Club Sale | It’s done!

[BarstoolProphet]

Unless I’ve missed it (and I may have) no one has so far explained why this guy whose personal wealth is £4b less than Jim Ratcliffe’s (and is the son of a Prime Minister) is going to buy the club outright, clear the debt, rebuild the facilities and invest in the squad, all without help from the state?

It just seems incredibly weird that people are pouring over Ineos’s financials and how they’d structure the deal, whilst saying this guy will just magically be able to fund everything, and more, without state funds. And if you question that, you’ve got an agenda?

And personally I’d like it explained, cos I’d be a lot more on board with a private owner than a state one.

It is, by all accounts, state-backed if not directly funded. The challenge when comparing net worth of those involved is that it's extremely hard to pinpoint the exact net worth of Royal family members in Qatar and ME in general. I wouldn't put much trust in the official net worth stories, even if it comes from seemingly reputable sources like Forbes. Like in UAE, Qatar doesn't disclose their personal finances and the finances of the huge Al Thani family is really intertwined. But by sheer logic is hard to see how the Emir and the rest of the key branch of Al Thani is not involved. The sheer prestige of owning United is enough for them to want to be directly involved in the takeover. Also there's good reasons for them to put their country in the global spotlight. They probably will get daily coverage of their domestic issues with human rights but at the same time it benefits them to be in the global spotlight in case another round of diplomatic issues with the neighbouring countries will emerge.

 

[devilish]

Hate the term of being ITK, but a taxi cab driver told me Knighton entered the race late and put in 15 quid

I heard that he's practicing his juggling skills again.

 

[Regulus Arcturus Black]

Beause we've suffered for years with debt and the only option (we know of) that doesn't include debt is the Qatari one.

“Suffered”, whilst spending the second most of anyone in the league.
Football’s equivalent of first World problems?

Pretty much all clubs have debt, unless State owned, something you were soo sooo against. Though in fairness, even City took out a new debt of almost 500 million against the club last year.

What we also know is that INEOS bid is also saying any new debt will be on them, not us.

 

[Water Melon]

It's a massive PR project, so for a basic example, buying big name players that they can use as ambassadors for Qatar. Stick them in adverts and have them promote Qatar and Qatari companies across the world. If the manager doesn't want or need these players then tough luck. He has to take them. The image is more import than reality.

Makes zero sense. If these players are not wanted by the manager, they will have a negative impact on results. If the results are not as good as expected, then it will have a negative impact on public opinion about the owners. So both the image and reality will suffer. Qataris are not idiots. They will probably have Beckham as one of their front faces, however, I doubt they would buy Messi and shove him down Erik's throat.

 

[stw2022]

I personally want Qatar, but isn’t it funny how we were almost begging Ratcliffe to make a bid way before there was even a whiff of us being for sale, and as soon as Qatar became available a lot of people don’t want him.

Im in that camp personally, I don’t trust how the deal is being financed, what the future plans for the club really are and the real motives are.

Qatar, as controversial as it is, I feel is a much safer bet for the future of the club, but if they weren’t available I would have taken Ratcliffe in a heartbeat.

I don't get him.

I get what Qatari bidders get from public statement. They've reason to believe there's a PR battle they need to pre-empt here. It's fundamental to sportswashing. Their resources are relatively limitless, so the downsides of public statements fuelling the fire of a bidding war, aren't likely to affect them.


Ratcliffe? He seems to have conducted this entire thing through public statements and interviews and I'm not sure why. He's nothing to gain and everything to lose. The purpose and rationale of his post 'bid' statement seemed "they did it".

There's still something 'off' about that man's intentions to me

 

[adexkola]

Also there's good reasons for them to put their country in the global spotlight. They probably will get daily coverage of their domestic issues with human rights but at the same time it benefits them to be in the global spotlight in case another round of diplomatic issues with the neighbouring countries will emerge.

Make this make sense please

How does being connected with United benefit them in case there's another regional standoff?

 

[devilish]

“Suffered”, whilst spending the second most of anyone in the league.
Football’s equivalent of first World problems?

Pretty much all clubs have debt, unless State owned, something you were soo sooo against. Though in fairness, even City took out a new debt of almost 500 million against the club last year.

What we also know is that INEOS bid is also saying any new debt will be on them, not us.

A- The Glazers spent nothing to buy the club. They basically bought it and made us pay for it. Thus whatever dividends or loan interest payment United paid came from our pockets in exchange for nothing.

B- The Glazers also saddled us with incompetent people who literally threw 1B of our transfer money in the dumpster. Some of the main players bought (ex Pogba and ADM) were bought simply for brand name purposes and not to help us on the pitch. Finally most those transfers were bought on credit card and the debt surrounding these deals will remain long after the Glazers are gone

C- Because of dividends/loan repayments barely any money was spent on infrastructure. That means that whoever buys the club will be saddled with 2B to rebuild the stadium. Then there's the debt repayment for transfers, the squad still need to be strengthened etc.

D- One of those incompetent people owns 0.5% of the Class B shares. That means that he will be rewarded around 1.5m (probably more) for his lousy services.

Seriously its like defending someone who lives off on protection money simply because some of the businesses he's 'protecting' are still thriving.

 

[nainaisson]

Make this make sense please

How does being connected with United benefit them in case there's another regional standoff?

The fact that Abramovich "owned" Chelsea yet was forced to sell by the UK government tells us where the real ownership lies. So, I don't understand how Qatar can use their ownership of the club as leverage in some regional dispute either.

 

[enghuei]

I wonder what the reactions here would be if the Qataris and Sir Jim join forces to present a unified bid by forming a special purpose vehicle whereby it would be 70:30 share ratio between in favour of the Qataris and they will go ahead and buy out the Glazers as well as the remaining A shares listed in NYSE. In this way Sir Jim does not need external financing for the purchase and he can fulfil his dream and duty by becoming a minority owner of United.

Win-win situation.

 

[Fahad Jawaid]

I am hopeful that the Qatari owners are eventual winners. Because if they don't get us they will go for Liverpool and they will become the power again, with Klopp at the helm and serious spending.

Even if my moral compass which is already low to be honest allows me to change my mind and I believe SJR should be our owner (despite having a worse bid and probably not the best owner), just me thinking Liverpool and City to be owned by State clubs with Newcastle in the mix and Chelsea spending crazily and Arsenal getting their mojo back, I have not even noticed Spurs with their potential new owners.

It will be sad but I see City, Liverpool, Chelsea and Newcastle becoming the next top 4 and us getting the occasional champions league, if the top 4 has a bad season, however we would still be fighting with Arsenal and Spurs aswell.

I would hate this scenario and would rather Qatar gets us and we are part of the Top 2, and winning titles and trophies, and having the best facilities, stadium, infrastructure and players. I want that for my beloved club.

 

[BarstoolProphet]

Make this make sense please

How does being connected with United benefit them in case there's another regional standoff?

It is pure speculation on my part but I've seen it mentioned over the years (not the United link) that there's some fears in the region that Saudi-led coalition still wants to invade Qatar at some point. KSA have always disliked that Qatar turned into a sovereign state, even if they have resumed diplomatic contacts and are seemingly buddies now. Being in the global spotlight like hosting the WC and owning on of the most well-known sporting institutions might help (in addition to several other factors of course, the most prominent one being hosting the biggest US base) prevent such fears. Like I said, pure speculation on my part but wouldn't put it past the leaders to atleast have that as part of their agenda when it comes to investing in sports and thrusting the country into the global spotlight.

 

[Charles Ufarley]

I am hopeful that the Qatari owners are eventual winners. Because if they don't get us they will go for Liverpool and they will become the power again, with Klopp at the helm and serious spending.

I agree about hoping they are the eventual winners, but maybe the Liverpool spectre isn't so scary now JWH has said they're not for sale.

 

[Fluctuation0161]

How well have Nice and the Swiss club been run?

Do you always answer a question with a question?

 

[horsechoker]

Do you always answer a question with a question?

Why would that be a problem?

 

[Fluctuation0161]

There are probably only a handful of people in the world that would have such a reputation.

True. You started well. 10/10.

Let's hope this post continues well.

Even Bill Gates and all that the Gates Foundation has achieved, will have a bunch of blowhards complaining about how evil he has been --- or the conspiracy theorist who will claim that he will use United to control the world with subliminal messaging at OT.

You're losing it. 0/10

But can you pull it back?

Even Jesus would struggle in this woke world we are living in.

Oh no. You've lost it. -10/10

 

[buchansleftleg]

I need to chat to a sane and knowledgeable poster. My question is:

Do United earn enough money to cover a massive loan to upgrade the stadium and training facilities, and also invest in the different teams if we don't have the current Glazer debt repayments?

I'm trying to figure out if we actually need Qatar. How strong are our financials really?

If we didn't have the existing debt fro the glazers then we would be in a position to borrow a substantial sum for redevelopment of the stadium as this will offer increased revenue if we increase capacity.

If however we also need to improve other facilities then we may need to offset those costs with additional revenue as they don't offer an immediate payback.

So we would have to link those to some other commercial income such as property, retail or potentially naming rights to the stadium.

On our own two feet there may end up being some compromises on sensitive things like the name of the stadium or we may have to progress things more slowly.

 

[enghuei]

Tweet

— Twitter API (@user) date

Key points:

1. Consensus is that the bid is in the region of £4.5billion ($5.4bn) and it can go higher if needed.

2. HBJ (Jassim's father) personally owned almost half of Qatar Airways when he sold his shares to QIA back in 2014.

3. Much of Jassim's money is tied to HBJ's wealth, which is thought to be run into the billions. For what it is worth, the 2022 Sunday Times Rich List had HBJ's personal wealth at just over £2billion, a number many believe is very, very conservative.

 

[TrebleChamp99]

The rumour is a certain player that hasn’t played for some time due to legal proceedings would not be allowed to play under Qatar ownership, too much noise around it apparantly.

So perhaps that’s a win for the moral police - what I mean by this is that people who have a moral objection to Qatar ownership and are worried about their policies, this could be seen as a moralistic show of intent, that even if its due to a public profile issue, it still has the same outcome, someone accused of morally wrong doing would not be allowed back into the club even under their ownership.

I am of the opinion owning united would be important for reforms and changes in Qatar.

(Twitter rumour)

 

[Fluctuation0161]

A- The Glazers spent nothing to buy the club. They basically bought it and made us pay for it. Thus whatever dividends or loan interest payment United paid came from our pockets in exchange for nothing.

B- The Glazers also saddled us with incompetent people who literally threw 1B of our transfer money in the dumpster. Some of the main players bought (ex Pogba and ADM) were bought simply for brand name purposes and not to help us on the pitch. Finally most those transfers were bought on credit card and the debt surrounding these deals will remain long after the Glazers are gone

C- Because of dividends/loan repayments barely any money was spent on infrastructure. That means that whoever buys the club will be saddled with 2B to rebuild the stadium. Then there's the debt repayment for transfers, the squad still need to be strengthened etc.

D- One of those incompetent people owns 0.5% of the Class B shares. That means that he will be rewarded around 1.5m (probably more) for his lousy services.

Seriously its like defending someone who lives off on protection money simply because some of the businesses he's 'protecting' are still thriving.

Spot on. I'm glad you pointed it out so I didn't have to.

 

[Judas]

The rumour is a certain player that hasn’t played for some time due to legal proceedings would not be allowed to play under Qatar ownership, too much noise around it apparantly.

So perhaps that’s a win for the moral police.

(Twitter rumour)

Can't see the connection personally? Very random. Not me saying it would be the wrong decision, just don't get how they align.

 

[Mickeza]

Tweet

— Twitter API (@user) date

Key points:

1. Consensus is that the bid is in the region of £4.5billion ($5.4bn) and it can go higher if needed.

2. HBJ (Jassim's father) personally owned almost half of Qatar Airways when he sold his shares to QIA back in 2014.

3. Much of Jassim's money is tied to HBJ's wealth, which is thought to be run into the billions. For what it is worth, the 2022 Sunday Times Rich List had HBJ's personal wealth at just over £2billion, a number many believe is very, very conservative.

I read a few days ago that the relationship between HBJ and the Emir is frosty. Intriguing.

 

[stevoc]

The glazer. Business wise is making a sound investment.

1bn purchase becomes 5bn in just a matter of 15 years. Not using a penny of their own money.

Great businessman

Their Dad was likely a great businessman.

 

[enghuei]

I read a few days ago that the relationship between HBJ and the Emir is frosty. Intriguing.

HBJ resigned the day after the current Emir ascent to the throne, make that of what you will.

 

[stw2022]

A private Qatari individual with no hand in his government's persecution of gays or other human rights abuses I can get on board with

 

[Sky1981]

I mean come on guys, let's jsut own it. We want the Oil money and that's that. It's inevitable, and deep inside we want it.

All these We hope United bring Qatar changes, or that dude isn't actually related to the Qatar Royals, or We want them to benefit the society or other hypocrisy.

Would be much much more gentlemen if we just said yeah, feck yeah. feck you city.

 

[Sky1981]

I personally want Qatar, but isn’t it funny how we were almost begging Ratcliffe to make a bid way before there was even a whiff of us being for sale, and as soon as Qatar became available a lot of people don’t want him.

Im in that camp personally, I don’t trust how the deal is being financed, what the future plans for the club really are and the real motives are.

Qatar, as controversial as it is, I feel is a much safer bet for the future of the club, but if they weren’t available I would have taken Ratcliffe in a heartbeat.

Qatar would beat Ratcliff for 101 reason

but alas, it comes with the price of our soul. Winning stuff under Glazer meant something, spending 500 million every year and winning things using oil money feels hollow.

Between Ratcliff and Qatar, I'd prefer Glazer. We're on the right track with ETH and with another 200-300M we could really win the league without having to resort to being a Sheikh plaything.

 

[horsechoker]

The rumour is a certain player that hasn’t played for some time due to legal proceedings would not be allowed to play under Qatar ownership, too much noise around it apparantly.

So perhaps that’s a win for the moral police.

(Twitter rumour)

I think that would always come down to sponsors and I suppose any new ownership would not want a load of backlash right away especially if they are washing their reputation

 

[DomesticTadpole]

Qatar would beat Ratcliff for 101 reason

but alas, it comes with the price of our soul. Winning stuff under Glazer meant something, spending 500 million every year and winning things using oil money feels hollow.

Between Ratcliff and Qatar, I'd prefer Glazer. We're on the right track with ETH and with another 200-300M we could really win the league without having to resort to being a Sheikh plaything.

So all the charges City have faced will not open their eyes to not being able to spend 500m. So you will be happy to keep the Glazer and maybe Elliot and be saddled with even more debt?

 

[Mickeza]

HBJ resigned the day after the current Emir ascent to the throne, make that of what you will.

Just read the article. It’s pretty fascinating. This HBJ guy has shares in everything that they didn’t even know he had shares in…nobody has a clue how much he’s worth.

 

[Real Name]

I mean come on guys, let's jsut own it. We want the Oil money and that's that. It's inevitable, and deep inside we want it.

In whose name are you speaking?

 

[Real Name]

The rumour is a certain player that hasn’t played for some time due to legal proceedings would not be allowed to play under Qatar ownership, too much noise around it apparantly.

So perhaps that’s a win for the moral police.

(Twitter rumour)

What's a moral police?

 

[stevoc]

I am hopeful that the Qatari owners are eventual winners. Because if they don't get us they will go for Liverpool and they will become the power again, with Klopp at the helm and serious spending.

Even if my moral compass which is already low to be honest allows me to change my mind and I believe SJR should be our owner (despite having a worse bid and probably not the best owner), just me thinking Liverpool and City to be owned by State clubs with Newcastle in the mix and Chelsea spending crazily and Arsenal getting their mojo back, I have not even noticed Spurs with their potential new owners.

It will be sad but I see City, Liverpool, Chelsea and Newcastle becoming the next top 4 and us getting the occasional champions league, if the top 4 has a bad season, however we would still be fighting with Arsenal and Spurs aswell.

I would hate this scenario and would rather Qatar gets us and we are part of the Top 2, and winning titles and trophies, and having the best facilities, stadium, infrastructure and players. I want that for my beloved club.

Liverpool aren't for sale though.

 

[TrebleChamp99]

I think that would always come down to sponsors and I suppose any new ownership would not want a load of backlash right away especially if they are washing their reputation

Indeed, however it sends the same message to the masses, it wont be tolerated.
Interesting that Jassim is actually disconnected from the gov over there.

There were rumours that Qatar (QIA/QSI) wouldnt be ready to table a bid until the summer. They are slowly pulling out of PSG with shares of the club for sale at roughly 4bln, I wouldnt be surprised if Jassim purchases the club and then further down the line once the shares from PSG have been sold, QIA/QSI purchases the club off of Jassim or becomes a significant shareholder.

Actually, thinking about it now, there's no reason why Jassim doesn't purchase it personally with investment and percentage ownership from QIA/QSI now...

 

[Cassidy]

Liverpool aren't for sale though.

Are you sure? It seems their sale cooled off because we went on the market. However FSG would be open to selling if they can get the price they want

 

[Spoony]

What's a moral police?

Policemen with morals.

 

[villain]

Qatar would beat Ratcliff for 101 reason

but alas, it comes with the price of our soul. Winning stuff under Glazer meant something, spending 500 million every year and winning things using oil money feels hollow.

Between Ratcliff and Qatar, I'd prefer Glazer. We're on the right track with ETH and with another 200-300M we could really win the league without having to resort to being a Sheikh plaything.

We are cash poor, we literally don’t have money until the end of the season when PL & sponsorship money pays out - and even then we still have transfer debts to pay, so we won’t be able to spend anywhere near 200M.

We need to be sold.

 

[TrebleChamp99]

What's a moral police?

Edited with my meaning:


So perhaps that’s a win for the moral police - what I mean by this is that people who have a moral objection to Qatar ownership and are worried about their policies, this could be seen as a moralistic show of intent, that even if its due to a public profile issue, it still has the same outcome, someone accused of morally wrong doing would not be allowed back into the club even under their ownership.

I am of the opinion owning united would be important for reforms and changes in Qatar.

 

[Spoony]

I suspect the Qataris who seem to be desparate to buy United, will probably give the Glazers an extra billion and get what they want. I'm not sure there's any other outcome.

 

[Mickeza]

I suspect the Qataris who seem to be desparate to buy United, will probably give the Glazers an extra billion and get what they want. I'm not sure there's any other outcome.

Athletic article says they’ve bid 4.5bn and will go higher.

 

[TrebleChamp99]

We are cash poor, we literally don’t have money until the end of the season when PL & sponsorship money pays out - and even then we still have transfer debts to pay, so we won’t be able to spend anywhere near 200M.

We need to be sold.

We are cash poor, we literally don’t have money until the end of the season when PL & sponsorship money pays out - and even then we still have transfer debts to pay, so we won’t be able to spend anywhere near 200M.

We need to be sold.

Agreed, some people think we are somehow cash rich and havent cottoned onto the fact the coffers are dry and the Glazers have lumped so much debt onto the club we are now in risk of FFP breach.

Its not just debt they bought the club with , the club is in 300m+ worth of debt on transfer payments with long term agreements in place. We have lost a lucarative shirt sponsorship and have nothing to improve facilities or the stadium.

Huge investment is needed or a full sale.