corrected that for you
Club Sale | It’s done!
- Thread starter JB08
- Start date
- Status
corrected that for you
Ok. One more try.
If INEOS buy the club, they HAVE to clear the debt, because of the Change of control clause. They can either pay it off or refinance it themselves. If they refinance and leave the debt on Utds books the club effectively owes INEOS the money (Intra-group loan) which would be interest free and wouldn’t necessarily need to be repaid. This would cost the club nothing. Effectively the club is debt free and the money we currently spend on financing the glazers ownership would no longer be paid out.
Obviously if INEOS choose to pay off the debt then it’s gone anyway. Either way that frees up vast cash flow to finance stadiums, training facilities and player acquisitions etc…
As a much bigger organisation than United, INEOS has more options for with dealing with any debt and can even benefit from its presence on their books. This isn’t the same as pooping down the bank and borrowing a couple of grand to buy a new car.
Your choice of post backs up your point because it says what you want it to, but we know Messier is involved in corporate finance and has understanding of what is going on during the sale process.
It’s also clear from the Twitter thread that they have researched this information and it is not just opinion.
With respect I have no idea who Ahriman is and what his background is so his intervention proves nothing, even with the pretty bolded text.
Please stop saying that I am spreading misinformation too. Just because you don’t understand something, or it contradicts your point of view doesn’t make it incorrect.
You're being extremely dim if you think Financial Times is not an expert.
Also the Forbes article has us at £3.87bn, so no, we still overpay even if we go by that.
So nobody on Redcafe has any value or experience to add? That’s a pretty narrow minded view.
I didn't say that. I said you agree with the ones that agree with you, which is exactly what is happening. And you're ignoring the rest. It's your choice to do that, which is fine.
Here’s a question - do you think the Glazers will take any account of which bid is best for the future of the club in deciding who to sell to? Or merely whichever is most beneficial to them?
Biggest cash offer is the assumption.
This is patently wrong. If they refinance it the new loan would most probably come from financial institutions, not from Ineos itself. Ineos is not in the business of lending money, banks are. Thus this notion that the loan would be interest free and “not necessarily need to be repaid” is naive at best, and purposely misleading at worst.
The entire acquisition would be part cash, part credit. I thought that was obvious. And there seems to be some serious goalpost moving here.
First it was about the current club debt, which is clearly going to be paid out as part of the acquisition. Now it's about the refinancing/deal structure.
Cool, cool, cool.
I guess people have expectations that new owners would just burn a few billion pounds for the prestige of owning Manchester United? That's a bit naïve, don't you think?
Complete bluffer paraphrasing that Athletic article from yesterday
Ineos are likely to get better terms on any credit facility they use, thus are more likely to take the actual capital, which COULD then be used for an intra-group loan to the club.
Again, check the twitter account I quoted. He explains it all. If still not clear, directly ask the user for a crash course: @Messier1994
I agree with the ones that agree with me?
What the feck does that even mean - you didn't post a single article for me to look at. I dont have a magic number in my head, but when the likes of Kieran Maguire or the FT do a deep dive, I trust their credibility.
And even if I did look at the ones you suggested, we're still overpaying
Your posts have been all over the show mate. Yesterday you were posting headline posts “Oh look, Athletic are even saying Ratcliffe/INEOS will clear the debt”. No they didn’t. You just got excited with the headline without having a clue about what the article said. Now you’ve jumped ship to a redcafe poster as your ITK source who has zero knowledge of the actual takeover details.
But we know from the media (Athletic I think - probably Crafton) that the phrase ‘no new debt will be placed on the club’ has been attributed to INEOS. That’s where the whole ‘Jim won’t clear the Glazer debt’ arguement came from.
We know that a funding facility has been arranged with JPM and GS by INEOS. So whilst they might borrow to finance debt, infrastructure improvement or even the whole bid to buy the club, ‘no new debt’ means it won’t sit with it be funded by the club.
the ones that agree with your point of view, you agree with, and you ignore the rest
if you have anything of substance to say as to why you think we're worth less than Chelsea, then say it
I don't need to know any more times that you agree with the FT valuation
Not long now and we’ll be debt free!
Hasn't that guy been one of the most credible sources on this story?
Kaveh just rehashes what every other main journo posts...usually hours later.
I took your Forbes valuation example, and pointed out how we still overpay if we look at that. So you're now just taking bullshit to a new level.
This guy knows the square root of feck all, literally every single piece he does on Sky is some sort of negative spin on any takeover related news.
this post is pathetic man, why do you do this to yourself?
gonna pop you on ignore, such a waste of time talking to you
Move on kid, you're cooked on this sub-debate.
"They get asset worth 5bn"
"look at Forbes"
*Forbes is a fair bit below 5bn, as is FT*
"you're pathetic!"
That’s not quite fair.
Ineos has clearly stated that they will take the debt off of the club. However, Ineos cannot pay it off outright and as the poster has indicated this debt would move to Ineos which in turn would be the holding company of MUFC.
One way Ineos might look to service that debt is either by taking dividends and/or charging MUFC for ‘management services’.
There are still unknowns with the bid and under the Ineos offer the debt is not completely gone.
4 of the siblings want out, the 2 who apparently would like to keep the club own about 23% of the club, not exactly in the strongest postiion.
My point has been quite consistent. It’s bloody obvious that Sir Jim will deal with the Glazer debt.
Plus, Change of control clause. Doesn’t matter if it is Muppetiers, The Athletic or Messier on Twitter saying it. The fact is the debt has to be paid off over 50% ownership and that’s whoever buys the club. INEOS simply doesn’t have an option to not do this, and since they have said ‘no new debt’ even if it’s refinanced it won’t be on the club but with the parent company.
Glazers are ruled by greed. The best offer for us is Quatar. They will take us back to former glories.
Glazers could sell us to Quatar for £4 Bill tomorrow & it's all profit. The fans win, they win & the nightmare for us is over. Instead they are trying to play two parties against each other to maximise their profit. The end result could be that both parties feel disrespected & walk away leaving us in limbo.
Sounds like a warning to the leeches about being unrealistic with their valuations
‘No new debt’. It would be refinanced by INEOS, on INEOS books and repaid by INEOS, not the club. It wouldn’t hang around the clubs neck like the current debt does.
Thing is, their reputation takes a hit if they aren't successful. They shouldn't have leaked if they were serious about not overspending.
But now Sheikh Jassim is coming in, representing Qatar whether he's linked to the state in reality or not, and giving statements of his intent. They will look silly if it's not fulfilled.
If this is true, then the once mighty Manchester United FC basically becomes just a subsidiary of a conglomerate. How is that any better than being owned by a foundation or state owned?
Aren’t they just the clean faces for the royal family?
Just basic negotiating, no substance to any of that tweet.
yup
They could, but why would they? INEOS is a much bigger company with much more revenue than United. That would just be counterproductive.
Also, they could just as well convert the debt into equity and offer shareholding for sale to fans, giving them ownership of the club.
You are correct that there are unknowns about both bids but it disingenuous to tar Qatar hood and INEOS bad just because.
They will also look 'silly' if they vastly overpay and they will not want to foster a wider perception that they are a soft touch in negotiations, as such a perception would impact their ability to make further investments in the future.
They will overpay though, I get the briefing to say they cant be taken for a ride, but I don't understand why they'd ever leak their interest and think it would be helpful in the end price.
The valuation of the club will be based on demand, risks and potential revenue growth. All of those things are entirely subjective to and the perogative of potential buyers. Someone putting an "independent" valuation on it is nonsense and irrelevant. And yes that includes the Financial Times
Still feel that this gets done sometime early next month and a compromise deal is reached.
As you say, any buyer will inevitably overpay relative to what the club would be valued at by most conventional valuation methods, but there will obviously be limits beyond which Qatar/Ineos will not go. Also worth remembering that these public pronouncements are all part of the negotiation process and obviously have to be understood in that context. We'll only really find out about how serious the Glazers are about selling and how much appetite Qatar/Ineos really have for overpaying in a month or so, when this second phase will presumably be drawing to a close and a group is invited to enter in to full due diligence (whether for a full takeover or some other investment).
- Status