Club Sale | It’s done!

Status
Not open for further replies.
Berbaclass said:
Since when is a man in his mid to late 20’s a kid?

Incredibly boomerish thing to say
Click to expand...
Since when does a grown ass adult make up football transfer stories and call themself a “Muppetier”? :lol:

You’re obviously very fond of them for some weird reason so I’ll say no more on the subject.
 
Infra-red said:
Your breakdown is essentially correct, although the net debt figure is a little higher than £620m if you include the transfer debt.
Click to expand...
Transfer debt is different, which is simply amortised payments based on players the club have bought, this is a completely different line in the accounts and does not need to be settled when new owners buy the club because the asset( the player) remains at the club for a short term period and offsets the debt.

For Example Harry Maguire was bought for £80m on a 6 year contract so his amortised debt is £13.33m per year until united pay off the debt. The club still owe 2 years or £26.66m which is part of the £300m we currently owe in amortised transfer payments offset by player assets.

If we sell Harry Maguire for £30m on a three year contract and agree £10m per year as a payment for 3 years the net amortised debt reduces from £300m to £290m for the next two years and £277m in 2025/26 if no other transfers were made. The amortised transfer payments affect the end of year accounts process, the gross and net operating profit and FFP sustainability but they are in a completion separate line from the club banking debt which is somewhere between £620 and £680m right now. That’s money the glaziers leveraged the buyout of the club and have increased over the year for the day to day running, effectively as interest rates now rise restricting the club to trade as a Manchester United Club should.

If a takeover takes place the debt must be paid instantly by new owners under the current rules of new business owners acquiring the club. Someone like Qatar could effectively pay all of the amortised payments agreed with other clubs but they don’t have to and probably wouldn’t, they just employ best in class as CFO and start to move players for ridiculous fees like Maguire to PSG for £50m.
 
Rojofiam said:
Saddest thing is that Qatar was getting condemned by everyone for articles like this before the World Cup...now, though, some will defend them and explain how Qatar is actually a nice place to live in for women and they also treat migrant workers well.
Click to expand...
Stay on topic. Also please note media lost all credibility about migrant deaths after exploiting the ignorance of the British public, with headlines that did not match statistics.
 
MiamiSpartan said:
I think both are bidding for the 69% in reality. All of the "Qatar bidding for 100%" reports is just PR. It is probably their intention to buy the rest out, but that is obviously not included in what they're offering to the Glazers.

Whether the 5bn numbers are what they're offering for the 69% or if they're bidding for 69% based on a 5bn valuation of the club as a whole (i.e., 3.45bn to the Glazers), I don't know.

Part of me feels that the PR circulating makes it sound like it is 5bn for the Glazers 69%, but in reality it is based on a 5bn total valuation. The reason this seems plausible is that even a 5bn valuation of the club is way over what financial experts have suggested (I've heard the likes of Lord O'Neill and Kieran Maguire suggest that the club is worth in the low 3bn range, from a business perspective). So it's hard to see SJR and Qatar valuing the club at 7bn+ (if the 5bn figure represents 69%).

However, I take the figures being reported with a grain of salt. I am of the belief that there is a PR agenda from one of the parties behind every report.
Click to expand...

If this is a world record bid to own a club then surely it’s simple. The bid by all parties is for 69.5% of B class voting shares as the remaining 30.5% would have to be purchased at another time when by law new owners buying over 30% have to offer market rate of $23-25 currently. SJR has always said he’s not interested in owning any more than 69.5% and will allow others to partner or current minor share holders to continue on the NYSE so he is offering £5bn including the current debt of £620-680m for the club. He has never said he wants to buy 100%. It is therefore safe to assume that SJ is offering slightly more for the same 69.5% but with the additional caveat that he will take the club off the stock market and buy out the remaining 700,000 shares at market value of ($24-25). I asked if anyone on the cafe is 100% sure of the bid and what it entails but No one really knows and we are all assuming, why because both bidding parties are still under NDA’s and Journalists are just guessing.

I will remain impartial to both bids until I see the actual evidence of a bid and what it entails In the times or telegraph who normally report fact not fiction. Didn’t someone post ‘Sportico’ confirming a £6bn Qatar bid, my point just pure unadulterated speculation right now and no one really knows what’s been sent in sealed envelopes apart from the Raine Group, The Glaziers, SJR party and SJ party.
 
TrebleChamp99 said:
Fair enough the cash may have been lent to Jassim or perhaps he does have that much wealth , my point is there is no proof to either one, only assumptions.

It’s easy to say wealthy in Qatar = Qatari gig but we all know that’s not always the case.

For instance that Swedish Billionaire is he bankrolled by Swedish banks? They are immensely wealthy and invest a lot so should we take that as where he got his cash?

I believe it’s well known Jassims cash from bank of Qatar as in he was running it for a while.

But again that has little to do with the lawmakers in Qatar.

Are we to believe that Sheik Jassim himself could walk into the royal palace or whatever and say - you’re changing the entire structure of the country and all your human rights issues etc.

I think it’s overly simplified that someone wealthy from Qatar is responsible or has any connection with human rights violations and what happened to migrant workers.

I do t want to beat a dead horse but I wonder if for example when Nice were being taken over by INEOS their fans were saying - we have this wealthy billionaire Englishman coming in , but I don’t want him because England allow thousands of migrants to die in the English Channel every year and have just started a campaign to solidify that stance, they also broke lockdown protocol several times having opulent parties whilst the nation couldn’t see loved ones.

SJR was part of that and backed Brexit - we don’t want him.

It’s the same approach here.

Maybe in time it will be QIA / QSI but again what does that have to do with any of it. Those entities whilst bankrolled by the Qatar royal family aren’t the face of evil.
Click to expand...

There is a lot of conjecture in suggestions the Jassim bid is from Qatar. You're right there is no proof. What's more there seems a district change in approach to United, less open, than in other Qatar purchases that cannot be explained with proof. If indeed someone thinks Qatar is purchasing United. There is historical precedence where benefactors have purchased clubs which go largely ignored, old uncle Jack or RA. They're not on the level of the united sale, even after taking into account time variation of money, and there seems plenty of myths, which with a little research e.g. reading annual reports etc can be busted. e.g. QIA owning the majority of QIA which is false, Jassim/HJB being a close relative of the Emir. A prominent comment from some is that HJB had roles in running the country and QIA. He (HBJ) was removed immediately from positions of power in 2013 by the current Emir and hasn't been given power back. I'm not sure how people square the position that Jassim, whose father who was removed from power and never allowed back is currently being backed by the Emir. That is particularly questionable given the size of the family, and the distance from the Emir to Jassim. It is also just as questionable to think QIB might have been set up to buy United, that sure is some far ahead wishful thinking/planning.

That leads to, if not the Qatar state, where is the money coming from, frankly I have zero idea. It's naïve to think it's definitely coming from the state, I trust the process will know. I do have concerns, one being a comment from HBJ, where it is reported that he labelled United's operating activity to marketing (what new marketing?), and I have questions about how such wealth was gained. Equally I have concerns about INEOS. Some have said both bids don't seem entirely clean, it's hard to know.
 
redcucumber said:
So are these reports a load of overblown nonsense, then?
Click to expand...
Nothing to do with this topic. But as it’s been going on.

The media used the 6500-25000 dead migrants figure. You choose which one. It varies according to the paper you read. To portray that these are the migrants that died on the job, or even while building stadiums. As has been proving. But the truth really cannot overcome propaganda. The stats actually referred to . 6500 = South Asian migrants. 25000 = All migrants. That died in Qatar of any cause over a 10 year period. Qatar is 80% migrant population.

Also it speaks of peoples own ignorance and racism when 1) they assume all South Asian migrants are labourers 2) it doesn’t even occur to them that Qatar also considers westerners as migrants.
 
Woziak said:
Transfer debt is different, which is simply amortised payments based on players the club have bought, this is a completely different line in the accounts and does not need to be settled when new owners buy the club because the asset( the player) remains at the club for a short term period and offsets the debt.

For Example Harry Maguire was bought for £80m on a 6 year contract so his amortised debt is £13.33m per year until united pay off the debt. The club still owe 2 years or £26.66m which is part of the £300m we currently owe in amortised transfer payments offset by player assets.

If we sell Harry Maguire for £30m on a three year contract and agree £10m per year as a payment for 3 years the net amortised debt reduces from £300m to £290m for the next two years and £277m in 2025/26 if no other transfers were made. The amortised transfer payments affect the end of year accounts process, the gross and net operating profit and FFP sustainability but they are in a completion separate line from the club banking debt which is somewhere between £620 and £680m right now. That’s money the glaziers leveraged the buyout of the club and have increased over the year for the day to day running, effectively as interest rates now rise restricting the club to trade as a Manchester United Club should.

If a takeover takes place the debt must be paid instantly by new owners under the current rules of new business owners acquiring the club. Someone like Qatar could effectively pay all of the amortised payments agreed with other clubs but they don’t have to and probably wouldn’t, they just employ best in class as CFO and start to move players for ridiculous fees like Maguire to PSG for £50m.
Click to expand...

I understand how transfers are amortised - I think you are confusing two separate things. We paid for Maguire up front in one go - although the value of his transfer will continue to be written down (amortised) over the length of his contract, this is a non-cash cost (there is no outstanding balance owed to Leicester for this transfer - no further payments will leave the club for Maguire).

We do however owe £300m in outstanding transfer payments to other clubs. This is not amortisation, but rather it is a real cash cost - this money will leave the club and £135m of it is due within 12 months of 30 September 2022.
 
Last edited:
Expectations: Thread has grown 10 pages since I last visited, must have been some real juicy breaking news about the takeover

Reality: Same tripe regurgitated from the last 1,000 pages

Me: Sad.
 
AlPistacho said:
“Workers on “free visas” enter the country on a work visa under a local sponsor, but must find their own jobs. The scheme is illegal.” This is actually in the article.

Not sure how that’s a government thing. Did you even read the article you posted?
Click to expand...

Of course I did. Why do you think such visas were allowed for people from such poor places?

Hint: to get as many workers into the country before the World Cup. Local sponsors wouldn't do it if it wasn't only technically illegal as they would go to prison and not just theoretically get minor fines.
 
Last edited:
I estimate around 70-80% of people who object to the Qataris on human rights grounds are virtue signalers.

Only 20-30% (possibly much less) are consistent and highlight/protest human rights issues in other areas of society.

The others bring it up to make themselves feel better (oh look, I'm such a morally superior person) or do it to score cheap points (rival fans). They pontificate about how awful it all is online while munching on their lunch from Harrods (Qatari backed) after their daily morning reading of the Independent (Saudi owned with a Russian editor who's father was a former Russian KGB agent)
 
Reading the following article about the turmoil Malaga have faced while under the ownership of one of the Al-Thani familly makes me wonder if they are the right people to own a club like Man Utd:-

https://www.bbc.co.uk/sport/football/65042578

The claims of them agreeing to a 400m refurbishment of the local Marina then being unable to provide the funds, falling out with club partners, failing to appear when the dispute with the club partner ended up in court, and the club being relegated with unimaginable debts are quite alarming.
 
Last edited:
AlPistacho said:
Stay on topic. Also please note media lost all credibility about migrant deaths after exploiting the ignorance of the British public, with headlines that did not match statistics.
Click to expand...

What are the reliable statistics then? The one provided by Qatar themselves?

And it isn't just about deaths either. Imagine getting your passport taken away from you on arrival, working 16 hours a day in 40°C for $200 a month.
 
Wibble said:
Of course I did. Why do you think such visas were allowed for people from such poor places?
Click to expand...
They’re tourist cards, agents are deceiving them into thinking they can be transferred into work visas. Now they are stuck in a black market and can’t get jobs or proper jobs. It’s sad but it’s not a “Qatar Government” thing.

Really confusing why people can’t see that article should really be about international criminality
 
HarryP said:
I estimate around 70-80% of people who object to the Qataris on human rights grounds are virtue signalers.

Only 20-30% (possibly much less) are consistent and highlight/protest human rights issues in other areas of society.

The others bring it up to make themselves feel better (oh look, I'm such a morally superior person) or do it to score cheap points (rival fans). They pontificate about how awful it all is online while munching on their lunch from Harrods (Qatari backed) after their daily morning reading of the Independent (Saudi owned with a Russian editor who's father was a former Russian KGB agent)
Click to expand...
What an absolute steaming heap this post is. :wenger:
 
HarryP said:
I estimate around 70-80% of people who object to the Qataris on human rights grounds are virtue signalers.

Only 20-30% (possibly much less) are consistent and highlight/protest human rights issues in other areas of society.

The others bring it up to make themselves feel better (oh look, I'm such a morally superior person) or do it to score cheap points (rival fans). They pontificate about how awful it all is online while munching on their lunch from Harrods (Qatari backed) after their daily morning reading of the Independent (Saudi owned with a Russian editor who's father was a former Russian KGB agent)
Click to expand...
I estimate that most bring it up because they don’t want Manchester United associated with it.
 
HarryP said:
I estimate around 70-80% of people who object to the Qataris on human rights grounds are virtue signalers.

Only 20-30% (possibly much less) are consistent and highlight/protest human rights issues in other areas of society.

The others bring it up to make themselves feel better (oh look, I'm such a morally superior person) or do it to score cheap points (rival fans). They pontificate about how awful it all is online while munching on their lunch from Harrods (Qatari backed) after their daily morning reading of the Independent (Saudi owned with a Russian editor who's father was a former Russian KGB agent)
Click to expand...

Yeah true. I would reply further but I best start the 200 mile journey to Harrods now if I want to make it there for lunch. Shouldn’t have wasted that time this morning reading the paper really.

Don’t you think it’s best to shout about 5% of injustices in the world than none at all? Especially if it directly applies to something I spend a large amount of my time involved with? Why on earth would I have a discussion about Qatari involvement in Harrods, on a United forum, in a thread about United ownership.
 
RedRocket9908 said:
Reading the following article about the turmoil Malaga have faced while under the ownership of one of the Al-Thani familly makes me wonder if they are the right people to own a club like Man Utd:-

https://www.bbc.co.uk/sport/football/65042578

The claims of them agreeing to a 400m refurbishment of the local Marina then being unable to provide the funds, falling out with club partners, failing to appear when the dispute with the club partner ended up in court, and the club being relegated with unimaginable debts are quite alarming.
Click to expand...

Well that is grim. Totally forgot about Malaga and that they were owned by one of the Al-Thanis.
 
lucas11 said:
This deal is not getting done, when I said that this morning people jumped on me. Here we are almost 12 hours later, $Man Utd stock cratered. The reality is this, the Glazers do not want to sell, nor do they need to. They are rich, whoever says they aren't is kidding. They own the Tampa Bucs in the NFL and Man Utd, money is not a big deal for them. They're savvy businessmen, they want to basically stuff all the debt on the team and max out what they can get on the otherside. Avram Glazer may be the most hated man on this forum but he is a brilliant businessman. If the sheikh wants the team he can pay $7b+, but we all know he won't do it. The glazers hold one of the best assets in the world, why would you lower your price just to where bidders are, either the bidders come up or the Man Utd fans continue to enjoy the Glazer experience.
Click to expand...

Here why they actually might sell ;
1. Six sibling all holding different percentile of shares have different views, 4 want to sell, 1 might sell and 1 doesn’t want to.

2. The club lost over £100m last years accounts adding to the debt of the club it means we needed £700m and only turned over £600m unlike some clubs where a rich sugar daddy might bail you out at least to the sum of £60m which Uefa allow, our owners added to the debt.

3. We currently owe £680m and the interest rates are going to be at an all time high, it could cost the club £40m per year to service the debt before we switch on one light at old Trafford.

4. During the January window the club had depleted its actual cash reserves and could not afford to do Jao Felix loan or any deal over £10m even with Ronaldo being released from his contract early, instead the club paid £2.5m to a Turkish team and signed Weg Weghorst on probably 75k per week i’m guessing for a 6 month loan, but yeah Avram is a brilliant businessman!

5. The club needs at least £2.5bn short term investment to stabilise the club right now;
£680m to pay off club debt immediately
£1.370bn to redevelop Old Trafford to an 85,000 seater stadium with a retractable roof
£250m to redevelop Carrington training ground and complex
£200m to put in the bank account for transfer activity and to continue making amortised payment debt which is currently £300m over the next 4 or 5 years so we do not default and therefore become sanctioned or worse banned from European competition.

6. The Glaziers are divided not united on wanting to continue owning The Red Devils, they are not cash rich but asset wealthy and would need to all agree to sell some of their assets to inject such a huge cash investment.

7. They have never and will never invest instead they, yes all 6 siblings take out dividends yearly over a long period of time while the debt increases and the club takes longer to become debt free.

8. If they stay they have to take out another loan with a financier like Elliot’s and then the club would have either huge new debt of £2.5-3bn, thus making it inevitable that Man united would go bankrupt in 1 year or they keep 51% voting shares but the other 18% are somehow converted into £2bn for the club to spend on a new stadium, again highly unlikely.


In summary if 2 of the glaziers want to stay then only a partnership deal with SJR looks their most likely option. He may agree to buy 59% leaving the other two with 5% each and clear the debt through Ineos and allow them to have input on the day to day running of the club.

As for SJ just paying the £7bn, why should he? If the club goes into administration and it can in 12 months, he could buy the club for £1 and agree to settle all the debts with an administrator.

The Qatari will use strong arm tactics soon, £5.5.bn final take it or leave it bid, NFL team play in Middle East. Land opportunity for the Glaziers in Middle East, co purchase with the glaziers a new IPL cricket team to play in Qatar all sorts of under the table deals.


They own the Tampa Bay Buccaneers who have only ever won the SuperBowl twice in their entire history with recent turnover averaging $400m until last year $492m.
The so called super rich Glaziers between them have a joint debt on both teams of $1.6bn so if we assume United’s $750m then the Tampa Bay Buccaneers is $850m. Simple Maths one club has to go so they can consolidate the other. They may take the money and actually invest it into their NFL team but I highly doubt it! Do not underestimate how important the Qatar offer is of paying them to play in Qatar and opening up a new market. They are clearly trying to grow their NFL franchise revenue and status at the expense of Man united.
 
Rojofiam said:
Saddest thing is that Qatar was getting condemned by everyone for articles like this before the World Cup...now, though, some will defend them and explain how Qatar is actually a nice place to live in for women and they also treat migrant workers well.
Click to expand...
Saddest thing is you clearly haven’t even read the article. Shows the faux outrage.

“Workers on “free visas” enter the country on a work visa under a local sponsor, but must find their own jobs. The scheme is illegal”
 
Woziak said:
Here why they actually might sell ;
1. Six sibling all holding different percentile of shares have different views, 4 want to sell, 1 might sell and 1 doesn’t want to.

2. The club lost over £100m last years accounts adding to the debt of the club it means we needed £700m and only turned over £600m unlike some clubs where a rich sugar daddy might bail you out at least to the sum of £60m which Uefa allow, our owners added to the debt.

3. We currently owe £680m and the interest rates are going to be at an all time high, it could cost the club £40m per year to service the debt before we switch on one light at old Trafford.

4. During the January window the club had depleted its actual cash reserves and could not afford to do Jao Felix loan or any deal over £10m even with Ronaldo being released from his contract early, instead the club paid £2.5m to a Turkish team and signed Weg Weghorst on probably 75k per week i’m guessing for a 6 month loan, but yeah Avram is a brilliant businessman!

5. The club needs at least £2.5bn short term investment to stabilise the club right now;
£680m to pay off club debt immediately
£1.370bn to redevelop Old Trafford to an 85,000 seater stadium with a retractable roof
£250m to redevelop Carrington training ground and complex
£200m to put in the bank account for transfer activity and to continue making amortised payment debt which is currently £300m over the next 4 or 5 years so we do not default and therefore become sanctioned or worse banned from European competition.

6. The Glaziers are divided not united on wanting to continue owning The Red Devils, they are not cash rich but asset wealthy and would need to all agree to sell some of their assets to inject such a huge cash investment.

7. They have never and will never invest instead they, yes all 6 siblings take out dividends yearly over a long period of time while the debt increases and the club takes longer to become debt free.

8. If they stay they have to take out another loan with a financier like Elliot’s and then the club would have either huge new debt of £2.5-3bn, thus making it inevitable that Man united would go bankrupt in 1 year or they keep 51% voting shares but the other 18% are somehow converted into £2bn for the club to spend on a new stadium, again highly unlikely.


In summary if 2 of the glaziers want to stay then only a partnership deal with SJR looks their most likely option. He may agree to buy 59% leaving the other two with 5% each and clear the debt through Ineos and allow them to have input on the day to day running of the club.

As for SJ just paying the £7bn, why should he? If the club goes into administration and it can in 12 months, he could buy the club for £1 and agree to settle all the debts with an administrator.

The Qatari will use strong arm tactics soon, £5.5.bn final take it or leave it bid, NFL team play in Middle East. Land opportunity for the Glaziers in Middle East, co purchase with the glaziers a new IPL cricket team to play in Qatar all sorts of under the table deals.


They own the Tampa Bay Buccaneers who have only ever won the SuperBowl twice in their entire history with recent turnover averaging $400m until last year $492m.
The so called super rich Glaziers between them have a joint debt on both teams of $1.6bn so if we assume United’s $750m then the Tampa Bay Buccaneers is $850m. Simple Maths one club has to go so they can consolidate the other. They may take the money and actually invest it into their NFL team but I highly doubt it! Do not underestimate how important the Qatar offer is of paying them to play in Qatar and opening up a new market. They are clearly trying to grow their NFL franchise revenue and status at the expense of Man united.
Click to expand...
Good post, in my opinion. Sir Jim is still in the game, I would say. There are other factors which are rarely mentioned, touched on here. Things are going to get 'interesting' now.
 
Figgins said:
There is a lot of conjecture in suggestions the Jassim bid is from Qatar. You're right there is no proof. What's more there seems a district change in approach to United, less open, than in other Qatar purchases that cannot be explained with proof. If indeed someone thinks Qatar is purchasing United. There is historical precedence where benefactors have purchased clubs which go largely ignored, old uncle Jack or RA. They're not on the level of the united sale, even after taking into account time variation of money, and there seems plenty of myths, which with a little research e.g. reading annual reports etc can be busted. e.g. QIA owning the majority of QIA which is false, Jassim/HJB being a close relative of the Emir. A prominent comment from some is that HJB had roles in running the country and QIA. He (HBJ) was removed immediately from positions of power in 2013 by the current Emir and hasn't been given power back. I'm not sure how people square the position that Jassim, whose father who was removed from power and never allowed back is currently being backed by the Emir. That is particularly questionable given the size of the family, and the distance from the Emir to Jassim. It is also just as questionable to think QIB might have been set up to buy United, that sure is some far ahead wishful thinking/planning.

That leads to, if not the Qatar state, where is the money coming from, frankly I have zero idea. It's naïve to think it's definitely coming from the state, I trust the process will know. I do have concerns, one being a comment from HBJ, where it is reported that he labelled United's operating activity to marketing (what new marketing?), and I have questions about how such wealth was gained. Equally I have concerns about INEOS. Some have said both bids don't seem entirely clean, it's hard to know.
Click to expand...
The bolded is downright comical. You have no idea where the money is coming from for Jassim but are happy to shill on his behalf.

The willful ignorance on display in this thread is disappointing
 
MackRobinson said:
The bolded is downright comical. You have no idea where the money is coming from for Jassim but are happy to shill on his behalf.

The willful ignorance on display in this thread is disappointing
Click to expand...

Irony: if it's comical, prove where the money is coming from.

If you read some of my posts, you'll see i haven't expressed a preference on who i prefer, I don't feel i can with lack of information. As for being a shill, behave, i presented facts and you cannot handle the true. It's about your tolerance to true, it's not about me.
 
With the financials just released, it's clear the Glazers cannot afford to own this club. They will sell because if they don't, they could end up losing it completely. This myth that this club earns enough money to run itself is also now clearly not true. Money wise, we're in trouble and serious changes are needed from the very top to the bottom of this once great club.
 
Solius said:
All gone a bit quiet hasn't it.
Click to expand...

This is normal though.

A takeover is a lengthy process and there won't be constant daily updates on things to report about.

Most 'updates' are mainly rehashes of old information combined with guesswork and speculation.

The fact that there's clearly a lot of interest in the club is likely to make the process even longer too and frustratingly it plays perfectly for the Glazers.

I think we are many months away from nearing a conclusion.
 
Tiber said:
wont be much news which Raine are working through the bids
Click to expand...
Hurry up. Takes literally 2 seconds to look at the bids and see if they meet the numbers being sought. I should take over this process, would be done in an hour. Club sold and Mbappe, Bellingham, and Osimhen signed before 1pm.
 
Rojofiam said:
What are the reliable statistics then? The one provided by Qatar themselves?

And it isn't just about deaths either. Imagine getting your passport taken away from you on arrival, working 16 hours a day in 40°C for $200 a month.
Click to expand...

The report published by the Guardian estimated that 6500 migrant workers died in Qatar between 2010 and 2020. It doesn't look good but there's also most likely several nuances which obviously was ignored in the West. Many probably died when working on stadiums but the population of Qatar consists of over 90% of migrant workers so reasons for their deaths could be so many.

Also what you are probably referring to is the kafala system. The likes of UAE and Bahrain have officially abolished it (more recently Qatar too), although there's still question marks over government compliance on the matter. Obviously everyone would like to see instant radical reforms but atleast changes are coming. Even Amnesty has admitted that, although they still think the process is taking longer than expected.
 
Vapor trail said:
It's hard to say really I'd have agreed but given the latest round of bids would have assumed Qatar would have blown the competitors out of the water with the conditions of their offer which doesn't seem to be the case.

The only thing that's undermining SJR's bid is the further he has to go in the process of the sale is potentially the more debt he has to endure which most likely will eventually incorporate a figure / ratio that INEOS will be unable or unwilling to compromise with.

As much as we can draw comparisons with Qatar, middle East based ownership of clubs has little to no evidence of support for them overpaying for a football club. I think the fact that the PIF were strongly linked with United a few seasons ago before the Newcastle acquisition and no developments materialising from it despite their accumulation of resources is a good indicator of this.

The biggest positive that's unfortunately pushing the Glazers through with a sale (realistically) has to be the present economic climate (unfortunate part for mostly everyone), the interest rates on the debts, the losses the club has endured and the increased competitiveness financially in the league.
Click to expand...

Even for a nation state this is a relatively big investment.

No one, not even super wealthy states want to overpay for something when there is no need. If you overpay in one deal then it leads to negotiations being tougher and prices being raised for the next one. Everyone knows Qatar have bundles of cash they want to invest but they can't afford be seen as a soft touch that will pay whatever the seller asks for otherwise everyone will take them for a ride.

According to reports both Qatar and Ineos value United at roughly the same price, which makes sense as they'll both have competent people in place to come to the same conclusion. No doubt Qatar will eventually bid more than Ratcliffe but they have no need to blow him out of the water.
 
Infra-red said:
I understand how transfers are amortised - I think you are confusing two separate things. We paid for Maguire up front in one go - although the value of his transfer will continue to be written down (amortised) over the length of his contract, this is a non-cash cost (there is no outstanding balance owed to Leicester for this transfer - no further payments will leave the club for Maguire).

We do however owe £300m in outstanding transfer payments to other clubs. This is not amortisation, but rather it is a real cash cost - this money will leave the club and £135m of it is due within 12 months of 30 September 2022.
Click to expand...
But that’s debt for transfer payments is still offset by the player being a short term capital asset. I did not know we paid for Maguire upfront always assumed the 6 year contract was to amortise payments, weird giving him a 6 year contract otherwise?
 
Status
Not open for further replies.