Club Sale | It’s done!

Status
Not open for further replies.

Bosws87

Full Member
Joined
Jun 18, 2015
Messages
3,736
You don't spend £5-6b on a football club if you're looking to turn a profit mate, that makes no sense. You can never make your money back from club profits. The only way to ever potentially see a profit is to sell it on at some point in the future.
There’s always a profit maybe just not financial having your company associated with United will be of great benefit to a business that isn’t exactly great for our environment.

Will more then likely grow the revenue of his business.
 

Red in STL

Turnover not takeover
Joined
Dec 1, 2022
Messages
10,316
Location
In Bed
Supports
The only team that matters
You don't spend £5-6b on a football club if you're looking to turn a profit mate, that makes no sense. You can never make your money back from club profits. The only way to ever potentially see a profit is to sell it on at some point in the future.
The logic therefore must be that every owner of a football club is looking for a way to sell it for a profit
 
Joined
Jul 31, 2015
Messages
23,038
Location
Somewhere out there
Yeah Qatar had put their money were their mouth is which is exactly what I'd like to see an owner do at our club. If we're doomed to be used for sports washing/green washing then I'd rather end up competing on top rather then linger at 7th place with fans defending our woeful season by claiming that we're on a great form or something. And yes winning the CL is tough. United had dominated the EPL scene for decades under SAF and we've won it as many times as Nottingham Forest did (and both with a huge dose of luck). Abu Dhabi City has yet to win it. There's nothing fair in that cup.
why you banging on about the CL again?

I’m talking about 1.5bn to dominate France being an absurd waste of money. A well run club could do it for a fraction of the cost, just as Lyon did pre PSG.
Nothing about spunking the sums they did for Neymar and Mbappe is “impressive”, they spunked 1.5bn mostly out of vanity.
 

Chesterlestreet

Man of the crowd
Joined
Oct 19, 2012
Messages
19,622
It’s ok to call out the half assed nature of it
Maybe.

To me, however, there's something - let's say - not quite right about ridiculing the "half assed" nature of a protest by Amnesty. They showed up at Old Trafford with a banner, and the take on that, by certain people, is to ridicule them because the banner wasn't very large. I dunno, to me that says something.

It's indicative of a certain mindset, let's say.

(I mean, let's be honest here: how likely is it that someone who actually either a) agrees with the message or b) at least genuinely respects it, reacts by ridiculing the effort? Not that likely, is it? Sure, there may be one or two who just couldn't help themselves because the banner was that tiny...but on the whole, nah, come on.)
 

stevoc

Full Member
Joined
Jun 11, 2011
Messages
21,122
At least as fans we can hold them accountable to something.
Neither party interested in buying United will give a flying fiddlers what fans think they can hold them to, let's be honest. They can promise the moon but once they're feet are under the table they can change their minds all they like and there's feck all we can realistically do about it.
 

red thru&thru

Full Member
Joined
Mar 2, 2004
Messages
7,657
Neither party interested in buying United will give a flying fiddlers what fans think they can hold them to, let's be honest. They can promise the moon but once they're feet are under the table they can change their minds all they like and there's feck all we can realistically do about it.
Hahaha, of course not. Look at the Glazers. We've been protesting for 18 years, and they've not cared one iota.

Still, for fans, we can only go off by the prospective buyers words. That's what we have to hold on to. That is our way of keeping them accountable.
 

stevoc

Full Member
Joined
Jun 11, 2011
Messages
21,122
There’s always a profit maybe just not financial having your company associated with United will be of great benefit to a business that isn’t exactly great for our environment.

Will more then likely grow the revenue of his business.
True Ineos's bid could well have a greenwashing motivation behind it.

Having said that Qatar haven't been great for the environment either given the amount of Gas they export every year.
 

Chesterlestreet

Man of the crowd
Joined
Oct 19, 2012
Messages
19,622
A football club is a community asset. It’s an identity for millions. It’s history and tradition. It’s not something that should be for private individuals to trade, profit from and use to their own ends. It’s not just an asset on a balance sheet, it has intangible qualities that mean more than simple finance.
Well said.

No it’s not. It’s a childish pathetic reaction to somebody raising an important concern.
Well said again.
 

stevoc

Full Member
Joined
Jun 11, 2011
Messages
21,122
Hahaha, of course not. Look at the Glazers. We've been protesting for 18 years, and they've not cared one iota.

Still, for fans, we can only go off by the prospective buyers words. That's what we have to hold on to. That is our way of keeping them accountable.

Well fair enough but personally I wouldn't put too much stock into the promises made by any potential buyer.
 

cyberman

Full Member
Joined
May 26, 2010
Messages
37,331
Maybe.

To me, however, there's something - let's say - not quite right about ridiculing the "half assed" nature of a protest by Amnesty. They showed up at Old Trafford with a banner, and the take on that, by certain people, is to ridicule them because the banner wasn't very large. I dunno, to me that says something.

It's indicative of a certain mindset, let's say.

(I mean, let's be honest here: how likely is it that someone who actually either a) agrees with the message or b) at least genuinely respects it, reacts by ridiculing the effort? Not that likely, is it? Sure, there may be one or two who just couldn't help themselves because the banner was that tiny...but on the whole, nah, come on.)
It’s not indicative of mindset, let’s just say it’s indicative of how pathetic the enterprise was imo.
They either couldn’t get the numbers to make it a proper protest or it was a token protest to tick a we did it box.
It honestly looked as if the United fanbase weren’t really bothered by it all and that’s the exact opposite of what they would have wanted. I can’t understand what they were thinking with that.
 

Plant0x84

Shame we’re aren’t more like Brighton
Joined
Jun 23, 2020
Messages
13,690
Location
Carpark and snack area adjacent to the abyss
If the Ineos bid did include a significant effort to offer fan ownership then that would make their offer way more attractive.
It was something mentioned by Lord O’Neill in his interview with UWS on their podcast, but it’s an idea that could be in INEOS thinking given their fan centred statement when they bid.
“We would see our role as the long-term custodians of Manchester United on behalf of the fans and the wider community.

“We are ambitious and highly competitive and would want to invest in Manchester United to make them the number one club in the world once again. We also recognise that football governance in this country is at a crossroads.

“We would want to help lead this next chapter, deepening the culture of English football by making the club a beacon for a modern, progressive, fan-centred approach to ownership.
 
Joined
Jul 31, 2015
Messages
23,038
Location
Somewhere out there
Not made up. Please see the Kieran McKenna interview about Sir Jim on the Stretford paddock. He wants a legacy.
Amazes me how many struggle with this.

Would you prefer to go to your grave super rich, remembered for nothing more than being Britain’s richest man and Brexit?

Or would you prefer to bit a tiny bit less rich, and spend your final years doing shit you love? Having fun with sailing, cycling, football, running wins every time for me.
 

LawCharltonBest

Enjoys watching fox porn
Joined
May 17, 2012
Messages
15,664
Location
Salford
Amazes me how many struggle with this.

Would you prefer to go to your grave super rich, remembered for nothing more than being Britain’s richest man and Brexit?

Or would you prefer to bit a tiny bit less rich, and spend your final years doing shit you love? Having fun with sailing, cycling, football, running wins every time for me.
Couldn't agree more you beautiful man

My grandad took up Jigsaw Puzzles in his 70's and I've never seen him happier.
 

7even

Resident moaner, hypocrite and moron
Joined
Jun 4, 2006
Messages
4,220
Location
Lifetime vacation
You don't even know who the actual bidder is. It's not the kid, it's maybe the dad, it's maybe the royal family and their hundreds of members. That's the opposite of straightforward.
You’re speculating who’s the owner and that’s fair but I’m talking about the bid and the following statement from Sheikh Jassim. We can question where the money come from but the bid is straightforward.

Beautiful club and state owned don’t go together.
Maybe you’re right but it’s still speculation from your part.

Maybe Sheikh Jassim has the blessing from of the royal family because they see this as beneficial to Qatar but Sheikh Jassim and his family/friends still make this bid as a private investor. Does it mean that United is state owned if that’s the scenario?
 

MTF

Full Member
Joined
Aug 17, 2009
Messages
5,243
Location
New York City
Amazes me how many struggle with this.

Would you prefer to go to your grave super rich, remembered for nothing more than being Britain’s richest man and Brexit?

Or would you prefer to bit a tiny bit less rich, and spend your final years doing shit you love? Having fun with sailing, cycling, football, running wins every time for me.
It's different magnitudes as buying United, and we can't divine SJR's intentions, but that's what the follow-up sub-2hr marathon distance attempt he financed suggests. Just passionate about that sport and human achievement.
 

MTF

Full Member
Joined
Aug 17, 2009
Messages
5,243
Location
New York City
You’re speculating who’s the owner and that’s fair but I’m talking about the bid and the following statement from Sheikh Jassim. We can question where the money come from but the bid is straightforward.

Maybe you’re right but it’s still speculation from your part.

Maybe Sheikh Jassim has the blessing from of the royal family because they see this as beneficial to Qatar but Sheikh Jassim and his family/friends still make this bid as a private investor. Does it mean that United is state owned if that’s the scenario?
If the source of funds and therefore ultimately ownership is unknown to the public, then it can't be said that it is a straightforward bid. It's an opaque bid, and yet you were trying to contrast it favorably vs a company that has a majority shareholder that is known to the public and 2 other owners that are also known to the public, as if that is excessive complexity.
 

Plant0x84

Shame we’re aren’t more like Brighton
Joined
Jun 23, 2020
Messages
13,690
Location
Carpark and snack area adjacent to the abyss
Amazes me how many struggle with this.

Would you prefer to go to your grave super rich, remembered for nothing more than being Britain’s richest man and Brexit?

Or would you prefer to bit a tiny bit less rich, and spend your final years doing shit you love? Having fun with sailing, cycling, football, running wins every time for me.
Exactly, plus for £5bn quid I’m sure there are literally thousands of better ways to make money if that is your sole motivation than buy a fecking football club, which then needs billions investing in infrastructure and staff costs.
 

Gavinb33

Full Member
Joined
Apr 6, 2014
Messages
2,912
Location
Watching the TV or is it watching me
For me and many others it’s simple. We want a new owner who make United;

a) totally debt free. No accountant trick with moving the debt to the mother company or similar bs. 100% debt free. Everything that includes the name Morgan and/or Goldman Sachs and that bid is totally disqualified in my eyes.

b) 100% ownership. Not interested in a 69% or similar. Ineos is owned by three different individuals with different personal interests, majority shareholder or not, that’s a total no go in my eyes.

c) a clear and straightforward commitment of rebuilding Old Trafford or build a brand new state of the art stadium without new debts connected directly or indirectly to the clubs name.

d) Investment in our infrastructure and a clear vision how to make this beautiful club successful again.

Only one bidder has made that commitment in a public statement. Only one bidder has been straightforward in their communication and commitment.

That’s why Brexit Jim and his bid is a totally irrelevant in my eyes. I don’t even take him serious. If I make a research of him and how he has conducted himself as a owner of Ineos, as a owner of other sport projects, as a political influencer I get a really bad taste in my mouth.

Sorry Jim Ratcliffe, not a single chance you get my support.
And Qatar do not leave the same both here and in Qatar? interesting
 

Chesterlestreet

Man of the crowd
Joined
Oct 19, 2012
Messages
19,622
The logic therefore must be that every owner of a football club is looking for a way to sell it for a profit
No, that doesn't follow from the premise (I suspect you probably understand this, but whatever).

Most owners do not seek to make a (direct) profit from owning the club. Football clubs are not profitable to own, they have never been that: the cost involved in running them is (relatively) huge. And most owners do not speculate with regard to growing the sell-on value of the club either. The Glazers are quite exceptional in that regard: they were allowed to acquire United in a leveraged takeover/buyout, and - yes - their likely endgame has always been to sell at some point. But they are not normal owners.
 

devilish

Juventus fan who used to support United
Joined
Sep 5, 2002
Messages
61,866
why you banging on about the CL again?

I’m talking about 1.5bn to dominate France being an absurd waste of money. A well run club could do it for a fraction of the cost, just as Lyon did pre PSG.
Nothing about spunking the sums they did for Neymar and Mbappe is “impressive”, they spunked 1.5bn mostly out of vanity.
Let's see what Al-Khelaifi said on the matter

" We received an offer of more than 4 billion (euros) but we are not going to sell, of course, just a percentage of the club, we'll think about it," he told to talksport

" We took the club at 70 million euros and today it's over 4 billion euros. It's a good project, We don't do everything right, of course we're not perfect. From where we bought the club I think we should be proud."

Meanwhile Forbes rate PSG at 3.2b dollars. Lyon is worth $368M while NICE FC (INEOS bought it for 100m euros) doesn't even make it to the Forbes list. Smart indeed.

So yeah, PSG's project is far from stupid.
 
Last edited:

Lecland07

Full Member
Joined
Oct 23, 2021
Messages
2,835
Not sure why people are worried about Ineos not being able to provide what the club needs.

Ineos have €2.7bn in cash and equivalents as at 30/09/2022, which is their latest report. But they only have this amount because they continually invest in new businesses and property/plant, and give out large amounts of dividends to their three owners.

In the period from 2019 to the end of the last quarterly report, they have spent: €3.3bn in dividends, €4.4bn in property and plant investments, and €900m in acquisition of businesses and intangibles. That is €8.6bn in cash expenditure over a period that is less than four years, averaging €2.29bn per year on those alone. They are a cash rich company, but choose to use it rather than let it sit.

This isn't even a massive purchase for them, they spent $9bn on acquiring Innovene in 2005. That would be an equivalent of $13.8bn today.
 

Chesterlestreet

Man of the crowd
Joined
Oct 19, 2012
Messages
19,622
It’s not indicative of mindset, let’s just say it’s indicative of how pathetic the enterprise was imo.
They either couldn’t get the numbers to make it a proper protest or it was a token protest to tick a we did it box.
It honestly looked as if the United fanbase weren’t really bothered by it all and that’s the exact opposite of what they would have wanted. I can’t understand what they were thinking with that.
I don't think you understand what I'm saying:

The protest was made by Amnesty. Not random fans - Amnesty.

Do you think it was a "token protest" by Amnesty?

Are you concerned by the fact that Amnesty has a problem with our (potential, likely?) new owners?
 

Chief123

Full Member
Joined
Dec 27, 2013
Messages
12,787
You don't spend £5-6b on a football club if you're looking to turn a profit mate, that makes no sense. You can never make your money back from club profits. The only way to ever potentially see a profit is to sell it on at some point in the future.
That’s not true. You can buy a club for £5-6bn, reap profits from dividends for a number of years and sell the club at worst for the same price you bought it. In this instance, Utd would probably be worth more down the line.

We’ve no idea the intentions of prospective owners, however it’s a very easy PR win for Ratcliffe/INEOS to state early on they have no intention of taking out profits or dividends from the club. If they did, a lot more fans would be on board. They haven’t said that though.

Even better would be to have it contractually binding that no dividends can be taken out if that’s what their intentions are.
 

Lecland07

Full Member
Joined
Oct 23, 2021
Messages
2,835
That’s not true. You can buy a club for £5-6bn, reap profits from dividends for a number of years and sell the club at worst for the same price you bought it. In this instance, Utd would probably be worth more down the line.

We’ve no idea the intentions of prospective owners, however it’s a very easy PR win for Ratcliffe/INEOS to state early on they have no intention of taking out profits or dividends from the club. If they did, a lot more fans would be on board. They haven’t said that though.
Manutd dividends are pathetic compared to Ineos. Ineos paid out €3.3bn in dividends over less than four years. Manutd's dividend is about $20m per year; there is no reaping dividends. It is a grain of sand compared to what the owners of Ineos already pull in.
 

redcucumber

Full Member
Joined
May 18, 2022
Messages
3,308
Let's see what Al-Khelaifi said on the matter

" We received an offer of more than 4 billion (euros) but we are not going to sell, of course, just a percentage of the club, we'll think about it," he told to talksport

" We took the club at 70 million euros and today it's over 4 billion euros. It's a good project, We don't do everything right, of course we're not perfect. From where we bought the club I think we should be proud."

Meanwhile Forbes rate PSG at 3.2b dollars. Lyon is worth $368M while NICE FC (INEOS bought it for 100m euros) doesn't even make it to the Forbes list. Smart indeed.

So yeah, PSG's project is far from stupid.
Oh come on. I don't give a toss which ownership you model you prefer, but to pretend PSG has been anything other than a dysfunctional laughing stock is bizarre. Utterly toxic culture emanates from that place. The JORDAN branding sums them up. All fart no shit and billions spent.
 

Plant0x84

Shame we’re aren’t more like Brighton
Joined
Jun 23, 2020
Messages
13,690
Location
Carpark and snack area adjacent to the abyss
Don't they also have another £8.5bn debt they have to service?
https://www.fitchratings.com/resear...ineos-quattro-at-bb-outlook-stable-24-11-2022
Liquidity and Debt Structure
5 billion of cash and cash equivalents and EUR840 million of unutilised, committed securitisation facilities that mature in June 2024. The company has no meaningful debt repayments until 2026 following the repayment of its 2023 and 2025 term loan A facilities in May 2022.
 

Bosws87

Full Member
Joined
Jun 18, 2015
Messages
3,736
I’ve hated PSG since that yellow ticker on sky sports said we had agreed a fee for Ronaldinho. :lol:

Even if it was Barca’s fault!
 

croadyman

Full Member
Joined
Mar 9, 2018
Messages
35,295
INEOS in June is 100000% better than Glazers remaining at all.

As I have said previously I am Qatar in but the whole state backed thing has skewed peopled perception of how business works.

INEOS I have no doubt would be a damn site better for us than the Glazers ever have been.
Yeah IF Ratcliffe was more of an Abramovich type not obsessed with ROI than a Glazer then I would back his bid more
 

devilish

Juventus fan who used to support United
Joined
Sep 5, 2002
Messages
61,866
Oh come on. I don't give a toss which ownership you model you prefer, but to pretend PSG has been anything other than a dysfunctional laughing stock is bizarre. Utterly toxic culture emanates from that place. The JORDAN branding sums them up. All fart no shit and billions spent.
You might call it what you want but it had been successful both financially and football wise. All that eludes them is a CL win which isn't that tragic considering how unpredictable that cup can be.

But hey let's get the guys who own two clubs ie one who keeps getting relegated in the Swiss league and the others who are currently 7th in the French league. I am sure that they are smart too especially since they hire a cyclist guy to take football decisions.
 

Ahriman

New Member
Newbie
Joined
Jul 10, 2019
Messages
104
I don't think you understand what I'm saying:

The protest was made by Amnesty. Not random fans - Amnesty.

Do you think it was a "token protest" by Amnesty?

Are you concerned by the fact that Amnesty has a problem with our (potential, likely?) new owners?
Was it made by Amnesty though or just someone jumping on the bandwagon? I'm willing to be proved wrong but I don't think I've seen anything official and I'd be very surprised if that was the best Amnesty International could do.

I haven't even seen them outright say it shouldn't be sold to the Qataris, just that a more stringent process needs to be observed.

"We’re not necessarily opposed to the involvement of state-linked overseas financial consortia in English football, but the Premier League must urgently strengthen ownership rules to ensure they’re human rights-compliant and not an opportunity for more sportswashing."
 

Teja

Full Member
Joined
Aug 17, 2014
Messages
6,042
INEOS in June is 100000% better than Glazers remaining at all.

As I have said previously I am Qatar in but the whole state backed thing has skewed peopled perception of how business works.

INEOS I have no doubt would be a damn site better for us than the Glazers ever have been.
Ratcliffe is a tinkerer based on what experience with Nice. Glazers seem to have stumbled onto something that works with Arnold and Murtough so I'm wary of new leadership coming in with INEOS and having to re-learn all those lessons again.

Assuming they're both equivalent propositions financially with a drain on club money for dividends or loan repayments or whatever.
 

Plant0x84

Shame we’re aren’t more like Brighton
Joined
Jun 23, 2020
Messages
13,690
Location
Carpark and snack area adjacent to the abyss
Yeah IF Ratcliffe was more of an Abramovich type not obsessed with ROI than a Glazer then I would back his bid more
Please stop. Nobody is going to invest £6bn in anything without wanting a return, but it doesnt mean that will be their sole or even main motivation. Sir Jim has said he wants to invest in the club, put us back at the top and win the champions league. Nowhere in his statement did he say he wants loads of money, and yet for some reason it is implied with INEOS but not Qatars bid.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.