Club Sale | It’s done!

Status
Not open for further replies.

croadyman

Full Member
Joined
Mar 9, 2018
Messages
35,656
Firstly, the Glazers haven’t accepted a bid yet.

Secondly, it’s long been stated that the Glazers want at least £6bn for the club, and it’s long been rumoured that 2 of the siblings don’t want to sell (or at least aren’t keen on selling). If the INEOS bid is successful in relinquishing control of the club from them, then that’s a good thing!!!

If the Qatar bid is unsuccessful then that’s on them.
Doesn't sound like they are relinquishing any control whatsoever with Ratcliffe owning
 

croadyman

Full Member
Joined
Mar 9, 2018
Messages
35,656
Cursing people that have absolutely no bearing on what happens seems a bit daft.

But you don't think that being owned by a foreign state could have any potential issues? And in terms of debt, we would be in debt to Qatar. Someone is giving money to this 92 Foundation. Maybe we should be more concerned about the unknown debt and unknown sources of money?

I'm not pro-Ratcliffe, I'm against all of the current options, including the status quo.
Yeah well that aren’t any other options
 

MiamiSpartan

Full Member
Joined
Apr 15, 2008
Messages
1,225
Location
Miami, FL, USA
Yeah well that aren’t any other options
That's why I will continue to oppose and call out whoever the owners are. And we all should. The United fanbase voice as advocates for change, whether it be Ineos' environmental record or Qatar's human rights record, could be a powerful thing.
 

Kinsella

Copy & Paste Merchant
Joined
Jan 20, 2012
Messages
2,846
I would only see them relinquishing control as finally leaving the club which unfortunately doesn't look to be happening
That’s your issue then.

In the real world…if they don’t actually have control, then they don’t have it.
 

SAF is the GOAT

New Member
Newbie
Joined
Mar 27, 2021
Messages
3,228
Jim is another Glazer that is going to purchase us with another loan on the huge loan we already got.

All I'm hearing is "dont worry, he's going to put United's on Ineos and make united debt free" and I'm like - how's is that a good thing ? Because eventually we"ll need to pay that debt.

And what's in Jim's management make you so confident that he"ll take us to successful times especially when all his other sporting teams(not only football) aren't.
 

RedDevilQuebecois

New Member
Joined
May 27, 2021
Messages
8,256
But you don't think that being owned by a foreign state could have any potential issues? And in terms of debt, we would be in debt to Qatar. Someone is giving money to this 92 Foundation. Maybe we should be more concerned about the unknown debt and unknown sources of money?
I have made peace with the idea of being state-owned ever since Ratcliffe enlisted help from banks to put even more debt on the club when our aim is to move closer to being debt-free again under a new ownership. People of the ilk of the Glazers are cancers, have always been and will always be.

If you have not followed my previous posts, I will refresh it again. Real Madrid are bankrolled by the Spanish government, Barcelona are bankrolled by the Catalan government, and Bayern Munich are backed by many of the largest German corporations so much you would almost believe they are backed by Germany itself. That notion of being state-owned is not exclusive to City, PSG, Zenit nor Newcastle. Because we did not do what was necessary to compete against Real, Barcelona and Bayern back in the days as an organization, we have fallen behind and now have to play serious catch-up.
 

Plant0x84

Shame we’re aren’t more like Brighton
Joined
Jun 23, 2020
Messages
13,879
Location
Carpark and snack area adjacent to the abyss
That's why I will continue to oppose and call out whoever the owners are. And we all should. The United fanbase voice as advocates for change, whether it be Ineos' environmental record or Qatar's human rights record, could be a powerful thing.
Nah too much infighting, one-upmanship and name calling for that to ever happen.
 

sglowrider

Thinks the caf is 'wokeish'.
Joined
Dec 27, 2009
Messages
25,259
Location
Hell on Earth
Getting everything,are you actually kidding
Of course, he is kidding. Have you not noticed he used the word toxic? INEOS=toxic pollutants. Greenwashing.

He hates the Qataris and their sportswashing ways. Thinks Ratcliffe is an environmental murderer. Its been obvious from the start he has been planted here to whitewash the Glazer's reputation.

He's a sly one, ol 'Arry.,
 

Kinsella

Copy & Paste Merchant
Joined
Jan 20, 2012
Messages
2,846
I’d love to know how this lie has permeated our fan base so deeply. It’s such a crock of shite.
It’s not that hard to imagine. Just look at the sizeable number of people who didn’t even know that the Glazers owned 69% of the club and not 100%.
 

Roboc7

Full Member
Joined
Mar 31, 2014
Messages
6,753
I would only see them relinquishing control as finally leaving the club which unfortunately doesn't look to be happening
But the reality is the INEOS bid takes all control away from them, they would just be passive shareholders with no say in anything. Only control they would have would be when to sell their shares but no guarantee they would ever be worth more than they are getting offered now so in unlikely event they stay it might not work out well for them.
 

sglowrider

Thinks the caf is 'wokeish'.
Joined
Dec 27, 2009
Messages
25,259
Location
Hell on Earth
But the reality is the INEOS bid takes all control away from them, they would just be passive shareholders with no say in anything. Only control they would have would be when to sell their shares but no guarantee they would ever be worth more than they are getting offered now so in unlikely event they stay it might not work out well for them.
You are making a lot of assumptions here. Firstly you think the Glazers are dumb... which they are not.

As desperate as Ratcliffe is to make this deal his by offering the two brothers a 20% stake, you can bet that Av & Joel have asked for the moon from Ratcliffe.
 

Nou_Camp99

what would Souness do?
Joined
Apr 1, 2013
Messages
10,274
It’s not that hard to imagine. Just look at the sizeable number of people who didn’t even know that the Glazers owned 69% of the club and not 100%.
Lots also aren't aware that Sheikh Mansoor now owns roughly 70% of City. He's sold chunks off to China and America.

They seem to be really struggling with only 70% don't they? Hahaha

People have got way too emotional over things they don't quite understand. Some of the stuff of twitter is absolutely embarrassing. Other fanbases must be lapping it up.
 

Attila

Full Member
Joined
Apr 12, 2013
Messages
11,073
Location
RIP Mino
Supports
Trad Bricks
To be fair, the Qataris probably thought everyone would be on board just because of money. There's still quite a few with some backbone though.
What backbone is that? Loving debt lading takeovers

Yeah you're real big boy
 

Dan_F

Full Member
Joined
Dec 17, 2012
Messages
10,595
Im not particularly enamoured with him either, so im not sure what point you think you’re making.

I absolutely do not want United to become a vehicle for a human rights abusing country to gain soft power. That’s priority number one for me. From a pure footballing aspect, away from politics, the way City fans sing Mansour’s name while breaking hundreds of rules is so rancid. I don’t even want to take the chance of United becoming that. People will counter that United wouldn’t need to, but quite frankly, if we have someone pay for a £2 billion stadium, it’s completely unearned, and I just don’t want that for United, even if other teams get it. I’m comfortable with being second best for now if it means the above doesn’t happen.

I guess the only other option seems to be SJR. I don’t really have massive concerns about the debt like others. You don’t spend £5 billion on a company and let it rot. From a moral point of view, it’s not great, but I do find it easier to accept, on the basis that given the price the Glazers have set, we’re not getting an alternative.
 

TwoSheds

More sheds (and tiles) than you, probably
Joined
Feb 12, 2014
Messages
13,127
But the reality is the INEOS bid takes all control away from them, they would just be passive shareholders with no say in anything. Only control they would have would be when to sell their shares but no guarantee they would ever be worth more than they are getting offered now so in unlikely event they stay it might not work out well for them.
If they can sell a partial stake for far more than what their father paid for the whole club 20 years ago then I'd suggest they'd still be doing alright out of it. Just depends what their appetite for a flutter is and what they think of Ratcliffe.
 

Nou_Camp99

what would Souness do?
Joined
Apr 1, 2013
Messages
10,274
What backbone is that? Loving debt lading takeovers

Yeah you're real big boy
On the flip side we don't want to be sport washers for human rights abusers who only want us to further promote tourism to Doha.

Works both ways.
 

Kinsella

Copy & Paste Merchant
Joined
Jan 20, 2012
Messages
2,846
You are making a lot of assumptions here. Firstly you think the Glazers are dumb... which they are not.

As desperate as Ratcliffe is to make this deal his by offering the two brothers a 20% stake, you can bet that Av & Joel have asked for the moon from Ratcliffe.
And somewhere in there you’re assuming that the Glazers can hoodwink a guy who owns a company with annual revenues of £60bn and annual profits of several billion.
 

Kinsella

Copy & Paste Merchant
Joined
Jan 20, 2012
Messages
2,846
Lots also aren't aware that Sheikh Mansoor now owns roughly 70% of City. He's sold chunks off to China and America.

They seem to be really struggling with only 70% don't they? Hahaha

People have got way too emotional over things they don't quite understand. Some of the stuff of twitter is absolutely embarrassing. Other fanbases must be lapping it up.
Pretty much yeah. The whole debt issue has become something that carries an almost religious significance for many people.

They're also forgetting one other important thing. The presence of INEOS/Ratcliffe in the bidding process pushed the Qatari bid closer to the Glazer’s long stated demand. If the latter had had a free run at it they would’ve been even further away from the valuation.
 
Last edited:

Godfather

Full Member
Joined
Feb 18, 2007
Messages
30,114
Location
Austria
Tbh the only thing other fanbases are "lapping up" is us getting owned by SJR with the Glazers still hanging around. They will dread Qatar getting us.
 

Nou_Camp99

what would Souness do?
Joined
Apr 1, 2013
Messages
10,274
Pretty much yeah. The whole debt issue has become something that carries an almost religious significance for many people.

They're also forgetting one other important thing. The presence of INEOS/Ratcliffe in the bidding process pushed the Qatari bid closer to the Glazer’s long stated demand. If the latter had had a free run at it they would’ve been even further away from the valuation.
Very true.

The whole thing is a shambles and ultimately the Glazers haven't got what they wanted. The reason being is they haven't ran the club well enough to warrant such a valuation of 6bn.
 

Yakuza_devils

Full Member
Joined
Oct 30, 2016
Messages
3,455
Luck is very important in all aspects in life. We just have to accept our fate that football god is not with us that we got the bastards Glazers and now Jimmy.

We need to start get used to 4th Place Cup is an achievement. We will look at City, Newcastle and Chelsea getting all the star players. Maybe Qatar will buy a PL club soon (maybe Liverpool) then we will be worse. We will be the Spurs of PL in no time.
 

TrueRed79

Full Member
Joined
Aug 7, 2013
Messages
1,905
I hope I am wrong, but it feels like the final straw that will break us and send us into eternal mediocrity. We will not recover from this. I do not blame Sheik Jasim for not wanting to put his hand into the parasites hands unlike the rat. Jim should be treated at the protests tomorrow just like the parasites.
Eternal mediocrity? :lol: Hyperbole much? We don't need to be owned by a state to be a success. The sooner people realise this, the better. Absolutely nothing against, Qatar, or their people. I just hate the idea of a social institution like, Utd, being used as a pawn for a governments prestige. Ownership shouldn't be used as a matter of "look how much money we have". It's disgusting. We can generate enough money on our own, and be a success without state ownership.
 

mu4c_20le

Full Member
Joined
Jul 7, 2013
Messages
45,039
If you have not followed my previous posts, I will refresh it again. Real Madrid are bankrolled by the Spanish government, Barcelona are bankrolled by the Catalan government, and Bayern Munich are backed by many of the largest German corporations so much you would almost believe they are backed by Germany itself. That notion of being state-owned is not exclusive to City, PSG, Zenit nor Newcastle. Because we did not do what was necessary to compete against Real, Barcelona and Bayern back in the days as an organization, we have fallen behind and now have to play serious catch-up.
You do realize we've probably outspent those clubs since SAF retired? It's more about how we spent it. We even beat PSG to di Maria's signature.
 

NWRed

Full Member
Joined
Feb 10, 2019
Messages
1,196
I’d love to know how this lie has permeated our fan base so deeply. It’s such a crock of shite.
Adam Crafton, The Athletic, 19th Feb

The Ratcliffe bid made no formal statement about debt but, behind the scenes, it has provided assurances that no “fresh debt” (ie, any money borrowed to acquire United) will be landed onto the club’s balance sheet and will instead be borne by INEOS.

However, the Ratcliffe bid has not said it will wipe existing debt from United, which is, from a communications perspective, tricky to overcome. Debt has been regarded as a dirty word at Old Trafford due to the years of vast repayments that have leaked out of the club to serve the interests of the owners.

The Ratcliffe bid was also unable to clarify whether any interest owed on borrowings to acquire the club would be burdened upon United, although it would be highly unusual for another company to shell out on INEOS’ behalf.
 

Valencia Shin Crosses

Full Member
Joined
Sep 30, 2015
Messages
7,326
Location
"Martial...He's isolated Skrtel here..."
Cursing people that have absolutely no bearing on what happens seems a bit daft.

But you don't think that being owned by a foreign state could have any potential issues? And in terms of debt, we would be in debt to Qatar. Someone is giving money to this 92 Foundation. Maybe we should be more concerned about the unknown debt and unknown sources of money?

I'm not pro-Ratcliffe, I'm against all of the current options, including the status quo.
Gotta love just making things up
 

Valencia Shin Crosses

Full Member
Joined
Sep 30, 2015
Messages
7,326
Location
"Martial...He's isolated Skrtel here..."
Eternal mediocrity? :lol: Hyperbole much? We don't need to be owned by a state to be a success. The sooner people realise this, the better. Absolutely nothing against, Qatar, or their people. I just hate the idea of a social institution like, Utd, being used as a pawn for a governments prestige. Ownership shouldn't be used as a matter of "look how much money we have". It's disgusting. We can generate enough money on our own, and be a success without state ownership.
It's not the state ownership that people want or care about though, it's the debt free ambitious ownership without drawbacks that many wish for. No one gives a shit about Qatar, but they sure as hell care about a potential owner wiping debt and investing heavily into infrastructure as well on transfers.
 

sglowrider

Thinks the caf is 'wokeish'.
Joined
Dec 27, 2009
Messages
25,259
Location
Hell on Earth
And somewhere in there you’re assuming that the Glazers can hoodwink a guy who owns a company with annual revenues of £60bn and annual profits of several billion.
Firstly, anyone who owns a company with annual revenues of £60billion with annual profits of several billion other than Ratcliffe would not touch this deal -- especially if you are a chemical company.

If Ratcliffe is willing to cut a deal with the two G-bros -- knowing full well that as a United fan himself, it would outrage his fellow United supporters --- means he is desperate to close the deal.
The two G-bros will know this ...not to say you need to be the most well-informed owner to understand this. And anyone will tell you, you are not in a good negotiating position if you look desperate.
 

Partridge

New Member
Newbie
Joined
Jul 1, 2021
Messages
793
Location
Linton Travel Tavern
Jassim: "Listen mate, ratcliffe is old, he's gonna shuffle off into the sunset soon..and he smells of Werthers. I'm youthful, stylish, and as you want 6 billion, will you accept 5.9 billion? Mates rates n that".
 
Status
Not open for further replies.