Interesting post but as stated many times Qatar state is distancing themselves from this bid and it is said to be a wealthy private investment consortium.
Club Sale | It’s done!
- Thread starter JB08
- Start date
- Status
They are not the same thing, very obviously
You don't have to have Qataris or Saudis to compete with City. Why do people keep saying this like it's fact? We have spent as much as they have in the last decade.
Don't mix up them being ran better than we are with them having more money. It's not come down to transfer funds. They have made better decisions than we have sadly.
We could easily compete with City with any of the 5 interested parties so long as they made good decisions.
Don't mix up them being ran better than we are with them having more money. It's not come down to transfer funds. They have made better decisions than we have sadly.
We could easily compete with City with any of the 5 interested parties so long as they made good decisions.
Who are private rich Qataris? All I could find is Janet Jackson's ex-husband, a Wissam AL Mana. And even then the independence of it all is questionable.
Yeah because it’s a different country, very obviously.
No I quite clearly wasn't mate. I didn't say they make 60 billions a year or they earn 60 billion in profit did I?
Do you understand what the word generates means in the context of a companies annual revenue?
Last edited:
We haven’t spent as much because they were able to have their transfer spend and do up the Etihad and build a new training ground on top of that
I could go out on mad holidays at home if I ignored bills I had to pay at home and you’d think I was doing well for myself
In finance, when talking about prospects of mergers & acquisitions, the verb 'generate' would most commonly be associated with Free Cash Flow.
Ah yeah, source "trust me bro". It's of course entirely possible that this is the case, but the odds of it are so slim that it's safe to assume it's not the case. Of course, proving it enough to buy the club is different than knowing deep down what the case is. Same how we all know City feck around with their financials and invent sponsorships to raise artificial income, but it's much harder to prove it. Same how Newcastles owners had to prove it was not going to be state owned, even though we all know they are.
The amount of money we've wasted on interest payments and dividends would pretty much make up for that. Picture an extra £1 billion over the past 10-15 years purely invested into the infrastructure of the club, instead of lost due to the honor of having the Glazers as owners.
Only way that’s happening in any sort of quick timeline is ME. The only ones who will commit that sort of money quickly into the club after making such a massive purchase. On paper it’ll be very easy for them to say it isn’t linked. Of course it will be but it’s not really about that as shown with Newcastle.
Agreed, we have no idea at this point how any of the bidders will fund their bid, what they will do with the debt nor how much they will invest.
My concern is that Gary Neville has been one of the most vocal people in publicising his belief that football needs an independent regulator. Its not something hes said on a whim - its clearly something hes held deep discussions about and I believe he’s using his position in the media as a mouthpiece to garner support for the idea amongst football fans.
He’s also been pretty clear that he doesnt believe the existing FFP model is fair and that it only benefits the existing hierarchy of football clubs. Hes made it clear that he believes in owner funding beyond a clubs “natural” means as long as the owner isnt using debt and can provide funds up front. It would not surprise me if the people hes acting as a mouthpiece for about regulation share his views on this too.
My concern therefore, is how will Manchester United compete with the spending power of clubs owned by a country if we dont have similar backing of our own?
I think Jim Ratcliffe would be a fine owner under the current paradigm, but with City, Newcastle and potentially Liverpool and Spurs looking at state ownership models - if the rule’s suddenly change we could find ourselves very quickly outgunned in terms of spending power.
Nobodies buying United for £10B either mate.
My point is a company the size of INEOS would be able to take on United's debt without it affecting them too much. This Ratcliffe guy you would assume is a decent businessman. I doubt he would risk his company to buy a football team.
It isn’t just going to be City. We are going to have Newcastle and the mental fecker at Chelsea to deal with. Try and look ahead and see the bigger picture. Yes we’ve spent big money but a hell of a lot more is needed now more than ever. There’s no way the club can compete financially in the inflated market on its own as well as trying to do a renovation and training ground.
So is this the response people will say if we get taken over by the Qatari's? That we can't prove beyond reasonable doubt that they are related to the state?
Whatever helps you sleep at night I guess. The speed at which people will jump to the defence of some people just because they're tied to the club is fecking mad. Sportswashing 101.
So it's the deepest pockets for you and nothing else comes into it?
Do you not care at all about all the bad PR associated with Qatar? All those people who died building an illegal world cup? Being gay is a crime etc.
Is it really worth it just so we might win a few more trophies?
Ultimately none of us get a say but the more I think about being a sports washing enterprise for Qatar the more I don't like the idea.
Especially not when it's very viable of being successful without it. We could have even done it under the parasites with better men running the show.
Looks like Liverpool are just sat back waiting for leftovers.
Memories of those school assemblies with those other classics like Shine Jesus Shine,Autumn Days,The Ink is Black and many more
So the default position is that every Qatari and Saudi billionaire has ties to the regime of that country? Pretty dumb.
Ratcliffe/Ineos or anyone else buying United using borrowed money is only an issue if that debt is loaded on to the club's balance sheet.
Clearlake Capital have borrowed £800m to finance the spending spree at Chelsea - it's not a problem for Chelsea because Chelsea are not responsible for the interest or the capital repayments. Clearlake can comfortably support the repayments, without needing to withdraw funds from Chelsea to do so.
Ineos are substantially more wealthy than Manchester United - they make more money in an average five day period than United do in an entire year - they are perfectly capable of making an acquisition of this size. They too can comfortably cover the capital repayments on the bonds without recourse to United. The benefit to United in those circumstances is obvious - the club would finally be rid of the debt that has been a millstone around our neck for 18 years.
We currently don't know enough detail about the potential bidders to make any kind of informed decision about our preferences, but once we do, fans will be free to decide what they prefer. If you don't want Ratcliffe/Ineos, that's fine, but don't make that decision based on complete misunderstanding of the mechanics of the prospective deal. United under Ratcliffe/Ineos would likely be debt free, with no interest or dividends to pay, and free to use the club's operational cashflow for investment into football and infrastructure.
Let's wait for the detail from all the contenders.
Clearlake Capital have borrowed £800m to finance the spending spree at Chelsea - it's not a problem for Chelsea because Chelsea are not responsible for the interest or the capital repayments. Clearlake can comfortably support the repayments, without needing to withdraw funds from Chelsea to do so.
Ineos are substantially more wealthy than Manchester United - they make more money in an average five day period than United do in an entire year - they are perfectly capable of making an acquisition of this size. They too can comfortably cover the capital repayments on the bonds without recourse to United. The benefit to United in those circumstances is obvious - the club would finally be rid of the debt that has been a millstone around our neck for 18 years.
We currently don't know enough detail about the potential bidders to make any kind of informed decision about our preferences, but once we do, fans will be free to decide what they prefer. If you don't want Ratcliffe/Ineos, that's fine, but don't make that decision based on complete misunderstanding of the mechanics of the prospective deal. United under Ratcliffe/Ineos would likely be debt free, with no interest or dividends to pay, and free to use the club's operational cashflow for investment into football and infrastructure.
Let's wait for the detail from all the contenders.
Interesting, and extremely depressing. I think most people knew this sort of practice went on (it was fairly well reported in the run up to the Qatar, though people still tried to argue it away) but it's not something fans should ignore. We absolutely cannot allow our club to be aligned with this sort of abhorrent regime.
It's rather sad isn't it? The Feck human rights we are getting Mbappe brigade is everything I despise about modern day elite football.
What a way to live eh? I could sort of understand if it was the only way but Arsenal look like they might win the league this year. Where is their ME owner? Liverpool have done very well of late too. Again not a sports washing club.
Lots of people on here need to think about what they are saying.
So you can't apply the logic you've used there for private investors from Qatar?
It doesn't need to be a quick timeline. Why the rush? The debt would be cleared with the takeover if this is to be believed, and then the promise of redevelopment of the grounds and facilities over a span of years is pretty normal. I am ok with an owner coming in and reinvesting the clubs own money into the facilities. That's how it should be. Ours have been neglected too much so of course we need to play catch up, but that sort of thing shouldn't be gifted generally. That's a pipe dream.
Under no circumstance do I want ME ownership. Ignoring the fecked up morals, it's not needed with United. We can be successful without it, and get much more pride than essentially unlocking cheat mode with infinite funds. When you add in the moral view... Yeah, feck that.
Are there many companies on the planet, especially chemical companies that make £60b profit annually?
I was talking about revenue.
You sound like you know Sir Jim personally. Can you tell us about his plans for the club?
As for your second part of the post, yes we're poorly run, but also we've been accruing debt because we otherwise can't compete with the likes of City or Chelsea or the PL as a whole without spending a shitton. Liverpool are a supposedly well run club, people were praising FSG to the high heavens just a year ago and look at them now? Money talks at the end of the day. City are not a well run club because they employed magical people to run them, City are a well run club because they're loaded to the bonkers and can employ the best people, get the best infrastructure, introduce the best scouting system and best manager and offer everything to the players.
No, I don't legitimately care about any of that because there's nothing I can do about it, nor the club can do about it. Whether they own United or not nothing is going to change. In fact, I'd argue it's more beneficial to integrate them in the Western sphere than simply isolate them because isolations and 'you're bad' almost never seem to work. These Gulf states are slowly changing, but it's a very long and difficult social-economic and culture process that you can't just flip the switch on.
As far as my opinion on oil clubs, I'd rather United share its entire wealth over to smaller clubs in a fair league of which everyone has a chance of winning the title, big or small like the NFL, than having advantage of an oil club, but that's just a pipe dream unfortunately. The system is rigged and IMO, it's better for us to be part of that system than to be left behind. Qataris don't buy us. Cool. They'll just go buy Liverpool. Then some sheikh is gonna buy Arsenal and then Tottenham and where does that leave us and what's the point of this moral crusade? You're changing nothing at the end of the day and it isn't going to go away because you closed your eyes. This is why I was a proponent of the Super League, because I knew what football was becoming, but all of you laughed and thought it was dumb.
No. Before the Glazers purchase we were valued around 1,3 billion. The Rock of Gibraltar and the fiasco surrounding it basically purchased it for lower. Now close to 20 years later the club is valued at 4,6 billion with a buttload of internal problems. Does that seem like a good investment to you? Maybe for small timers like the Glazers are who couldn't even buy the club with their own money, but for huge companies (like INEOS) this would be a terrible investment, especially given that they would have to put a lot of money into the club to get it competitive again because inevitably that's what drives profits and value. For INEOS this is a huge investment with zero gain to be had aside from the sentimental value of Ratcliffe. For Qatar, this isn't even a drop in the bucket and their use of the club is prestige and influence, not money.
So let's go with your "generating". What if they generate 60 billion? What of it?
It's not dumb, it is very likely.
Speak for yourself on them hanging on
Fyi. JP Morgan was the financier of the proposed Super League. So they will know they football too.
Last edited:
I hope it doesn't come to it but I fear that it's inevitable. A huge sense of pride will definitely be lost from football though if it does. The revisionism we see already from people here is gross. Even ignoring moral aspects - I don't want a sugar daddy owner. Let the club success while being run self sustainably.
Yeah you still have to win games,just look how much City were pushed by scousers I those last few seasons
Do yourself a favour mate and specify if you mean Gross sales, Net sales, Gross profit, EBIT or Net profit before you get half a dozen replies telling you what you actually mean.
Because the sooner the better. Life is short. I want these things to happen asap. I watch sport because I want to see my teams/favourite sports people winning. Of course that will be called spoiled etc etc but I don’t really care. I was fortunate to grow up in a family that supported Utd and have seen us so successful. I want that to continue.
Anyone that is Glazers out but doesn't want Qatar you shouldn't want Ratcliffe/Ineos with Goldman Sachs and JP Morgan backing
Goldman Sachs
and JP Morgan is the company that did the leveraged buyout for the Glazers, it's literally where Ed Woodward came from.
Goldman Sachs
https://nypost.com/2019/04/29/goldman-sachs-to-continue-long-standing-relationships-in-saudi-arabia/
and JP Morgan is the company that did the leveraged buyout for the Glazers, it's literally where Ed Woodward came from.
I'm just going to drop football and United as a passion if it gets bought by a petro-state or associated entity. Being owned by an investor still saw the club operated within it's own logic, success had to come from it's own decisions. Success while funded and used for sportswashing by states trying to buy clout in the world makes the success meaningless and even undesirable to me.
I don't want either but this is the situation because the British government and the FA allowed it. They stopped the Murdoch acquisition of United because fear of Bayern-ing United in the league, but they allowed people like Abramovich and Mansour to just buy whatever they liked which created this fecked up situation. Now every club either jumps on board or gets left for dead.There is no third option.
I’ve said before, I don’t want Qatar owners but English football has fecked us so bad that I’m starting to look past it.
It’s only now they’re worried about our potential owners while our current owners let us rot from the inside out for the last 15 years. Everybody bar United supporters laughed at us as Ronaldo said we had the same pool as we did 20 years ago. They laughed at us as Brentford won 4-0. They laughed at our leaking roof all the while Chelsea came up for sale and the new owners weren’t allowed to use a leveraged takeover even though it wasnt against the rules because of..reasons? Not only that but were allowed to wipe out 1.5b debt that should have showed up on the accounts to feck them over in tax and ffp and be registered as a gift but..nothing. That allowed them to spent 600m on players but nobody seemed to care. Bohley must have a plan, it’s UEFA who must be in the wrong.
There’s no other way to fix up OT and keep the training ground up to date than ME money, I’ve done a complete 180 in 48 hours and I couldn’t give a feck what it makes us looks like when our demise was met with so much glee. If we dropped down to a relegation battle it would be seen as the clubs fault and be laughed at a we fell down to the championship.
The amount of people willing to betray common decency for the sake of a few extra (completely soulless) points on a table is pathetic. I hope you are younger members, and your views change as you grow up and get some perspective.
Well United ''generate'' £500m+ per year with £600m debt and we're not going out of business or anything.
So a company with an annual revenue (FYI just to be clear not profit) in the tens of billions should be alright.
Last edited:
- Status