Club Sale | It’s done!

Status
Not open for further replies.
Would you walk away from your business with around a £750m cash out or just carry on running it and taking an annual dividend? Most rational people choose the former not the latter, they are definitely going.
 
is anyone else getting worried that the Glazer parasites are not going at all and are just feeling out the market. Never mind all this arguing about who the best new owner is, as fans our main pressure and spotlight should remain on the Glazers going. I don't really mind too much between INEOS and Qatar at this stage so long as the leeches are definitely going.
Yeah still thinking they will find a way to hang on. Season ticket pricing and appt of director of football operations worries me, as does the statement from Raine.

Pure speculation but you can be assured that the leeches would never go without a fight.
 
Says the Qatar bid supporter who hates state ownership and everything it stands for and the fans who support it.

You’re either a massive hypocrite, or a self loather.

I can still dislike state ownership and still think their bid is the better one for our club. If Jimbo was proposing to buy 100% with no debt at all, I would back his bid, but he isn't. All I want is for United to be totally free of debt, whether that is United owned or Ineos owned.

The horse has bolted with regard to state ownership, there is no going back now.
 
I know I shouldnt be, but it still feckin pisses me off that they will even get a pound from a sale (let alone close to 5bn, or even the option to negotiate that to a higher price)
The fact that theyve put nothing in to get the club, (basically made the club pay for it the loan and put it into debt), then took out money year upon year in the millions, hired failure after failure and just let the club fall behind still disgusts me.

I seriously cant think of an equivalent of this given how fecked up the whole thing is. Its basic robbery, that was legalised somehow.

Ugh, feck the Glazers.

With regards to new owners, hopefully its put under complete scrutiny. Ideally you want somebody that clears debt, and just lets the club sustain itself through being a juggernaut. Thats a dream, so then you look at who can afford to do what we all want, and the problem is everybody that can help us is going to be shady. So do we go with the least shady one (which will still be shady) or if we are going to be criticised regardless do we go for the one thats best for the future and development of United.
 
Didn't you admit yourself that you personally benefitted financially from ME state investments in Manchester? Isn't then a bit rich of you not just going hard on the moral aspect of ME state ownership, but absolutely slaughter those that aren't massively against?


As in the area I live in was gentrified. I can’t do much about that.
 
I’ve worked in a company that was being taken over and people in senior positions still get appointed under the then old regime. Hiring freeze doesn’t always happen.

That new director of operations seems like a general logistics role anyway. You just get TUPEd across and keep the exact same working contract as you previously had. All that changes is the employer name in the small print.
 
It’s really funny that the share price kept on going up with all the talk of them selling then drops again when there’s suspicion they might not. Clearly shows the faith people have in them.

I agree. I hope it’s just them posturing to try and get some more money out of the interested parties.
 
Guys, this is just more false equivalency. We can go round in circles with claim and counter claim like this, but Obama, the current US administration and the current British government aren’t trying to buy United so it’s a pointless and misleading conversation. Nobody is claiming anybody is perfect, but we should be able to discuss the merits and drawbacks of the Qatari bid and the INEOS bid in relation to the club without all the whatsboutism and excuses
I’ve noticed the term “whataboutism” has now become a life boat for people whose moral high ground starts taking on water. So you’re not actually outraged by violation of human rights. Let them all get slaughtered as long as it’s not a rich Arab trying buy United that’s doing the slaughtering.
 
I’ve noticed the term “whataboutism” has now become a life boat for people whose moral high ground starts taking on water. So you’re not actually outraged by violation of human rights, let them all get slaughtered as long as it’s not a rich Arab trying buy United that’s doing the slaughtering.


Are you not horrified by the actions of the US government? Do you not find them despicable?
 
Madness that.

is it? The Glazers have spent a good fair amount under their tenure/after Fergie.

they’ve generally spent it badly, but now we have a new setup - a great manager and a better negotiater for transfers. So keep spending the same and we could see a great next 10 years. Its not Woodward at the wheel anymore.

Glazers are cnuts but the current setup is actually not bad. They’ve finally got the employments right with hiring Ten Hag, buying Casemiro, Martinez, etc.
 
I suppose 3 possible outcomes of the current process are:

1 Complete sale
2 One or more of the Glazers sell out to an investment fund (Glazers financing the buy out of other Glazers does not seem feasible)
3 An investment fund takes a stake in the club with the proceeds going to the club for infrastructure etc

2 and 3 are not mutually exclusive, both would require new share structures to reflect new investors, neither involves new debt.
1 would provide better returns than 2 for Glazers wanting to sell.
The market is favoring 1. 2 occurring would see a big drop in market value (no change to club fundamentals), and 3 would also see a drop though not as pronounced.

Thanks for this.

And these are the kind of reasons I can't see them staying.
 
I don’t believe the Glazers can stay, but here’s my rough take on the numbers, mostly from memory and guesswork. Feel free to point out the many and obvious flaws.

Without considering the large premium Qatar or INEOS would likely pay, United are valued at approx 3.3B pounds, depending on what day’s stock price you take. The Glazers own approx 66%, say 2.1B pounds, giving each sibling 350M. For Avram and Joel to stay, they would need to pay the others 1.4B for their four shares, or around 700M from each of them. I don’t believe they have anything like that cash lying around, so that means borrowing, maybe from the Elliott vultures. 700M for a 10 year term at 6% gives annual repayments of around 92M, which is far beyond what they can take from United and hopefully far more than they can afford.

If the Glazer siblings want full Qatari value for their shares it makes the repayment figures above nearly 150M per year.

I don’t see how they can stay, but I am nervous that Elliott could structure a deal that makes it possible, while increasing the likelihood that the Glazers default (or maybe die) before the repayments are complete and hand the club to the vultures.

Fantastic breakdown, I really appreciate it.

Like yourself, another poster has broken down the figures, and none of them stack up for the Glazers to stay.

They're not in the best place to negotiate. It will come down to how desperate the buyer is to get United.
 
I’ve noticed the term “whataboutism” has now become a life boat for people whose moral high ground starts taking on water. So you’re not actually outraged by violation of human rights. Let them all get slaughtered as long as it’s not a rich Arab trying buy United that’s doing the slaughtering.
You mean the son of the ex Qatar Prime Minister? From the ruling family?
 
So why are we comparing the Qatar bid with the USA then?
We’re pointing out (over and over and over again) that your moral high ground is all a farce and you have absolutely no right to judge people for continuing their support for the club even if they don’t agree with Qatari governmental policies.
 
Share price drop was always bound to happen once news of Glazers could stay on came out. This is why Ogden article and other (even Gary opinion) was dumb ( and shows why they are not financial reporters). The moment one of the sibling start cashing out, share price would plummet.

Considering Joel and Avram owns 33% of 69% share Glazers own, and by all accounts, Qatar values those share at 5bn, which means those 2 will need financing of almost 3.5-4bn to buy out the siblings share at Qatar evaluations. Thats never going to happen. Only way Glazer stay if more siblings decide to stay on
 
Share price drop was always bound to happen once news of Glazers could stay on came out. This is why Ogden article and other (even Gary opinion) was dumb ( and shows why they are not financial reporters). The moment one of the sibling start cashing out, share price would plummet.

Considering Joel and Avram owns 33% of 69% share Glazers own, and by all accounts, Qatar values those share at 5bn, which means those 2 will need financing of almost 3.5-4bn to buy out the siblings share at Qatar evaluations. Thats never going to happen. Only way Glazer stay if more siblings decide to stay on
I personally think Joel and Avram have already decided to leave/sell.

Think their time spent in the ME might be the greatest indicator of that which we currently have.
 
You mean the son of the ex Qatar Prime Minister? From the ruling family?
Why is that relevant to the point I’m trying to make? Your outrage over the owner being a member of a government is adorable as it seems you believe business moguls in the UK/US do not play a part in governmental affairs. Silly, but adorable nonetheless
 
Don’t try and apply logic to the situation mate.

It's not even remotely comparable situations, even if it's tempting to call out someone who goes so hard in on the moral aspect. You can't expect someone to uproot their lives solely because of investments in the area they might not like the source of.

It's a very interesting debate though - where should you draw the line? I'm tempted to say if you hammer that argument against those who might have a different view on what is important for them regarding ownership of their football club and are not willing to even accept anyone having different priorities, then you should absolutely adhere to that in other aspects in life.
 
Share price drop was always bound to happen once news of Glazers could stay on came out. This is why Ogden article and other (even Gary opinion) was dumb ( and shows why they are not financial reporters). The moment one of the sibling start cashing out, share price would plummet.

Considering Joel and Avram owns 33% of 69% share Glazers own, and by all accounts, Qatar values those share at 5bn, which means those 2 will need financing of almost 3.5-4bn to buy out the siblings share at Qatar evaluations. Thats never going to happen. Only way Glazer stay if more siblings decide to stay on

I thought Elliot were going to finance it?
 
It's not even remotely comparable situations, even if it's tempting to call out someone who goes so hard in on the moral aspect. You can't expect someone to uproot their lives solely because of investments in the area they might not like the source of.

It's a very interesting debate though - where should you draw the line? I'm tempted to say if you hammer that argument against those who might have a different view on what is important for them regarding ownership of their football club and are not willing to even accept anyone having different priorities, then you should absolutely adhere to that in other aspects in life.
Call me crazy but it’s a tad hypocritical.

A person that has directly benefited from financial investment from ME money is criticising people that want the club to benefit financially from ME money.

It’s pretty comparable if you ask me.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.