Overtaking what? There is nothing else going on
Club Sale | It’s done!
- Thread starter JB08
- Start date
-
In the latest episode of the United Hour Podcast, Nik @Rood and Imran @Annihilate Now! start with the good news by celebrating Manchester United Women's emphatic FA Cup win over Spurs at Wembley and the future of manager Marc Skinner.
Then it's the bad news and the ever worsening form of our Men with losses to Arsenal and Palace.
Finally the main debate - ETH Out now or keep him until the end of the season - if not longer. Are you Team Nik or Team Imran?
- Status
Remove it mate before the mods notice
Most exciting tweet in this thread since November.
Don’t want it to overtake the talk of devil crests!
We need a full on dodgy sources thread where the muppets can go wild
Less than 1,000 followers. Before the Qatari bids they had 3 posts (1 about a Chinese car company, 1 about crypto and 1 opposing abortion). Seems pretty legit.
Come on dear baby Jesus make it happen
Is referencing them any better? Kinda defeats the object of the ban surely?
Pearl Gray Equity and Research actually sounded legit until he started talking about transfers like a united fan channel.
It’s kind of interesting to pass the time discussing and discrediting this stuff, it’s all relevant to the takeover and it’s only like transfer gossip. The ban on ‘dodgy sources’ seems weird imo.
Not a bad idea, though dunno why it has to be in a seperate thread. We already have this one, the tweets only thread and the ethics debate thread - how many takeover threads do we really need?
Please post. I hope it’s Qatar. But without links there’s nothing for us to analyse
Someone else posted it mate.
Did your dream state which United?
Cool, will check.
Bloke called NickSpeed10. Been posting comments (if it's not the same person) from Seeking Alpha talking about stocks etc.
Genuine question(s), and I preface this by saying that I respect people wanting Sir Jim and I respect people wanting Sheikh Jassim or the Qatar state. To each their own. Doesn't bother me. positives and negatives to both IMO.
But for people who want Sheikh Jassim, what is the main appeal for you?
And hypothetically, if INEOS made a statement (or reliably leaked) that they were not buying United as an investment like Nice were, but just to win things using their eyewatering wealth, were going to compete for the best players, were in fact going to clear the debt, let United spend their own money, buy all 69% of the Glazer's shares and revamp the stadium etc would it swing it?
But for people who want Sheikh Jassim, what is the main appeal for you?
And hypothetically, if INEOS made a statement (or reliably leaked) that they were not buying United as an investment like Nice were, but just to win things using their eyewatering wealth, were going to compete for the best players, were in fact going to clear the debt, let United spend their own money, buy all 69% of the Glazer's shares and revamp the stadium etc would it swing it?
When Jim first wanted to buy United way before the bidding war I was all in with him to gain control, but after all the reports (and I can only go by reports) nothing will drastically change. Glazers will still be here the debt won't be cleared (I know it might be moved to INEOS) no idea what the plan would be except that Manchester United will be more British this what he implemented. While with Jassim we know the debt will be cleared, Glazers will get out, and a revamping of Old Trafford or a new stadium. I'm not basing my opinion on any previous management of Nice or PSG as we are a totally different beast and won't need to start from the ground. If Jim leaks a plan that is more appealing it might swing my opinion. Either Jim or Jassim win the bid I will not change my support for this club. We supported this team under the Glazers for 20years I don't think we will have worse owners.
If people took that advice you could easily scrub a thousand pages.
Either one would be a massive improvement over the status quo.
My preference for Qatar is due to two reasons:
1. It's the only way we'll be able to consistently compete against the Citys / Newcastles of the world going forward. Pandora's Box is already open, unfortunately. I'd prefer if no clubs were state-owned, but given the reality of the situation, I'd rather see the club be in a position to compete rather than be an also-ran.
2. If they don't purchase us, they will purchase somebody else and turn them into a powerhouse, making our job even harder.
You do that.
I don‘t want Utd to become another soulless construct like City, PSG or Leipzig. Therefore, my hope is Sir Jim. Qatar is my nightmare.
This. Exactly!
All fair and reasonable points. Thank you
This thread has taken an entertaining turn in places. SneijderCafe vibes from 2010.
It would be hilarious if a Raine spokesperson finally came out in person and denied there ever being a sale in the first place.
This place would be a shambles. I'd be horrified on one side and have my hand in the popcorn on the other.
I'd eagerly wait the songs and limericks dedicated to Raine, raining on our parade. It's like Raine, on your wedding day. I'll get my coat.
'Clearing the debt' and freeing up around £30m a year in money that would otherwise have been spent on interest repayments isn't the panacea you and others strangely believe it to be.
Multiples of that yearly repayment has been pissed away with poor decision making and can be again. The priority should be to have a smart owner who will make good decisions, the 'clear the debt' stuff is totally overblown and a distraction.
I'm not arguing for or against this one but i do think Liverpool under Klopp (and Klopp's Dortmund in some ways) and Manchester United under SAF vs Chelsea in the mid 00s demonstrate that it is possible that you can beat oil or massively richer clubs and that the victory is all the sweeter for it. With intelligent transfer strategy and the right investment it is possible (although obviously difficult).
Can it be done consistently though? Klopp and the rest of the organization at Liverpool have done an incredible job, no doubt, but even then, they have one league title vs City's five in the same time period.
SAF vs Chelsea I will concede, but the level of wealth and resources that clubs like City and Newcastle have today are on another level, even compared to Roman's Chelsea.
I hear you that having debt wont be the worst thing in the world, and that it's ok to have debt (everyone is the world does) if we are making good decision, but if i had the choice of having some debt vs no debt then i will go with no debt at all. Now for sure if Jassim comes and clears the debt but then starts doing stupid decisions then it will turn bad, clearing the debt does not mean success on the pitch, but its a step forward. With the way things are going in the world who would say we wont reach Barca financial situation if we keep having these debts, without them in a financial crisis we will have a better chance in keeping things going vs if we have over a 500M$ of debt that might hinder our future
I don't trust those sources, if wall street knew Qatar was winning the stock I would bet that the price would break $40 and if Ineos is winning it should drop to the original levels before the talk of a takeover, more like $10-15. Wall Streets jumps on rumors, its free money. You can't buy shares in MUFC plc for 1 million USD without driving up the price. Obviously, nobody with 1 MUSD on their hand is convinced that Q is winning. Nor that Ratcliffe is winning, because then we would see more shorts.
I agree that it's of course preferable to have zero debt.
But having a manageable debt with strong decision making >>>> having zero debt with poor decision making
I think in the whole discussion surrounding the ownership, far too much emphasis has been placed on the question of debt.
100% agree with you on Strong decision making is the most important thing needed from the new owners, but we can't measure that except from previous experiences or when they take control of the club. Previous experience is not looking good for both parties Jassim (PSG) Jim (Nice), but PSG had a better success overall, was it on the pitch or even presence in the football world. Again United is a different beast so I believe previous experience won't really play a factor, and I might be wrong at the end.
A- Jassim's statement is way more attractive. It involves no debt, heavy investment on the infrastructure and the squad + the Glazers are out
B- Ratcliffe has mismanaged every football club he owned
C- As shown by INEOS statement of Nice and Lausanne their word is as credible as that of a rich Brexiteer Tory.
I fully understand the moral implications about Jassim and Qatar. However there is a very valid reason why most ABUs want us to be bought by INEOS. They are the 'inferior' owners and they are not very good in managing football clubs.
This is a little far-fetched based on what has been reported. The numbers you see quoted in the media for the bid valuations are almost certainly using the enterprise value, meaning that the amount of debt on the club is included in that figure. This is customary in M&A. The market cap is always going to be a lower number.
Just as a disclaimer, I work in the investment management industry (Risk & Compliance dep't). I do not have any kind of information on this transaction beyond what has been publicly reported, nor should anything I write here be considered advice or a recommendation. This is just me taking a rare opportunity to use my professional knowledge to comment on the happenings of United.
In my opinion and based on what has been reported, my best guess is a successful Qatari bid would have them paying in the range of $30-35 per share. If there is no full takeover, the intrinsic appeal of being a Class A shareholder is limited, at least under the current structure. Basically no meaningful voting rights, no dividends in nearly 2 years, and even when there were dividends paid, it was next to nothing for Class A. In my estimation, there is both major upside risk and major downside risk.
My take on the share price action is that it is highly speculative and not worth reading into the daily swings to infer odds on the takeover outcome. We the public know next to nothing and the swings are largely based on reports from football journalists. The markets just hate uncertainty and this process is dragging out beyond what the public were led to expect previously. The tiny amount of shares outstanding for a market cap of this size also make the stock prone to volatility.
I feel a lot of people just want bragging rights over the neighbours and think Qatar will spend City money.
Who doesn't I suppose.
It's not the size of the wallet...
This is true. But I think most people trust Qatar to run the club better than Jim and the Glazers.
People throw PSG at them a lot, but give me PSG over Nice any day of the week.
Last edited:
- Status