Club Sale | It’s done!

Status
Not open for further replies.

Ottawa MLS Fan

New Member
Newbie
Joined
Aug 4, 2013
Messages
127
Why the feck would they put out an official statement about their intent to sell if they were just going to buy up rest of the shares to consolidate control , makes absolutely zero sense.
Their statement said they were exploring all options, including a sale.
 

Waynne

Full Member
Joined
Aug 21, 2014
Messages
1,965
I just want owners that's going to put the footballing success above all else and provide the team and staff with best in class facilities and tools.

That's all I care about. Lord, make this happen.
 

sglowrider

Thinks the caf is 'wokeish'.
Joined
Dec 27, 2009
Messages
25,246
Location
Hell on Earth
There has been no suggestion that Ratcliffe is looking at a leveraged buyout. The debt would be on INEOS, not the club. Big difference. If Malcolm Glazer had bought United like that, their ownership would have been looked a lot more kindly.
And why would a business carry the load unless they want some ROIs.

Besides, Ratcliffe isn't the only shareholder in INEOS. Do you think the other shareholders are so keen on it? Are they life-long United/Chelsea season ticket-holders too?

No business will want to take on a football investment as big as United's. It's unprecedented in football. (Different to the NFL and NBA.)
 

Ottawa MLS Fan

New Member
Newbie
Joined
Aug 4, 2013
Messages
127
And why would a business carry the load unless they want some ROIs.

Besides, Ratcliffe isn't the only shareholder in INEOS. Do you think the other shareholders are so keen on it? Are they life-long United/Chelsea season ticket-holders too?

No business will want to take on a football investment as big as United's. It's unprecedented in football. (Different to the NFL and NBA.)
The only ROI from owning United is the capital appreciation on a sale in 10-20 years.

INEOS has three major shareholders, with Ratcliffe holding 62% of the shares, and Andrew Currie and John Reece each holding 19%, if I remember correctly. I assume they would all have discussed it and would be in agreement.

Apparently, INEOS do want to take on United, unless you think Ratcliffe is lying about his interest for some reason. I would think he has better things to do with his time.
 

Berbaclass

Fallen Muppet. Lest we never forget
Joined
Jan 23, 2010
Messages
39,798
Location
Cooper Station
I wouldn't dismiss this too soon. The Qataris won't just pay 6 billion without wanting to exploit the other untapped potential assets of United. It would make things more politically palatable for sure.
I'm not dismissing it. I just feel it's blatantly obvious what they're attempting to do.

I think they will buy the club and I'm pretty excited to see what that means for the future.
 

sglowrider

Thinks the caf is 'wokeish'.
Joined
Dec 27, 2009
Messages
25,246
Location
Hell on Earth
The only ROI from owning United is the capital appreciation on a sale in 10-20 years.

INEOS has three major shareholders, with Ratcliffe holding 62% of the shares, and Andrew Currie and John Reece each holding 19%, if I remember correctly. I assume they would all have discussed it and would be in agreement.

Apparently, INEOS do want to take on United, unless you think Ratcliffe is lying about his interest for some reason. I would think he has better things to do with his time.
I will take your word for it as it seems you know what you are talking about ie internal discussions and agreements within INEOS. No ROI or stripping United of their financial resources quarterly or annually to pay for the loan/investment.
 

caid

Full Member
Joined
Feb 10, 2014
Messages
8,390
Location
Dublin
- Maids:

They are told or already have an experience from ex families that they worked for before. I would say %90 know what they have signed for exactly. as for resigning they could at any given moment.

- Orchestrated cover up:

for example, In Saudi MbS have fought corruption and even scrutinized princes from the royal family for it. I can't comment on your story as you have no concrete evidence of that being a protocol occurrence every now and then.

-U.S. law:

I brought it up as many of your Westren population don't try to correct their mischievous behaviour and only highlight it when it becomes about the ME as a bigotry to beat us with.

- World Cup:

You missed the best WC ever. Your loss sadly.
Was that before or after Khashoggi?
A world cup that 500 people died for wasn't the best ever, get real.
https://edition.cnn.com/2022/11/29/...cup-migrant-worker-deaths-spt-intl/index.html
 

sglowrider

Thinks the caf is 'wokeish'.
Joined
Dec 27, 2009
Messages
25,246
Location
Hell on Earth
I'm not dismissing it. I just feel it's blatantly obvious what they're attempting to do.

I think they will buy the club and I'm pretty excited to see what that means for the future.
Let's hope it's them. In the Ben Jacobs interview, he did say that the sale has been designed by Raine -- by Americans for the American investment market. And he mentioned that in these situations, someone is lurking in the dark and may pop up in the last minute as the potential winner.
 

Berbaclass

Fallen Muppet. Lest we never forget
Joined
Jan 23, 2010
Messages
39,798
Location
Cooper Station
Let's hope it's them. In the Ben Jacobs interview, he did say that the sale has been designed by Raine -- by Americans for the American investment market. And he mentioned that in these situations, someone is lurking in the dark and may pop up in the last minute as the potential winner.
Yeah I listened to that too, I feel he is just being cautious really.
 

caid

Full Member
Joined
Feb 10, 2014
Messages
8,390
Location
Dublin
Christ... enough already.

There are 2 other threads that cover this feckin morality argument. Take it there, PLEASE.
Theres a thread for just tweets, if you don't want to discuss potential owners go there PLEASE. Their suitability to own the club is a relevant discussion. Thanks
 

sglowrider

Thinks the caf is 'wokeish'.
Joined
Dec 27, 2009
Messages
25,246
Location
Hell on Earth
Theres a thread for just tweets, if you don't want to discuss potential owners go there PLEASE. Their suitability to own the club is a relevant discussion. Thanks
45 pages already on your fav topic:

https://www.redcafe.net/threads/wha...or-make-you-lose-interest-in-the-club.475599/

https://www.redcafe.net/threads/would-you-be-okay-with-state-or-state-backed-ownership.474122/

Or you can cut & paste your posts/comments on the other two threads at the same time. No shame in it since you are so keen on this angle. 390 pages on this thread isn't enough. Its not like anyone has come up with anything new since page 50. Everyone s just repeating the same talking points.
 

sullydnl

Ross Kemp's caf ID
Joined
Sep 13, 2012
Messages
34,063
I will take your word for it as it seems you know what you are talking about ie internal discussions and agreements within INEOS. No ROI or stripping United of their financial resources quarterly or annually to pay for the loan/investment.
To roughly put into context how pointless taking money out of the club would be from INEOS' pov, the amount the Glazers took out per year would account for less than 0.12% of their annual revenue. And assuming the club is sold for around 5 billion, it would take approximately 250 years for INEOS to break even through those payments.

In other words the amount of money they could take out of the club doesn't come even remotely close to justifying the investment, nor would they need that money in order to make any repayments given their pre-existing income.

The only possibility of significant returns for them is if the club's value increases. At which point it seems rather counterproductive to opt to leech from the club when you don't need to, given that hinders that growth to at least some extent.
 

caid

Full Member
Joined
Feb 10, 2014
Messages
8,390
Location
Dublin
What else is there to discuss exactly? Do you think they'll bid 4.5 billion or 4.6 billion? I reckon 4.4. And they'll bid in 26 hours and 23 minutes. Anything else?
If you've got Abdullah above telling us theres no corruption in qatar because Prince I chop journalists into little pieces is investigating it, which is fecking wild on so many levels, then i think saying 'what the feck are you talking about' is fair comment.
(i know MBS is saudi and has nothing to do with Qatar)
 

sglowrider

Thinks the caf is 'wokeish'.
Joined
Dec 27, 2009
Messages
25,246
Location
Hell on Earth
To roughly put into context how pointless taking money out of the club would be from INEOS' pov, the amount the Glazers took out per year would account for less than 0.12% of their annual revenue. And assuming the club is sold for around 5 billion, it would take approximately 250 years for INEOS to break even through those payments.

In other words the amount of money they could take out of the club doesn't come even remotely close to justifying the investment, nor would they need it to make repayments given their pre-existing income.

The only possibility of significant returns for them is if the club's value increases. At which point it seems rather counterproductive to opt to leech from the club when you don't need to.
I agree about the possible dividends or management consultant fees they can possible extract. Ratcliffe has a tendency to buy distress assets or assets they were discarded by the Big 3 due to strategic changes/pivots. (Also why I thought the monies taken out by the Glazers, 15-30million quaterly/annually were actually peanuts considering how much they valued United as an asset.)

Something just doesn't sound right to me -- a 70y.o man wanting to buy United as an asset appreciation investment. Roping in JP Morgan (financier of the ESL) just seems tone-deaf or there is something we are not seeing.
 

Wibble

In Gadus Speramus
Staff
Joined
Jun 15, 2000
Messages
89,456
Location
Centreback
- World Cup:

You missed the best WC ever. Your loss sadly.
As I said a symptom of my general loss of ionterest in football and not a boycott becase of the location spcifically.

FYI - I'd also hate for someone like Musk to buy us (not that he has the means now I'd guess).
 

Teja

Full Member
Joined
Aug 17, 2014
Messages
6,018
They are told or already have an experience from ex families that they worked for before. I would say %90 know what they have signed for exactly. as for resigning they could at any given moment.
Yeah right, it's almost a meme in India what happens to maids that go to the ME. Hiring families take away passports, no support from police etc. etc.
 

Ottawa MLS Fan

New Member
Newbie
Joined
Aug 4, 2013
Messages
127
I agree about the possible dividends or management consultant fees they can possible extract. Ratcliffe has a tendency to buy distress assets or assets they were discarded by the Big 3 due to strategic changes/pivots. (Also why I thought the monies taken out by the Glazers, 15-30million quaterly/annually were actually peanuts considering how much they valued United as an asset.)

Something just doesn't sound right to me -- a 70y.o man wanting to buy United as an asset appreciation investment. Roping in JP Morgan (financier of the ESL) just seems tone-deaf or there is something we are not seeing.
Maybe he just wants to buy United because he is a fan (that would be enough of a reason for me if I had the money), but I completely agree that using JP Morgan is tone deaf at best.
 

Sky1981

Fending off the urge
Joined
Apr 12, 2006
Messages
30,125
Location
Under the bright neon lights of sincity
At the end of the day having a new stadium and dollars to buy player is the winner.

I've said before becareful what we wish for.

Glazer is a normal businesmen who took reasonable dividend for their investment. Our spending aren't shy of a big club. Anything more than that it's rich daddy's money.

But hey... trophies, stadium >>>>>>> human rights, female rights, it's ok because we'll be turning a blind eye on it, oh... we so love our club.. can't live without it.
 

red thru&thru

Full Member
Joined
Mar 2, 2004
Messages
7,657
Qatar buying the club will mean success first. They will also spend money on building up Old Trafford, the surrounding area and Carrington.

This is quite exciting as it's been near enough 18 years since any significant money has been ploughed into the structure.
 

Roboc7

Full Member
Joined
Mar 31, 2014
Messages
6,734
At the end of the day having a new stadium and dollars to buy player is the winner.

I've said before becareful what we wish for.

Glazer is a normal businesmen who took reasonable dividend for their investment. Our spending aren't shy of a big club. Anything more than that it's rich daddy's money.

But hey... trophies, stadium >>>>>>> human rights, female rights, it's ok because we'll be turning a blind eye on it, oh... we so love our club.. can't live without it.
I think be careful what you wish for also applies to the Glazers stayingThe future is pretty bleak under them now, debt is spiralling, no money in the bank, no capacity to borrow much more and their general lack of ambition and competence.

That’s not even considering all the essential and expensive upgrades off the pitch that have zero chance of even being a possibility with them in charge.
 

reelworld

Full Member
Joined
Sep 29, 2001
Messages
8,778
Location
Mexico City, Mexico
I understand where you’re coming from, but we can see the trajectory of the Glazer’s ownership. Infrastructure is decaying, and while it can be patched, there will come a time when serious money needs to be spent. Based on their time to date the Glazers are unlikely to spend the 1-2B needed out of their own money and I don’t see how they can add that amount to the existing club debt.

A few years ago I would have been excited by Musk buying United. Great sponsorship opportunities from his other companies (at fair market value, of course), the best tech and some off-the-wall ideas to move football forwards. However, his takeover of Twitter has been unhinged and I dread those type of decisions at United and the damage they could do.

For me, and purely from the perspective of running the club (leaving other issues with their ownership for other threads), Qatar is much the best option of the ones you mention. I would expect that they will remove the debt, take no dividends and address the infrastructure issues. Hopefully they will also know what a gem they have in ETH and will back him with the players he wants rather than the biggest names.
United as a state ownership would never sit right with me. I'll keep supporting them for sure, but I don't think any success with the Qataris as the owners would feel hollow and not as satisfying.
I'm with you on Elon. If this was before his twitter acquisition, then I'm more open to it. But he's shown that he's a complete moron who does what he likes and will bring bad publicity to the club.
 

Sky1981

Fending off the urge
Joined
Apr 12, 2006
Messages
30,125
Location
Under the bright neon lights of sincity
I think be careful what you wish for also applies to the Glazers stayingThe future is pretty bleak under them now, debt is spiralling, no money in the bank, no capacity to borrow much more and their general lack of ambition and competence.

That’s not even considering all the essential and expensive upgrades off the pitch that have zero chance of even being a possibility with them in charge.
Yet we spent close to 1 bn the last decade. Only topped by city. And i still think winning the league is about manager and cycle. Not only endless cssh.
 

NK86

Full Member
Joined
Sep 16, 2012
Messages
10,457
Yet we spent close to 1 bn the last decade. Only topped by city. And i still think winning the league is about manager and cycle. Not only endless cssh.
Liverpool have a top manager and have had an amazing cycle. They've got 1 PL and 1CL to show for it when in the same period City have won 4 PL. So it's not just managers and cycles clearly.
 

Roboc7

Full Member
Joined
Mar 31, 2014
Messages
6,734
Yet we spent close to 1 bn the last decade. Only topped by city. And i still think winning the league is about manager and cycle. Not only endless cssh.
It’s spent badly due to incompetence and another billion has been taken out of the club to service debt/dividends which is why club is in a state off the pitch.

What should we wish for, the Glazers suddenly become competent or ambitious?. That they cling on for few more years (even though Arnold himself said there’s no money) before selling anyway?.
 

Sky1981

Fending off the urge
Joined
Apr 12, 2006
Messages
30,125
Location
Under the bright neon lights of sincity
Liverpool have a top manager and have had an amazing cycle. They've got 1 PL and 1CL to show for it when in the same period City have won 4 PL. So it's not just managers and cycles clearly.
We had SAF and won alot even under Glazer. It really is about the manager more than simply endless cash. See Chelsea and PSG.

A young SAF would not survive PSG or City
 

Roboc7

Full Member
Joined
Mar 31, 2014
Messages
6,734
We had SAF and won alot even under Glazer. It really is about the manager more than simply endless cash. See Chelsea and PSG.

A young SAF would not survive PSG or City
A young SAF wouldn’t have survived under the Glazers either, just as he’d have won trophies at PSG or City later in his career.
 
Last edited:

NK86

Full Member
Joined
Sep 16, 2012
Messages
10,457
We had SAF and won alot even under Glazer. It really is about the manager more than simply endless cash. See Chelsea and PSG.

A young SAF would not survive PSG or City
How many SAF have actually come before or after him? For every SAF, there's 100 Moyes. It's silly to say we may lose out on a SAF and thus should remain with Glazers like owners to continue. Also, we have had our 6th manager in 10 years under their ownership post SAF. So that excuse does not really work as well as you think.
 

Rightnr

Wants players fined for winning away.
Joined
Jan 25, 2015
Messages
14,718
One aspect I'm surprised gets little to no coverage is the Qatar rivalry with Abu Dhabi.

Am I mistaken that the two don't really get on, so buying us and relegating Citeh to second best in their backyard (where they should be) is an added incentive?
 

JohnnyKills

Full Member
Joined
Jan 8, 2016
Messages
7,100
One aspect I'm surprised gets little to no coverage is the Qatar rivalry with Abu Dhabi.

Am I mistaken that the two don't really get on, so buying us and relegating Citeh to second best in their backyard (where they should be) is an added incentive?
Yeah. UAE is allied with Saudi Arabia, Qatar is allied with Iran (or at least that's my understanding).

Mentioned this elsewhere, but I can honestly see the Qataris trying to lure Guardiola as a feck you to Abu Dhabi. It would be totally unfair on ETH and would doubtless fail, but they will be desperate to make a grand gesture at the start of their reign.
 

devilish

Juventus fan who used to support United
Joined
Sep 5, 2002
Messages
61,821
One aspect I'm surprised gets little to no coverage is the Qatar rivalry with Abu Dhabi.

Am I mistaken that the two don't really get on, so buying us and relegating Citeh to second best in their backyard (where they should be) is an added incentive?
Who is the richest?
 

crossy1686

career ending
Joined
Jun 5, 2010
Messages
32,073
Location
Manchester/Stockholm
I wouldn't dismiss this too soon. The Qataris won't just pay 6 billion without wanting to exploit the other untapped potential assets of United. It would make things more politically palatable for sure.
Makes sense really, and Manchester needs some serious investment after Tory austerity for fecking years.
 

crossy1686

career ending
Joined
Jun 5, 2010
Messages
32,073
Location
Manchester/Stockholm
Keegan is obviously a mouthpiece for the Qatari, and their PR is in full swing. It will amount to nothing, unless they kowtow to the Glazers' demands.
This is for the fans, not the Glazers. I'm sure they're already in negotiations, but what will also be appealing to the Glazers is if they can have a smooth and quick sale.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.