Club Sale | It’s done!

Status
Not open for further replies.
Yorke to Cole said:
Going back to Jassim, maybe the credit Suisse issue and hosting the World Cup hampered his ability to spend?
Click to expand...

That assumes that it's a state-funded bid. But if it was a state-funded bit, a few hundred million more to get it over the line would seem very surmountable. After spending 220 billion, whats a few hundred million?

That's why I am not 100% certain that it was. I suspect Jassim has brought together a consortium of investors.
 
Can anyone with more knowledge than me on this situation explain why Sir Jim is bidding for 25% with a plan to take full control and not going for full control straight away?
 
Wrecking ralf said:
Can anyone with more knowledge than me on this situation explain why Sir Jim is bidding for 25% with a plan to take full control and not going for full control straight away?
Click to expand...

Probably because A) He can't afford it right now, B) Glazers can't (due to eventual legal repercussions by the minority shareholders) or don't want to give away full control, or C) both.

At the end of the day everyone overreacted a little. United is neither saved nor doomed. It does feel like kicking the can down the road though. Nothing important (full control, debt, stadium infrastructure) will change significantly in the short term.
 
gaffs said:
I dont think so because The Glazers own 69% (although some of that is class A). Dont think buying all class A gets anywhere near 58%. And you are right, he still would have the votes.
Click to expand...
That's right, class B shares have 10x voting power. Also I believe glazer class B shares turn into class A shares whenever sold, but I guess when Jim buys those, there will be some amendments made to that clause.
 
So we are stuck with the Glazers, none of the Ratcliff money will be used for new stadium, training grounds and players. This is the worst possible outcome.
 
colombianmancunian said:
So we are stuck with the Glazers, none of the Ratcliff money will be used for new stadium, training grounds and players. This is the worst possible outcome.
Click to expand...

More like 2nd worst. For some, the alternative would have been the 'soul of the club being sold'.... though I am not sure what the soul of the club is. My tipping point was when the PL came into operation.
 
Yorke to Cole said:
Going back to Jassim, maybe the credit Suisse issue and hosting the World Cup hampered his ability to spend?
Click to expand...

I might be wrong but remember Keegan reporting something along those lines a few months ago. If someone remembers/finds this feel free to confirm it/correct me.

Wrecking ralf said:
Can anyone with more knowledge than me on this situation explain why Sir Jim is bidding for 25% with a plan to take full control and not going for full control straight away?
Click to expand...

Because the Glazers rejected full control offers from both Ineos and Qatar. Just like Jassim and his team, Ratcliffe also submitted a bid for all Glazers shares in the first round of bidding, all the way back in February.

A lot of people don't seem to remember this and claim that Ratcliffe "ditched" those offers himself instead...but this is false.
 
sglowrider said:
That assumes that it's a state-funded bid. But if it was a state-funded bit, a few hundred million more to get it over the line would seem very surmountable. After spending 220 billion, whats a few hundred million?

That's why I am not 100% certain that it was. I suspect Jassim has brought together a consortium of investors.
Click to expand...
It’s not about the price right now, that’s why the Glazer brothers want to stay as they think they can get more money years down the line.
It will be interesting to see how Ineos got round this because while they will want a set price when buying future shares, it won’t be based on current valuation.

Unless SJ was going to leave the Glazers with some shares he was fighting a losing battle. I guess when you pay £5B+ for a club, clear debt and improve the stadium/training facilities then you would want 100% of the club but ultimately they have lost because they stuck to their guns.
When PSG was bought, QSI only bought 70% of the shares, they did buy the rest within 12 months but you are talking about two teams who were at the opposite ends on the valuation scale. The point is that they got their foot through the door first.
 
Last edited:
This Jassim fella wasn’t it. I would be surprised if it was a state backed bid because they don’t behave like the way he did. And even if it was then they weren’t serious let’s be honest because that was shambolic. If Qatar desperately wanted to buy united they would have bought united. Simple as. No glazers, no price was stopping them.
 
sglowrider said:
That assumes that it's a state-funded bid. But if it was a state-funded bit, a few hundred million more to get it over the line would seem very surmountable. After spending 220 billion, whats a few hundred million?

That's why I am not 100% certain that it was. I suspect Jassim has brought together a consortium of investors.
Click to expand...

I cant help but think that Israel-Palestine tension played some part to this.Glazers being Jews would not want to take money or sell their prime asset to ME country.
 
RedStarUnited said:
Who ends up owning us? Sir Jim personally or his company INEOS? What happens when he passes away?
Click to expand...

I assume we might get sold again. I would imagine that a football club being sold is a fairly common happening ever so often?

In my retrievable memory Arsenal, Chelsea, Liverpool, City, Villa, Everton, Leicester and ourselves have changed owners at least once
 
Last edited:
sglowrider said:
That assumes that it's a state-funded bid. But if it was a state-funded bit, a few hundred million more to get it over the line would seem very surmountable. After spending 220 billion, whats a few hundred million?

That's why I am not 100% certain that it was. I suspect Jassim has brought together a consortium of investors.
Click to expand...
My guess is that one of the investors was a representative of the Qatari state. But Jassim himself is probably not a state representative (and he certainly isn't one officially at least). That's just a shot in the dark guess though.
 
sglowrider said:
That assumes that it's a state-funded bid. But if it was a state-funded bit, a few hundred million more to get it over the line would seem very surmountable. After spending 220 billion, whats a few hundred million?

That's why I am not 100% certain that it was. I suspect Jassim has brought together a consortium of investors.
Click to expand...

I dont follow that logic. Jassim has for many months been asked to chip in a few hundred millions to be in front of Jim. At some point the limit is just reached, else the seller could just continue to do so until eternity and until no money left of Jassim.

The process of buying the club here is already on what, month 9? Chelsea took around 5 months if I remember correctly, so clearly a lot has been asked of the buyers during the process.
 
JeffFromHK said:
to be hoenst, I don't think "Glazers pocketing all our profits" is not the reason for our downfall in the past 10 years (it is just a cheap rhetoric invented by our fanbase/social media), since in the end we were still one of the biggest spenders in world football in the last decade. It is much more up to how you spend the money and making right sporting decisions. The club kept making dumb decisions after dumb decisions.
Click to expand...
And who decides who gets to spend the said money? And why we couldn't afford competent people at every level is money is not an issue? Thats right because competent people won't work glazers. And i wonder why. The buck stops with the glazers.
 
sglowrider said:
More like 2nd worst. For some, the alternative would have been the 'soul of the club being sold'.... though I am not sure what the soul of the club is. My tipping point was when the PL came into operation.
Click to expand...

So your tipping point was arguably the clubs greatest ever period? So you thought we’ve had no soul since 1992? Am I reading your post correctly?
 
People are acting as if having loads of money to spend, and spending it wisely are two mutually exclusive things. They are not.
 
Red in STL said:
Bet you use some of the products his company makes though, if you don't then you probably live in a cave
Click to expand...

I bet you used something that is financed by Qatar in some way as well.
My whole point throughout this is precisely that there is no morally better option. They are both rotten one way or the other.
But given that Qatar has pulled out its a moot point anyway.
 
sglowrider said:
More like 2nd worst. For some, the alternative would have been the 'soul of the club being sold'.... though I am not sure what the soul of the club is. My tipping point was when the PL came into operation.
Click to expand...
And yet they freak out when we are not winning games
 
Lyng said:
I bet you used something that is financed by Qatar in some way as well.
My whole point throughout this is precisely that there is no morally better option. They are both rotten one way or the other.
But given that Qatar has pulled out its a moot point anyway.
Click to expand...
Are you referring to the news they building two manufacturing plants in Saudi or is there something more?
 
tomaldinho1 said:
Are you referring to the news they building two manufacturing plants in Saudi or is there something more?
Click to expand...

Yes. Its a key process from the Saudi's to make economic infrastructure more stable. With this Ineos is actively investing in the very thing some of the most rabid anti Qatar posters here feared so much for United.
If anything Saudi Arabias human rights violations are even worse than Qatars. Add to that the numerous stories about how Ineos has treated employees in the past and the toxic waste issues in the past.
Its a terrible company and is in no way better or worse than SJ.
Personally I had dreamed about someone else buying us but that was probably never realistic due to the absurd overvaluation of the Glazers, but both Qatar and Ineos are absolutely terrible options from a moral stand point.
 
Amsterdam Devil said:
Do you know the deal and all the plans they have already? Maybe you’re a bit of a drama queen in your reaction.
Click to expand...
Maybe don't trivialise my genuine feelings on this matter with your trite analysis, jog on kitty!!! the equation is simple, the idea that the Glazer's will be gone was very much dangled, and now it is a distant dream, the details don't really matter
 
Judas said:
To be honest if our only chance to close the gap was to become them, I think I’d rather not. I don’t think that’s the case anyway.
Click to expand...

Liverpool where very close at a point and even beat them, so the idea that this was the only way to close the gap is clearly nonsense.
 
Lyng said:
Yes. Its a key process from the Saudi's to make economic infrastructure more stable. With this Ineos is actively investing in the very thing some of the most rabid anti Qatar posters here feared so much for United.
If anything Saudi Arabias human rights violations are even worse than Qatars. Add to that the numerous stories about how Ineos has treated employees in the past and the toxic waste issues in the past.
Its a terrible company and is in no way better or worse than SJ.
Personally I had dreamed about someone else buying us but that was probably never realistic due to the absurd overvaluation of the Glazers, but both Qatar and Ineos are absolutely terrible options from a moral stand point.
Click to expand...
But you get that it’s a fraction of Ineos as a whole right? I’m not saying I’m thrilled by a petrochemicals company becoming a minority shareholder but that investment is peanuts to them and, unfortunately, if you are in petrochemicals you are going to have a presence in the Middle East.

Issue with Qatar was the club immediately becomes a political tool if they take over, you simply can’t want state ownership regardless of how rich that state is. Forget the fact it’s Qatar, it would be the worst thing possible for the club.
 
sglowrider said:
Who controls your budget, controls your business/operation/department. It is like getting a job where you have all the responsibilities without the authority.

Its such a sweet deal for the Glazers. They have everything to gain and nothing to lose.

Rattcliffe's team manages the footballing side, taking the Glazers out of the firing line. And if the footballing side improves its performances, then the Glazers benefit later when they will have even more leverage a few years down the line when it comes to selling out, if they want to. Some fecked up strategic review again.

If the INEOS team fails, then it will be their fault. Glazers will only point to them.

From Glazers out to maybe Ratcliffe Out.

Brailsford better buy a new camper soon and park it at Carrington. The poor sod's got all the weight of the world on his shoulder starting this weekend.
Click to expand...

This all only works if Ratcliffe had been hired, which he hasn’t… he’s bought in so the Glazers couldn’t out him if they wanted to.

and you speak as though he’s some thick as feck chancer, he is 10x the businessman the Glazers are, rest assured he goes into this with all the i’s dotted and the t’s crossed
 
Feels like a side step instead of a step forward. Nothing much will change, stuck in mediocrity, club debt still there, same results on the pitch. Just my lousy humble opinion. Love to be proven wrong though.

For those who are actually delighted with Jim seemingly winning the bid: Are you guys delighted because Jassim lost? Or do you actually think Jim is the right man for the job to bring back glory to the club?
 
tomaldinho1 said:
But you get that it’s a fraction of Ineos as a whole right? I’m not saying I’m thrilled by a petrochemicals company becoming a minority shareholder but that investment is peanuts to them and, unfortunately, if you are in petrochemicals you are going to have a presence in the Middle East.

Issue with Qatar was the club immediately becomes a political tool if they take over, you simply can’t want state ownership regardless of how rich that state is. Forget the fact it’s Qatar, it would be the worst thing possible for the club.
Click to expand...

Well we will, no doubt, be used as a political tool here as well. I am not quitting United over Ineos, and I wouldnt have done with Qatar either. What grinds my gears are the posters on here who actively mock the posters who wanted Qatar, and act like Jim and Ineos are such saints compared to Qatar. They simply are not. They are cnuts. You dont get to where Jim is, especially in that business, without blood on your hands one way or the other.
 
Micky Targaryen said:
Feels like a side step instead of a step forward. Nothing much will change, stuck in mediocrity, club debt still there, same results on the pitch. Just my lousy humble opinion. Love to be proven wrong though.

For those who are actually delighted with Jim seemingly winning the bid: Are you guys delighted because Jassim lost? Or do you actually think Jim is the right man for the job to bring back glory to the club?
Click to expand...

im delighted because it’s something, anything where the Glazers have less of us with a view to even less is a win in my book.

the poorest fecker on earth could own us and do well if they just managed it right and cared.

Glazers failed ultimately not because of debt, but because they didn’t care about United and just wanted to take.
 
Lyng said:
Yes. Its a key process from the Saudi's to make economic infrastructure more stable. With this Ineos is actively investing in the very thing some of the most rabid anti Qatar posters here feared so much for United.
If anything Saudi Arabias human rights violations are even worse than Qatars. Add to that the numerous stories about how Ineos has treated employees in the past and the toxic waste issues in the past.
Its a terrible company and is in no way better or worse than SJ.
Personally I had dreamed about someone else buying us but that was probably never realistic due to the absurd overvaluation of the Glazers, but both Qatar and Ineos are absolutely terrible options from a moral stand point.
Click to expand...

Yep, we should want rid of Ineos, but a large proportion of our fanbase demanded Qatar because it meant Mbappe. Can't see it happening.

If you supported Qatar you are in no position to 'call out' the 'pro-Jim brigade'.

Lyng said:
I bet you used something that is financed by Qatar in some way as well.
Click to expand...

These lazy false equivalences betray an argument from necessity. Choice is not always variable, and often coerced via circumstance. Take an ambulance. Runs on Saydi/Qatari farmed gas, right? But not calling one for someone in need on this basis creates another moral quandary.

There is no such necessity in following a football team. It's a complete indulgence.
 
sglowrider said:
Its all hindsight, 20/20 vision. Like any deal lost, its easy to criticise after the fact.

I bet if he had won, the fans would have lauded his vision and how pro-fan he was.
Click to expand...
Its really not hindsight. Tons of fans including me questioned his business sense at the time.

I also went cold on him when he didn't even bother turning up in person for the rounds of bidding. Bit of a tit.
 
Wasn't Radcliffe's offer supposedly going to the board yesterday?

If that was the case, surely we'd be seeing some official statements by now?
 
Marcelinho87 said:
This all only works if Ratcliffe had been hired, which he hasn’t… he’s bought in so the Glazers couldn’t out him if they wanted to.

and you speak as though he’s some thick as feck chancer, he is 10x the businessman the Glazers are, rest assured he goes into this with all the i’s dotted and the t’s crossed
Click to expand...

10X the businessman and yet it's a win-win situation for the Glazers. They have a no lose model here
 
Judas said:
So your tipping point was arguably the clubs greatest ever period? So you thought we’ve had no soul since 1992? Am I reading your post correctly?
Click to expand...

Yes. The moment the clubs sold out. It was pure commercialism after.
As a result I just don't make such proclamations like the club lose it soul.

Winning is a culture. Soul is an entirely different issue
 
Pes6Monster said:
Yep, we should want rid of Ineos, but a large proportion of our fanbase demanded Qatar because it meant Mbappe. Can't see it happening.

If you supported Qatar you are in no position to 'call out' the 'pro-Jim brigade'.



These lazy false equivalences betray an argument from necessity. Choice is not always variable, and often coerced via circumstance. Take an ambulance. Runs on Saydi/Qatari farmed gas, right? But not calling one for someone in need on this basis creates another moral quandary.

There is no such necessity in following a football team. It's a complete indulgence.
Click to expand...

If you look at my post history you will find I dint support Qatar. My preference was neither of the two.
And btw I agree with you which is why I answered the way I did to that poster.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.