Laughing at them aside I assume that the parties who are unsuccessful in acquiring United will move on to Liverpool next. While we are understandably taking up all the attention, after we’re sorted then you also have the second biggest club in England for sale, which surely has to be quite appealing to these same people as well.
Club Sale | It’s done!
- Thread starter JB08
- Start date
- Status
I think you're right, there's more than one party interested from Saudi, according to Mike Keegan. So the five bidders could be two from Saudi, one from Qatar, and one each from America/UK. And Keegan's report suggests that the Qatari group believe their bid will be the best.
Ineos would definitely want to see their money back because they are a company, not a charity. I don't know what Sir Jim's share of the company is, but I assume he would still has shareholders he needs to answer to even if it is a private venture for him since he is going to saddle the company with that debt and they would expect dividends from such purchase in return.
True, it’s probably closer to 2 billion.Of course it's not accurate. A billion fans
Anyone believing it wouldn't be our dividends servicing INEOS' debt for buying us is living in dreamland.
Don't want our club to be bought by Goldman money anyway. Now that is blood money
Don't want our club to be bought by Goldman money anyway. Now that is blood money
They won't say it or gullible people would cotton on.
Yeah, if @Plant0x84 is right they think they would make more money out of us than the Glazers do. Oh joy.
In practice I don't think it matters really, Ineos will drop out when the price gets to the point they they've calculated they won't be able to make money, which will happen if the Qataris or Saudis really are involved. Get set to welcome your new overlords.
Do it!
Well it was suggested that Ben Jacobs has close links to Qatar,supposedly even knows some of that PSG guys kids. Does feel like him and Mike Keegan are the two talking with most confidence about it whereas others giving mixed messages.
Yea, their definition of fans is weird. That number would probably make sense for the amount of people that are aware of such name/brand "Manchester United" existing. That hardly makes them fans though.
If Jim Ratcliffe really loves United then he’ll buy Liverpool after not getting us then ruin them from the inside.
Let's face it we won't be able to please everyone on this. Ratcliffe is the favourite with our hardcore fans but he wouldn't write off debt like Abramovich did and see him taking dividends.
Then there is the Qatari's who have already outlined their plans on infrastructure and stadium improvement but despite it being private investors will always get tarnished with the sportswashing brush as PSG owners.
Could you imagine that. Their fans would have a meltdown if he bought them.
True, but I sense that if state ownership were to go through, there would be another 2005-style mini-exodus (albeit short-lived - I'm sure the club will have no problem replacing outgoing fans if it starts winning things again). It is sad to think of fellow reds walking away, though.
What makes you so sure Sir Jim is definitely in this for profit and what makes you so sure ME investors are not interested in a profit?
Thank you for replying. Some people are so clueless it hurts.
This thread is full of people buying it.
Suddenly “debt is a good thing” and INEOS are going to service their £800m debt without taking a penny out of the club, because reasons. It’s mind bending.
INEOS is just more of what we have now. But Ratcliffe is English and supposedly a United fan so it’s all good.
This has become my favorite thread.
Each day I grab some popcorn and catch up on Cafe members share their ill-informed opinions represented as fact. It's actually kind of sad that watching pipe fitters and office workers and doctors, et al. argue about corporate finance transactions and mergers & acquisitions is so enjoyable.
I've been a corporate attorney for 30 years. I've worked at BigLaw, have been a general counsel on Wall Street for more than a decade and have run at least a dozen billion USD deals and I can tell you that, in my opinion, none of us have the slightest idea what is going on. How the winning bid will be structured and how the debt (if any) will be serviced is total and utter speculation. There are some arguments that have merit (e.g., not all debt is bad) and others that are simply hilarious.
Just the other day, 2 brothers you've probably never heard of acquired a NBA franchise (Phoenix Suns) for $4bn. I believe that the NBA has a leverage limit of $275m per team. So it seems to me that it is very possible for non-state actors to meet the Glazers' asking price without incurring debt. Whether any of the current bidders plan on doing so is wholly unknown and any statement to the contrary is simply speculation.
TL;DR please keep these arguments coming, they're fascinating. Definitely keep telling another poster that they are wrong when they speculate and state opinion as fact and then explain to them how you're right when you have absolutely no information other than what's been speculated in the press.
Each day I grab some popcorn and catch up on Cafe members share their ill-informed opinions represented as fact. It's actually kind of sad that watching pipe fitters and office workers and doctors, et al. argue about corporate finance transactions and mergers & acquisitions is so enjoyable.
I've been a corporate attorney for 30 years. I've worked at BigLaw, have been a general counsel on Wall Street for more than a decade and have run at least a dozen billion USD deals and I can tell you that, in my opinion, none of us have the slightest idea what is going on. How the winning bid will be structured and how the debt (if any) will be serviced is total and utter speculation. There are some arguments that have merit (e.g., not all debt is bad) and others that are simply hilarious.
Just the other day, 2 brothers you've probably never heard of acquired a NBA franchise (Phoenix Suns) for $4bn. I believe that the NBA has a leverage limit of $275m per team. So it seems to me that it is very possible for non-state actors to meet the Glazers' asking price without incurring debt. Whether any of the current bidders plan on doing so is wholly unknown and any statement to the contrary is simply speculation.
TL;DR please keep these arguments coming, they're fascinating. Definitely keep telling another poster that they are wrong when they speculate and state opinion as fact and then explain to them how you're right when you have absolutely no information other than what's been speculated in the press.
Because of what they said in that Keegan article about wanting to take us back to top suggests they aren't thinking about profit
Rat by name Rat by nature.
Is this a legitimate question? Do you actually need the difference between those two entities explaining?
This is one of the most condescending posts I’ve ever read on here
Says the biggest rat of all.
The idea of people thinking an oil state care about profit Their reasons for getting into bed with the biggest name in sport is quite obviously very different.
Their reasons for getting into bed with the biggest name in sport is quite obviously very different.He’s also a doctor!
Well, instead of eating your popcorn and boasting about your dozens of multi billion USD deals, you can, you know, educate people by providing your valuable input here.
It is obligatory from the league/FA. Not the parasites.
Yeah they want to improve imageThe idea of people thinking an oil state care about profit
Anyone else read this in the voice of Patrick Bateman?
I’ve seen NOTHING that suggests either party expects a financial return on investment, so why would Britain’s richest man be a money grabber any more than other billionaires?
Or they're looking for a minority stake. Bizarre.The idea of people thinking an oil state care about profit
To be fair his past conduct with brexit etc. point to him being a greedy self serving whopper.
Yeah that bit gets forgotten by his supporters
He sure sounds like a right prat.
Yeah you are none of that. Given the way you post, your posts belong to YouTube comments section.
He's off to return some video tapes.
I can be wrong like anyone else.
I would have been pleased at 'Sir Jim's' bid if he were buying it in his own name and had outlined his hopes and plans for the future, but Ineos has shareholders, and they are not altruists, they own their company for money, for profit as you say.
As for the ME nations, they've pumped billions into City and PSG, and my assumption, yeah, and I admit that is all it is, is that they will do the same for us. Whether you call it sportswashing or selling their brand, they spend to do it.
I get many people don't want ME people involved for moral or political reasons, but pretending there's no difference in the economics is not furthering their cause. Might not be right but it's an honest answer.
Goldman Sachs
And people were annoyed by the Qatari investors. Literally the worst people on the planet.
And people were annoyed by the Qatari investors. Literally the worst people on the planet.
Yeah that put me even further into Qatari campGoldman Sachs
And people were annoyed by the Qatari investors. Literally the worst people on the planet.
It's even more grating considering how much damage one specific American bank did to this club and brought you-know-who here. Now i'm not saying that all of them are like that, but... I rather not deal with American banks and debts.Goldman Sachs
And people were annoyed by the Qatari investors. Literally the worst people on the planet.
- Status