Plant0x84
Shame we’re aren’t more like Brighton
Not changed my mind as such, but I’ve definitely learned plenty.Has anyone actually changed their view on any of this through reading this thread?
Not changed my mind as such, but I’ve definitely learned plenty.Has anyone actually changed their view on any of this through reading this thread?
Has anyone actually changed their view on any of this through reading this thread?
Isn’t the story they tried changing other siblings minds and couldn’t do it?
In short it’s ether a bullshit story or doesn’t matter a feck what those two want
Lets not make major decisions on a whim based on what they seem. No one has ever seen Jassim in person, everything we've heard so far has been fed line by line to the Daily Mail.Jim's won't be fixing it, thankfully. He seems a bit of a chancer to me.
I want someone to wipe out the debt and let us spend our own money without dodgy loans and alternative funding sources that we find out about a year down the line.
Feck Jim, really gone off him.
Changed my mind from wanting Ratcliffe as soon as it was revealed they wouldn't be clearing the debtHas anyone actually changed their view on any of this through reading this thread?
This 100%.
We are one world class striker away to be competing with any top team in the world.
We don't need the blood/oil money of some murderous regime, just competent people.
Have any of you actually visited the area around eastlands and seen the change or asked the people what they think before you claim lack of self respect.
Big difference. They will not invest in infrastructure, build a new stadium, new training ground with their own money while the other 31% take a free ride.It's quite likely that both would end up owning 100% of shares and both would likely remove the debt.
But hypothetically what difference would it make if Ineos or Qatar for that matter only owned 69% of the club? Considering that that 69% has 100% control?
We're not making the decision though, thankfully.Lets not make major decisions on a whim based on what they seem. No one has ever seen Jassim in person, everything we've heard so far has been fed line by line to the Daily Mail.
We're also saddled with a shiteload of debt that is now going to be increasingly difficult to service.
If he is joined by a US investment fund, yes.Does that rule Jassim out then?
Its talkshite.
Not worth wiping your arse with their news.
No thank you Jim, we dont want any partnerships.
It costs less than 20m a year to service, so stop making things up to suit your narrative.
I have no problem if Jim takes a loan from a bank and put it on his company. But partnering with an investment fund is where we should draw the line.Unless of course it’s the banker partnering with an investment group, or his Dad, or the Qatari state, or a mixture of all of the above.
Then you want a partnership right?
Imagine thinking 20m a year wasn't a high figure.
Imagine thinking this figure won't continue to rise as we aren't servicing the debt and interest rates are rising at astronomical rates this financial year.
![]()
I have no problem if Jim takes a loan from a bank and put it on his company. But partnering with an investment fund is where we should draw the line.
NoIsn’t that exactly what Jassim is doing![]()
Imagine thinking all loans are on non-fixed term rates.
And 20m is next to nothing for a company with revenues in the 600m region.
This is based on 2020 rates and I don't know how long the maturity on that is. It's also US-dollar denominated which means the pound cratering doesn't help.It costs less than 20m a year to service, so stop making things up to suit your narrative.
This is based on 2020 rates and I don't know how long the maturity on that is. It's also US-dollar denominated which means the pound cratering doesn't help.
Care to tell us the debt maturity profile or are you just spitting flames at posters who do not agree with your uniformed opinions?
Clueless![]()
This goes back to a question I keep asking. If a huge investment isn't expected (call it infinite spend or whatever you like) why even back the Qatari bid?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
So state-ownership is fine as long as it's a big club? That's quite an odd line to draw.Can you explain why point 1 doesn’t matter?
City's success was slated before the accusations of cheating ever came out.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.
This is based on 2020 rates and I don't know how long the maturity on that is. It's also US-dollar denominated which means the pound cratering doesn't help.
Care to tell us the debt maturity profile or are you just spitting flames at posters who do not agree with your uniformed opinions?
Changed my mind from wanting Ratcliffe as soon as it was revealed they wouldn't be clearing the debt
The only thing that's changed is the goalposts.Has anyone actually changed their view on any of this through reading this thread?
Big difference. They will not invest in infrastructure, build a new stadium, new training ground with their own money while the other 31% take a free ride.
Imagine thinking our loans were fixed term rates
You're borrowing from a fecking investment bank not your local regional bank mortgage![]()
hang on, should Mancs be thankful their council sold off a shit tonne of land at a dog shit price in a massive Middle Eastern land grab?
Kin ell I’ve heard it all now.
Should really talk to the people on the ground there and in the communities as they ain’t got a chance of their own government investing.
Foreign/outside investment is many times a double edge sword. I've lived in Austin, San Francisco, and now NYC, cities that have transformed due to this kind of investment, and if you talk to locals many lament the building of expensive housing that prices out locals and upends the historical aesthetic of the city. Usually, jobs are created in the construction and retail sectors, but it's not a clear-cut positive for all locals. Granted I don't know the specifics of this case but it isn't cut and dry.Should really talk to the people on the ground there and in the communities as they ain’t got a chance of their own government investing.
Yes that doesn’t make the political situation in said countries any better but your telling a story strictly from one side.
I'm also interested to know how he's paying for it without partnering up with anyone.
When did Ratcliffe/Ineos reveal this?
https://www.sheffield.ac.uk/crafic/research/manchester-centripetal-city
I’m from Manchester mate, so I ”talk to Mancs on the ground” pretty fecking often.
And are you actually pretending Manchester hasn’t received feck tonne of government investment? Have you not been to Manchester the past 10 years man?
Oh wow, you don’t know the original 500m bond issue was in order to receive a much better fixed rate on the interest whilst paying off the horrendous PIK loans?
And you’re the one laughing
Partnership?
We are subject to interest rate risk in connection with borrowings under our revolving facilities and our secured term loan facility, which bear interest at variable rates. Interest rate changes could impact the amount of our interest payments, and accordingly, our future earnings and cash flow, assuming other factors are held constant. We have entered into an interest rate swap related to a portion of our secured term loan facility that involves the exchange of floating for fixed rate interest payments in order to reduce interest rate volatility. As of 30 June 2022, we had £185.2 million of variable rate indebtedness outstanding under our secured term loan facility and £100.0 million of variable rate indebtedness outstanding under our revolving facilities. We cannot assure you that any hedging activities entered into by us will be effective in fully mitigating our interest rate risk from our variable rate indebtedness.
And not be backed by the state. Gynansticsemoji.gifBut it’s just easier to post a laughing smilie rather than explain how a man who doesn’t have 6bn to spend is promising to spend much more than that.