You've just linked someone else's twitter thread. Or do I need to go back to sleep?
Club Sale | It’s done!
- Thread starter JB08
- Start date
-
In the latest episode of the United Hour Podcast, Nik @Rood and Imran @Annihilate Now! start with the good news by celebrating Manchester United Women's emphatic FA Cup win over Spurs at Wembley and the future of manager Marc Skinner.
Then it's the bad news and the ever worsening form of our Men with losses to Arsenal and Palace.
Finally the main debate - ETH Out now or keep him until the end of the season - if not longer. Are you Team Nik or Team Imran?
- Status
You've just linked someone else's twitter thread. Or do I need to go back to sleep?
This is great news. It's gives new owners atleast some time to get ready for Summer Warchest. Haven't had one of those headlines in a while.
In the context of corporate finance, the tax benefits of debt refers to the fact that from a tax perspective it is cheaper for firms and investors to finance with debt than with equity.
For example, a firm that earns $100 in profits in the United States would have to pay around $30 in taxes. If it then distributes these profits to its owners as dividends, then the owners in turn pay taxes on this income, say $20 on the $70 of dividends. The $100 of profits turned into $50 of investor income.
If, instead the firm finances with debt, then, assuming the firm owes $100 of interest to investors, its profits are now 0. Investors now pay taxes on their interest income, say $30. This implies for $100 of profits before taxes, investors got $70.
So yes, Jim and INEOS have more than enough to finance the takeover, but to finance it via debt actually benefits INEOS. It has no material effect to United because the debt is with INEOS, so the club is effectively debt free.
Who?
It helps if, you know, read the full article that's been linked..
Another good article which I might look into more if this guy is confirmed to be in the running
https://www.bostonmagazine.com/news/2022/05/31/steve-pagliuca/
Edit: This Pagliuca guy sounds like someone I would love to run us.
https://www.bostonmagazine.com/news/2022/05/31/steve-pagliuca/
Edit: This Pagliuca guy sounds like someone I would love to run us.
If there really is one. Raine need to try and make the bid competitive to try and up the price. If Jim didn’t make it they would have just had to award it to Qatar on their opening bid. Throwing in an unnamed third bidder just adds to the illusion.
No more info than that, it’s just a rumour but hearsay is usually pretty accurate in the financial world from what I understand.
Any idea on why Richard Arnold and other United officials will be present?
You’d assume he/they will be gone if Sheikh Jassim or Ineos get the club and therefore more likely to back a minority hedge fund type bid which will keep them in position
You’d assume he/they will be gone if Sheikh Jassim or Ineos get the club and therefore more likely to back a minority hedge fund type bid which will keep them in position
I see. My experience is similar which is ironic given how finance is about numbers but really it's the people side that matters.
Yea for the life of me I can’t think why the current CEO would be involved in a due diligence exercise with potential new owners.
Yeah. Very selective, when you look at the first journalist who selectively quoted that, he has a track record of being anti Qatar. Other posters just copied what that journalist posted. Why not analyse the full interview, or at the very least analyse that part. He acknowledges football is not his speciality.
What do people do when they acknowledge something is not their speciality? I’ll help you, they hire those who are specialist in that field.
Well, he's not going to say it was a stupid idea given it was the Emir's idea in the first place and he was overruled.
PSG ;-)
He already owns Atalanta
Exactly.
And in addition, a decent businessman will also leverage his assets. Money make money. If you loan money, it cost say 5%. The amount of money you can loan, largely depend on how much security you can provide to the bank (as a pledge or through other forms).
If someone has enough business skills to turn 10,000 into 11,000 over a year, that person is dumb if he or she doesn’t go to the bank and loans as much as the bank will allow.
And the same applies for any business and investor, with one caveat, and that is companies that are looking for investors that will optimize their Return on Equity. Like Apple, it would be the easiest thing in the world for Apple to improve its revenue. They could start selling smart kitchen machines, clothes, or whatever, launch a bunch of new services. But Apple’s profit margin is 24%, and investing their profits in expanding their business would tie up funds in ventures that perhaps only has a margin of 10-15% or whatever. Hence they will only go into business in new areas where they can keep their 24% profit.
Anyway, Ineos would of course indirectly — also — leverage Manchester United if it bought the club. And, 100%, so would Qatar. Qatar’s national debt is 40% of its GDP. It’s not high compared to other nations like ours that are in a lot of debt — but for an investment vehicle, it’s also not low.
It is understandable that United fans are allergic to the word “debt”. But facts are that (a) it is tax efficient, exactly like you put it, and (b) any competent investor will leverage its assets.
And the glazers make even more money?
Do you do anything other than run pro Qatari propaganda on here?
No doubt
Not necessarily. The prudent thing to do, might be to give it time and few windows. Don’t want major upheavals this summer when next year we could be competing for the League & CL. Those two will have a relationship with the manager and know his plans.
Plus last window we overpaid but why? Was it due to their incompetence, or the Glazers first saying no money then saying ok here’s £200m. If you look at the deals we did early on, they did well. Malacia was a good price, Martinez was a fair price.
It’s only the last two. Casemiro maybe we overpaid at the time, but now Real probably think they sold him cheap. Antony we overpaid by a good £30m to £40m
It's not exactly difficult when his debate opponents are too fecking lazy to read and just post dumb snippets which the journalists tell them to love or hate.
Oh, I'm completely in on that. I'm not even a tiny tiny little bit worried about any debt INEOS might take up to finance a bid.
If someone told you it was pissing down with rain for 6 months when really it was only occasionally drizzling you’d speak out.
I'm very skeptical of this -
Hilariously ham-fisted.
Because the rest of the interview is not about football and not as interesting. The words are exactly as in the Bloomberg interview so I'm not sure what you meant by twisting his words. Maybe you're being a tad overly defensive? Just because the news wasn't completely rosy and positive. It was actually refreshing to hear the guy speak his mind and not through a PR person.
Probably Liberty Media
I am curious about ineos. For a company that he that generates £60+ billion in revenue annually but only 2billion in net profit -- seems like pretty poor margins for a petro/chem company?
Arnold will be used as a bridge for any new owner to bed-in at the club. Arnold will also likely want to know about future plans and transfer budget, especially for the summer. And all that will likely take place after prospective new owners take a deep dive into the club's financials, with the aid of the club's Chief financial Officer, Cliffe Baty.
Already stated that I wouldn't prolong this topic as it's not relevant to the thread discussion but while it's true that protestant movements came later the original Christians were of Antioch (Turkey) they were messianic Jews scattered as a result of persecution. That is the infancy.
What's not exactly difficult?
How brave of you to speak out against the famous Qatari underdog. Shill.
Ratcliffe is a walking red flag and his bid is frankly unattractive. That he has to involve Wall Street firms like JP Morgan and Goldman Sachs should be everything we need to know. It’s an easy choice. Debt vs. No debt.
Qatar will be our new owners because of a better financial bid and a more serious business plan.
Unless it’s Saudi media. These guys were interested in Chelsea but wanted more time for due diligence if I remember correctly and pulled out when that wasn’t afforded. They are seriously minted and could easily challenge Qatar.
Great to have someone with an inside track on the bid on the caf. What's your role in the bidding process? Did you get first looks at the presentations?
Final question from me
I read that this next stage (formal talks over the next fortnight) is the second stage of a three stage process.
Any idea what the third and final stage is? (Maybe from the Chelsea sale)
I read that this next stage (formal talks over the next fortnight) is the second stage of a three stage process.
Any idea what the third and final stage is? (Maybe from the Chelsea sale)
I tell you what - Qatar spent $300B to host the World Cup with no meaningful positive ROI. Yes there was sportswashing involved, but at those spend figures it was a very poor investment.
Owning United for $6 - $8B, even $10B makes a LOT more financial sense (in addition to the sportswashing effect), so I think they will win the bid.
This is just me reading the tea leaves (as anyone claiming to have inside information is a liar and a charlatan).
The fact SJR/Sheikh Jassim have both been given access to Uniteds finances is HUGE news.
If the Glazers didn't want to sell, what would be the benefit of giving outsiders this level of access? It would also mean rejecting any offers and staying looks even worse further down the line, why wouldn't they nip it in the bud early on like FSG have at Liverpool?
It's just a matter of whether Sheikh Jassim will meet their $6b valuation and with all the noise coming from the Qatari's, it don't look like that will be a problem.
If the Glazers didn't want to sell, what would be the benefit of giving outsiders this level of access? It would also mean rejecting any offers and staying looks even worse further down the line, why wouldn't they nip it in the bud early on like FSG have at Liverpool?
It's just a matter of whether Sheikh Jassim will meet their $6b valuation and with all the noise coming from the Qatari's, it don't look like that will be a problem.
Agree with all this but can't see how it goes against anything I said in my last? If anything it surely shows Qatar don't have a great track record as far as football financial planning goes?
- Status