratcliffe would relieve the club of its current debt and take it from there. There have been some talks about how he won’t add “new debt” to the club, which could indicate that he would leave the old debt. But that is not how I interpret it, if anyone buys this club the entire debt of it falls due immediately. All loan agreements have so called Change of Control clauses. So either that debt is refinanced by the owner or by the club, it would be “new debt” if kept by the club.
My conclusions are the following:
(1) With both SJR and Qatar, our spending would basically not be limited by the new FFP regulation. Next summer, we can’t do what CFC did this season since we haven’t been in the CL. We couldn’t build a galacticos/PSG team, but I don’t think that would work in the PL anyway.
But — not assuming that we rush into build a new stadium this summer — we could spend 400m per summer a few transfer windows and then say 220m on average with both SJR and the Qataris. We have a really expensive squad as it is, and we could make it more expensive. In terms of total Squad Cost, I.e. amortization + wages, we could easily be top 3-4 with either owner.
But how is this possible if we are bought by SJR, everyone around has are state owned? It is very simple, we can today despite extreme mismanagement and low revenues from national and European competitions — still spend more or less as much as the other top clubs in the world. Why? We have an extremely large fan base and we generate a ton of revenue from home games.
LFC can spend a little bit more than us if they finish top 2 in the PL and CL. MCFC can do it if they cheat a ton. PSG is already under heavy scrutiny by UEFA and are cutting significant costs yearly. The Spanish giants are in trouble, Real barely break even despite winning the CL. Barca, let’s not even go there.
(2) But couldn’t we spend much more with Qatari ownership? Yes, but would we? I am 100% sure that with Qatari ownership, we would spend enough to get to the top. To become a true PL and CL challenger. Like to get to the stage Real, Barca and City have been the last handful of years. Bayern is also there.
But just like PSG and City, we wouldn’t spend just for the sake of spending.
PSG has the last three seasons spent — an average — of €100m per season, ie €60m in 2020, €90m in 2021 and €150m in 2022.
City has spend an average of €150m per year the last three years.
You can buy a pretty decent starting XI for 1.1bn, right? 100m per player. But if you spent 1.1bn one window, there wouldn’t be a point in doing it the next summer again, nor the summer after that, right?
How much “could” you spend on this team, if you do a reasonably good job at it, like I think we will under ETH? If you refrain from buying like a Mbappe for 250m, our success is not dependent on that we spend at least 500m per summer three years in a row. Right?
With Rashford, Antony, Bruno, Casemiro, Shaw, Martinez, Varane and Dalot we basically have 8 core players from at least the coming 3 years. Add in guys like Garnacho, Sancho and Malacia we got some depth in place. I would like to add Amad to that group too. That is 12 names. Let’s say we really invest in the squad and pay 100m per player to get elite options at all positions (except back-up goalie), over the coming 3 years, that would make it say 400m in 23’, 300m in 24’ and 200m in 2025’.
With Qatari ownership — would we spend 400m per summer 6-7 years in a row instead? Of course not.
(3) But how about building a new stadium and turn Carrington into a state of the art facility? With the Qataris, this wouldn’t impact our finances at all. They would finance the stadium internally, and we could probably spend up towards 500m per transfer window the coming 10 years if we/they wanted to. But would we? I very much doubt it. Right.
But how about SJR? I don’t think Ineos would finance a new stadium out of the pocket, it’s not how they do business.
The math is pretty simple. Say it takes 2bn. There is a ton of hullabaloo about it, and we raise say 200m up front by selling naming rights, sucking up to the city (we would of course create a ton of jobs etc, some subsidies would be coming our way), we might sell some leasing rights to business areas for up front payment. Stuff like that.
The other £1.8bn is somehow debt financed. The cost for paying off that debt over 15 years with today’s interest rates is about 175m per year.
Of those 175m, I would estimate that our revenue would increase with 75m per year. That is moderate compared to Tottenham, but their capacity increase was bigger and they host a lot of profitable events in London (NFL, concerts etc). That leaves 100m that still must be financed.
Could SJR/Ineos support the club to an extent that we still could be a top spending club in Europe despite 100m in charges per year for the stadium?
The simple answer is definitely — yes, no doubt. Our squad cost (amortization plus salary) has been among the highest in Europe despite debt costs, the Glazers taking out dividend — and — poor results on the field. Given that we keep doing well under ETH, long term stadium related debt wouldn’t hold us back.
The long answer is, without getting creative, we would have much less flexibility. Out spending could for example probably not be 450m one year even if we only intend to spend 200m the next. The first handful of years, we might — if nothing else is done — not even be able to spend much more than 200m per year (let’s say we spend 350m in the summer of 23’ and then start the building project within the coming 12 months). That is a little thin.
4. But it still doesn’t really bother me. Here is why. Let’s say Ineos buys Glazers shares at a £6bn enterprise value (EV) valuation. That means that the Glazers get paid (6bn - 0.6bn (debt)) * 69% (Glazers ownership share) = Ineos pays £3.7bn to the Glazers.
The Manchester United plc’s debt will immediately fall due when this transaction takes place. Ineos writes an interest free IOU to the club of 640m, and refinance the debt in its group. Manchester United plc then issues shares to Ineos worth 640m for which Ineos pays for by setting of its claim on the club. This results in Ineos ownership of the club going from 69% to 80% (if we assume the club would be valued at 5bn on the NYSE). SJR would surely not be afraid of taking in outside investments. With an ownership of 80%, he could let the club issue another 10% of shares, ie 560m worth of shares, to some US or Chinese minority investor. With that money — the transitional first 4-5 years after the building of the stadium has started, would be a walk in the park.
5. At the bottom line, what matters by far more than whether we are owned by SJR or the Qataris, is how the club is run. MCFC and Liverpool have had success because they have been managed extremely well. Barca and Real have also done a really good job, albeit they having much bigger margins given that they don’t face a top 4 issue.
PSG have built an insane squad, but they are still not winning the CL and they would never walk away with a PL title several years in a row. What is most important, is to spend right. Barca leads the development of the game, could just as well have been AC Milan if they had done an insanely good job like Barca did for a while with their golden generation.
In addition, tremendous gains can be made if you build up a Multi-club ownership group like City or academy like CFC. Chelsea have sold players for 200m the last two years. City is averaging big incomes from player sales per year too. We are talking 15-20% of all income per year.
This is what will make or break us. Spend 150m on Bellingham, to have him come in and struggle with the pressure and not be a top 10 player in the world, and we would struggle. If we sign him or someone else for 150m, and they come in and becomes a top 10 player in the world — we will do well. It’s as simple as that.
Debt wasn't a big issue before but it will be going forward. The age of low interest rates/cheap money is well and truly over.
Shame he didn't name one of his daughters Ann Baker
He's not the same as the Qatari government or state run companies though. That's like saying Joe Biden owns Man United.
You are starting a cultural war now? Western v Islamic values?
But you indirectly have unearthed what is actually going on here.
And the point is?
as the other poster said… it’s unbelievably clear the bias against the Middle East and other “3rd world” countries from the west…classic hypocrisy
None of us will really know but here's my 2 cents: from the way this is panning out, this next stage over the next few weeks or so will be Qatar/SJR having full access to all books etc and Raine assessing and weighing up probably the final offers from Qatar & SJR.
It's highly unlikely this will be a back and forth bidding war with bids creeping up bit by bit etc. It's my guess that Raine will just ask for final offers will be tabled, and that will be the end of that stage.
Next/Third/final stage will most likely be Raine advising Glazers on their (Raine's) preferred option and all the detail behind it and on the balance of the market etc at that time - i.e,
A)this offer is the best that Glazers can realistically hope to achieve and they should accept, or;
B) turn it down and re-approach bidders for additional £££ (huge risk is that the preferred bidder just decides to walk away), or
C) Raine advise them to close the sale down completely and revisit at another time as certain sale conditions have not been met.
All applies whether that's full or part sale. Personally, I still think we are headed towards option A and on track for the original date by around the end of this season.
Just my opinion btw.
That’s the norm in that country. If a Qatari said something about norms here I’d say the same. Whatever works for every society.
To plebs like us sure, but to wealthy billionaires there is always wills and ways.
These people can pull strings like no other.
It seems that in addition to the talks, stage 2 will include access to an enhanced data room with more detailed financial information, upon which formal bids will be tabled (rather than merely indicative offers).
Stage 3 will be due diligence (there will probably only be one suitor remaining at that point).
When alternative is being owned by a country, that criminalises being gay, ratcliffe looks like Karl Marx.
Ok although i am really opposed to Qatar ownership on multiple fronts, the idea of them buying United, only for the glazers to then buy out FSG at Liverpool… is enough to almost reconsider my position haha
That's absolute BS - United have been successful and has been a gold mine for the Glazer's
it's also illegal for women to marry foreigners and non-muslims, but not illegal for men to do the same
but hey.. it works for them
the pro Qatar propaganda focuses purely on the result it will have on the footballing/financial side of the club, which is *correctly* described as beneficial (no one opposed to Qatar is saying otherwise). Any wider concerns are accused of racist/xenophobic undertones, reduced to whataboutism, and ultimately told to “stick to football”
the anti Qatar propaganda, focuses on wider concerns, that are *factually accurate*. No one can argue being gay isn’t criminalisedin Qatar, because it is. No one can argue there’s not human rights abuses there, because there are. No one can argue it isn’t sportswashing because it will be.
it all boils down to your priorities and what you are comfortable being associated with. No more no less.
Last edited:
The current debt that United owes will remain so. INEOS will carry the borrowing/debt of owning United ie paying off the Glazers. So the club will have to cough up even more in terms of interest payment for something that would have been the result of the previous regime.
Do you have a Qatari Sheikha you have your eyes on?
just pointing out how silly your post was
you're in 100% Qatar shill mode 24/7 in this thread
Also, the anti-Qatar brigade potentially face a obvious conundrum. They may hate the potential new owners and despite their outrage and continuous blabbering; I suspect most will not quit supporting the club. This will obviously lead them into situation of blatant hypocrisy.
What to do... what to do... hmmm.
At least @georgipep publically stated that he will quit supporting United.
How about you?
The anti Qatar propaganda hugely exaggerates the problem and is rarely factual. Hence why we see people using words like “atrocity” or “evil bastards” What atrocity is being committed in Qatar or by Qatar? Rather insulting when you actually have real atrocities being committed in Ukraine, or you have genuine persecution in China/Palestine.
A Qatari woman shall not lose her nationality in the event of her marriage to a non-Qatari citizen unless it is proved that she has acquired her husband's nationality. In such a case, a renunciation of that nationality shall be required in order to restore her Qatari nationality
Qatari law disagrees with you statement. So if you do have your eyes on a Sheikha, just make sure she don’t take you passport as Qatari citizens get very good allowances from the government
are you Glazers out? Why did you not turn your back on the club entirely and join FC United of Manchester? Not that strong in your convictions yourself my young friend.Also, the anti-Qatar brigade potentially face a obvious conundrum. They may hate the potential new owners and despite their outrage and continuous blabbering; I suspect most will not quit supporting the club. This will obviously lead them into situation of blatant hypocrisy.
What to do... what to do... hmmm.
At least @georgipep publically stated that he will quit supporting United.
How about you?
Your “don’t like it, leave” approach is not the silver bullet you think it is. It falls apart very easily. Not to mention, look at the sorts of people and movements who’ve adopted that across the globe. You’re in fine company.
Full respect to anyone who can turn their back. It’s generations of my family. I couldn’t.
Last edited:
take it to the correct thread please
A simple piece of advice - worry about what you can control and forget about what you have no control over. There are a lot more things to worry about in life than who the owners are.
If the Qataris own United, does that make you a bad person? Or if Ratcliffe wins, does that make you a environmental crim?
There is some much energy wasted here over something people have ZERO control over -- other than to stop supporting United.
A few pages of discussion I can understand -- bare your soul, online catharsis, therapy etc.
But 700+pages? Ridiculous.
Yeah get the bid up if that's what it takes
More like the Y factor as in why on earth did we let these leeches near this club in 05
We should start shouting "We want Qatar come. We want Qatar come" instead during games now.
Will keep doing that until his next hire.
respectfully, i disagree that it’s rarely factual, at least in here. There might be people who are legitimately racist and xenophobic and just don’t want ME owners. Feck them all, they don’t speak for me or for the vast majority opposed to Qatari ownership. But I’ve not seen that argument really advanced here at all. It’s almost always backed up with factual (and easily provable) evidence, relating to their treatment of gay people/women, the kaffala system and their treatment of migrant workers, sportswashing etc. the comparison to Ukraine/china/Palestine doesn’t really apply IMO, because none of them are potentially buying the club. Doesn’t make any of it less, but it is a materially different thing.
can’t stress enough though, anyone who is opposed along racial lines can truly feck off forever. Cheers mate
- Status