INEOS trying to sell OGC NICE

France is one of the best talent hotbeds. If finances weren't ann issue having a feeder team there wouldn't be that bad
 
The trick to the multi club model is WHO owns the teams.

RB Leipzig and Salzburg were able to demonstrate to UEFA’s satisfaction that they could could divest of “control and common interest” enough to participate in Europa League together.

Under the UEFA rules there is a 30 percent threshold a team must be under. The City group sits at 47% for Girona, so my guess is they have a mechanism in place to shift percentages of ownership if they encounter this situation.

I know Clearlake, which is a veritable maze of entities as it is, would have to have mechanisms for dealing with this, because they wanted to buy Sporting CP; so it wouldn’t take a miracle like Girona for it to be an issue right away.

So, say I was Sir Jim: Ineos and I would be partners in both clubs. If Nice and United both make the champions league, Sir Jim has Ineos buy him down to 30 percent in one club, he buys them down below 30 percent in the other. The reality is more complicated, but the general idea is the same: you can have the same owners, just not the same “controlling” owners.

Unless they are bringing in a new entity created as an umbrella or something else, it looks like they are selling just because they need funds. Does Ineos even own enough of United for it to be an issue?
 
WalkerTheRed said:
INEOS doesn't own one single share in United. Sir Jim own "his" share of United through another company, separately from INEOS Sport.
I feel like there is a reason for that, besides him not using INEOS money to acquire United.
Click to expand...
Isn’t trawlers Ltd the company sir Jim created that owns a 25% (or is it 28% now?) so I’m assuming this circumnavigates this issue?
 
Coops73 said:
Isn’t trawlers Ltd the company sir Jim created that owns a 25% (or is it 28% now?) so I’m assuming this circumnavigates this issue?
Click to expand...

Yep, that's what I've been thinking too.

I does my head in, whenever I see people going on about "INEOS this, INEOS that" with regards to United. I know what they mean, but INEOS doesn't own any part of United
and details matter.
 
To be honest, I think any multi-cub ownership in any shape or form should be banned as it adds a massive competitive advantage for some teams.
 
astracrazy said:
So if Red Bull Salzburg qualify for the champions league, which they could well do, I presume UEFA will give Red Bull a year to sell them or Leipzig will they?
Click to expand...
Red Bull can't sell Leipzig because they don't own it. They actually exploited kind of a loophole in Germany: Teams have to be owned by actual clubs (only exceptions for historic reason are those who started as factory teams anyway - Leverkusen and Wolfsburg). But technically they founded a club which only accepts Red Bull people as members to control the team. I just checked, they have 23 members who have voting rights. For comparison, four clubs in the first and three clubs in the second Bundesliga have at least 100,000 members.

So Leipzig is a comptelely independent on a business level from Salzburg and they only needed to ensure that people don't work for both clubs (which they did before). Of course Red Bull still controls Leipzig in a way, but formally it is reasonably independent, they don't share executives or are part of a common structure.
 
I'm not typically one to moan, but here goes. So City are allowed to sign players from Girona, but United cannot sign Todibo? feck off.

INEOS should sell Nice and focus on buying a feeder club in LATAM & other smaller European competitions.
 
idek2346 said:
I'm not typically one to moan, but here goes. So City are allowed to sign players from Girona, but United cannot sign Todibo? feck off.

INEOS should sell Nice and focus on buying a feeder club in LATAM & other smaller European competitions.
Click to expand...

City signed Savio from Troyes who arnt in any European competition so arnt subject to the same rules.
 
mintyred said:
To be honest, I think any multi-cub ownership in any shape or form should be banned as it adds a massive competitive advantage for some teams.
Click to expand...
I am all down for the competitive advantage part. City have run that advantage perfectly, have an outstanding setup, and still lost out to a team that can stick Camavinga at LB because they just have too ma y good players.
They are one year away from having Vini jr, Mbappe, Bellingham and Wirtz…. I would have felt guilty building Madrids team in career mode and started over because it was unrealistic.

So, yeah, I’ll take what I can get.
 
idek2346 said:
I'm not typically one to moan, but here goes. So City are allowed to sign players from Girona, but United cannot sign Todibo? feck off.

INEOS should sell Nice and focus on buying a feeder club in LATAM & other smaller European competitions.
Click to expand...

They aren't allowed to do that this summer apparently, if they want to play in the same competition. City owners may also have to sell some of their stake in Girona, though they'll probably get around this by having Pep's brother buy more shares to get them back up to above 50%.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.