That's the bit that now doesn't seem as likely as it did before.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.
Nope.Any a petrochemical company is totally clean right?
Ask yourself how much money Ineos make from any of the sport organisations they own/sponsor, or any of the existing football clubs they sponsor/own. The answer is more than likely nothing.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.
They need to up their bid which going by what they have said previously, they won’t be held to ransom by the Glazers and will walk away.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.
Don't really disagree with him. He's speaking on his own behalf as a fan/ex-playerRespected financial expert Ben Foster
This is a great post. Debt isn’t the enemy you think it is people!People are getting themselves into a mess over the word debt.
750m debt with the Glazers is different to 750m debt with someone else.
The Glazers had no intention of clearing that debt as it would cost them real money, they only wanted to take.
I would assume (yes I don't know for sure like anybody else) that INEOS/ SJR would approach the debt differently and look towards clearing it over time.
What I am saying is if managed properly then the debt itself isn't an issue, just the Glazers left it to rot and grow.
Indeed.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.
No we can't. It's why the glazers are looking to sell a stake because they can't get oil from the United tap anymore. They couldn't even pay themselves a dividend last quarter because we have no money. Why do you think someone like Gakpo or Felix who could easily been had didn't happen while we had to settle for a Burnley player who was on loan to a Turkish club?Furthermore United can afford to service its own debt and spend 150m on transfers every season
Certainly would be a blow considering everyone thought there would be a lot of interest.If after all this the best we can do is Jim teamin up with Glazers, it will be quite a damning set of circumstances.
I agree with Ben Foster's sentiments.Tweet
— Twitter API (@user) date
Heads up I struggle to balance my bank statement so you can safely ignore my hot takes.Respected financial expert Ben Foster
You say that but the customers were happy to fill up the stadium, with very few exceptions.Ratcliffe will know full well the massive backlash about keeping the Glazers on. He must have one hell of an explanation/plan going forward to justify it
Thanks for the info Mr.Gill, afterall it worked so well last time you told us not to worry about the debt.This is a great post. Debt isn’t the enemy you think it is people!
It's not just media BS. Ineos valued the club (as a whole) at more than what the Qataris did. The Glazers can sell outright to him now at that valuation of they want, in which case they get more than Qatar is offering. Joel and Avram reportedly don't want to sell now. Thus the option for them to stay (and according to Castles, with a big incentive to sell with within the next 2 years).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.
What would be the second worst outcome?It would be the 2nd worst outcome, with the Glazers staying in total control being the obvious worst. I don’t see why anyone could be positive or excited by this potential mess.
I meant any news in general to be fairBe surprised if we get any more positive tweets about Qatar still being in the race now
Them too.God I hate football influencers.
Ben Foster shares his preference for Qatar, acknowledges it requires putting morals to one side, which he then blames on fans rather than owning himself.Tweet
— Twitter API (@user) date
Now you on the other hand are a source of insightful analysisGoldbridge really is a stupid cnut isn't he.
Foster too. He managed to get almost every fact wrong in that video.
Rat and Glazers tag team. I’ve yet to read anything reassuring about that potential outcome.What would be the second worst outcome?
This is a terrible post, and I cant become a verified user?! You are just assuming they would want to clear the debt over time, they flippin wont.This is a great post. Debt isn’t the enemy you think it is people!
I totally agree the absolute disdain for the Ineos group is just crazy, they don’t have the money to buy the club, they can’t afford to buy players or invest in stadium rebuild, it’s a complete hog wash. If the company gave outbid SJ and Qatar they have the funds as this has been checked in the last two weeks. For the record Ineos have amounted nearly €10bn Of profits in last 8 or 9 years. Look below at link https://www.statista.com/statistics...the gross profits,at nearly 1.3 billion euros.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.
We didn't struggle with debt but we struggled with their incompetence. The money wasted on dogshit players like Pogba, Sanchez, Lukaku and others who didn't deliver any sporting success could have renovated Old Trafford or if it had been spent by someone who knew what they were doing would have funded a PL or CL win. Let's not rewrite history, if Woodward had moved heaven and earth to land Klopp we'd talking differently right now.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.
I be actually like Golbridge but he didn’t even know like a lot of people what the bid was for and how it was structuredNow you on the other hand are a source of insightful analysis
You are 100% spot on. I remember those days and the conversations in here were very similar.Got to say a lot of the defences about INEOS and debt is very similar to what we heard about the Glazers in the beginning. A lot of it comes down to getting the right coaching and recruitment which INEOS have shown to be great at and so there isn’t a need to have much room for mistakes.
I agree.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.
I'm sure there are a lot of echoes.Got to say a lot of the defences about INEOS and debt is very similar to what we heard about the Glazers in the beginning. A lot of it comes down to getting the right coaching and recruitment which INEOS have shown to be great at and so there isn’t a need to have much room for mistakes.
Oh, he definitely doesn't come across as the most clued-in on the deal here but there is an element on here that whenever anything gets posted from the social media side is quick to not just criticise but call names. Listening to them, you'd think some of these guys are the devil. They also are first to pass judgment if you offend their sensibilities.I be actually like Golbridge but he didn’t even know like a lot of people what the bid was for and how it was structured
Well, they are getting to partner with a like minded individual in Ratcliffe, so no surprise that want to stay on.At least Mike Ashley knew when it was time to leave. These two lunatics seem hellbent on clinging on for ever.?!