Club Sale | It’s done!
- Thread starter JB08
- Start date
- Status
Glazers exploring potential sale | Stay on topic and post respectfully | Do not post dodgy tweet sources | That's not what greenwashing is you morons
[/QUOTE]
Debt isn’t on top. Infrastructure is. At least that’s according to the latest round of briefs. It’ll likely change again this morning. What’s interesting is if Ratcliffe values the club higher and has made two bids - one for all 69% and one for 51% with Avram/Joel staying on then his bid is higher regardless. Even if the Glazers want to sell all their shares his bid is still highest.This is wrong. Assuming Jassim has bid 5bn then that is the valuation he places on the whole club, the Glazers only get 69% of that which is roughly 3.4bn between them. The debt and infrastructure investment may well be on top, but those figures are largely irrelevant to the Glazers and probably won’t affect their decision.
So are you absolutely sure that the money is coming from qatar state?? It can as easily come from a cheque written by his dad who is the CEO of the QIB. Are you saying that a qatar businessman isn’t the same as an english businessman?
Is it ok for an English businessman who rapes the environment to use out club as a greenwashing instrument?
Who cares though he isn’t a qatari?
Like the calls for another brexit vote, or Scottish independence referendum so we can get ‘the right result’.
Ironically your whole post is a bad faith one. Dismiss greenwashing entirely then claim it’s bad faith not to do so
Not sure about that. Nobody can bid for the whole club, only the Glazer’s shares are up for sale at this time. The remaining shares, if acquired, won’t go for anything like the value of the Glazer’s B shares. My interpretation is the same as the OP - it’s 5bn for the Glazer’s share only.
Todays protest has every chance of being hijacked and descending into farce with a muddled message unsure if it’s ‘glazers out’, ‘full sale only’ or ‘Qatar in’.
Unless something's changed, both Qatar and Jim are only bidding for the Glazer shares (not the 31%).
Raine aren't handling the 31% (again, unless something's changed).
I'm sure INEOS will use the Old Trafford pitch for PR.
No it doesn’t.
Imagine how slick the football would be on a solar panel pitch.
In what world can he afford to buy us without borrowing?
Considering it’s always raining here it would fit in perfectly!
You do know where all the wealth in Qatar originates from? if Ineos are raping the environment then so are Qatar, or don’t you care about that since it’s done in a foreign country And not closer to home?
This argument is daft! All the negatives you can level at Ineos can more or less directly be leveled at Qatar, vice versa too.
It‘s been said many times but this would be a much nicer and shorter thread if people just admitted they’ve seen City’s gulf state oil money success and want a piece of that. The rest is whataboutism.
For what it is worth it is semi pointless having an oil state backer in comparison to any other filthy rich billionaire, if FFP is doing its job properly. Which is open to debate. In theory the only way around that is to cheat, a la City, which I certainly don’t want to do.
I have only heard about how bad Ratcliff's club in France is doing and it makes me worry about Utd. I fear he would be just another Glazer.
Edited the post now to reflect the correct word. But my sentiment was the same. Both potential owners should be scrutinized equally in my opinion.
Is he?
A- The guy said that he couldn't watch United play when he was in London. There are university students who are able to do that let alone a billionaire.
B- His bid for United is really really shitty. Present debt will remain on the club, the guy can't be arsed to buy all of the club and he's set to end in bed with the Glazers.
I think he's much of a United fan as he is a British patriot.
Again I will repeat anyone who puts INEOS's so called crimes against humanity alongside those of Qatar has already lost the argument.
When Ineos start persecuting homosexuals in their employment and allowing thousands of them to needlessly die then we can have a conversation.
Lots of people on here so so so desperate to be a sugar daddy club like City will literally say anything to justify their bid. It's actually difficult to witness but not at all surprising.
If you don't care about Qataris and how they are treated then just say so. Don't come up with BS reasons like greenwashing to try and justify your views.
When Ineos start persecuting homosexuals in their employment and allowing thousands of them to needlessly die then we can have a conversation.
Lots of people on here so so so desperate to be a sugar daddy club like City will literally say anything to justify their bid. It's actually difficult to witness but not at all surprising.
If you don't care about Qataris and how they are treated then just say so. Don't come up with BS reasons like greenwashing to try and justify your views.
If both are raping the environment then i would want an owner who is not retaining the old leeches and is making out club debt free and investing in the infrastructure of the club.
You are a fine example of the growth capability other posters should aspire to.
Thats ultimately what I care about. If Jim was an unknown like this Qatar guy then he almost has benefit of the doubt (for football, nothing else), but there is nothing to suggest in his sports investments he knows what the feck he is doing
He's from Failsworth. Been a Utd fan longer than most of us on here. Maybe he doesn't fancy traveling to Manchester every other week? That's his choice. I would but not everyone is the same.
And on the flip side you are aware that the Qataris first met with FSG to try and get into Liverpool and were rebuffed? Massive Utd fans though apparently.
Also you don't know what his bid exactly entails. Nobody does.
.
So as long as someone doesn’t persecute homosexuals it ok for him to go on destroying the world and use United as a vehicle to improve their image worldwide. Got it. Homosexuals are the only people in this world who need to be protected and god forbid anyone raise a voice against any other crime.
How do you envisage INEOS grenwashing using united?Ironically your whole post is a bad faith one. Dismiss greenwashing entirely then claim it’s bad faith not to do so
Sir Alex was largely responsible for the situation that saw the Glazers takeover in the first place. He didn’t once criticise them in the 8 years he worked under them - what makes you think he would now?
It's easy to get carried away with emotional hatred towards the Glazers and to dismiss any benefits they may bring to the club in a reduced capacity.
They were the pioneers of many present day commercial operations which are standard for all top 4 football clubs these days. They have a lot of valuable expertise in this area which we can exploit so I'm sure Ratcliffe could see the benefits of them as minority shareholders.
I'm more confident that they're less likely to be allowed make poor footballing decisions with Ratcliffe as the majority shareholder (I really doubt he would have allowed Woodward to remain in post for a decade whilst continuously failing and hired Solskjaer as permanent manager).
I think with the new proposed arrangements, we can have the best of both worlds. Ratcliffe largely controlling the football side of things by bringing in his own experts whilst the Glazers focus on growing the commercial aspect of the business.
They were the pioneers of many present day commercial operations which are standard for all top 4 football clubs these days. They have a lot of valuable expertise in this area which we can exploit so I'm sure Ratcliffe could see the benefits of them as minority shareholders.
I'm more confident that they're less likely to be allowed make poor footballing decisions with Ratcliffe as the majority shareholder (I really doubt he would have allowed Woodward to remain in post for a decade whilst continuously failing and hired Solskjaer as permanent manager).
I think with the new proposed arrangements, we can have the best of both worlds. Ratcliffe largely controlling the football side of things by bringing in his own experts whilst the Glazers focus on growing the commercial aspect of the business.
Did I say that?
Also were all those migrant workers homosexual? Fairly sure they weren't.
But you're exactly who I'm referring to. You're putting INEOS along side Qatar like it's the same thing.
Why? Because you want oil cash and clearly don't care about the club being used to sports wash a terrible human rights record.
Defending the Glazers now? Feck right off!
@Plant0x84 can you explain to him and everyone else how he affords it all without borrowing and causing us more debt?
What a load of hog wash. By doing a deal that keeps the glazers involved Sur Jim had made his first mistake. He’s read the room wrong
Paywall
There are also worldwide regulations and environmental standards which INEOS has to abide by. If they don’t they will rightly be held accountable and punished. Who is going to punish an autocratic hereditary monarchy for human rights abuses commited in their own country?! It’s simply not comparable.
I don't care where is from. All I am saying is that SJR could have easily travelled to watch United and he could have offered a much better offer for United. He simply chose not to. And this has nothing to do with Jassim or any other person.
Ironically your whole post is a bad faith one. Dismiss greenwashing entirely then claim it’s bad faith not to do so
You're missing the point: greenwashing is using 'green' PR to distract from poor environmental practices. Which, again, I'm not sure how they'd use united in that way. If you're intent on greenwashing, I fail to see how buying a football club does that. The idea behind greenwashing it to boost an organization's green credentials in the eyes of the public. How would buying a footie club do that? I think you're both maybe misunderstanding what's meant by greenwashing, unless I'm wrong about what it means.
I think the ESL push is probably enough for fans to be uncomfortable with this, even in a world it could otherwise be palatable to them.
Yes Nice is lighting up the French league. 10th impressive. What about his other team Lausanne? I feel we wont spend long term on improving the team and will be a top 6 team more regular than a title chasing team
This isn't even worth replying to. Absolutely pathetic.
- Status