Club Sale | It’s done!

Status
Not open for further replies.
Loon said:
Is this guy reliable? I mean, has the gobby Ratcliffe PR contingent actually said the same? I recall something about Ineos absorbing it. Is that bollocks now?
Click to expand...
As I understand it, INEOS will contractually have to clear/refinance the existing debt. This is what the original report about the JP Morgan and Goldman Sachs link up on Bloomberg was about.
This would technically be new borrowing to refinance the Glazer debt, but as INEOS has expressly stated ‘no new debt’ then it will be on INEOS books as they can offset this debt against their tax obligations.
 
RedDevil@84 said:
What guarantee are you looking for? Doubt people are expecting quadruples if Qatar arrives.
Click to expand...

I'm not looking for guarantees. I said that unlimited wealth is not a cast-iron guarantee of even a single title. Look at poor old PSG, they can't get a hand on old Big Ears. :lol:
 
DevilRed said:
You must be one of the glazer siblings. :rolleyes:

1.1b taken out of this club and you think its "servicable".
Click to expand...

The original leveraged buy out and PIK loans wasn’t serviceable long term, it was absolutely disgusting.

Since floating and the bond issue it’s been very serviceable. Until Covid, which thankfully put the Glazers in a reet pickle and desperate for new investment.
 
Loon said:
Blimey! Don't take everything as a challenge, mate. I recall reading or hearing it on Sky when Ratcliffe's bid was mentioned. I don't actually remember exactly where, which is why I asked the question about it being bollocks.. I was hoping other knowledgeable people on here might remember or know if it was true or not.
Click to expand...
I’m asking because it’s never been stated by a trusted journalist that they would clear the debt. It’s just been assumptions and opinions coming to that conclusion.
 
Regulus Arcturus Black said:
The original leveraged buy out and PIK loans wasn’t serviceable long term, it was absolutely disgusting.

Since floating and the bond issue it’s been very serviceable. Until Covid, which thankfully put the Glazers in a reet pickle and desperate for new investment.
Click to expand...

Avram is that you?

No seriously.

Most of us are hoping they sell not seek new investment :lol:
 
Chief123 said:
So we should go with your opinion rather than what a tier 1 journalist has been told? Fascinating.
Click to expand...
Tier 1 sport journalist. Does he have inside business knowledge? Links to INEOS? Sir Jim’s personal number? Doubt it.
As we’ve seen Journalists are all parroting the same lines on this story for clicks. I could very well be proven wrong down the line, but what I believe makes sense. It’s not gospel.
 
Plant0x84 said:
Tier 1 sport journalist. Does he have inside business knowledge? Links to INEOS? Sir Jim’s personal number? Doubt it.
As we’ve seen Journalists are all parroting the same lines on this story for clicks. I could very well be proven wrong down the line, but what I believe makes sense. It’s not gospel.
Click to expand...
A tier 1 journalist is probably more reliable than a redcafe member who’s tweets you have been using as your source?
 
Plant0x84 said:
As I understand it, INEOS will contractually have to clear/refinance the existing debt. This is what the original report about the JP Morgan and Goldman Sachs link up on Bloomberg was about.
This would technically be new borrowing to refinance the Glazer debt, but as INEOS has expressly stated ‘no new debt’ then it will be on INEOS books as they can offset this debt against their tax obligations.
Click to expand...

Ahh, right, so I did hear something to that effect as another poster was asking me for a source and there's so much information and disinformation flying about that I couldn't make head nor tail of it! :lol:
 
Chief123 said:
A tier 1 journalist is probably more reliable than a redcafe member who’s tweets you have been using as your source?
Click to expand...
Depends if he has been through the contracts and knows what he’s looking at or not. I think a business lawyer specialising in M&A should probably know what he’s talking about, whether he posts on redcafe or not!
 
Regulus Arcturus Black said:
But they did and have searched for new investment, however their options seem extremely limited, hence the change of mind on selling. So Covid, whilst being poor for club/Glazers finances, has been great news for us fans.
Click to expand...

Agreed. Rainbow after every storm and what not.

But you never know with these glazers. There is a possibility they take the Elliott management money for a minority stake and stay put.

That would be the end of us.
 
Key words from Ratcliffe - “no fresh debts”. “majority ownership”.

That’s all I need to know to understand that the bid from Ineos doesn’t attract me in any way. Being debt free must be priority one, at least for me.
 
Loon said:
I'm not looking for guarantees. I said that unlimited wealth is not a cast-iron guarantee of even a single title. Look at poor old PSG, they can't get a hand on old Big Ears. :lol:
Click to expand...
Which is why the "cheat code" accusations are pointless. The club wants an owner, who need not take out the money from the club to live, will invest his own money into infrastructural upgrades the club desperately needs, will clear off the debts and will be re-invest the club money into the club.
 
Edwards6 said:
When they made the 1st bid and said they won't be putting any new debt on the club but didn't say anything about clearing the debt that's already there. There's also been multiple reports that they won't be paying it off as part of the takeover
Click to expand...

Wasn't that just all 2nd and 3rd hand Twitter reports though?

Don't think Ratcliffe or Ineos have actually confirmed much of the rumours.
 
Chief123 said:
I’m asking because it’s never been stated by a trusted journalist that they would clear the debt. It’s just been assumptions and opinions coming to that conclusion.
Click to expand...

It is puzzling that Ratcliffe's publicity machine have not said anything as part of their charm offensive?
 
Expect we’ll hear that INEOS have not made it though to the next round or have been outbid fairly soon.
 
Sir Jim will fix it, will he feck. An old man chatting shite, need rid of this debt and get back our financial muscle. Can't wait for this to end, united making more money than anyone tied with debt constraints. That's the real crime nobody is chatting about, ethics in football. Aye good one.
 
RedDevil@84 said:
Which is why the "cheat code" accusations are pointless. The club wants an owner, who need not take out the money from the club to live, will invest his own money into infrastructural upgrades the club desperately needs, will clear off the debts and will be re-invest the club money into the club.
Click to expand...

However, anything United achieve under Qatari ownership will be seen as such whether we see it as pointless or not. You know it will. Valid or not.
 
Loon said:
It is puzzling that Ratcliffe's publicity machine have not said anything as part of their charm offensive?
Click to expand...
It is something I have questioned previously on here but still been argued against. For me it’s an instant and easy PR win for them to say they will clear the existing debt immediately. They are clearly trying to put out good PR around the bid. It doesn’t make sense to miss out mentioning something would be fundamental in winning that PR battle. Hence why it leans towards the fact they probably aren’t wiping out the existing debt which is being backed by Tier 1 sources.

Tbh, right now I couldn’t give a crap who wins the bid. I’d be happy if Rishi Sunak’ wife wins it as long as it’s all over.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.