I already commented saying it'd be disappointing if they don't clear the debt. The second point is completely random and nonsensical. How do you want me to address it? It's your own opinion which you've supplanted into the equation and dressing it up as if fact. How could you possibly know the mentality behind the bid of INEOS? I was specifically talking about the point you made with regards to infrastructure. It isn't only Qatar that would invest in it.Alongside of getting rid of the debt and not having a business first, football second mentality. You conveniently missed all the rest out!
Club Sale | It’s done!
- Thread starter JB08
- Start date
- Status
I heard that Mike tyson is a fantastic football CEO and kasparov would be the perfect replacement for DDG
Don't forget Tonya Harding as masseuse!
Look at INEOS as a business. What are they all about? And SJR has commented plenty of times how he will only invest in something which will make him returns.
And Jassim was the only one to put in his statement about the investment in the stadium, etc. SJR, in his statement, hasn't committed to anything tangible:
"We would see our role as the long-term custodians of Manchester United on behalf of the fans and the wider community. We are ambitious and highly competitive and would want to invest in Manchester United to make them the number one club in the world once again.
"We also recognise that football governance in this country is at a crossroads. We would want to help lead this next chapter, deepening the culture of English football by making the club a beacon for a modern, progressive, fan-centred approach to ownership.
"We want a Manchester United anchored in its proud history and roots in the northwest of England, putting the Manchester back into Manchester United and clearly focusing on winning the Champions League."
It was mentioned in the second statement (or leak) from Ineos.
That was the official statement.
Leaks are just that, leaks. Nothing tangible for them to commit to.
if Chelsea were sold for 4.4billion....can't see the glazers selling for anything less than that considering United is a MUCH bigger marketing draw than Chelsea
They were sold for £2.5b
ah...apologies that was dollars not pounds
It does. There is a change of control clause in the contracts which means the debt is repayable as soon as somebody takes more than 50% ownership.
As long as the Glazers go, the debt will be cleared one way or another whoever buys the club- but the QDL don’t want you to know that!
Even so, you're $1bn off. It was around $3.4bn
It was £4.25 billion if you include the commitment made as part of the deal to invest £1.75 billion in to the club in the next 10 years. It wasn't part of the sale price even though some parties did erroneously portray it as a sale for more than £4 billion. I'm going to boldly suggest that, despite them apparently having a real emotional investment, the Glazer's won't give a shit about any such commitment and will only be interested in how much they get for the sale.
Out of curiosity, how do you know there's such a contract clause? Could you please share with me? It would be good to read.
Thanks in advance.
Nothing like the success after Qatar.
I get what you're saying, however, the club was sold for $3.4bn. That is the money that was exchanged. It's wrong for people to assume the club was sold for more than that, as it wasn't.
Just helping to clarify the confusion.
No you're 100% right, I was just explaining why the poster may have genuinely thought it was sold for £4.4 billion (or close to that number) when as you say that isn't the reality.
Ah, yeah, no, I agree with you.
It's just the poster went to say the 4.4billion was in dollars, which even then it would have been incorrect! Hahaha.
Oh man, all these currency conversions can catch people out.
This is complete conjecture. At the moment, the only owner to take money out of any club in the form of dividends in the PL is the Glazers isn't it? So it's weird to assume INEOS will do that. In fact, Ratcliffe has clearly reported that United wouldn't be run for profit, so it'd be a scandal of the biggest proportions if they suddenly did the opposite it. There'd undoubtedly be legal ramifications, too.
So, not Qatar or bust really.
Primarily this Twitter thread
But also here is the Bloomberg article if you want to register to read it : https://www.bloomberg.com/news/arti...ise-on-man-united-bid?leadSource=uverify wall
And here’s a quote if you don’t !
The key point here being the debt would then be on INEOS books, not the clubs. The club would effectively be debt free.
Furthermore, if he wanted to, it’s been suggested SJR could convert the debt into equity and sell shareholdings possibly to fans.
Interesting stuff. For some reason the INEOS bid has been derided to the point where people literally don't see it as a viable option. 'Qatar or bust' as has been said multiple times in this thread today alone.
Because people don't understand how business works and the likes of Qatar, Saudi and other state bids have skewed their perception.
It's simple. Those fans want a cheat code in the transfer market, even though most won't admit it.
And this is where in lies the problem, business.
INEOS will not be doing Manchester United a favour by taking on the debt. The debt will still be paid out of Manchester United and back into INEOS. INEOS is not a charity. Money might be moving around, however, it will still be owed.
It’s ridiculous. You can’t have a balanced conversation because any critique of Qatar is shouted down with false equivalence arguments and all talk of INEOS is mocked and derided.
People have convinced themselves we need huge investment and galacticos signings to compete and it simply isn’t true, but the big bucks Qatari narrative has taken hold. Hardly anybody is willing to consider at what cost that Qatari wealth comes to the club.
Thanks. So, the parent company, who will owe money to the banks, will still expect Manchester United to be paying off the debts, one way or another. I'm not too sure how profitable INEOS is, to be able to consume all of their umbrella companies debts.
No it won’t. This isn’t like a few grand borrowed off your dad to buy a new car. It can be a BENEFIT to INEOS to have that debt on their books. They simply don’t need the club to pay the money back when they can service it themselves easily. They don’t have shareholders to pay dividends to, this isn’t about profit for them. That is another fallacy that has taken hold and it does my head in!
He doesn't have a board, he doesn't have investors. It's him and 2 mates, he owns more than 50% of the shares in the company. Technically he can override them and do whatever he wants, even though I imagine it's more collegiate than that.
https://www.ineos.com/about/our-leadership/
See above.
It's not about profit for them? How is that so?
Would make zero sense for a company who make 2bn profits to get the smaller company who at best make 100m profit. It’s absolutely nonsensical but those desperate to rubbish the INEOS bid are running with it.
In that they’ve made zero profit and only loses in all their sporting ventures.
Nike spent around 35m on their 2hour challenge, and INEOS went much bigger in every way, probably cost them 50m just to get a bloke to run under two 2 hours.
INEOS sporting ventures are not designed to make them profit.
INEOS bid is 'derided' because of INEOS poor record in managing football clubs which including having Bobby Ratcliffe, a cyclist man with serious allegation of doping and a racist with a poor track record allowed to take important football decisions. Please note the '' as in reality many pro Qatari bid would prefer INEOS to the Glazers. From my part my choice is
Qatar > INEOS > INEOS and Elliott > Elliott > Glazers and Elliott
Whereas Qatar have done well at PSG? They've made an utter hash of it.
It wasn't about profit for Roman at Chelsea, this is probably something similar,
The problem people seem to have is what they think INEOS is as opposed to what it actually is, INEOS is not a company with loads of shareholders, it has 3 and one of them owns more than 50% so whatever he says goes, though I suspect he doesn't work that way.
Regarding the debt, for tax purposes it's often advantageous to have such debt, that's why it's normal practice in business to take out loans to buy other companies, even if they do have the cash to buy anyway
Had the same argument with him the other day, Lyon dominated France pre PSG for a 20th of the cost
PSG has been an absolute massive waste of money & there has never seemed to be any sustainable football plan, just “attract this superstar with a feck tonne of money” and feck ffp.
They’d need to complete rethink everything about running a club if they took over a Premier League team where they can’t simply spend 20 times more than the next competitor over 12 years.
So, INEOS will pay around £5bn for Manchester United. Then consume the $800m debt and also pay a further £2bn or so, for a stadium, without any wants of profits? All will be consumed by INEOS? Especially by a company who is currently losing roughly £2m a week?
Fair play.
Roman oversaw the debts etc himself. I'll be amazed if INEOS will write off the $800m debt, alongside the £5bn purchase, alongside the investment of £2bn for the stadium.
Will be great to see.
- Status