Question is who owns Ineos? Is it listed or is it Jim? The other shareholders wont like if he (hopefully) pumps money into the club. That for me is a key issue
Club Sale | It’s done!
- Thread starter JB08
- Start date
- Status
During the last part of 2021 to Spring last year Dubai hosted the world fair - Expo2020Dubai (postponed due to covid). Due to a lack of drawing cards promoting the Emirate, they had to "borrow" City players from Abu Dhabi to promote it. Remember thinking how little attention those City players got and how much of a bigger draw it would have been for Dubai to have United connected to the event. Maybe the hosting comittee and the ruling royal family thought so as well and decided, in the quiet words of Louis Van Gaal, that WE GO FOR IT.
Sure we can compete financially in the transfer market and with wages, though we’ve not done well In that arena we’ve still competed with the top of the market teams. I’d argue that’s been at the detriment of other areas that also require spending. For example the stadium, training facilities, facilities for youth and women teams etc..
It’s no surprise that the Glazers soon looked to sell when it became apparent how much money it would cost to upgrade everything. It just wouldn’t be possible under the current regime with the debt saddled on the club and dividends being taken every year. That’s why they looked for outside investment before eventually succumbing to putting the club up for sale.
Not a huge fan of the oil money but please no more Americans.
The Davos angle is more than interesting as well. I read that there's going to be significant middle east presence there
The word 'investors' keeps being used a lot on these tweets. Makes me think that a full sale might not be in the cards yet.
But INEOs registering their interest is huge, they'll take over the whole club and would be good to have owners with a portfolio of clubs like City's owners.
They have the money and have experience of running clubs now.
But INEOs registering their interest is huge, they'll take over the whole club and would be good to have owners with a portfolio of clubs like City's owners.
They have the money and have experience of running clubs now.
Thanks, sounds like the best person for the job. Would love that to include a stadium rebuild or new build, but ultimately happy the Glazers will be gone and the club should be debt free and run properly.
Whoever buys the club is an investor.. I wouldn't get hung up on that terminology.
I'm very uneasy about this talk of it not been certain the Glazers will fully walk away, could there be a scenario where they sell a majority stake, but hang on to a low percentage of the club? So annoying, but irrelevant.
Didn't they have a very public spat with Airbus too?
Vieira and Favre have been sacked, Ursea was an interim, Galtier was upset with the club and wanted to resign whether PSG was there or not and currently there is Digard.
I wouldn't worry too much about it, it's just making sure they're not overplaying their hand and to ensure they get the price they want from the sale. They don't want to seem desperate.
I don't think any new owner would want the Glazer family anywhere near the club with how badly they have mismanaged it.
It's absolutely ludicrous. For the record, Ratcliffe's net worth is larger than the net worth of Stan Kroenke, Todd Boehly, John W. Henry, Daniel Levy and the entire Glazer family, COMBINED.The narrative that INEOS and Ratcliffe are paupers and would ruin United is baffling
He wouldn't even be buying United, anyway, it would be Ineos, who make more money in an average three-day period than Manchester United do in a year.
Fair enough, but the talk of the sale possibly not being a complete sale makes me think there's more to the terminology.
I guess we'll have to wait to find out.
Just out of interest/curiosity, did any state from ME or beyond bid for Chelsea when it went up for sale?
Clear the debt, finance the stadium, give ETH whatever structure he wants and just as importantly is having a plan to grow our revenues. The revenues are key to being able to outspend other clubs due to FFP. All sponsorship deals now need to be approved by the EPL and not linked to ownership - so all this talk about how rich the owners are is a bit of a red herring. Are we more likely to grow our revenues under INEOS or Saudi Arabia if they can’t sponsor us themselves?
It’s exactly the same terminology being used for Liverpool by the way
It's making me laugh seeing people put that Ratcliffe can't afford United etc.
As you say INEOs will be buying the club, this is a multi billion dollar turnover company, one who have said that they used dividends to buy and fund Nice just because they could.
To be fair though, Levy doesn't strictly own any of Spurs, he's just the chairman.
It’s happening
INEOS - "We'd like to buy the club."
Glazers - "How much?"
INEOS - "brb..."
*Press release*
INEOS - "One Million Dollars."
Glazers - leaves chat
You make it sound like it's as easy as selling a Honda, and buying a Mercedes. I am sure it's very hard to sell Newcastle just so you can immediately turn around and buy United. Among other things, FA is not going to appreciate such flipping of clubs.
Why was Galtier upset?
To which FSG haven't fully stated that they want to sell the whole club and were unsure if they just wanted to sell a minority stake.
Which is why it's troubling me slightly.
From what I believe, just the Saudi media firm.
He didn't tell but it was rumoured that the project they initially sold him was different to what they actually did when he signed.
He absolutely is, let's not kid ourselves. Ask yourself this - would Klopp be able to achieve the same thing Guardiola has at City? I'd argue with 90% chance that yes, he would. Would Guardiola have managed to achieve the same thing Klopp has done with Liverpool? That would be a resounding "NO" imo. Guardiola has never been tested at any club he's been. He's always taken club who financially dwarf the competition. Closest thing to a challenge would be his first season at Barca, but even then - Barca and Real are pretty clear cut above the rest of La Liga. As far as Liverpool's squad, I'll disagree on this as well. The squad is aging, their midfield and defense are at the moment complete trash and even Salah is really not performing that well. Sure, he had dips with Dortmund in his last season as well, but what do Liverpool and Dortmund have in common? They haven't invested shit in a rebuild. Liverpool, for almost the entirety of Klopp's tenure, have been working on a net profit. That's not how you compete with a club that can buy a 100 million player in City and then promptly bench him. He's not SAF, but he is the closest thing to SAF in modern football given what he has done with the clubs he has taken that have no business in competing for trophies. In contrast, Guardiola has never went through these deep waters. He's bailed every time things have started to turn south for him. At both Barcelona and Bayern he left when he needed to spice up things and at City so far he hasn't, but he has unlimited budget there anyway. He really doesn't require any rebuilds.
Man City before Pep were a "newborn" club, so to speak. They were still struggling to become a 'big' club and enticing overpriced players with ridiculous wages and transfer fees. And said City also had to compete with Mourinho and SAF, who although heavily gimped by spending, was still SAF. Guardiola's only challenge, I'm sorry to say, has been Klopp who has vastly inferior resources to him.
You're talking how much we've spend, but again you're forgetting that all of this has come at a huge cost in other areas of the club. We're lagging behind almost every other top club, hell even clubs like fecking Spurs are dwarfing us when it comes to proper football structure. A lot of this has to do with money. We haven't won the league in 10 years now, how have we been able to compete? As a matter of fact, we haven't even come close to winning the league. A lot of this has to do with bad decisions, true, but most if it has to do with the money we don't have. Players look at United and ask themselves - what can United offer that other teams in the PL can't? Just a name? In the '00's we used to be THE club to play for. Madrid and United were the clubs every player wanted to be in. Now we are considered a bit of a joke. Thankfully, the name still carries some weight, but that can only get you so far.
It still doesn't ring true. If you're in a bidding process what the feck do you possibly gain from going public with your interest? If he is genuinely bidding then going public makes zero sense. Its not as if 'well he went to the press first, so let's accept his bid over a higher one' is a thing
If anything breaking cover will confirm to other interest parties the existence of competition and drive the price of the asset you're bidding for up.
It's nonsense
Jim is just a stalking horse for the Glazers to jolt serious bidders into action
If anything breaking cover will confirm to other interest parties the existence of competition and drive the price of the asset you're bidding for up.
It's nonsense
Jim is just a stalking horse for the Glazers to jolt serious bidders into action
As previously mentioned, to be able to set up a shop like that at events like these usually require months of planning, maybe even longer depending on how hard it is to get access to it. Also United have been a partner for WEF for a few years. So unless this was part of their selling plan months before they went public, I don't think United being represented in Davos has much to do with the potential sale of the club.
Yeah but how much money does a guy like Ratcliffe have? £15 Billion? Compared to a country with £150 Billion he might as well be worth £15,000. Why are we entertaining bids from someone worth only £15,000?!The narrative that INEOS and Ratcliffe are paupers and would ruin United is baffling
ME investment means a 100,000 capacity stadium made out of hard light, and Manchester can be turned into a floating city, constructed within 12 months. With Sir Jim "I'm only worth £150.23" Ratcliffe we'd only get a company sponsored multi-purpose stadium and some trees. Rather sit around and do feck all, it's not worth it.
That was Qatar Airways
The clubs a joke but the name carries weight. Right.
No official bids. There was interest but one of the requirements to bid was to share their financial information and they never submitted the information.
They are publicly listed, I'm almost sure that they legally have to communicate about such an investment. Or at the very least they have to tell the truth if asked about it.
The club isn't a joke.
Even if you're going to an auction to buy a sideboard if you're really interested in bidding for a particular sideboard you don't fanny around the auction room with other potential bidders telling everyone how great that sideboard is and you're determined to buy it. Because you'd be a fecking idiot if you did that. Unless you knew the guy selling the sideboard and was working with him to drive up the price. And that's just a sideboard
That's essentially what Jim is doing with a £6bn asset and I think it's naive to think there isn't something else going on here that isn't entirely on the level
That's essentially what Jim is doing with a £6bn asset and I think it's naive to think there isn't something else going on here that isn't entirely on the level
That’s what the poster said.
And you should have told him that it was a ridiculous claim.
- Status