That's a little bit difficult at the moment, considering the absolute shitshow of reporting we've witnessed in the past 36 hours. Nobody has a clue who these people are (or even who they might be) or whether they are actually independent of state money. The Guardian reported yesterday that the "private investor" from Qatar is in fact the bloody Emir of Qatar, Sheikh Tamim bin Hamad Al Thani - reasonable people could be forgiven for not thinking him entirely separate from the state that he is literally the appointed ruler of.
Club Sale | It’s done!
- Thread starter JB08
- Start date
- Status
That's a little bit difficult at the moment, considering the absolute shitshow of reporting we've witnessed in the past 36 hours. Nobody has a clue who these people are (or even who they might be) or whether they are actually independent of state money. The Guardian reported yesterday that the "private investor" from Qatar is in fact the bloody Emir of Qatar, Sheikh Tamim bin Hamad Al Thani - reasonable people could be forgiven for not thinking him entirely separate from the state that he is literally the appointed ruler of.
Amazing that Arsenal are top and United are third while being left for dead and at the meantime City, one of the clubs who are leaving us for dead, may get relegated due to the decisions made by their much more desirable owners.
Liverpool were run well from the football side of things and then lost a bunch of people behind the scenes at the same time as their squad was getting older so they are going through a normal transition as they were an elite side for 5 years, while Klopp isn't currently helping matters by not adapting to the transition like Sir Alex did. Pretty normal stuff if you ask me. Is a transition year after 5 years of excellence not allowed? Is a sugar daddy owner the only thing that is acceptable for you, where you can spend records every year? Do you have any source of pride from working your way to rather than just buying it all? Ffs.
Ah reading more of your post you're one of those who is all for racing to the moral rock bottom rather than try to succeed while doing things the right way. No point in discussing. There's 0 chance i'll ever find any common ground with that point of view. I'd rather we fall to the lower divisions doing things the right way than become a puppet of a state regime or win through unlocking the infinite money cheat code.
The world, especially football, is well beyond common decency. Honestly it’s time people got in the real world and stopped all this idealist moral high ground nonsense. Live your own life with those standards absolutely, but when it comes to sport at the highest level this is just what needs to happen.
So you'd rather see us become a play thing for a state regime, unlock infinite money cheat code and buy our way back to the top while representing a murderous regime (or... Representing just a private investor, not the regime... Right???), Rather than just get there naturally?
The highs in football aren't as good without the lows. Earning your way rather than being sugar daddy backed will always provide more pride when you win. Going through periods of transition is normal. If you don't understand this, there is 0 chance of finding common ground IMO.
I'm not from the gulf but I have had a keen interest in the region for years and what strikes me the most with regards to the sale of United is how lazy and misinformed Western (English mostly) are on the region and its key people. Also they struggle to differintiate between sovereign wealth funds and its subsidiaries and private investor groups - and hardly do any research on the funds in question. It has been going on pretty much since DIC tried to buy Liverpool when Hicks and Gillett won the race.
What I can gather is that it's extremely hard to deduct who is actually behind the interest from the region because information on it rarely, if at all, hits the local media. Whenever Dubai-, Qatar- and/or KSA-based investors are mentioned the Western journalists pretty much everytime turn their attention to the sovereign wealth funds like ICD (Dubai), QIA (Qatar) and PIF (KSA) - I guess it's more because it generates clicks and discussion rather than actually information.
Not sure if any of that answer your questions but I guess I'm saying you need to take articles from English journalists which mentions anything related to the region with a pinch of salt.
There clearly is more options. Not for everyone unfortunately, but definitely for United. Stop thinking that we need sugar daddies to compete. We can compete without it, as evidenced by the fact that despite throwing £1billion in the trash this past decade just because the glazers owned us, we've still spent among the most on transfers during this time and always have the highest wage bills.
We just need smart owners. Unfortunately due to neglect, yes we need to get things up to speed, like clearing the debt and getting our facilities up to par. But once we are back to a good operating level, the new owner shouldn't need to invest a penny. The club should be able to constantly grow and be self sufficient. Just don't do stupid things, and if you do, then yes you should get punished for it. I don't want us to become a club immune from that because we have infinite money. That shouldn't exist anywhere, just because it does in some clubs doesn't mean I ever want that touching United.
I think we can all be swayed by having incredibly rich owners like City. Heck I have even done it myself. But the more I think about it the more I hate the idea.
We can't surely be that desperate that its ME or bust. An American ownership model has taken Liverpool to the PL and CL title and matched City all the way for years. Arsenal currently above them and Arsenal fans aren't even that keen on their owners.
If Qatar buys us I will still follow and support the club as I simply won't be able to walk away.....it just doesn't sit right with me choosing to look elsewhere on some very important issues in the trade of for an easier path to success.
We can't surely be that desperate that its ME or bust. An American ownership model has taken Liverpool to the PL and CL title and matched City all the way for years. Arsenal currently above them and Arsenal fans aren't even that keen on their owners.
If Qatar buys us I will still follow and support the club as I simply won't be able to walk away.....it just doesn't sit right with me choosing to look elsewhere on some very important issues in the trade of for an easier path to success.
This is one post from one person with a particular perspective (and perhaps an agenda)
It'd take an extremely impressionable person to allow such a post to sway their mind one way or another. The same can be said for pro Qatari posts gushing with praise.
I understand that it will be on Ineos' books, but is there a possibility that they shift it back on United in the future? I am not from finance so it's a genuine query.
Also your last point about stadium renovation is very valid. It seems highly unlikely that Ineos will take on our debt and debt for servicing the buying of our club on themselves, then take on the stadium debt as well. We may very well get saddled with it and then we are fecked.
I understand your perspective but in my opinion we are too big to have huge transitional periods like what we’ve witnessed. The odd season, sure. I want my club to be the biggest in the world, I want a serious shot at the CL every season. I want to be in a title race near enough every year. It’s simple as that for me.
Everyone wants that. Do you toss aside your morals to get what you want?
A smart owner and you don't go through long transitions. It's simple as that. We need smart people in charge. Not sugar daddies. The club earns enough money that we can be a top side every year.
But debt as a result of any stadium rebuild/renovation should be on United to pay back. That's how football clubs are supposed to work.
Not a football interview but it's a good insight into his mind and perhaps what kind of owner he'd be. Personally think he'd be an excellent owner.
I've already explained this. We are in a sad state as a club. We've spend heavily on transfers which has led to a very heavy accruing of debt and we've completely stagnated from top of the art facilities and stadium to lagging behind even small clubs for the past 10 years. This is not sustainable at all which is why the Glazers are even selling - the rats are leaving the sinking ship. So, yeah, the club is still in "business" but for how long?
So your point is stupid because INEOS is not gonna sink, but they'll still be heavily burdened by a huge debt they're going to have to take to fund this. And someone is gonna have to pay for that.
Oh wow, Arsenal that haven't won a league since 20 years ago and have been floundering outside the top for for close to a decade now. Just because they have one good season (and it still isn't over yet given Arsenal's classic bottle jobs) that means they are well run? Arsenal fans have been crying for years about lack of investment and penny pinching. And as far as City goes, they are a very well run club, but their books being cooked has always been known by everyone. What the leaks did was make it official, but I doubt anyone here or in the FA were deluding themselves to believe that City were generating the revenues to pay people like Yaya Toure or Mancini or Tevez. Even now, I can guarantee you they don't generate even close to what they are fielding on the pitch.
Whether they get relegated or not, I highly doubt that given how absolutely useless the FA is. They'll probably dock them some points and even if they relegate them, so what? They have won titles and accolades that they would have never won in a million years without their sheikh daddy. I think the vast majority of them would say that it's a very good deal for them.,
Yes, and how is all of this fixed? By investing a shitton of money that Liverpool don't have. You think Klopp is stupid enough not to see that? He's repeatedly been whining about it in the media. He just doesn't have the money. Klopp is not Sir Alex, even if I consider him the best manager at the moment. And to expect a Sir Alex situation is nothing short of a miracle. He's by far the best manager in history IMO, and I don't simply say this as a United fan. What he achieved, especially in his later years, is nothing short of incredible and to expect that to happen again to us is basically waiting for a miracle, basically.
I rather think of my views as simple pragmatism instead of moral daydreaming of how things should be. What you rather do is irrelevant, you can stop watching United if it bothers you that much. 20 years ago same thing happened with the Glazer acquisition - a huge load of people swore to never watch United again and the club moved as is. You can't please everyone. You can cry about the Qataris all day long, nobody cares and nothing you ever do is going to change it. That's simply the truth and if you can't accept that, then I'm sorry.
Dude, I've told you, you're living in dreamland. I tried to explain the financial aspects of United but you still don't get it. You think because we spend 1 billion in the last decade, we can continue spending that until the world ends? That money is finite and we're already reaching that point basically (and much of it was contributed by SAF's magic miracle work during the Glazers were we barely spend anything. And the 'neglect' you're talking about is PRECISELY because we spend a shitload of money on transfers these past 10 years in order to compete with the oil barons. Money taken off infrastructure was send to the transfer kitty since we can't fund both and we can't even fund one of them forever which is why our debt is ever increasing. How long do you think the club can keep this up? We only spend this season (from the transfer money we are supposed to have last season) because the panic that ensued after the start of the season. And the Glazers have finally realized that it's over - they can't take any more out of this piggy bank, now they have to invest, and they don't have the money, so now they are looking to sell. Why can't you understand this when they have?
I just don’t believe that to be the case with the current landscape, taking into account the various renovations at massive cost. We aren’t fighting “fair” when we have City and Newcastle in this league. I’m sorry but I’m not watching them scoop up title after title while we battle for 4th if given the choice. The moral thing is such a minefield I just don’t think it’s worth it. If you go down that route you may as well stop doing anything in your life because somewhere along the line something you use/do/associate with will have moral wrongdoing.
Qatar also have debt, 105,280 milllion Euros. Qatar’s state’s debt leverage is 0.4 of the entire country’s GDP. Ineos debt leverage is 1.4 (I think, their financials aren’t very visible).
I do think it’s irrelevant whether we are bought with debt financing or by someone that happens to have £5-6bn in cash burning a hole in their wallet.
What does matter is of course is our next owner contributes money to the club instead of taking it out of the club — and in the long run, how much is given in net contributions. And it’s perfectly possible Ratcliffe would be a worthless buyer and the Qatari’s would be great. I don’t know. But just saying, whether the purchase price is financed by a bank or paid in cash isn’t the deciding factor.
The Glazer has not contributed one single penny to the club. Or maybe that is unfair, the siblings have run the club by being on the board without getting paid for it. Whether that is a contribution or not…
Just read it and thought 'cnut'
I agree and would have been fine with it if we already did not have a billion + taken out of us which could have been put towards stadium/facilities upliftment.
If we take on that debt with our current situation with very little money in the bank, we will be badly hamstrung for the next decade at least.
After the major mismanagement of funds by the Glazers for over 15 years, I feel we deserve a bit of leeway and can certainly hope that stadium development can be taken up by the new owners, whoever they are.
We wouldn't be fecked, it'd be relatively normal. It's something every club has to go through. We'll see what they do with it, it's unrealistic to expect that all to be gifted. Instead of throwing money in the trash on a pointless debt, we'd be paying off the infrastructure renovations. Important to understand that we are in a shitty position due to the Glazers' ownership, and it takes time to get out of it. Clearing our debt from the Glazers would be huge, and then the renovation would be "good" debt as it's being spent wisely and should benefit us long term. Yeah in a dream scenario we get that gifted, but it's not a bad situation of that doesn't happen either. Main thing is the current debt is cleared and we are then run smartly, with committments to renovate.
If you buy a business, you expect to get money out of it. Either you grow and sell it or you draw profit from it to pay the investors regularly. If you are not there for the money, would you keep pumping money in without expecting a cent returned? Maybe someone like Abromovich might.
I just want an owner who doesn't pile debt on us or suck the profit out of the club. So perhaps one that would benefit from the United brand or with the intention to grow the club for possible sales later. I tend to lean towards Qatar.
I wonder if money is ever taken out of City.
I just want an owner who doesn't pile debt on us or suck the profit out of the club. So perhaps one that would benefit from the United brand or with the intention to grow the club for possible sales later. I tend to lean towards Qatar.
I wonder if money is ever taken out of City.
One thing I want to know is, who put the info out there about Goldman and JPM helping Ratcliffe?
That was a hit job. I am not a fan of Ratcliffe but I wouldn’t rule out that he could be a good owner of us, but seeing that report rubbed me ‘the wrong way’ (more in favor of JR), because is it coming from the current front office and people who are certain that Ratcliffe will kick them out if he buys us? While perhaps they would have a fighting chance with the Qs? Raine? I am sure Raine rather does business with Q than JR. They have done it in the past and a relationship with Q is a great connection to have.
100% that Credit Suisse (probably) will finance a takeover by the Qataris. Nobody buys a 6bn asset with cash. Not even the UK government for example builds infrastructure without financing.
That was a hit job. I am not a fan of Ratcliffe but I wouldn’t rule out that he could be a good owner of us, but seeing that report rubbed me ‘the wrong way’ (more in favor of JR), because is it coming from the current front office and people who are certain that Ratcliffe will kick them out if he buys us? While perhaps they would have a fighting chance with the Qs? Raine? I am sure Raine rather does business with Q than JR. They have done it in the past and a relationship with Q is a great connection to have.
100% that Credit Suisse (probably) will finance a takeover by the Qataris. Nobody buys a 6bn asset with cash. Not even the UK government for example builds infrastructure without financing.
So we probably shouldn't take that debt in the current situation then. And just wait to develop Old Trafford when the club can safely afford it. That's how football clubs should work.
There is a way to spend sustainably and run sustainably. Where are you getting that nonsense from. As I've said, we should have had 1 billion reinvested into the club and not ripped out of it because of the Glazers. That's a big deal. No, we don't need to have the highest transfer spend and wage bill every summer. We can be successful without doing that. Our spending has been trying to catch up post Sir Alex, yes, but it's been spent idiotically. So we constantly have to catch up. And spend more. Because we kept getting it wrong. Simple advice is to stop getting it so wrong so that you don't need to spend 150m or 200m net every year. Try to earn some money from sales once in a while.
I'm not saying that we should've spent more money. We shouldn't have spent as much as we have. That's bad management. That's what you aren't getting. We are in this situation because of bad management, not due to not being a sugar daddy club. We can get out of it by good management.
There are levels to it. If it was a grey area, sure, that's one thing. It very much is not a great area though, and it's representing a murderous, oppressive regime.
Tax evasion, owning a chemical company, etc don't come close to the same realm of bad. You can't just deflect with "all the owners are morally bad".
You wonder what the Qataris would turn United into. I suspect Ratcliffe is probably the safest bet.
I think we've more than earned a little brief respite after close to 20 years of Glazer ownership killing the club. Why are you talking like we're some small club like City that the Qataris will suddenly have to pour huge sum on players? All we need is for them to clear the debt, upgrade and renovate the infrastructure of the club and we're golden. Club is well enough on its own to spend huge on transfers and be confined with the FFP all on its own, unlike City or PSG. So the more accurate way of saying this would be that we're finally going to have our huge shackles removed. Nothing else.
Or we just finally realized we are mortal after flying to the stars with Sir Alex for so long? We're gonna have to catch up regardless because City can not only spend as much as us on transfers, but they can also have the best scouting system and infrastructure to support their club. And I'd argue the latter is far more important in building a club than simple transfer spending. But it's also a lot more costly. So you can sit here and say "well, get it right", but if it was that simple, the Glazers would have already done it.
It seems you have all the right answers. "Bad" management and 'good management is the fix to all troubles in the world. Okay, where do we get this good management? Like give me some realistic answers, not some fairy tale about the capitalist in the shining armor who comes to the club and suddenly has all the right answers and we live happily ever after.
Last edited:
No; It just trades in weapons and armaments shares - amongst other things - to said governments and manages their cash and investments for a tidy sum. Not to mention managing finances, stocks and shares for companies that trade on literally killing, raping and irrevocably destroying humanity and resources. Essentially, it could be argued they facilitate far more unethical behaviour through their financing initiatives, either directly or indirectly, to a level far in excess of what you cite.
Lovely jubbly OI Oi its just a bit ov WONGAA innit
-
Incidentally, I support Jim's bid because of his FT interview back in the Autumn of last year and his fan ownership TRUST proposal. but hey.
Why is the default position that we'll be a "play thing"? And if so, haven't we been that all this while? Who's getting there "naturally" these days?
For all you know, they'll clear debt, invest in the infrastructure and let United run itself.
No guarantees attention seeking broke boy Jim Rattcliffe wouldn't be the one turning United into this so called play-thing.
Being £500-600m in debt likely wouldn't ever put United out of business. Certainly not in the foreseeable future anyway. We've been hundreds of millions in debt for the best part of 20 years at this stage. Most top football clubs are, even Spurs are over a billion in debt the last I checked. Do you think they're in danger of going out of business?
In the scenario being reported you would imagine INEOS would pay for it. INEOS already have debts amounting to billions of dollars mate, another £600m wouldn't change much for them I wouldn't imagine given their annual turnover. Large companies absorb the debts of other smaller companies they buy all the time. This Ratcliffe guy seems to have done alright for himself, he built a company that makes billions every year and has a personal wealth that made him the richest man in the UK.
So do you think he might have a clue what he would be doing if he did choose to buy United and move the clubs debt to INEOS? Or do you think he's stupid as well?
Thanks for the post but don't worry. I personally take the English journos' 'reporting' on this subject as seriously some of the Jimmy R's apologisers on here.
These journos barely scrape a decent article on their subject matter of expertise every month or so, so when it comes to finance they're not to be trusted.
Just wanted it to put it out there that for the Qatari's to buy Manchester United, Qatar Sports Investments (QSI) would either have to sell off Paris Saint-Germain (whom they are very committed to), or the QIA (wealth fund) to invent a creative structure to make the ownership of PSG and Man Utd separate enough for both clubs to enter the Champions League. Alternately, they can sell off most of PSG and retain a minority share.
Obviously, the structure scheme worked for Red Bull who made "several important governance and structural changes made by the clubs (regarding corporate matters, financing, personnel, sponsorship arrangements, etc.)" to have both clubs enter.
In any case, pretty much all the noise surrounding QSI have been that they're interested in buying a minority stake, up to 15% in a Premier League club. So I think that's the most likely outcome if they are to bid for United.
---
We should also remember that the Glazers were in touch with a private equity fund a year or so ago, which was about raising money for Joel & Avram to buy out the less engaged siblings from the club ownership. There's every reason to suspect they could decide to take on minority shareholders to buy out the less engaged siblings and retain majority ownership. i.e. Glazers + 15% Qatari ownership etc. which would also allow the Qataris to retain their PSG investment without being in conflict with UEFA rules.
Obviously, the structure scheme worked for Red Bull who made "several important governance and structural changes made by the clubs (regarding corporate matters, financing, personnel, sponsorship arrangements, etc.)" to have both clubs enter.
In any case, pretty much all the noise surrounding QSI have been that they're interested in buying a minority stake, up to 15% in a Premier League club. So I think that's the most likely outcome if they are to bid for United.
---
We should also remember that the Glazers were in touch with a private equity fund a year or so ago, which was about raising money for Joel & Avram to buy out the less engaged siblings from the club ownership. There's every reason to suspect they could decide to take on minority shareholders to buy out the less engaged siblings and retain majority ownership. i.e. Glazers + 15% Qatari ownership etc. which would also allow the Qataris to retain their PSG investment without being in conflict with UEFA rules.
If you believe Keegan tweet then they want to turn us into at least best team in England
It shouldn't be too difficult City are officially owned by ADUG which is apparently a private company owned by Mansour which says it is separate from the Abu Dhabi government.
That’s all well and good but it’s been reported very clearly it’s “private” investment.
Problem is no one seems to have much detail on this apart from Keegan who is going big
Firstly, yes, I agree. We need to just clear the debt and renovate the infrastructure and then we can run on it's own. If you understand that, why the hell would you want ME ownership? If we can be successful without throwing our morals in the drain... why do it at all?
Being good owners is not simple. The Glazers are not good owners. They can't simply do it, because they simply aren't it. You make smart business decisions, you hire smart people, not your mates, you don't make the same mistakes time after time, etc. It wasn't a case of flying too close to the stars, we just kept hiring the wrong managers and signing the wrong players. That's all it is.
City is great and all right now, but also they have Pep. He'll leave before long and they'll drop down to a more normal level. As we know all too well, you can spend all you want but if you don't have a top manager to bring in the players, then you'll struggle to play like a top team.
Why do you want me to give you the answers? I don't work in football management
I can say for sure that the Glazers are shite owners as they make the same obviously dumb decisions, time and time again. They hire people who make bad decisions as well. I can say other owners, or other clubs make smart decisions. It's something you can see over time. It's always tough to pinpoint who is doing the good things behind the scenes, but you know at some clubs when it works, and when it doesn't. I want an owner who makes good decisions. Getting ME ownership isn't a guarantee to having smart owners to more or less than having Ratcliffe or some random American in. We simply have no idea what they'll do once they're in charge. We can hope for the best, but that's all we can do. I prefer to be optimistic about new situations so I'd hope that whatever owner we get in is somebody who will be forward thinking, hire smart people who know what they're doing in charge, and not waste 1 billion on mediocre transfers and hand out stupid contracts. We shouldn't just pay up for every player no matter the cost, we should reach points where we pull out of the deals and let other clubs get these players, for better or for worse. It's football. There is always a next thing out there.i cant get my head around how the glazers can sell the club for 6 billion yet the club would still be in debt ?? how is it that a new owner wouldnt have the debt paid off with part of the fee given to buy the club ? makes absolutely no sense to me?
- Status