“Best” for who exactly?
I'm sorry but that attitude is wrong. We should care about who the new owner is. We should look at every potential new owner with suspicion and caution.
Not United.
The pockets of the Glazer cnuts
Tweet
— Twitter API (@user) date
They could, might have thought they did, however look at like this ; in the summer we want a striker, our A option is Harry Kane, experienced gold standard pedigree but never won anything in his 10 year career and the seller is notoriously difficult to deal with, plus you don’t really want to do business with him, then there is an option B, Victor Osimhen , younger faster, hungrier on the up and just won a title, might cost you the same or a little more but you can negotiate with the owner and maybe do a better deal for less, and then there is option C Tammy Abraham, much better price, not really sure of themselves but has untapped potential, always be in the conversation just never unless you change the culture of the player, they do look the best on the field of play though !
Probably end up camping in the new owners out thread one way or another.
Unless this impacts the actual operation of the club, I genuinely couldn't give any less of a shit.
looks healthy on the way!
"Avram and Joel, however, believe that external investment can help develop United into a £10bn company"
Kinda wish the 1958 would be more transparent and say "sell to Qatar" rather than "full sale only", kind of makes them look disingenuous and taints their credibility but oh well.
That's literally not true.
He could buy 51%, but can't afford 69%?He is literally compromising because he cant match QatarThat's literally not true.
Ratcliffe isn't the perfect candidate, but so many arguments against him is just made up stuff.
I am not Ratcliff in, but it would signal to him that he has to change his bid to a full takeover and not place nice to get what he wants.
Tweet
— Twitter API (@user) date
And yet he outbid them.
If I was a glazer, I would take this offer. They know that Ratcliff will invest a lot and most likely remove debt, all they have to do is to keep doing f all and wake up to more money in a few years time.
Because he's paying more for half the stake they have bid for. He can't match them for 100% of the club so has increased his offer for 51% and offered to get into bed with the Glazers.And yet he outbid them.
It depends what his ambition is. Once you own 50.1%, the other 49.9% is purely passive investment as the majority shareholder dictates everything. It can be entirely sensible to only buy a slim majority of the club and retain further funds for investment. A minority shareholder would have the same control whether they own 0.1%, 5% or 49.9% of the club in the face of a majority shareholder, i.e. none.
Did you try ti buy crystal palace?
We've all ready got this covered. Bless him.
He didn’t outbid them, he offered less but for 51%, SJ could have offered 5bn for 51% but he want 100%.And yet he outbid them.
That option is also available to the Qataris.
They have been clear from minute one that they want 100%
So Sir Jim Glazer it is then. A rather unexpected outcome. Let's see if we fair any better than his other 2 clubs. I somehow doubt it.
The INEOS bid has always been for full control.
The only objective fact about him is that he is a Chelsea season ticket holder.
INEOS can unequivocally afford to buy United.
Technically yeah, at a much lower percentage.
Wouldn't Sheikh Jassim be buying 69% of the club too? His promise of buying every single share and presumable take United private is something that would take years and might not even be achievable...so in reality, right now it's Ratcliffe offering more per share for 50.1% or more, than Qatar are offering for 69% of the shares.
