Aye, they brought Pep’s Barca men in on money beyond their wildest dreams and then offered Pep well, feck knows, something absolutely ridiculous to keep him there much much longer than Bayern or his beloved Barca.
Because you can’t dance around and sing ‘ding dong the witch is dead’?!!
feck me, I despair I really do.
The PR is all shite anyway, I'm sure every bad owner ever when they took over said we'll do this and that etc etc and then didn't do feck all.
Yea that’s all fair, which makes it even more concerning that they can’t even spin the suggestion that they’ll get rid of the debt. Their PR made it blindingly obvious there was something to be worried about.
I’ve been looking for the tweet/link for hours but I can’t find it.
Tweet
— Twitter API (@user) date
Just a rewording of what we already know, that they won'y put new debt on the clubs books, it'll be kept on INEOS's books, dosen't mean they won't be borrowing or that the clubs revenues won't be used to pay interest and repay the capital.
A fecking bloodbath nightmare
AGM = Annual General Meeting. It's every year.
exactly. Brexit Jim's PR has been so bad that it has been concerning that he won't refute any of the bad news associated with his bid.They haven't said they'd be clearing/moving current debt, just that any new debt won't be borrowed against the club, and even if they did move the current debt off the clubs books it's the clubs money will still be used to pay interest and capital no matter whose name it is borrowed against.
Pretty sure both bids got told to shut the feck up in the press after those flimsy early statements
I have no understanding of how board meetings at a listed footies club is run. What kind of power does a minority shareholder have?
So? They’d already made their stupid statement.
If you conveniently ignore off the books spending for which City has precedent since Mancini
That’s totally categorically incorrect. If a family member takes a loan in their name THEY are legally responsible for it whether you pay or not.
This is the bit I can't get my head around. The argument that the existing debt being transferred onto on the books of Ineos is somehow removing any likelihood that Ineos would want some form of servicing from United of that debt. It's even more likely they would want servicing from the club in a less than 100% ownership situation. If Ineos own say 60%, but have transferred all the debt to themselves, then they are paying 100% of the repayments for only 60% benefit. Better they leave the debt on United, because at least then the 40% minority ownership is still picking up their share of the repayments.
In this situation, the family member has complete and total control of your actions, i.e. you and they are one and the same.
In that case please do educate me.
Even if we go with the under table payments, let’s bring in Liverpool and Chelsea. We’ve spent ridiculously more than them too in Glazers reign. They’ve been miles ahead of us during that time.
He's been very careless. And ever since news broke of the Glazers staying on in some capacity...he's lost even more good will(fans who were favouring Jim) It's such an emotive subject for the fans and he ought to know how supporters feel about the family...whether folk are being irrational or not.
The Twitter thread was by a poster here - who is a specialist in corporate M&A and he posted images of the finance documents in question. It’s legit. There is a CoC clause that means the debt becomes immediately payable - so worst case scenario is it get refinanced on INEOS books which is what has been reported all along.
People are just guessing at shit though, no one knows what is going on this thread must go around the same circles nearly hourly
Understatement. Like saying Phil Foden doesn't look much like Brad Pitt.
You might want to check what we’ve won under Glazers it’s this post
Would you say the Ratcliffe giving the two Glazers a minority stake is media speculation? I think it's caused alarm amongst the fans. The optics don't look good.
I don’t have the impression from his public appearances that he is the sort of person that is particularly interested in popular sentiments. Won’t go down well with fans who want to have more of a say in how club is run but the sort of man who made his fortune in chems and supported Brexit while moving residence offshore to avoid taxes probably doesn’t give a fig about the common plebs.
Hilarious that most of them are also blatantly pushing a narrative and making up fan fiction to support it, really weird the way people do that for Billionaires they have never met, like the Elon Musk fanboys. I do of course not include @Plant0x84 in that as he is quite clearly being paid by Ineos.
no we haven't, we've spent more than Liverpool but Chelsea have spent about £700m more than us since the Glazers took over.
Sadly not, they need all there money for the bid because they can’t afford to buy the club apparently
They should do a gofundme like that Finnish fella.Sadly not, they need all there money for the bid because they can’t afford to buy the club apparently
Hardly a surprise when their previous owner gave them a billion interest free whilst our owners have take over a billion out in the last 17yrs
I’ve got 1,622 reasons to know better than to even try.
something you seem keen on repeating on a larger scale with Radcliffe.
Let's hope the Tory won't. I'm not positive
