Club Sale | It’s done!

Status
Not open for further replies.
redcucumber said:
Whereas Qatar have done well at PSG? They've made an utter hash of it.
Click to expand...

They give the fans a constant supply of cheap dopamine by signing galacticos, not much more. Few meaningless French titles and a lot of CL failure.

The amount of "hot takes" in here regarding the Ineos bid is quite frankly ludicrous. The source of the money, the debt, Brexit, his lack of experience running football clubs, will they take a profit/dividend, the personal wealth etc etc. All things that can equally be leveled at the Qatari vote. It's pure mental gymnastics.

For the poster(s) above banging the drum about Ineos only being in this for the money due to "investors", did you not see the comments from Sheikh Jassim's father about this being the kind of investment he doesn't want to do. Do you really think he will just hand over the family/investor billions without any kind of expectation? They don't make all that money being daft. Make no mistake they are "investors" too. Funnily enough there are a lot more voices having a say in the Qatari bid/ownership (in terms of investors) than in the Ineos one, which could either be a good or bad thing in terms of allocating funds. Make no mistake, there will be financial performance expectations linked to the Qatari bid, not dividends/profit, but secondary concerns such as linked businesses, investments, sponsorships etc.
 
red thru&thru said:
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.
Click to expand...
Actually Roman loaned the money, he only wrote it all off when he was forced to sell.

INEOS is essentially Ratcliffe trying to be Roman - or at least that's how he wants it to look, only time would tell
 
redcucumber said:
Whereas Qatar have done well at PSG? They've made an utter hash of it.
Click to expand...

While I concede that PSG had done mistakes I believe that their achievement are criminally underrated in here.

A- The CL (which is the yardstick they tend to be judged upon) is very tough to win. SAF won it just 2 times which is ridiculously low for someone with such stellar career but is as much as all clubs in London had won it combined. Meanwhile Juventus hasn't won it since 1995-1996 season and Manchester City has yet to win it.

B- PSG has dominated a league that INEOS owned NICE had struggled to make it top 4 in. In fact, NICE are currently 7th place. Although according to the SJR's fan boys its form that matters not medals. Anyway maybe the French league isn't as silly as one presume especially since it also keep on producing players whom despite not having titles like Captain Marvel, the White Pele etc do actually win World cups.
 
redcucumber said:
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.
Click to expand...
It is still relevant because if that’s the case the debt is still there but is being transferred from the club to INEOS. Yes it’s not against Utd’s name which would be a positive. But it’s still a debt which exists with the owners and would still have knock on implications on the ability to spend on club infrastructure, facilities, players. If they already have billions of debt which they are having to service for the acquisition of the club and it’s debt, that is going to have an influence on how much more capital will be spent outside of that.
 
RORY65 said:
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.
Click to expand...
On this basis the true cost of buying Manchester United would be £5bn to buy 69% of the Glaziers voting shares, plus £620m debt, Plus another £1bn to take the club off the NYSE plus a 10 year commitment to rebuild the stadium and invest in player transfer and infra structure of £4.4bn so buying United would cost £10-11bn


No the cost of Abrahamovic debt of £1.5bn owed by Chelsea was written off before the UK Govt seized the asset. This is the real reason why there was so much interest in buying the club. United have debt that has to paid off to stop crippling interest charges to the club’s accounts, Abrahamovic gave Chelsea an interest free payment loan!
 
red thru&thru said:
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.
Click to expand...

Losing 2m /week? Eh?

They have predicted profits of 2bn for 2022 and for 2023, where are you getting the loses from?
 
Plant0x84 said:
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!
Click to expand...
To be fair it’s something you’ve made up and just your opinion. At no point have Ratcliffe or INEOS stated they are not looking to make profit from acquiring Utd.
 
devilish said:
While I concede that PSG had done mistakes I believe that their achievement are criminally underrated in here.

A- The CL (which is the yardstick they tend to be judged upon) is very tough to win. SAF won it just 2 times which is ridiculously low for someone with such stellar career but is as much as all clubs in London had won it combined. Meanwhile Juventus hasn't won it since 1995-1996 season and Manchester City has yet to win it.

B- PSG has dominated a league that INEOS owned NICE had struggled to make it top 4 in. In fact, NICE are currently 7th place. Although according to the SJR's fan boys its form that matters not medals. Anyway maybe the French league isn't as silly as one presume
Click to expand...

This is brilliant. Imagine posters trying to claim that PSG who had barely won the league prior to Qatar investing have now made it a one horse race saying its meaningless titles, yet the club that INEOS have bought fail to make top 4 in a meaningless league.

Regardless of the mess they have made in the CL, we have 2 bidders INEOS and Qatar and we have 2 pieces of evidence in the same league.

PSG are dominating that league whereas Nice cant get CL footy, which one I want is easy.
 
Andycoleno9 said:
It is Qatar or stay on the same spot. Dept will stay with Ineos. On top of that (and this is purely my opinion), Ineos will search for profit. People judgement is clouded with "Sir Jim is United fan" but at the end his company's board and investors will not care about it. They will want money return for their huge huge investment.

So yeah, Qatar or a bust basically.
Click to expand...

Both of those things are purely your own opinion to be fair. As no one knows what the Ratcliffe/Ineos plan would be for dealing with the debt.
 
Last edited:
devilish said:
B- PSG has dominated a league that INEOS owned NICE had struggled to make it top 4 in. In fact, NICE are currently 7th place. Although according to the SJR's fan boys its form that matters not medals. Anyway maybe the French league isn't as silly as one presume
Click to expand...

Nothing about spending 1.5 billion to dominate in France is impressive, it’s the exact opposite, hell Lyon’s CL record didn’t fair much worse either.

What Qatar did have though was extremely lax ffp and no other big spender to compete with. Let’s not pretend it’d be as easy for INEOS with little Nice to replicate that nonsense, and let’s certainty not pretend it’s be smart to try.
 
Chief123 said:
To be fair it’s something you’ve made up and just your opinion. At no point have Ratcliffe or INEOS stated they are not looking to make profit from acquiring Utd.
Click to expand...

Would have to be incredibly naive to think a non state private individual spending billions isn’t looking for a return.
 
Bosws87 said:
Would have to be incredibly naive to think a non state private individual spending billions isn’t looking for a return.
Click to expand...

It’s an investment for sure, and they’ll likely see it as people do real estate. It’s rock solid in that sense.

Buying it for profit though? That’s pretty nonsensical, no-one is buying a club in such a competitive league for profit ffs :lol:
 
red thru&thru said:
That was the official statement.

Leaks are just that, leaks. Nothing tangible for them to commit to.
Click to expand...

To be fair a two paragraph press release isn't legally binding either. Every bad owner in the history of football has probably made ambitious promises when they took over.
 
Plant0x84 said:
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!
Click to expand...

Is this speculation on your part? Or has that been confirmed?
 
Regulus Arcturus Black said:
It’s an investment for sure, and they’ll likely see it as people do real estate. It’s rock solid in that sense.

Buying it for profit though? That’s pretty nonsensical, no-one is buying a club in such a competitive league for profit ffs :lol:
Click to expand...

I’d state the return is obvious greenwashing not profit in a financial sense along with loads of other benefits of owning such a huge brand, reach, audience, advertising potential the list goes on.
 
For me and many others it’s simple. We want a new owner who make United;

a) totally debt free. No accountant trick with moving the debt to the mother company or similar bs. 100% debt free. Everything that includes the name Morgan and/or Goldman Sachs and that bid is totally disqualified in my eyes.

b) 100% ownership. Not interested in a 69% or similar. Ineos is owned by three different individuals with different personal interests, majority shareholder or not, that’s a total no go in my eyes.

c) a clear and straightforward commitment of rebuilding Old Trafford or build a brand new state of the art stadium without new debts connected directly or indirectly to the clubs name.

d) Investment in our infrastructure and a clear vision how to make this beautiful club successful again.

Only one bidder has made that commitment in a public statement. Only one bidder has been straightforward in their communication and commitment.

That’s why Brexit Jim and his bid is a totally irrelevant in my eyes. I don’t even take him serious. If I make a research of him and how he has conducted himself as a owner of Ineos, as a owner of other sport projects, as a political influencer I get a really bad taste in my mouth.

Sorry Jim Ratcliffe, not a single chance you get my support.
 
Plant0x84 said:
Primarily this Twitter thread
But also here is the Bloomberg article if you want to register to read it : https://www.bloomberg.com/news/articles/2023-02-09/jim-ratcliffe-taps-jpmorgan-goldman-to-advise-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.
Click to expand...


If the Ineos bid did include a significant effort to offer fan ownership then that would make their offer way more attractive.
 
Plant0x84 said:
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.
Click to expand...
:lol:

Oh please, you do exactly the same about the Jassim bid.
 
I am beginning to think this "process of buying the club" is like Charlie and the chocolate factory!
 
Plant0x84 said:
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!
Click to expand...
Don't they also have another £8.5bn debt they have to service?
 
stevoc said:
To be fair a two paragraph press release isn't legally binding either. Every bad owner in the history of football has probably made ambitious promises when they took over.
Click to expand...

At least as fans we can hold them accountable to something.
 
red thru&thru said:
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.
Click to expand...

Would take a very, very long time for United to pay back £6b out of club profits. After 18 years we've barely touched the sides of the 2005 Glazer debt. So £6b would probably take the best part of a century or more.
 
Regulus Arcturus Black said:
Nothing about spending 1.5 billion to dominate in France is impressive, it’s the exact opposite, hell Lyon’s CL record didn’t fair much worse either.

What Qatar did have though was extremely lax ffp and no other big spender to compete with. Let’s not pretend it’d be as easy for INEOS with little Nice to replicate that nonsense, and let’s certainty not pretend it’s be smart to try.
Click to expand...

The CL is a fecking tough nut. SAF only won it twice (ie just 1 less then Benitez) which is ridiculous considering his stellar career but is as many times as all London clubs has won combined. Clubs like City and Arsenal had never won it.

I think that PSG deserves more respect for dominating the French league.

A- INEOS owned Nice can barely make it to top 4 there and despite being one of the top spenders there.
B- It constantly produce WC finalists/winners which is more then the EPL does with its White Peles and its HurryKanes etc.

Nice had been sacking managers left right and centre and Bob Ratcliffe and some bicycle man are calling the shots in football. There's nothing that sound remotely smart in how they manage NICE or Lausanne
 
Last edited:
7even said:
For me and many others it’s simple. We want a new owner who make United;

a) totally debt free. No accountant trick with moving the debt to the mother company or similar bs. 100% debt free. Everything that includes the name Morgan and/or Goldman Sachs and that bid is totally disqualified in my eyes.

b) 100% ownership. Not interested in a 69% or similar. Ineos is owned by three different individuals with different personal interests, majority shareholder or not, that’s a total no go in my eyes.

c) a clear and straightforward commitment of rebuilding Old Trafford or build a brand new state of the art stadium without new debts connected directly or indirectly to the clubs name.

d) Investment in our infrastructure and a clear vision how to make this beautiful club successful again.

Only one bidder has made that commitment in a public statement. Only one bidder has been straightforward in their communication and commitment.

That’s why Brexit Jim and his bid is a totally irrelevant in my eyes. I don’t even take him serious. If I make a research of him and how he has conducted himself as a owner of Ineos, as a owner of other sport projects, as a political influencer I get a really bad taste in my mouth.

Sorry Jim Ratcliffe, not a single chance you get my support.
Click to expand...
Exactly this.
 
whitbyviking said:
They give the fans a constant supply of cheap dopamine by signing galacticos, not much more. Few meaningless French titles and a lot of CL failure.

The amount of "hot takes" in here regarding the Ineos bid is quite frankly ludicrous. The source of the money, the debt, Brexit, his lack of experience running football clubs, will they take a profit/dividend, the personal wealth etc etc. All things that can equally be leveled at the Qatari vote. It's pure mental gymnastics.

For the poster(s) above banging the drum about Ineos only being in this for the money due to "investors", did you not see the comments from Sheikh Jassim's father about this being the kind of investment he doesn't want to do. Do you really think he will just hand over the family/investor billions without any kind of expectation? They don't make all that money being daft. Make no mistake they are "investors" too. Funnily enough there are a lot more voices having a say in the Qatari bid/ownership (in terms of investors) than in the Ineos one, which could either be a good or bad thing in terms of allocating funds. Make no mistake, there will be financial performance expectations linked to the Qatari bid, not dividends/profit, but secondary concerns such as linked businesses, investments, sponsorships etc.
Click to expand...

It's odd how that's seen as a negative compared to the Jassim bid. As currently Sheikh Jassim and his father have zero experience running a football club, in fact have they even built a business, any business from the ground up with good business acumen?
 
devilish said:
The CL is a fecking tough nut. SAF only won it twice (ie just 1 less then Benitez) which is ridiculous considering his stellar career but is as many times as all London clubs has won combined. Clubs like City and Arsenal had never won it. I think that PSG deserves more respect for dominating the French league.
Click to expand...

Talking out of your arse now. Nothing about spending 1.5 fecking billion in France makes it tough.

City had to, as their rivals spend similar.

Lyon dominated France and didn’t fare much worse in CL for fraction of the cost.
 
7even said:
For me and many others it’s simple. We want a new owner who make United;

a) totally debt free. No accountant trick with moving the debt to the mother company or similar bs. 100% debt free. Everything that includes the name Morgan and/or Goldman Sachs and that bid is totally disqualified in my eyes.

b) 100% ownership. Not interested in a 69% or similar. Ineos is owned by three different individuals with different personal interests, majority shareholder or not, that’s a total no go in my eyes.

c) a clear and straightforward commitment of rebuilding Old Trafford or build a brand new state of the art stadium without new debts connected directly or indirectly to the clubs name.

d) Investment in our infrastructure and a clear vision how to make this beautiful club successful again.

Only one bidder has made that commitment in a public statement. Only one bidder has been straightforward in their communication and commitment.

That’s why Brexit Jim and his bid is a totally irrelevant in my eyes. I don’t even take him serious. If I make a research of him and how he has conducted himself as a owner of Ineos, as a owner of other sport projects, as a political influencer I get a really bad taste in my mouth.

Sorry Jim Ratcliffe, not a single chance you get my support.
Click to expand...
You don't even know who the actual bidder is. It's not the kid, it's maybe the dad, it's maybe the royal family and their hundreds of members. That's the opposite of straightforward.
 
JoeyJoJoJrShabadoo said:
Yes really. You pay for their product, regardless of what goes into the manufacturing process.
Click to expand...

No I get the point they were trying to make and you were making. By not really, I mean it still has little or nothing to do with my original post.
 
7even said:
For me and many others it’s simple. We want a new owner who make United;

a) totally debt free. No accountant trick with moving the debt to the mother company or similar bs. 100% debt free. Everything that includes the name Morgan and/or Goldman Sachs and that bid is totally disqualified in my eyes.

b) 100% ownership. Not interested in a 69% or similar. Ineos is owned by three different individuals with different personal interests, majority shareholder or not, that’s a total no go in my eyes.

c) a clear and straightforward commitment of rebuilding Old Trafford or build a brand new state of the art stadium without new debts connected directly or indirectly to the clubs name.

d) Investment in our infrastructure and a clear vision how to make this beautiful club successful again.

Only one bidder has made that commitment in a public statement. Only one bidder has been straightforward in their communication and commitment.

That’s why Brexit Jim and his bid is a totally irrelevant in my eyes. I don’t even take him serious. If I make a research of him and how he has conducted himself as a owner of Ineos, as a owner of other sport projects, as a political influencer I get a really bad taste in my mouth.

Sorry Jim Ratcliffe, not a single chance you get my support.
Click to expand...
Beautiful club and state owned don’t go together.
 
Chief123 said:
To be fair it’s something you’ve made up and just your opinion. At no point have Ratcliffe or INEOS stated they are not looking to make profit from acquiring Utd.
Click to expand...

You don't spend £5-6b on a football club if you're looking to turn a profit mate, that makes no sense. You can never make your money back from club profits. The only way to ever potentially see a profit is to sell it on at some point in the future.
 
Regulus Arcturus Black said:
Talking out of your arse now. Nothing about spending 1.5 fecking billion in France makes it tough.

City had to, as their rivals spend similar.

Lyon dominated France and didn’t fare much worse in CL for fraction of the cost.
Click to expand...

Yeah Qatar had put their money were their mouth is which is exactly what I'd like to see an owner do at our club. If we're doomed to be used for sports washing/green washing then I'd rather end up competing on top rather then linger at 7th place with fans defending our woeful season by claiming that we're on a great form or the owner is acting smart by hiring some bike man to take football decisions or giving Ramsay a bigger salary to that given to the likes of Gavi and Osimhen. And yes winning the CL is tough. United had dominated the EPL scene for decades under SAF and we've won it as many times as Nottingham Forest did (and both with a huge dose of luck). Abu Dhabi City has yet to win it. Both are properly run clubs. There's nothing fair in that cup.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.