Club Sale | It’s done!

Status
Not open for further replies.
crossy1686 said:
He'd own United under the INEOS umbrella though, and the debt would be on INEOS so it's still on United and partly United's responsibility to pay it off, as well as whatever other companies or football teams fall under that umbrella.
Click to expand...

That's really not how it works. If Ineos buys United then they can of course take out dividends to service Ineos debt, just as they can take out dividends for any other purpose, or just like they can choose not to.

Does the Ineos cycling team finance Ineos's debt? Does Nice?
 
So the second round of bidding is about to start. It doesn’t say the second and final round of bidding so I’m assuming the Glazers are going to drag this out for a while yet.
I wonder will Qatar come in strong at this stage and blow the other bids out of the water?
That way might mean they are the last man standing and harder for Glazers to play bids of against each other.
 
WalkerTheRed said:
You mean the other two guys, whom he can out-vote if it comes to that?
Click to expand...

I don't think that's quite how it works, you still have a fiduciary duty to other shareholders even if you're the majority shareholder, and you can't just use a company as your own personal piggy bank even with majority control. Maybe the other 2 are totally fine with taking on 6bn of debt for an asset that isn't likely worth that, or maybe they're very insistent they'll want the debt paid from the profits of thr club, even if the club is under thr Ineos umbrella
 
sglowrider said:
6 billion only for starters. The infra wil be another 2 billion. Then any plans for regeneration/redevelopment... That's got to be double the buying fee?
Click to expand...

I meant from the Glazers point of view, 6bn lump sum is far more than they can hope to leech off the club, that kind of money can be far better invested and generate better returns than holding onto a football club in need of massive investment
 
charlenefan said:
That comes with its own downfall though because you're dreaming if you think the other owners of INEOS are going to be cool with Ratcliff putting debt on that company without them getting some tasty dividends in return
Click to expand...
There’s 2 other shareholders. Nobody is buying a football club at over 5bn for the “tasty dividends”.
 
Mickeza said:
I was just correcting the notion that he’s borrowing to clear the existing debt - which isn’t what that article is saying but I don’t agree with your take. The additional debt will be placed on INEOS - the club isn’t liable for it so nothing like Glazers on steroids. I personally don’t see it as surprising someone is having to borrow at least 700m in a 5bn purchase. That’s perfectly normal.
Click to expand...
At the end of the day none of us are close enough to this deal to know the ins/outs. Is it confirmed anywhere in writing that INEOS are either clearing the current United debt or that any new debt taken on to facilitate the takeover will serviced solely by INEOS?

sglowrider said:
Click to expand...



Some of what's been coming out this evening leads me to believe that with INEOS, the current United debt will remain and we could indeed be saddled with more. Fair enough not Glazers on steroids but more money going out the door to service loans and debt - which is why I don't want involvement from the likes of Sachs etc....
 
jm99 said:
Can you source this, where ineos says they'll take on our existing debt and won't add more? Public statements have been hard to find, it's mostly been conjecture from journalists, sheikh jassim has said his bid will be completely debt free, I can't remember seeing Ratcliffe making a similar statement
Click to expand...
Sure mate I dont blame you for not reading the entire 800 pages. Their stance have been clear from the start though
 
Mickeza said:
There’s 2 other shareholders. Nobody is buying a football club at over 5bn for the “tasty dividends”.
Click to expand...

Chelsea were bought by an American investment firm, for 2.5bn plus a guarantee of 1.75bn investmenft (I think they're already over a 3rd of this from their transfers so far :lol: ) and that's a club with a far lower profile than us. Do you think clearlake arent expecting a return on investment at some point?
 
Given there's 7-8 bids, you'd expect 3-4 of those to be discrete.

Here's to hoping we pull a rabbit out of the hat @NotThatSoph - Ambani perhaps. (he was written off from one clickbait report)
 
mu4c_20le said:
Sure mate I dont blame you for not reading the entire 800 pages. Their stance have been clear from the start though
Click to expand...


OK, so not a public statement then? The sheikh has publicly stated his bid will be debt free in the statement they put out.

Also, no fresh debt isn't the same as clearing the existing debt.
 
jm99 said:
Chelsea were bought by an American investment firm, for 2.5bn plus a guarantee of 1.75bn investmenft (I think they're already over a 3rd of this from their transfers so far :lol: ) and that's a club with a far lower profile than us. Do you think clearlake arent expecting a return on investment at some point?
Click to expand...
They aren’t expecting that return to be from dividends. They’re expecting to grow the value of the asset by increasing revenues through what they believe to be huge untapped growth in media rights.
 
Mickeza said:
There’s 2 other shareholders. Nobody is buying a football club at over 5bn for the “tasty dividends”.
Click to expand...

Those other owners won't be allowing their company to have debt put against it out of the goodness of their heart and so Jimmy has a new play thing. They'll be financially rewarded somewhere down the line
 
LordSpud said:
Click to expand...

The Glazers are 100% selling. Qatar & Ratcliffe will walk away for good if they don't accept what's on the table now - they won't suddenly come back with another billion next year (nor will anyone who wasn't remotely interested at £4-5b appear with £6b).

The sale will happen, just depends on who stretches the furthest at this point
 
jm99 said:
OK, so not a public statement then? The sheikh has publicly stated his bid will be debt free in the statement they put out.

Also, no fresh debt isn't the same as clearing the existing debt.
Click to expand...
I dont believe they addressed the existing debt, only that this will not be a Glazer style takeover. Sounds more like an old billionaire wanting to fulfill a childhood dream, and his two INEOS buddies (being forced to?) tagging along. Even if people favour the Qatar bid because "mo money", there is no need to demonize Sir Jim.
 
jm99 said:
I meant from the Glazers point of view, 6bn lump sum is far more than they can hope to leech off the club, that kind of money can be far better invested and generate better returns than holding onto a football club in need of massive investment
Click to expand...

Correct. They have already invested in cricket in the gulf.
 
Mickeza said:
They aren’t expecting that return to be from dividends. They’re expecting to grow the value of the asset by increasing revenues through what they believe to be huge untapped growth in media rights.
Click to expand...

I'd have said media rights were the opposite, a bubble that'll eventually burst, certainly not something that's going to massively increase the value of Chelsea from 4.25bn. Increasing the value of the asset also relies on having people who would actually pay that much, which kinda decreases if you're expecting 6-7bn. United are a bit of an exception as such a huge global brand
 
Cman said:
So the second round of bidding is about to start. It doesn’t say the second and final round of bidding so I’m assuming the Glazers are going to drag this out for a while yet.
I wonder will Qatar come in strong at this stage and blow the other bids out of the water?
That way might mean they are the last man standing and harder for Glazers to play bids of against each other.
Click to expand...
Keegan said that a decision would likely be made around Easter (Early April) about who the preferred bidder is
 
mu4c_20le said:
I dont believe they addressed the existing debt, only that this will not be a Glazer style takeover. Sounds more like an old billionaire wanting to fulfill a childhood dream, and his two INEOS buddies (being forced to?) tagging along. Even if people favour the Qatar bid because "mo money", there is no need to demonize Sir Jim.
Click to expand...

But again, it's not actually a public statement, it's "sources close to the bid" and we've heard a ton of contradictory stuff from sources close to both bids. If he won't clear the existing debt then really it's as bad as the Glazers staying on, the debt is crippling us, and the other ineos shareholders will want some return on the 5-6bn. Plus the investment in infrastructure, if they won't commit to clearing the existing debt, its hard to see them beating the Qatar bit, and also investing in the stadium and facilities to the level required
 
TrebleChamp99 said:
Click to expand...


I absolutely get why people are strongly opposed to the Qatar bid and I massively respect those who wouldn’t put success over their own morals and beliefs. At the same time though, I don’t know how anyone could possibly be in support of the INEOS bid when we hear things like this. We’ve spent 18 years wanting rid of the glazers and the debt & could potentially end up in the exact same situation with the new owners, if not worse.

In many ways, this is the nightmare scenario. State takeover vs debt takeover. The Glazers have fecked this club in so many ways and this is their last parting gift.
 
The Glazers final up yours to the fans might be selling us to SJR.

Would not be surprised if Woodward is involved in this deal.

Goldman Sachs can’t wait to get another 17 years of payouts from our club.
 
Last edited:
Tbf there's definitely people on here who the "putting the Manchester back in Manchester United" will work on, even if we're still saddled with debt, at least it'll be good old fashioned British debt and none of this foreign debt free rubbish
 
Status
Not open for further replies.