It is 100% hypocritical but I can understand the growing impatience that is causing these people to want the "easy" solution, I really don't think SJR would do any worse than Qatar, it might take a bit of patience but I think United doesn't really need a sugar daddy.
Club Sale | It’s done!
- Thread starter JB08
- Start date
- Status
Point 1 doesn’t matter it’s still state-backed ownership. Point 2 has to be joke otherwise why support the Qatar bid? Point 3 is just saying everyone is doing too and doesn’t erase the double standards.
To slate City for having state-back ownership for all these years and then cheerlead for state-back ownership for your team is clear hypocrisy. Not even sure how this is debatable.
I believe that the 6B figure is the valuation for the whole club. The actual cost of the sale through Raine would be 69% of that figure.
The Glazers Class B shares aren’t worth more than a standard share because as soon as they pass outside the family they revert to being Class A shares.
Maybe those slating City for their success being bought were just full of shit?
Possibly.
I'd think he almost certainly wants to privatise the club if he takes over. But as someone else pointed out he might just want to differentiate his bid from Ratcliffe's as maybe he suspects Jim could be open to part ownership as part of a consortium.
Dont both investment banks offer both services?
Thoughts?
Can definitely see him partnering with one of the hedge funds bidding in the background. If your going to get into bed with Goldman Sachs why not Elliot and co? Either way he gets the club without spending his own money
If control of the club changes, as it will when the Glazer shares are bought, then there is an obligation to bid for all shares. Not sure what the specific rules for NY listings are. There is also a threshold where monorities are 'squeezed out', so they have to sell.
Right. If you don't see any difference then there isn't much to discuss.
INEOS are very close to the Saudi's, and do lots of business with them and invest in Saudi as I recall, so there could be something hereJust imagine if SJR partnered alongside an ME state?Would be interesting to read the views from some on here!
I think you're on to something.
I thought that might be the case but I wasn't sure.
Fixed.
Seeing a difference and realizing the difference isn't significant are two entirely different things.
That’s actually worrying. SJR partnering with the likes of Elliot is not a great prospect.
Just to entertain this, from a financial perspective its not as clean as state funded, but compared to other clubs that aren't run by an entire state, how would it be worse?
City were a tin pot club battling relegation almost every year, while we are one of the biggest and most historic clubs in the world. I'd say there's a substantial difference. Once the Qataris have cleared the debt they won't even need to pump their own money into the club, we can spend our own money unlike City.
The whole narrative about the SJR bid is he isn’t in it for profit. If he’s partnering with Elliot, they are certainly in it for profit. That’s a terrible prospect.
"United officials are said to be thoroughly impressed with the size of Sir Jim's winky and his ability to do kung fu moves that would have totally beaten Bruce Lee. Everyone in the meeting room clapped after his very clever comeback to a person who was being rude to him."
Yep. It would be interesting to understand how any potential partnership would work, bearing in mind PIF own 80% of Newcastle.
From what I understand, JP Morgan underwrites United's debt and BofA underwrites the shares for the club.
Didn't know Jimmy Somerville was a red.
I think both are huge investment banks that offer both services.
I'm not denying that Sheikh Jassim is likely the only debt free option though.
If the Qatar bid wins, I can see PSG drying up their spending. No more huge deals and their star players all leaving within a couple of years.
If Saudi's got their foot in at United i'd expect something similar. Newcastle are nothing in comparison. It's like choosing between the Isle of Sheppey or Los Angeles
Premier League ownership rules are strict - you are limited to a 10% share in any second club. Unless PIF were minority partners in the Ineos bid (which, to be fair, is possible), the Saudis would probably need to use one of their other investment vehicles in any joint bid for United.
I think people are slating the infinite spending part, rather than being state backed.
There’s quite a few clubs linked to states aren’t there? City are the standouts due to the spend
But what appeals to you in the Qatari option?
Malaga
Wouldn’t surprise me at all if Ratcliffe makes a deal with Ming the Merciless to get him over the line. It would mean the final destruction of earth.
Can you explain why point 1 doesn’t matter?
You're reading into it too much, both banks are happy to do whatever for either party and their prior dealings with United don't limit them in that sense. Also the club did finance $425M worth of bonds with BofA in 2013.
https://www.espn.co.uk/football/news/story/_/id/1458342/new-loan-bank-america-save-united-L10m-year
Are the same people that bought Malaga buying United?
Once again having a Qatar owner does not correlate to cheating buying success.
City purposely cheated they could of done it all above board with the same owners just there plan would of taken twice the amount of time.
They obviously decided the punishment or the chance of being caught was worth it.
City will say there arm was forced as to get to the revenue streams to allow you to spend the money and get the top players is a long process.
United do not have to do any of this and can still be top of class.This is a huge difference that all the anti Qatar people on this thread just gloss over.
If you don't see the difference between Manchester City, a club supported by a small portion of residents of Stockport who were a nothing-club before their takeover, to the behemoth which is an already established great of the game in Manchester United, then I don't know what to say.
Think of Spurs being bought by Qatar and then all of a sudden start winning the league nearly every season. It's similar and even then, Spurs are stil a bigger and well known club than City were when they were aquired by their new overlords.
Man Utd, Bayern, Barca, Real Madrid and Liverpool are on a different planet to other football clubs in regards to stature and a worldwide following. It's just how it is.
Here the thing no one but the 6 glaziers siblings know what the true bottom line that they will accept, we have to assume that the Qatari Bid is based on a like for like purchase of 69% of Glazier voting shares
like SJR so assuming that SJR max’s out at €5bn and Qatar max out at €5.6bn which is $6bn or $1bn for each Glazier sibling you’d expect for them to say yes plus there would be external pressure from the other shareholders to max out on $21-24 per share. The Qatari owners would then need to spend another £1-1.2bn on taken the club off the NYSE.
If this happens watch the media and the PR spin that the final sale price is actually
£5.4bn or €6.1bn or $6.7bn initial payment as the club debt of £620m is rolled into the purchase plus a further £3.6bn further payments in buying public shares, transfer and infra structure development and a new stadium being built or renovated are fixed future agreed payments.
Purchase price is one thing. It's the total amount or commitment that would be interesting. From infrastructure to redevelopment plans etc.
I won't be surprised if true. These officials are probably Arnold and his people. Now SJR's team was made up by a mix of INEOS owners and people at the highest rank of INEOS sports branch. None of them would threaten Arnold and his people. The Qatari bid though is different. Arnold probably looked straight in Shahzad Shahbaz eyes knowing that if the Qatari bid wins then he'll be the man replacing him
Can the manager also be part owner?
Exactly the cost to change or awaken a sleeping giant is enormous
Jealous possibly too.
- Status