Club Sale | It’s done!

[Gavinb33]

INEOS are a listed company, and have shareholders they have to report to. They can't just put billions of debt repayment onto one of their companies in their group. The board would lose thier jobs and they would have shareholder revolt which would hit the shareprice and their market capital.

If your a shareholder in the Ineos group and not a utd fan, why would you care about ineos spending so much money on a ego trip for their CEO? You wouldnt. You'd be up in arms about the proposed purchase.

Ratcliffe is going to do a leveraged buyout just like the glazers did.

Ineos have 3 shareholders only.

Also how do you put multiple billions of debt on a company that struggled to pay a debt of 700 million over 18 years and who also have a turn over of £600 million, some of opinions on business in this thread are interesting to say the least.

 

[stw2022]

The stricter FFP rules might be a factor in the Qataris not being desperate to acquire the club. It's harder to engage in financial doping now and United's finances are in a bad state.

You don't really need to financially dope United though.

 

[Judas]

I still can’t get my head around Qatar losing. It just doesn’t make sense to me.

 

[NK86]

Ineos have 3 shareholders only.

Also how do you put a multiple billions of debt on a company that struggled to pay a debt of 700 million over 18 years and who also have a turn over of £600 million, some of opinions on business in this thread are interesting to say the least.

You think a company with 4.5b debt will take on additional debt of about 3b while not expecting the taken over company to contribute towards it in anyway?

Moreover you expect the parent company to then splash the cash from our profits completely on ourselves while they service that debt?

As for interesting business takes, why don't you share an example of a company being bought by debt then being allowed to splurge on itself without servicing that debt in anyway?

 

[stw2022]

Ineos have 3 shareholders only.

Also how do you put a multiple billions of debt on a company that struggled to pay a debt of 700 million over 18 years and who also have a turn over of £600 million, some of opinions on business in this thread are interesting to say the least.

You would expect a contribution though. And why would the starting point for that not be what you know the company can already afford e.g current repayments. At the minimum. This is why I don't think Ratcliffe ownership from a club stand point is going to be any different than the Glazer ownership.

 

[gajender]

I still can’t get my head around Qatar losing. It just doesn’t make sense to me.

May it's a private bid after all .

 

[clarkydaz]

.

I still can’t get my head around Qatar losing. It just doesn’t make sense to me.

Ratcliffe outwitted them, its a brilliant business move. Maybe poor for the club and fans

 

[Judas]

.

Ratcliffe outwitted them, its a brilliant business move. Maybe poor for the club and fans

No maybe about it, it’s a disaster if it happens.

 

[NK86]

You would expect a contribution though. And why would the starting point for that not be what you know the company can already afford e.g current repayments. At the minimum. This is why I don't think Ratcliffe ownership from a club stand point is going to be any different than the Glazer ownership.

The more I read about it, the more it seems to be the case. Why would Ineos assume all debt and leave United to just spend on itself? If it is to grow its value, even Glazers managed to do so while we struggled with debt and they taking regular dividends. So it's perfectly possible that we will keep functioning the same way while still growing in value because of our brand value and huge following.

As of now, nothing is clear but this seems more plausible than SJR thinking of this as just a legacy project with no profit to be made from this, as some seem to suggest.

 

[McTerminator]

Is there anything to be read into the fact that the Qatari’s haven’t just gazumped all other bidders to bypass all these added rounds of bidding?

Maybe the data room numbers made for grim viewing in terms of our future earnings/expenditures.

Or maybe they’re trying to convince the ISU that this is an individual buying and not the state of Qatar with unlimited funds?

 

[Solius]

.

Ratcliffe outwitted them, its a brilliant business move. Maybe poor for the club and fans

It was smart by him to offer the deal with them staying. Not that I am happy about that but it was clever and allowed him to make his bid more than just money (which he could not compete with).

 

[RORY65]

.

Ratcliffe outwitted them, its a brilliant business move. Maybe poor for the club and fans

If the reports we have so far are to be believed they didn't offer enough, INEOS' bid for the entirety of the Glazer's stake was higher than Qatar's but not to the amount that the Glazer's wanted so then INEOS also put forward this compromise.

People on here are making out as if it was INEOS with the Glazer's staying as minority owners or Qatar when the reality is that unless Qatar improve their offer again the options were always going to be INEOS with the Glazer's or them just staying in charge and waiting for potentially better offers down the line (maybe with minority investment).

 

[Bosws87]

.

Ratcliffe outwitted them, its a brilliant business move. Maybe poor for the club and fans

He’s outwitted no one he’s just structured a different type of deal with some fancy play with words you can spout out in the media to the masses it will eventually get misconstrued as he’s paying more/there’s more money on the table which isn’t true.

It’s fantastic use of the media that’s for sure.

A more accurate statement would be he knows he can’t compete with Qatar on a full buyout so he moved the goalposts.

 

[Gavinb33]

You think a company with 4.5b debt will take on additional debt of about 3b while not expecting the taken over company to contribute towards it in anyway?

Moreover you expect the parent company to then splash the cash from our profits completely on ourselves while they service that debt?

As for interesting business takes, why don't you share an example of a company being bought by debt then being allowed to splurge on itself without servicing that debt in anyway?

You would expect a contribution though. And why would the starting point for that not be what you know the company can already afford e.g current repayments. At the minimum. This is why I don't think Ratcliffe ownership from a club stand point is going to be any different than the Glazer ownership.

When the parent company turn over 60 billion a year and profits have been around €2.1 billion euros anything we can contribute would be like firing a BB gun at a tank and expecting it to cause any damage

 

[Sviken]

Wtf is going on? Are the Glazers staying with Ratcliffe at the helm or not? I haven't kept up with this Succession type shit this past month.

 

[MDFC Manager]

That's how business works. Many large companies that could have afforded to pay their obligations off many times over choose not to as paying the bare minimum interest on debt is widely considered the preferred choice.

Best case scenario of Ratcliffe ownership is that both Ineos and United will also be perpetually in debt, happy enough to simply pay off interest and refinance intermittently. United will be required to use its profits to contribute towards paying

If I had to choose I'd guess I'd prefer Ratcliffe. I'd rather the club was ran as a business because I think that's only way of assuring long term sustainability. Also the whole persecution of gay people and human rights abuses thing.

But if people think it'll be the end of debt, repayment obligations and restrictions on spending, they've got a very nasty surprise coming.

You think a company with 4.5b debt will take on additional debt of about 3b while not expecting the taken over company to contribute towards it in anyway?

Moreover you expect the parent company to then splash the cash from our profits completely on ourselves while they service that debt?

As for interesting business takes, why don't you share an example of a company being bought by debt then being allowed to splurge on itself without servicing that debt in anyway?

I hope all the Ratcliffe bid supporters start being honest and/or wake up about what's going to happen with the debt/debt repayments. Even more so if there's investments towards infrastructure.

 

[Judas]

I’ve just no interest in a “change” that in fact will in all likelihood change very little. It’s bemusing to see adults fawning over Brexit Jim.

 

[HarryP]

The more I read about Qatar, the less I trust them. They did not change their ways after what looked like a corrupt bid to win the World Cup in the first place. You would be naive to think they wouldn't export these practices over into the running of Utd.

 

[Judas]

There’s nothing honest about Qatar, it’s sportswashing. It’s blatant though, at least we know their plan.

 

[Tom Van Persie]

I still can’t get my head around Qatar losing. It just doesn’t make sense to me.

It turns out SJR wasn't the bluffer and fool many people in here made him out to be and Qatar weren't as serious as everyone thought.

"I am not a football fan," Sheikh Hamad said on Bloomberg's The David Rubenstein Show, recorded on February 14. "I don't like this investment. Maybe it will work well. But you know, some of my sons like this, they always discuss it with me. They're pushing hard. This is not my speciality.

"Let me put it like this: I am an investor. If it will one day be a good investment, I will think about it. If not, I will not look at it as something you do just as an advertisement."

 

[Bosws87]

It turns out SJR wasn't the bluffer and fool many people in here made him out to be and Qatar weren't as serious as everyone thought.

What a load of rubbish

Guys clearly got a budget in his head realised he can’t afford the full buyout so he will pay more for less equity and now he’s the next messiah.

You would have a legitimate argument that he wants it more, but paying more for less is hardly genius.

 

[Tom Van Persie]

Wtf is going on? Are the Glazers staying with Ratcliffe at the helm or not? I haven't kept up with this Succession type shit this past month.

We don't know yet. Apparently one of the options on the table is Joel and Avram staying on as minority shareholders with no voting rights or power.

 

[Chesterlestreet]

As of now, nothing is clear but this seems more plausible than SJR thinking of this as just a legacy project with no profit to be made from this, as some seem to suggest.

The question is what he expects to get out of it if it is not a "legacy project".

United have been losing money for the last three fiscal years unless I'm mistaken. Sure, Covid - yes. But what's the club's average profit over the last decade or so? Pretty good for a football club? I'm certain it is. But is it something you'd be overly interested in investing in mainly for profit if you already control a company that makes a profit of 2-3 billion annually?

I'm not saying it positively isn't, just that it seems like an odd pursuit on the part of Ratcliffe, not least given his personal ties to United.

 

[Marcus]

Upgrade the stadium and training facilities, give EtH money to spend (not just to make it to Top 4) to allow us a team to be challenging for the title. I don't care who does it, whether Glazers, Ratcliffe's group or the Qatar group. Announce something! Need certainty to get the ball rolling for next season. We should not be loaning players as a general rule.

 

[Judas]

Rat is obviously a bluffer, he’s getting firmly in bed with the Glazers, after all the shite he chatted about saving the club. He’s nothing but a brexit loving business man, he only cares about filling his pockets.

 

[RopersReturn]

At least Mike Ashley knew when it was time to leave. These two lunatics seem hellbent on clinging on for ever.?!

 

[TheGodsInRed]

I still can’t get my head around Qatar losing. It just doesn’t make sense to me.

It's an investment fund after all. If they can get better returns investing it elsewhere they will. It's not an emotional United fan owner purchase.

 

[alanjohnson]

Ineos have 3 shareholders only.

Also how do you put multiple billions of debt on a company that struggled to pay a debt of 700 million over 18 years and who also have a turn over of £600 million, some of opinions on business in this thread are interesting to say the least.

1) ineos may not have £3-6b in liquid cash, but they certainly have the clout to pay the repayments out of their own pocket. if they don't and put that debt on the club, expecting the club to generate it, it's obv a stupid move. what they can do, is make the repayments comfortably themselves whilst increasing the club's loan account (most likely) but it won't matter really, the club won't be under threat in that case.

2) the key question is why they're willing to risk so much just to own 50% of united, the samr reason why the glazers didnt want to let go in the first place, because they understand the impact monetised future technology eg VR/holographic technology, will have on the club.
the glazers realise they cant keep spending £200m a season to keep up with City and now Newcastle too, along with all the economic uncertainty going around..but they would have preferred to have kept united or kept some shares in united to get that share of the pie 10-15 yrs from now.

ask yourself, if 10 years from now you can switch on a device, preferrbly not VR goggles...and experience OT as if you're physically seated there, or as if you're in the dugout or tunnel..but you had to pay £1k a year (or the equivalent in terms of inflation), would you do it?
if United were in a big game...and 40m people all around the world paid £10 each for that experience...
the only downside is the disgusting idea that a player might cost £1b one day..and it would be another dog poo player playing like pogba. there needs to be a cap on the transfer market eg clubs should be mandated to promote x amount of youth players every game for example. that would be nice.

 

[greenoffpearson]

It's an investment fund after all. If they can get better returns investing it elsewhere they will. It's not an emotional United fan owner purchase.

The assumption being that the Glazers won't be open to being offered more, remember these are the Glazers.

 

[Rolaholic]

 

[Plant0x84]

Putting the debt on Ineos and Ineos bearing the payments for it are very different. United could still be making annual interest payments to Ineos who could be just loaning that money to United. Would it make it more palatable to you?

Now before you say why would a behemoth like Ineos do so, you need to understand that they have their own debt repayments kicking in from 2026. They will be taking on billions in debt for the acquisition as well, so there's nothing to say one way or another that United still won't be on the hook for the existing debt, which will be a real kicker.

We don’t know that, nothing has been confirmed either way.

 

[BuzzKillington]

You would expect a contribution though. And why would the starting point for that not be what you know the company can already afford e.g current repayments. At the minimum. This is why I don't think Ratcliffe ownership from a club stand point is going to be any different than the Glazer ownership.

The difference will be that Ineos will expect the club to be able to fund what it can afford, as opposed to the Glazers who have empty pockets and the club has to pay everything regardless of what it can afford. There’s a clear difference.

We’ll get the investment we need, as opposed to the investment our wildest fantasists dream of.

Given we don’t have to sell our soul with this option, personally I’m comfortable with it.

 

[VP89]

Goldbridge really is a stupid cnut isn't he.
Foster too. He managed to get almost every fact wrong in that video.

 

[Escobar]

Rat is obviously a bluffer, he’s getting firmly in bed with the Glazers, after all the shite he chatted about saving the club. He’s nothing but a brexit loving business man, he only cares about filling his pockets.

People think he will be our saviour but most likely, things remain mostly unchanged under him.

 

[AneRu]

You think a company with 4.5b debt will take on additional debt of about 3b while not expecting the taken over company to contribute towards it in anyway?

Moreover you expect the parent company to then splash the cash from our profits completely on ourselves while they service that debt?

As for interesting business takes, why don't you share an example of a company being bought by debt then being allowed to splurge on itself without servicing that debt in anyway?

INEOS makes around 2.5b per year so servicing and paying off an 8b debt isn't that difficult if they wished to. Furthermore United can afford to service its own debt and spend 150m on transfers every season especially if they have the right coaching and recruitment set up that can guarantee CL football every year.

If Ineos want capital appreciation then they have to invest in infrastructure and playing staff, there is no way around it. The fact of the matter is that United wouldn't need to spend +250m every season, maybe every other 3rd or fourth season. Realistically speaking, if we spend 250m on Osimhen, Caicedo and Costa what would we need in 24 that would be so expensive beyond a few bench players?

Interest on the 3b acquisition debt INEOS would have to take will be in the 150m range, which will also lower their tax burden. After this summer United would never need additional support for transfer spending and the figure they would need is probably less than 150m.

They can afford the takeover, it's in their interests to get United competing and reestablished at the top table of the English and European game. City recently sold 10% of their stake for $500m, the Glazers are looking for a billion plus for a minority stake and so are PSG. There is money to be made but it's only there if you invest. The Glazers failed because of misdirected investments under an incompetent CEO, not because of debt.

 

[dinostar77]

The more I read about Qatar, the less I trust them. They did not change their ways after what looked like a corrupt bid to win the World Cup in the first place. You would be naive to think they wouldn't export these practices over into the running of Utd.

Any a petrochemical company is totally clean right?

 

[RedSky]

Lots of people on here so so so desperate to be a sugar daddy club like City will literally say anything to justify their bid. It's actually difficult to witness but not at all surprising.

It's painful reading.

 

[JustinC00]

I still can’t get my head around Qatar losing. It just doesn’t make sense to me.

Sure it does. Money sucking glazers preferred option was always to stuff their pockets with billions while keeping a percentage of the club. Only way they were selling 100% was if someone came with a 10bn offer. This whole shite show has always just been about them getting the most they could while keeping a stake because they think in years that stake will double and they'll be able to get another 5bn to sell

We are nothing but a money tree for them that's why we are so poorly run and will continue to be.

 

[Gavinb33]

Any a petrochemical company is totally clean right?

No one who has the money to do this kind of deal is going to be "clean" that's how they have got this kind of moeny

 

[Andy_Cole]

I’m still not convinced Qatar will lose this. This same Qatar that managed to win a World Cup Bid. Yes with corruption and back handers. If they want United badly they will get United. I’m sure of it.