I assume his plan will be similar to that of the new Chelsea owners, whose takeover was also debt financed (ie grow the value of the club via stadium expansion and untapped digital revenue opportunities - Boehly et al reportedly believe that Chelsea will be worth $10bn within 5 years).
Club Sale | It’s done!
- Thread starter JB08
- Start date
- Status
Yeah that's the Glazer plans. Leverage buyout paid for by increasing (in Glazer's case) commercial income
And that's fine but there needs to be honesty. This Disney shite of "we'll keep all of our money and Ineos will pay our debts" is contemptuous.
It's exactly how it works. They are taking out a loan against Ineos, a $60bn mcap company, not United, which barely turns a profit.
I think I'm gonna put you on ignore. The second hand embarrassment from reading your posts is getting too much.
Yep. Just loads of different ways of not actually discussing things, then being some victim of 'extremists'.
Or the grave but similarly manufactured insult that they were deemed morally inferior. Argue it insread of playing the victim of name calling while all the while not addressing the actual victims at the crux of the issue.
In fairness to Rood he does seem to have a connection with Qatar so he might know better, but we can all only argue with the data on hand and I have never seen a good argument for ignoring human rights transgressions working better than dialogue or sanctions.
Let’s follow this line of thought for a moment. You’ve been throwing insinuations, abuse and your assumptions around at those who have a different opinion to you. Perhaps some of those people are also suffering from anxiety. Is that fair?
Ineos already have significant debt. Banks would want to be assured how they would finance increased debt
I'm sorry but it's childish to think a bank loans £4bn for a business plan of "okay so we'll buy United, they'll keep all of the revenues for investments and transfers and we'll load the debt onto Ineos and continue to run it as we do without explaining how we'll increase revenues to account for the £4bn debt burden".
Sorry but that isn't on this planet. Ratcliffe's plans for United almost certainly involve leveraging revenues of the club, maybe through untapped revenues.
We need to move beyond the idea that we 'can't rule out' thick as feck financiers
I'm sorry but it's childish to think a bank loans £4bn for a business plan of "okay so we'll buy United, they'll keep all of the revenues for investments and transfers and we'll load the debt onto Ineos and continue to run it as we do without explaining how we'll increase revenues to account for the £4bn debt burden".
Sorry but that isn't on this planet. Ratcliffe's plans for United almost certainly involve leveraging revenues of the club, maybe through untapped revenues.
We need to move beyond the idea that we 'can't rule out' thick as feck financiers
80% is being generous
more like 99%I know exactly what you guys are talking about, you've made it impossible to miss.
As per reports, the acquisition debt will be loaded on to the Ineos balance sheet rather than the club's - this is what you would expect for an acquisition of this sort where a large company (in this case Ineos) buys a much smaller one (United). Again, this is how the Chelsea takeover was financed - Chelsea FC did not take on any new debt as a result of the acquisition and nor are the club responsible for fulfilling the payment obligations.
It is somewhat unusual for football club takeovers to be financed with leveraged buyouts (indeed, it will shortly be impossible to so in cases where the debt ratio exceeds an as yet unspecified benchmark, following the Premier League rule changes that the clubs voted in favour of last Wednesday).
Ineos revenues and assets are backing the loan
what part don't you understand exactly?
Where mate? Where have I abused someone? Can you find that for us.
Well then stop winding people up.
Wouldn't that be a leveraged buy out? And aren't they now banned?
Fully leveraged buyouts are but I think if a % is based on loans that’s fine. No idea if there is a threshold or not
Sounds pointless really. Even the Glazers weren't fully leveraged.
Rather than me trawl through the lengthy thread, let’s leave the one item out that objected to “abuse” and let’s have the answer to the question
I think someone said they're banning over 60% leveraged.
This whole thread the last few hundred pages is posters winding each other up, I don't think singling out @kouroux is quite right, especially considering there are posters in here who have been on a constant, way worse, wind up and seem to get away with it.
I was just trying to show that ‘disingenuous’ has been a go to by both sides.
It was secondary to my initial point in the post.
@NotThatSoph it’s ironic that you’re labelling something ‘a very internet way of arguing’ when I…
1. wasn’t ‘arguing’ and
2. never suggested that Moses’ use of ‘disingenuous’ was linked to my initial point about posters being labelled disingenuous for suggesting Qatar and Utd linking up being a good thing for Qatari’s.
Hence the ‘beyond that’ in my post and starting a new paragraph.
I also made sure to quote posters from both ‘sides’, including Rood himself in the same exchange.
But you carry on with your divisive angle - clearly it’s the superior way of operating.
'I'm rooting for the Qataris just for the sheer madness that will ensue from some posters' is worthy of singling out.
Perfect explanation of what’s gone on a lot in here.
I wonder if Ineos/Sir Jim has had a change of heart due to interest hikes since the club was initially put up for sale.
Oil and gas-rich countries do not have anywhere safe to park their vast amounts of money and are overpaying and just looking for safe assets regardless of lack of financial returns in the short or medium term. Parking your money in banks is not safe anymore. The Arabs lost a lot of money recently when a few banks collapsed.
Oil and gas-rich countries do not have anywhere safe to park their vast amounts of money and are overpaying and just looking for safe assets regardless of lack of financial returns in the short or medium term. Parking your money in banks is not safe anymore. The Arabs lost a lot of money recently when a few banks collapsed.
Yeah but there was a claim it was used to put down disagreement and you quoted me.
So I had to show you I used the word because it was on the money and not as discussed. Ironically it was used when someone chose not to disagree but instead obfuscate.
NotThatSoph was referring to the same example.
It's really not when there's plenty of posters over the past umpteen pages saying things that are just as much of a wind up. (And I'm talking about posters from both sides, SJR or SJ, before anyone says I'm biased towards a particular side)
Unless those hikes happend over the past two weeks, it wouldn't have been a factor since INEOS have consistently involved in the conversation from the beginning.
There have been conflicting reports - The Telegraph report that they will be capped at 65%: https://www.telegraph.co.uk/footbal...r-league-ban-glazer-style-big-debt-takeovers/
Are there? I've not read much but from what I've seen most people are just going back and fourth, not popping in to say 'your suffering would bring me joy' and nothing else.
Surely not. How is a country that was built on the genocide of the indigenous people, the enslavement of a very specific race of people, the exploitation of immigrants, warmongering on an extreme level causing mass deaths worse than a small country that is a product of a socially backward region of the globe.I'm sure we'll have a boycott US WC thread.
As for the rights of the LGBTQ community, right wing America has an equal extremists view and if they gained full control jail sentences for sodomy would definitely be introduced in the majority of states.
As for the rights of workers, you only have to look at maternity leave here in the States as well as the profiteering of our basic health needs. "You have cancer, go feck yourself or sell your house and cash in your retirement to pay for your life". And how do you think produce gets to the supermarket shelf in this country, it certainly isn't Chad & Reileigh picking and digging on $50,000 a year.
I am disgusted and ashamed by the way nearly every nation treats all of us unless we are powerful or wealthy but this is about a football club. We are a seriously flawed species.
I do feel Qatar (Jassim) seem to have the ambition to put us back on a competitive level but Jim doesn't even have the ambition to purchase the club as a whole and cleanse it of the disjointed clown show that we've been since the club was basically stolen from the football community. Ambition in competitive sports means everything especially for a club as big as ours.
No matter the outcome of this mess of the Glazers making every poster in this thread will continue to support United. Why wouldn't you, it's fecking Manchester United. If you choose not to, so be it.
Still talk of further interest rate hikes here in the UK. There has to be a limit to what an asset is worth to any business.
Hang on. Let’s not leave that out. I don’t abuse or insult anyone. I disagree with them massively and I find some views absolutely horrific. I can absolutely call out them.
I absolutely never do anything like what Kouroux did. You’ve actually banned me from making threads because some of the responses to it were so idiotic. I am never abusive, I am never rude and I never insinuate someone needs to just “get over” any mental health issues.
So let’s not leave anything out from your post. Let’s ask why you think I’m abusive when all I do is provide fair arguments.
No one at all is asking for the American government to buy Manchester United. I don’t know how many more times this can be said. I would be strongly opposed to any nation state owning the club. Russia, USA, Britain, Saudi Arabia, Qatar. Want a government nowhere near the club.
No one is arguing against what you’re saying. But the option isn’t Qatar or America.
Correct. Its a shame that a nation with far and away the most billionaires, can't cough up one with an interest in buying United.
Literally talk of it in last couple of weeks with an increase and more increases expected.
But, but, but, a large number of anti-Qatar arguments are due to their human rights record. No due to being purchased by a state.
I don’t think saying one side of the argument is treating people with anxiety badly but refusing to acknowledge that argument might work both ways is fair do you?
you’ve been banned from making threads because the mod team as a whole have the opinion that you troll
Yes. But no-one is arguing for America to take us over. So what have american human rights got to do with anything? I agree, there is a lot of issues in America. That is definitely correct. Is there anyone in this thread who doesn't agree with that, please reply to this post.
We're all in agreement on that.
But, they aren't purchasing United. Qatar is. So that's why people are bringing up Qatar's human rights.
This thread need more news asap.
80% is being generous
Yes. Massively. Because that is what is happening.
Kouroux literally posted something along the lines of, 'I can't wait till Qatar purchase United to see other people have meltdowns' and said basically 'if you're anxious about the takeover, I don't care, sort out your life.'
That argument does not work both ways because I have not done that.
You posted in here saying I abuse others. I posted that I didn't and there's no proof of that. You then said 'Well ignore that word but focus on the others'. I'm saying I don't do any of those things you accused me of. I post in good faith and argue points. I don't insult, belittle or laugh at people with a different opinion than me. There's not a 'both sides' to every argument, I don't see one here.
$60b is the revenue. Profits are in the £500m to £1.5b range.
Mcap? If you’re referring to market cap = price of shares * amount of available shares.
- Status