Club Sale | It’s done!

[stevoc]

The Glazers actually made significant strides in reducing debt. At one point it was under £300m if I remember correctly. It was the pandemic borrowing and some refinancing that made it balloon again.

It actually makes a lot of sense for Ineos to borrow the money rather than using their entire cash reserves to fund a purchase. Let’s say you are worth $7bn. You don’t spend $4.5bn on a football club even if you had the cash. You take out a mortgage and pay for you big purchase over time.

If I was Jim Ratcliffe though why not sell 50% of the club to fans. The fans have shown interest in a an ownership scheme. Just make shares available to fans and sell 50% over a 10 year period or however long it takes. If they issued 2.25bn shares they could sell each one for £1 to fans. They could even have an ongoing tracker of shares sold so we could see that fan ownership has reached 10, 20, 30% as the years go by. What a gift that could be to your club?

Yep makes sense.

 

[Tarrou]

Why do you think I owe you anything?

You dont. But your post stating “the amount of people who think the debt will be serviced by Ineos is scary” is insulting and inflammatory for no reason, not to mention obviously incorrect, so I decided to question your logic..

After a while it just starts to get funny when someone is wrong and can’t find it in them to admit or just not respond, and here we are.

so I want stop asking because I’m a cnut and I enjoy it.

So again, answer the question or don’t respond. Thank you

 

[Mickeza]

Dont think Glazer will accept that bid. If INEOS bid is even lower then we are looking at long drawn out negotiations

It’s a high bid for an initial offer. I think it’ll go for over 5bn.

 

[Sauxees Moi Hui]

Serious question (and I haven't followed this all that closely), but from the seller's point of view do they care about all the extra details such as how its funded/stadium dev/future plans etc. or do they (and you could argue as investors "should they") only care about the best offer financially from their point of view??

Is all this marketing and positioning of the various offers just more acceptance of the fans AFTER any deal?

Qatar is clearly pushing to become the fans' choice, which may have a chilling effect for other bidders. Imagine if the fans love only the Qatar bid and another bidder winds up winning instead. The winner's relationship with the fans - key stakeholders - would start off on the wrong foot and might never recover from there. There would be fan boycotts, bad press, etc., etc. Not something anyone wants to deal with. Plus, I wouldn't be surprised if Qatar started stirring the fans' ire if it looked as though they might not win. Finally, I wonder if the Premier League has any obligations to take the fans' opinions into account when deciding whether to approve the deal.

For similar reasons, this puts pressure on the Glazers to actually sell the club instead of walking away from the deal. Imagine how the fans would react if the Glazers walked away and decided to keep the club now. This is helpful for Qatar as leverage in future negotiations of the sale.

But outside these considerations, the Glazers will care only about the money they receive from the sale.

 

[redsunited]

Jim 5b overpriced buyout or Glazers 800m debt? Definitely Glazers ownership is better. Manutd is not worth more than 2.5b as stadium renovation, inflated squad investment to just be in CL places are needed in future. If United is sold for anything more than 2.5b, the owner should be someone who loves United and can afford money to treat it as a charity, not any Jim.

 

[AlPistacho]

Appealing to whom? It's the Glazers that will decide who buys United. He doesn't need to release a statement to confirm he's not going to lump £5 billion worth of debt on a football club. It should be obvious.



So a company that makes £2-3 billion a year won't be able to service a £5b loan but a company that makes losses of £100m plus will be able to?

OK mate.

You’re being intentionally obtuse or maybe you are just incredibly naive.

 

[pratyush_utd]

It’s a high bid for an initial offer. I think it’ll go for over 5bn.

What do you reckon “takes into account” means here? Does that mean they have seen the debt and infrastructure investment needed and then decided to bid 4.5b to Glazers. Or it is what they are offering to Glazer and asking them to clear the debt and then parking the money for stadium investment . Because if its former then there bid would require investment of 6b atleast

 

[Berbaclass]

What do you reckon “takes into account” means here? Does that mean they have seen the debt and infrastructure investment needed and then decided to bid 4.5b to Glazers. Or it is what they are offering to Glazer and asking them to clear the debt and then parking the money for stadium investment . Because if its former then there bid would require investment of 6b atleast

Doesn't include debt + infrastructure IMO

 

[Mickeza]

What do you reckon “takes into account” means here? Does that mean they have seen the debt and infrastructure investment needed and then decided to bid 4.5b to Glazers. Or it is what they are offering to Glazer and asking them to clear the debt and then parking the money for stadium investment . Because if its former then there bid would require investment of 6b atleast

It’s the former. It’s 4.5bn due to the debt on the club and the infrastructure work required.

 

[AlPistacho]

You dont. But your post stating “the amount of people who think the debt will be serviced by Ineos is scary” is insulting and inflammatory for no reason, not to mention obviously incorrect, so I decided to question your logic..

After a while it just starts to get funny when someone is wrong and can’t find it in them to admit or just not respond, and here we are.

so I want stop asking because I’m a cnut and I enjoy it.

So again, answer the question or don’t respond. Thank you

Jim would have leaked it if the debt would have been 100% serviced by INEOS with nothing taken from United revenues. He leaked the “no buying debt put on United”, even thou I don’t think he legally can in a takeover as that was stopped after the Glazers! So he’s playing idiots for idiots. Trying to score any point he can, I don’t think he’d miss a chance if he actually had something credible.

 

[stevoc]

You’re being intentionally obtuse or maybe you are just incredibly naive.

I'm naive? OK.

Can you actually explain how you imagine a company that is currently losing £100m+ per year largely because it is servicing a debt in the hundreds of millions. Is suddenly gong to be able to afford to service a debt worth billions?

 

[The Kag]

People do realize that Goldman Sachs has had extremely close ties to the US federal government for eons, correct? They greatly contributed to the 2008 recession (to the tune of being fined 5 billion dollars for their involvement in defrauding investors) which was the worst economic crisis in the US since The Great Depression. This directly affected hundreds of millions of lives. That's just the tip of the iceberg in terms of their track record.

The company has been criticized for a lack of ethical standards, working with dictatorial regimes, close relationships with the U.S. federal government via a "revolving door" of former employees, and driving up prices of commodities through futures speculation.

There's a reason why they've been coined, "Government Sachs." Yes, Goldman Sachs wouldn't be our owners, but SJR is using them to finance the deal! Guilt by association and all of that that I keep seeing, no? Surely you wouldn't want your new owner to be associated with such an institution, would you? Swings and roundabouts. Quite a few supporters on here are taking the moral high ground whilst supporting SJR's bid when in reality, they're picking their personal lesser of evils. Great, you're still supporting absolutely vile groups so don't pretend otherwise. Either you're against corrupt and evil institutions being associated with United's ownership, or you aren't. You can't have your cake and eat it too.

 

[Berbaclass]

People do realize that Goldman Sachs has had extremely close ties to the US federal government for eons, correct? They greatly contributed to the 2008 recession (to the tune of being fined 5 billion dollars for their involvement in defrauding investors)which was the worst economic crisis in the US since The Great Depression which directly affected hundreds of millions of lives. That's just the tip of the iceberg in terms of their track record.



There's a reason why they've been coined, "Government Sachs." Yes, Goldman Sachs wouldn't be our owners, but SJR is using them to finance the deal! Guilt by association and all of that that I keep seeing, no? Surely you wouldn't want your new owner to be associated with such an institution, would you? Swings and roundabouts. Quite a few supporters on here are taking the moral high ground when in reality, they're picking their personal lesser of evils. Great, you're still supporting absolutely vile groups so don't pretend otherwise. Either you're against corrupt and evil institutions being associated with United's ownership, or you aren't. You can't have your cake and eat it too.

Didn't they also pledge to finance the Super League too? Either them or JP Morgan who are just as bad probably.

 

[AlPistacho]

I'm naive? OK.

Can you actually explain how you imagine a company that is currently losing £100m+ per year largely because it is servicing a debt in the hundreds of millions. Is suddenly gong to be able to afford to service a debt worth billions?

Can you explain why you’re not concerned by this? Considering his backers were promoting the Super League

 

[AlPistacho]

Didn't they also pledge to finance the Super League too? Either them or JP Morgan who are just as bad probably.

Just wrote. Scary how many people are blind to this. They just assume ‘Wallstreet’ will fund billions, INEOS will pay off the debt pay interests & fees some people are so blinded

 

[Berbaclass]

Tweet

— Twitter API (@user) date

 

[Mr Pigeon]

Anyone else feel a bit gutted?

A little. If the winning bid is Qatari then our new owner needs to come out and do the following as far as I'm concerned;

1) show respect to the women's team, highlight how we're going to develop it further
2) not just maintain but strengthen United's tie with Rainbow Laces and reiterate that United is for everyone including the LGBT community.

After all - turning their own words against them from the World Cup - they should respect the local culture...

 

[Berbaclass]

A little. If the winning bid is Qatari then our new owner needs to come out and do the following as far as I'm concerned;

1) show respect to the women's team
2) not just maintain but strengthen United's tie with Rainbow Laces and reiterate that United is for everyone including the LGBT community.

After all - turning their own words against them - they should respect the local culture...

They more than did this with PSG. They are one of the best women's teams in the world

 

[Utd7]

Sir Jim is quite old. I do wonder about his children and the Ineos group, what happens when Jim passes away, do we just get sold to Qatar anyway. Is there any interest or affiliation in United after Jim from his family or business? They could have zero interest in carrying United on, been born in London or Monaco I don't know, might want to back other sports/clubs or companies and sell us on in 5-10 years time?

Great points.

 

[Jaonz]

For so many years fighting of glazer's debt and now accepting another purchase for possibly a bigger debt? No thanks. Debt free owner all the time. It makes a lot of difference being a debt free club.

The club need improvement on all facilities. It needs investment to improve those area. Either new owner will invest for sure but how long will it takes to make it happen if the new owner is debt ridden from the start?

 

[Mr Pigeon]

They more than did this with PSG. They are one of the best women's teams in the world

I mean more in terms of treating it with respect, if that makes sense.

 

[YouOnlyLiveTwice]

People do realize that Goldman Sachs has had extremely close ties to the US federal government for eons, correct? They greatly contributed to the 2008 recession (to the tune of being fined 5 billion dollars for their involvement in defrauding investors) which was the worst economic crisis in the US since The Great Depression. This directly affected hundreds of millions of lives. That's just the tip of the iceberg in terms of their track record.



There's a reason why they've been coined, "Government Sachs." Yes, Goldman Sachs wouldn't be our owners, but SJR is using them to finance the deal! Guilt by association and all of that that I keep seeing, no? Surely you wouldn't want your new owner to be associated with such an institution, would you? Swings and roundabouts. Quite a few supporters on here are taking the moral high ground whilst supporting SJR's bid when in reality, they're picking their personal lesser of evils. Great, you're still supporting absolutely vile groups so don't pretend otherwise. Either you're against corrupt and evil institutions being associated with United's ownership, or you aren't. You can't have your cake and eat it too.

Yes. And we live in countries that trade with Israel, China, Saudi Arabia, USA, etc, i'm guilty by living. I would still rather not have the club i invest a lot of time in be owned by the Qatari Royal family. And yes i will eat that cake.

 

[Tarrou]

Jim would have leaked it if the debt would have been 100% serviced by INEOS with nothing taken from United revenues. He leaked the “no buying debt put on United”, even thou I don’t think he legally can in a takeover as that was stopped after the Glazers! So he’s playing idiots for idiots. Trying to score any point he can, I don’t think he’d miss a chance if he actually had something credible.

The question was “so you think our revenues will service a 5bn loan?”

let’s give a generous rate of 5%, to just pay off the interest will cost 250m per year

our revenue is what? 700m, with profit around 100m on a good year.. at a loss last year

Do you see the problem?

 

[Berbaclass]

I mean more in terms of treating it with respect, if that makes sense.

I understand what you mean. I don't see why they wouldn't. They know exactly what they are buying into, the guy was educated in London so he will be aware of how diverse/multicultural the country is.

I'm pretty sure these guys aren't idiots. I'm pretty sure PSG showed support with the rainbow numbers thing that they wore.

 

[SAFMUTD]

You do realise that every football club is rooted in its locality? That’s the literal heart and soul of the club. So depressing how many fans don’t get this.

We're in a globalized world. Most fans are not from Manchester. Most of us have never been to Manchester, just as any major club the link between club and fans goes beyond the city. It's romantic you think about the heart and soul of the club or whatever but that's just romanticism.

Top clubs are global and depend on their success, the way to continue growing is continue to succeed sports wise. Ultimately the global fan base cares about sports results and performances rather than the team holding the city values, whatever they are.

 

[AlPistacho]

Dont think Glazer will accept that bid. If INEOS bid is even lower then we are looking at long drawn out negotiations

I think the type of business they were in before. They’d accept a lower offer from Qatar for the doors it would open.

 

[Berbaclass]

I think the type of business they were in before. They’d accept a lower offer from Qatar for the doors it would open.

You also have to consider the Glazers have spent a lot of time in the ME recently also.

 

[stevoc]

Can you explain why you’re not concerned by this? Considering his backers were promoting the Super League

So you haven't got a clue. Glad we cleared that up.

I'm not concerned because A, Ratcliffe is unlikely to win the takeover race to become United's new owner and B, on the off chance he does. No one is going to spend billions on a football club only to then run it into the ground by loading debts on the club that it could never dream of servicing, it makes no sense. The only way Ratcliffe/Ineos would ever make money from buying United is to grow the company, increase the value of the asset and hope to one day sell it on. Running it in to the ground and crippling it with debt isn't really conducive to that goal.

 

[SAFMUTD]

Based on what? Even with the Glazer family we've spent more than enough to compete in the last decade but we've been incompetent in our spending. If that continues under any new owners than the amount spent won't matter. I'm not sure the people who run a team who play in a league where they are totally dominant financially (to an extent we will never be in England) and yet have still failed to win the title twice in recent years and have made no real impact in Europe are definitely going to be competent. Plus they're complete cnuts for an added bonus.

They managed to have a much more competitive than us with a much lesser club. At this moment we can only dream of having players like Neymar, Mbappe and Messi. At this moment PSG is a bigger club than us, but that will change when they buy us.

 

[DownRiver]

Tweet

— Twitter API (@user) date

It really baffles me people still want Jimmy. Jassim is just as much a 'united fan' and more. He seems to care for the club genuinely. The contrast in the initial statements itself is massive.

 

[Berbaclass]

Tweet

— Twitter API (@user) date

 

[Mr Pigeon]

I understand what you mean. I don't see why they wouldn't. They know exactly what they are buying into, the guy was educated in London so he will be aware of how diverse/multicultural the country is.

To be fair a lot of the Qatari royal family were educated at Sandhurst and their laws don't really seem to have been impacted by it. Qatar is one of the few nations left where some women need their male "guardian" to give them permission to find a job, and that just puzzles me.

I'm definitely not saying that the guy won't understand any of this. He'll be highly educated. But, politically at least, there's going to be a lot of questions asked about Qatari laws and he'll need to do a fair bit to ease tensions.

 

[SAFMUTD]

we already are with a good coach

We aren't, citys having an off season yet theyre still a level above us.

 

[AlPistacho]

They question was “so you think our revenues will service a 5bn loan?”

let’s give a generous rate of 5%, to just pay off the interest will cost 250m per year

our revenue is what? 700m, with profit around 100m on a good year.. at a loss last year

Do you see the problem?

That’s the problem. I do see the problem. You don’t. You seem to think INEOS will solve everything. Funny how this Qatari never bided for Chelsea unlike Jim.

 

[Berbaclass]

To be fair a lot of the Qatari royal family were educated at Sandhurst and their laws don't really seem to have been impacted by it. Qatar is one of the few nations left where some women need their male "guardian" to give them permission to find a job, and that just puzzles me.

I'm definitely not saying that the guy won't understand any of this. He'll be highly educated. But, politically at least, there's going to be a lot of questions asked about Qatari laws and he'll need to do a fair bit to ease tensions.

Totally understandable but I'm fairly sure they will not come over here and 'rock the boat' in that manner. They will respect our country/culture just as they asked people to do in the World Cup in Qatar. That's not me defending their stance by any means I'm obviously just saying they will be well aware that things are very different in the UK and are obviously prepared to 'embrace' that to some extent, otherwise they wouldn't buy the club.

 

[AlPistacho]

You also have to consider the Glazers have spent a lot of time in the ME recently also.

Yeah exactly. Seems like they’ve been targeting that area for years. Not just Man Utd sale related but probably for their post United plans too, and no reason why the two can’t be related.

 

[Bert_]

They managed to have a much more competitive than us with a much lesser club. At this moment we can only dream of having players like Neymar, Mbappe and Messi. At this moment PSG is a bigger club than us, but that will change when they buy us.

How are PSG a bigger club than us? Because they spent insane amounts of money on big name players?

If you want us to aspire to be fecking PSG then I can see why you are all for the qataris taking over.

Maybe they can appoint Woodward as DoF.

 

[Mas Risky]

A little. If the winning bid is Qatari then our new owner needs to come out and do the following as far as I'm concerned;

1) show respect to the women's team, highlight how we're going to develop it further
2) not just maintain but strengthen United's tie with Rainbow Laces and reiterate that United is for everyone including the LGBT community.

After all - turning their own words against them from the World Cup - they should respect the local culture...

How well PSG owner address this issues?

I will assume that, if Qatari is our new owner, they will let everything as it is. Not neglecting it, but not progressive either.

 

[cpresc]

Jim 5b overpriced buyout or Glazers 800m debt? Definitely Glazers ownership is better. Manutd is not worth more than 2.5b as stadium renovation, inflated squad investment to just be in CL places are needed in future. If United is sold for anything more than 2.5b, the owner should be someone who loves United and can afford money to treat it as a charity, not any Jim.

You realise we’re currently in 3rd position right?

 

[AlPistacho]

So you haven't got a clue. Glad we cleared that up.

I'm not concerned because A, Ratcliffe is unlikely to win the takeover race to become United's new owner and B, on the off chance he does. No one is going to spend billions on a football club only to then run it into the ground by loading debts on the club that it could never dream of servicing, it makes no sense. The only way Ratcliffe/Ineos would ever make money from buying United is to grow the company, increase the value of the asset and hope to one day sell it on. Running it in to the ground and crippling it with debt isn't really conducive to that goal.

There’s two bids. One has given a pretty good plan and promise that most know he can deliver. He’s also a United fan, and has never tried to buy any other club.

Then there’s Ratcliffe…. Buying the club on debt. Won’t put the debt on the club, (but he legally can’t anyways so don’t know why he said it) backed by US investors. Have no clue what his plan people can take it for face value or spin it positively. Supports United, season ticket holder at Chelsea , tried to buy Chelsea, owns Nice, Nice fans don’t like him.