Telegraph are ruling out a swift resolution.
More and more it seems they are delaying it until there are no more games to play.
More and more it seems they are delaying it until there are no more games to play.
Club Sale | It’s done!
- Thread starter JB08
- Start date
- Status
No they aren't.
We get you're a pessimist or you have gut feelings, but there's no need to spread fake news.
Pretty much...INEOS' bid currently values the club higher than Jassim's offer but like you said, should their offer with retained part ownership by the Glazers go through, the share value will drop significantly (as we've seen when reports come out) so if they want to start hoovering up class A shares, they'll get them cheaper than they're at now.
But like you, that's just my take on it.
I don't really see why people are hard set against one of the bidders. I have concerns about both (more so Jassim) but ultimately both options are 1000% better than minority investment from Elliot/Carlyle/Ares etc. So if either get it, I'd welcome both.
The Twitter fest with kids/idiots twerking for Jassim does get cringe a lot though. Neither are going to be a perfect owner.
The Twitter fest with kids/idiots twerking for Jassim does get cringe a lot though. Neither are going to be a perfect owner.
The strategy used by football sugar daddies since the beginning of time (I think that the earliest were the Agnelli with Juventus back in the 20s) was to go in, throw loads of money at the club usually on players who are not league/Cl winners but are an improvement to what they have, then improve the squad up until better players are available which would then allow them to compete at the top level. They were usually successful because they bought clubs that were in a competitive league. All they had to do is to bully themselves to the top 4 and suddenly players will start getting interested in joining them not because of money but because they are successful. That what happened at Chelsea for example and with AC Milan during Berlusconi era.
This trick could never work at PSG because the French league is simply not strong or popular enough to sustain the likes of Mbappe or Neymar. Any player going to the French league is interested in one thing ie money which means either PSG remain in the 'bankrolling the club to get top players' ad infinitum or else the whole project will collapse. That's why I believe that the French league was a bad fit for the Qataris. Its also the reason why these oil rich states are stirring away from leagues like the Serie A who simply lack the financial resources to sustain such clubs to the top on its own.
I am not suggesting that there weren't mistakes made during the way. The close proximity certain players had with the CEO is one huge mistake, same as hiring Leonardo for god know why. However there's a reason behind the madness of bankrolling clubs. Also note that there's more to Qatari lead PSG then simply throwing money at the likes of Messi. In fact they do extremely well with the U19s which is the backbone of French football. They are currently second in the U19 league group A as opposed to Nice which are 4th last in Group D
its pretty evident that the government and UEFA are quite open for Qatari investment in football. The Qatari own half of London and look set to buy the other half
I'm pretty sure you're confused. HBJ's (Jassim's father) net worth is uncertain, with some saying over 200B and another saying 1.1B.
Why would minority investment be the worst option. For me, morally it has to be Ratcliffe out of the two takeover bid simply because of I can't overlook the human rights record of the other side.
However I think financially it's the worst option. Our debt at the moment is structured around the owners having to borrow £750m to buy us. That level of debt with minority investment is surely preferable than the levels of debt acquired in a scenario where an owner is going to borrow billions to own us. Which is what the scenario will be under Ratcliffe.
At least with minority investment it would be to invest. At least hopefully. With Ratcliffe it will be borrowing for the privilege of being owned by someone else, which I thought was the entire objection to the Glazers to begin with. I see no other difference other than Sir Jim being marginally more feckable.
The reality is Ratcliffe neither has £4bn stuffed down the sofa, nor is he selling any portion of Ineos. He's going to borrow.
If anything this is what they want. This is not a transfer window etc. This is them trying to sell the club
The only thing they have ever cared about is their bank balance, they don't care about the club. They are happy to drag this sale to 31 August if it means they get the maximum value
That's why the Qatari PR about what they will spend, do for the area feels pointless as it won't sway the Glazer's. They would rather that money go to them
Thing is, we really do not know what we are going to get with either option for owners. It could be fantastic, always challenging/winning trophies. It could be not really going anywhere or lastly an unmitigated disaster. Two of the options are not great. Until we are bought we are just speculating. It will all depend who is running the club. Recruitment of the right people will be vital which is where we have gone wrong since the Glazers took over.
Ineos would be responsible for their debt to buy the club which is much better for the club than the Glazers debt
"could".
That doesn't mean a swift resolution is ruled out.
It means a saga to the summer is not ruled out.
In fact the only thing they rule out is an answer this week:
"However, the prospect of a preferred bidder being declared this week has been ruled out entirely."
So Ineos will continue service their own debt, take on ours and we'll be debt free and exempt from using our income to a considerable degree to contribute towards the debt accumulated to buy us?
Well I guess the last goodbye kiss from the Glazers is to screw up our summer transfer window by dragging this stupid sale out into a ridiculous stretch. So that they can make some extra money. So basically just another day at the office for the Glazers.
Glazers waiting for all the buyers to walk away it seems
Spot on
I don't know what Ineos are going to do in the future, i could make a guess but there's no point
I'm just saying that the Ineos debt to buy the club is not going to be the clubs burden like the existing debt is..
Yeah, that seems increasingly likely. Though whether detrimental or not to the club, and how detrimental, remains to be seen. I don't really know.
I honestly struggle to think what is more unrealistic. This idea that Ratcliffe's guessed 'net worth' being more than the value of the club means he can just buy us outright or this idea that he's going to load all the debt he aquires through borrowing onto Ineos and allow us to live perpetually like a teenager on a gap year with wealthy parents.
I can definitely see Ineos's partners, investors and customers agreeing to that. Put the financial stability of one of the worlds biggest chemicals companies at risk in order to indulge someone's desire to own a football club.
Even if on paper the debts of the two companies are rolled into one, the effect will be the same. Our profits will contribute likely to at least the same degree as they do now to servicing that 'joint' debt.
Ineos spending billions to service our debt whilst we're building stadiums and signing superstars. The fact people believe that shows why timeshare holidays, extended warranties and pyramid schemes remain popular
I can definitely see Ineos's partners, investors and customers agreeing to that. Put the financial stability of one of the worlds biggest chemicals companies at risk in order to indulge someone's desire to own a football club.
Even if on paper the debts of the two companies are rolled into one, the effect will be the same. Our profits will contribute likely to at least the same degree as they do now to servicing that 'joint' debt.
Ineos spending billions to service our debt whilst we're building stadiums and signing superstars. The fact people believe that shows why timeshare holidays, extended warranties and pyramid schemes remain popular
Last edited:
If this drags out all summer until possibly the start of next season, will this affect our summer transfer business in any way?
you are the only person I've ever seen mention this, everyone else seems fully aware that Ineos are buying the club and not SJR
it's also not logistically possible to buy the club by loading the purchase amount onto the club.. the numbers don't work
it's amazing that the thing you find unrealistic is literally the only realistic way for them to do it
They know that the most keen buyers won't because there is only one Manchester United.
There is no benefit to selling early, see if anyone panics and increases the bids, while taking more money out of the club in the meantime. Talk is that we get a big payment in soon which the Glazers will want their slice of.
Why do people treat INEOS bid like JSR wont give any money and the club will be broke?
Also a lot of depends on installing right people in the right places, who guarantees Qatar will do that?
Also a lot of depends on installing right people in the right places, who guarantees Qatar will do that?
Agreed. Both options have their caveats. I just hope they make better decisions with the club. And EtH gets the support he so desperately needs.
This was my take; that is why i don't think some Glazers will stay.
I am going for the higher range there mate.
TLDR: Yes
Long version: Yes, because we don't know our budget and many people will hesitate to join a club in flux. Etc etc
You can see both bringing in DOF's now the relationship he builds with ETH will be vital. They need to be able to compromise, not one ride roughshod over the other, or the manager keep digging his heels in like with FDJ. They have to sit down and come to an agreement about which players are viable.
I don’t give a sh1t personally. Morals will win you nothing and make you stagnate. No owner is going to be perfect and squeaky clean. I want the best party for this club and that is Jassim in my opinion.
The issue is the 1.1B isn't fact, some incorrectly use it as fact.
Could you imagine if they don't even sell. Bugger the football, the riots will be the thing to watch.
Would be like the January window I assume - limited to cheap loans
I suppose the question is, if SJR went out and bought a club like Lfc or Tottenham, would we be worried?
Now, the same question asked if Qatar went on and bought Lfc or Tottenham?
Now, the same question asked if Qatar went on and bought Lfc or Tottenham?
Yes definitely. I sincerely hope whoever they bring in has the right chemistry with EtH. I don't want to see the merry go round go spinning again and again and again.
At the higher range i have to wonder whether some have confused QIA investments. Given Forbes say he owns a 300m yacht and 3% of deutsche bank, and then one of the most expensive properties in London the 1.1b seems questionable.
If Qatar bought Spurs at least he wouldn't be worrying about stadium or training facilities. It would just all go on players. Their stadium will get it sponsorship deal as well.
That sends a shiver down my spine. it would be quite a shit show.Not a chance in hell it would just be our usual Summer Window with outlay of 100 m or even more depending on sales . Just because Club is on sale doesn't mean everything would come to stand still .
https://www.google.com/amp/s/amp.th...eos-nets-474m-profit-thanks-to-soaring-prices
The last two financial results the profits of Ineos discounting what it needs to spend to sustain itself, pay its own debts and make necessary investments in new technologies was a £474m profit one year and a £226m loss the next.
People really need to stop Googling 'Jim Ratcliffe's net worth' and thinking because that number is much higher than the number rumoured that it would cost him to buy the club, that it must mean it's happy days.
Same applies to those who thinks in the case of Ineos 'turnover' means: "money they have to buy us a new stadium"
The last two financial results the profits of Ineos discounting what it needs to spend to sustain itself, pay its own debts and make necessary investments in new technologies was a £474m profit one year and a £226m loss the next.
People really need to stop Googling 'Jim Ratcliffe's net worth' and thinking because that number is much higher than the number rumoured that it would cost him to buy the club, that it must mean it's happy days.
Same applies to those who thinks in the case of Ineos 'turnover' means: "money they have to buy us a new stadium"
- Status