Club Sale | It’s done!

Status
Not open for further replies.
Regulus Arcturus Black said:
No.

I’m calling out the fecking mass hypocrisy of a poster who slagged off City & Liverpool fans and hated everything about state ownership and the fans that supported it.

Yet now is all for it, the second it involves his own club.

Own that hypocrisy if that’s the case. Slag off the INEOS bid all you like but the lot of us would’ve snapped their hands off just 1 year ago, so if you “hate state ownership & the fans that support it”, you do have an option to not be a massive hypocrite.
Click to expand...
Personally I think many would have accepted INEOS last year (Myself included) and many more would now but I think the statements of both bids have swayed people.

Those are the only official things we have to judge the actual ‘bids’ so it’s understandable that quite a lot of people prefer Qatar because it simply sounds better for the football club. The more information that gets revealed may change that

You are right that many people are choosing to ignore the political aspects and they may be different reasons for that.

I have been hypocritical myself but if you give me the exact same commitment from both Qatar and Ratcliffe I would probably go with Ratcliffe in all honesty because he is obviously the lesser of two evils.
 
Berbaclass said:
Personally I think many would have accepted INEOS last year (Myself included) and many more would now but I think the statements of both bids have swayed people.

Those are the only official things we have to judge the actual ‘bids’ so it’s understandable that quite a lot of people prefer Qatar because it simply sounds better for the football club. The more information that gets revealed may change that

You are right that many people are choosing to ignore the political aspects and they may be different reasons for that.

I have been hypocritical myself but if you give me the exact same commitment from both Qatar and Ratcliffe I would probably go with Ratcliffe in all honesty because he is obviously the lesser of two evils.
Click to expand...

You were supporting Qatar before the statements came out.
 
Found out today, the Red Knights who tried to buy United around the same time as the Glazers approached the Qataris to anchor their bid. They asked for £1.5b apparently.
 
crossy1686 said:
Found out today, the Red Knights who tried to buy United around the same time as the Glazers approached the Qataris to anchor their bid. They asked for £1.5b apparently.
Click to expand...
When was this? I read a few days ago Qatar offered 1.1bn to the Glazers in 2011 but of course they said no.
 
UnofficialDevil said:
It seems to be the media with us. I wasn't aware of this with City,The barcodes, or Psg.
Click to expand...
The media were definitely very critical of the Newcastle takeover. I don't think there was so much with City due to greater ignorance back then (although there has been a lot afterwards) plus the takeover was so quick, they were a shitshow looking ready to sell all of their best players and then suddenly got taken over on deadline day and started bidding for everyone.
 
is anyone else getting worried that the Glazer parasites are not going at all and are just feeling out the market. Never mind all this arguing about who the best new owner is, as fans our main pressure and spotlight should remain on the Glazers going. I don't really mind too much between INEOS and Qatar at this stage so long as the leeches are definitely going.
 
Berbaclass said:
I have been hypocritical myself but if you give me the exact same commitment from both Qatar and Ratcliffe I would probably go with Ratcliffe in all honesty because he is obviously the lesser of two evils.
Click to expand...

The whole fecking point of being against state ownership is that no-one can ever match the commitment of the State. That’s what makes state ownership bollocks and brings the game into disrepute.
That doesn’t mean you go, oh well they offer a better deal, I’ll take the state despite hating everything state ownership stands for and the fans that support it. It means you accept that your owners rightfully can’t match the commitment of a state, but you take it anyway, for reasons of sporting integrity and not to sell out the soul of your club.

Just don’t slag off City and Newcastle fans and their owners for 15 years and then jizz your pants the second a state fancies your own club.
 
Rolaholic said:


The PR battle has been half as interesting as the actual developements regarding the sale
Click to expand...


We're expected to believe Ratcliffe isn't interested in making a profit when he bid for Chelsea just last year? I don't care about him wanting to make profits really as long as he's prepared to fully pay off debt and invest in our stadium and facilities. If he wants to make some profit in the long term after that, I'd be fine with it. Unfortunately, everything I've heard from INEOS to this point makes it pretty clear that they are not going to do any of that imo.
 
UDontMessWith24 said:
You either know very little about the war in Iraq or Obama’s drone campaign or you truly believe the slaughter of innocent Arabs
Click to expand...
cyberman said:
You may want to check the uk governments record v catholics in NI
Click to expand...
Guys, this is just more false equivalency. We can go round in circles with claim and counter claim like this, but Obama, the current US administration and the current British government aren’t trying to buy United so it’s a pointless and misleading conversation. Nobody is claiming anybody is perfect, but we should be able to discuss the merits and drawbacks of the Qatari bid and the INEOS bid in relation to the club without all the whatsboutism and excuses
 
Regulus Arcturus Black said:
The whole fecking point of being against state ownership is that no-one can ever match the commitment of the State. That’s what makes state ownership bollocks and brings the game into disrepute.
That doesn’t mean you go, oh well they offer a better deal, I’ll take the state despite hating everything state ownership stands for and the fans that support it. It means you accept that your owners rightfully can’t match the commitment of a state, but you take it anyway, for reasons of sporting integrity and not to sell out the soul of your club.

Just don’t slag off City and Newcastle fans and their owners for 15 years and then jizz your pants the second a state fancies your own club.
Click to expand...
No offence but I can think whatever I want when I want. I’m allowed to be hypocritical if I want to be. Doesn’t mean I can’t have a legitimate opinion on something.
 
Berbaclass said:
No offence but I can think whatever I want when I want. I’m allowed to be hypocritical if I want to be. Doesn’t mean I can’t have a legitimate opinion on something.
Click to expand...

The whole point being Berbaclass, if you have a “legitimate” opinion when you don’t benefit from something that changes when it benefits you that’s not a “legitimate” opinion. It’s outright hypocrisy. It’s genuinely just changing your morals depending on if you benefit. And that isn’t legitimate no. If you completely change your opinion 100% after something is beneficial, then you’re never going to have a legitimate opinion.
 
Wumminator said:
The whole point being Berbaclass, if you have a “legitimate” opinion when you don’t benefit from something that changes when it benefits you that’s not a “legitimate” opinion. It’s outright hypocrisy. It’s genuinely just changing your morals depending on if you benefit. And that isn’t legitimate no. If you completely change your opinion 100% after something is beneficial, then you’re never going to have a legitimate opinion.
Click to expand...
You are wasting your time.
 
red thru&thru said:
Could people, who believe the Glazers could stay, explain to me how that would work financially?

Thanks in advance.
Click to expand...

I don’t believe the Glazers can stay, but here’s my rough take on the numbers, mostly from memory and guesswork. Feel free to point out the many and obvious flaws.

Without considering the large premium Qatar or INEOS would likely pay, United are valued at approx 3.3B pounds, depending on what day’s stock price you take. The Glazers own approx 66%, say 2.1B pounds, giving each sibling 350M. For Avram and Joel to stay, they would need to pay the others 1.4B for their four shares, or around 700M from each of them. I don’t believe they have anything like that cash lying around, so that means borrowing, maybe from the Elliott vultures. 700M for a 10 year term at 6% gives annual repayments of around 92M, which is far beyond what they can take from United and hopefully far more than they can afford.

If the Glazer siblings want full Qatari value for their shares it makes the repayment figures above nearly 150M per year.

I don’t see how they can stay, but I am nervous that Elliott could structure a deal that makes it possible, while increasing the likelihood that the Glazers default (or maybe die) before the repayments are complete and hand the club to the vultures.
 
red thru&thru said:
Could people, who believe the Glazers could stay, explain to me how that would work financially?

Thanks in advance.
Click to expand...
I suppose 3 possible outcomes of the current process are:

1 Complete sale
2 One or more of the Glazers sell out to an investment fund (Glazers financing the buy out of other Glazers does not seem feasible)
3 An investment fund takes a stake in the club with the proceeds going to the club for infrastructure etc

2 and 3 are not mutually exclusive, both would require new share structures to reflect new investors, neither involves new debt.
1 would provide better returns than 2 for Glazers wanting to sell.
The market is favoring 1. 2 occurring would see a big drop in market value (no change to club fundamentals), and 3 would also see a drop though not as pronounced.
 
captaincantona said:
Those facilities are the same ones that ETH is working with. They are not state of the art in the City mould but let’s not pretend that they are archaic.

Instead of complaining ETH is getting the right people to do the right jobs and bringing the team together to achieve results. He is managing. Those ‘characters’ you mention all have giant egos in common and when those egos take a hit they look to blame the paintbrush and the paint instead of the the painter.

while I don’t disagree that the glazers are a hinderance to the club in every way long term, and I want them gone as much as the next guy, our lack of success has more to do with how the football side was being run than the lack of investment in any particular area.

No amount of investment will replicate what happened under Fergie. Living in the past is silly. I will just look forward to being in the mix again at the tail end of every season.
Click to expand...

On the pure footballing side OT and Carrington are probably more than good enough, but sadly that aren't the only important factors anymore. When you have a stadium deemed not good enough to host the biggest finals anymore, nor used for other happenings than just football matches, then you lose a potential huge revenue stream in the future. Same can be said for fan experience, which seems like a important factor to draw future fans (eh.. customers). Also you have had global superstars openly criticising our facilities which again may lead to us struggling more to attract the best players in the future. Having a manager like Klopp has shown that it is possible to mask off-the-field shortcomings but at the same time it has also shown us how hard it us to sustain a challenge when you are not competing with anything close to the same terms.
 
Regulus Arcturus Black said:
Nar mate, you’re being incredibly hypocritical after being completely against state ownership, agreeing you hated it and the fans that backed it.
It’s not changing your mind, you’ve done a complete 180 because now it involves your club.

Easy to slag off City & Newcastle fans, and feck me Newcastle truly did “suffer” under Ashley, but hey, when it comes to your club you’ll lap it up.

You’re now jumping through hoops to find the negatives in a none state backed bid.

At least own your hypocrisy mate, lots here are at least holding their hands up there.
Click to expand...
Thanks for telling me how I think :mad: There's no hypocrisy involved.

From what has been released (not much, admittedly) the Qatari bid is far better for the club than that of Ineos.
 
Adebisi's Hat said:
is anyone else getting worried that the Glazer parasites are not going at all and are just feeling out the market. Never mind all this arguing about who the best new owner is, as fans our main pressure and spotlight should remain on the Glazers going. I don't really mind too much between INEOS and Qatar at this stage so long as the leeches are definitely going.
Click to expand...


Well, I'm not sure how they could pay it off. £200m+ in repayments per annum. Just how?
 
Berbaclass said:
Click to expand...

Tbh this is not necessarily a sign they are staying. It’s normal behaviour in the markets to “buy the rumour, sell the news”. The price increases over the last few months has been in anticipation of a sale. A lot of people will be exiting positions at the moment as the price is at a major resistance level (highest it’s ever been since it floated).
 
Spoony said:
Well, I'm not sure how they could pay it off. £200m+ in repayments per annum. Just how?
Click to expand...
Only way I can see this going is diluting the Glazers' (all of them) stake in United.

Then they use the money to reinvest back and do what needs doing.

However, we know the other four siblings want to cash in, so I don't think it'd be possible for this to happen.
 
Chief123 said:
Tbh this is not necessarily a sign they are staying. It’s normal behaviour in the markets to “buy the rumour, sell the news”. The price increases over the last few months has been in anticipation of a sale. A lot of people will be exiting positions at the moment as the price is at a major resistance level (highest it’s ever been since it floated).
Click to expand...
I agree. I don’t think it does indicate that.
 
Wumminator said:
If you think the UK government are so evil, why do you support United?
Click to expand...

United and the UK Govt are not currently 1 in the same.
United are free to disagree with and speak out against ANYTHING the UK Govt does. and they have.
Just like even though United are currently owned by Americans. United as a club could come out and release a statement condemning Police Brutality and Gun Violence in the US w/ ZERO consequences.

This would be QUITE different under Qatar ownership.
Everything that took place there, United would end up being put on record w/ regard to "do we support it"
Their govt could realistically round up and force migrant workers to behead all of the homosexuals in dangerous conditions for less then a livable wage and in the prematch presser before a game United would get asked about it
everything Qatar did as a nation would end up with a journo asking us if that reflects the values of Manchester United and or how does Manchester United feel about it. .
and whoever it is giving the statement would have to stand there like an ass and read the pre-composed release and act as if it didn't happen and try to turn the questions back to football.

There is a MASSIVE difference between a wealthy citizen from another country, even a controversial country owning the club with their own money.
And being a STATE owned entity.

I think we can all discuss that burden fairly and honestly without embarking on some lame game of "your country is more evil then mine"
 
Marcelinho87 said:
Glazers and Elliott, said it earlier. It is happening.
Click to expand...
Not sure I buy it. It seems rather convenient that after only 2 bidders have gone public that they threw their hat into the ring publicly last minute despite Raine now leaking bids were told to remain private. It didn’t need to be public. They aren’t pitching to fans. Almost like their interest being leaked was to push up the price and make it seem they had an option to stay.
 
Mickeza said:
Not sure I buy it. It seems rather convenient that after only 2 bidders have gone public that they threw their hat into the ring publicly last minute despite Raine now leaking bids were told to remain private. It didn’t need to be public. They aren’t pitching to fans. Almost like their interest being leaked was to push up the price and make it seem they had an option to stay.
Click to expand...
Free publicity for them.
 
Wumminator said:
The whole point being Berbaclass, if you have a “legitimate” opinion when you don’t benefit from something that changes when it benefits you that’s not a “legitimate” opinion. It’s outright hypocrisy. It’s genuinely just changing your morals depending on if you benefit. And that isn’t legitimate no. If you completely change your opinion 100% after something is beneficial, then you’re never going to have a legitimate opinion.
Click to expand...

Didn't you admit yourself that you personally benefitted financially from ME state investments in Manchester? Isn't then a bit rich of you not just going hard on the moral aspect of ME state ownership, but absolutely slaughter those that aren't massively against?
 
Status
Not open for further replies.