So it's either Qatar or no success?
Qatar or Ineos - which owners would you prefer? | Vote now Private
- Thread starter Zlatattack
- Start date
- Status
A better model like...?
Oh we get there finally, so a private individual from Qatar = State?
Huh? It’s already out there that any borrowing for the purchase of the club won’t be borrowed against the club, it’s against Ineos.
It’s a bit like talking to a brick wall so I’m just going to stop it here.
Edited my post. Honestly, I find the Elliot bid weird. I can see a few scenarios:
a) Glazers trying to show that they ate happy to keep the club, if the others do not offer what they want. But this looks stupid, cause they already own the club and it is self-sustainable so they do not need money to run it.
b) Avram and Joel trying to buy the other Glazers. Terrible scenario and we would be fecked, it would be as bad if not worse than 2006-2009.
c) Elliot just making funds available for investors who cannot get money from big banks. Which is probably even worse than b (they gave debt with 15% to the previous owners of Milano, and that was at a time when interest rates were lower than now).
Essentially (a) is a bluff, b and c are we are fecked.
Whatever it is, Elliot being involved is really bad.
If SJR dies Ineos would look to keep running the club or sell it, what good is an asset they paid a lot of money for becoming worthless no sane business would do that.
Of course there is what if the British government falls out of favour with Qatar and there are sanctions put on them like the Russia situation, I bet if you asked a Chelsea fan 5 years ago whether they were scared about Roman leaving in this way they'd have laughed it off.
Why do you answer a question with a question?
Compared to doping like City or PSG? 100%
Revan's post on the last page spells it out.
I actually didn't know that, are you able to link me to that? I have only read that the borrowed money will be to clear the 600m debt.
I kind of alluded to that.
I think it is unlikely for that to happen. Qatar has powerful enemies so this (and the World Cup) are more trying to put themselves on map (i.e., people knowing their existence and in worst case them becoming an Ukraine not a Yemen) rather than sportswashing for their LGBTQ+ and women rights (or lack of them). In either case, it is very important for them to keep the great relations with the UK (that is why they have been investing billions there).
Saying that, it could obviously happen. In which case, we will get sold to someone else (like Chelsea did), which is hardly the end of the world.
Until we reach than unlikely hypothetical scenario, I prefer their vision. Which so far we know it contains a) full takeover which implies further investment; b) not backed by debt; c) clearing the current debt; d) investment in stadium, infrastructure etc.
A good post and reflected post.
Because a set of discriminating laws are not unique for that country doens't justify them. Not allowing religious freedom or freedom of speach is a violation against basic human rights though.
It's hard to know exactly what the people wants, when criticism against regime and religion is prohibited by law. What the majority thinks of this is not interesting in this case either because of the fact that there are minorities being criminalized at the same time. There are many of reports describing bad working conditions and lack of rights for the immigrant workers in Qatar. If those reports conclude for all or just parts of these workers I do not know. I also see that measures has been made to improve the conditions for immigrant workers on paper. Let's see what the next set of reports says.
The 2021 election were for local offices with no effective power, less than 10% of the population were eligible to vote, the election was postponed 3 times over a period of 8 years. Political parties are not allowed, so 30 individuals were elected, all men.
As long as the Emir and his family holds on to their power by putting any seed to regime criticism in jail and criminalizing non-Muslim livestyles and thoughts, change will be slow. Very slow.
It is still an absolute monarchy where human rights are consistantly being violated. Being culturally and religiously conservative is the perfect workingconditions for any dictatorship.
Why are you fighting the despots cause here?
I keep reading this, is there any guarantees that they will not be transfered to the club later on?
It's true, though. Local fans of any club in England have a closer attachment and their club forms part of their identity. It goes beyond simply whether their club wins or loses football matches, which is what most non local fans want to see.
I have no idea how local fans feel, thats why i asked the question. Most of my friends want anybody but the Glazers though there is some trepidation about Qatar. I wouldn't listen to a word man of the people Neville says though, he's long been bought and paid for.
You even got that wrong.
INEOS said no NEW debt attributed to Man United.
A stipulation that suggests, without declaring it, that the old debt will remain.
That’s by far the worst option
Ineos made 2.5 billion quid in profits last year I am sure they can cover it christ
There’s been like an 8 point swing toward Qatar since it went private
I will assume that the siblings' shares are about equal, and that all of them bar Joel and Avram want out because that's what was reported. The other 4 will want to receive as much money as possible for their shares. Now, if Qatar buys the club for 5bn GBP, each of them will get about ~800M. So to match that Joel and Avram would need to come up with ~3.5bn GBP to buy them out. No one will give them this much money for a minority stake and they are never going to take on such a debt (I'm not sure they even can). I think this is why Apollo blew them off in the summer. And I think Elliot will do the same. Joel and Avram want to have the cake and eat it too, and have their date's cake.
However, I can fully see Elliot financing another bidder.
They will definitely be transferred to the club. No business takes over debt and doesn’t pass it on to the consumer in one way or another. Anyone who thinks otherwise is naive.
They didn't get rich by throwing money away. Jehovah.
You even got that wrong.
INEOS said no NEW debt attributed to Man United.
A stipulation that suggests, without declaring it, that the old debt will remain.
This is why I said, I dont know, send me a link to this well known knowledge that the poster keeps referring to.
Exactly.
If I have to search for it, you may as well do it.
Actually if that happens (Sanctions on Qatar as a state) it's great for us, our debt would be already wiped off, presumably we would have got an investment in stadium and that is already refurbished. Similarly investment is youth and facilities all upgraded. We would actually just be fine without any owner aswell or could be fan ownership.
1. I'm one who thinks welcoming a dictatorship owner has low moral standards.
2. No, because they accept the crimes of a potential new owner. I think most in here likes the idea of splashing money on the clubs dept, facilities and fancy new toys.
3. Yes! A lot on here literally says they do not care who the owners are as long as they see the Glaziers backs and fresh money coming in.
I'm just trying to fathom just how true north his own moral compass is after lecturing others on theirs. The Saudis and Qataris have similar ideologies so by defect if he attacks one of them so fervently then the other should be on his radar as well regardless of the influence they have over the club. (Blood) money is (blood) money as they say.
Sorry for ignorance, what will bi transfered to the club?
I just care about the club being successful. Qatar has the best project for that, so it's 100% Qatar for me.
Exactly.
This is going to end up 85/15 like the Rashford poll and it's going to become our cursed version of the 52/48 meme.
It has never been 2.5B. The highest it has been is 1.8B, usually it has been around 1-1.2B.
They also didn’t become so rich by giving money away.
I'd rather we stay with Glazers than go for Ineos which sounds like Glazers 2.0 with even more debt (and their half-arsed statement didn't help either). So I chose Qatar.
You see the bolded parts that's the issue that I have. A supposedly good and reflected post ends up being labelled as fighting the despots causes? I simply shared informations that comes from HRW and Amnesty International reports and articles, are they fighting the despots cause or are we supposed to not read them?
You know it's possible to disagree with someone, to observe things that you disagree with, to have different values and still be fair. It's also possible to think that a particular society doesn't align with your views and also recognize that you have no right to impose yours on them. So I will criticize religious societies and discrimination when I feel like it and I will also acknowledge other people's own freedom.
Its not a binary choice by the way, there are more than 2 bidders
It's actually more informed than the other way round. They can shift the debt to the books of whatever subsidiary company they like but if it's the parent company's name on the loan document the liability will be with the parent company (INEOS holding group), as loanee party in the loan agreement. Our name doesn't have to be on the loan document to be indirectly affected.
Last edited:
The club will still be liable for the debt it has since it's not going to be cleared.
The clubs finances will be tethered to another company Ineos with debts it may not be able to service, then what? The terms of this debt/liability needs to be known, if the parent company that owns the club cannot service its debt, it won't be a good thing for the club.
There are unknowns here, but I'm not entirely against the bid, things need to be made clear about what debt instrument is being used, the terms etc
A lot more INEOS votes than I would've expected given the way the debates have been going in the various threads. Are people voting for them simply because they don't want Qatar ?
- Status