That's really not how it works. If Ineos buys United then they can of course take out dividends to service Ineos debt, just as they can take out dividends for any other purpose, or just like they can choose not to.
Tweet
— Twitter API (@user) date
I don't think that's quite how it works, you still have a fiduciary duty to other shareholders even if you're the majority shareholder, and you can't just use a company as your own personal piggy bank even with majority control. Maybe the other 2 are totally fine with taking on 6bn of debt for an asset that isn't likely worth that, or maybe they're very insistent they'll want the debt paid from the profits of thr club, even if the club is under thr Ineos umbrella
Yes, Glazers will keep a Bible and Quran in the signing ceremony
Im going to chose to believe this till my dying breath
Tweet
— Twitter API (@user) date
Oh well that’s settled then. I know I for one am reassured!
Fixed
I meant from the Glazers point of view, 6bn lump sum is far more than they can hope to leech off the club, that kind of money can be far better invested and generate better returns than holding onto a football club in need of massive investment
There’s 2 other shareholders. Nobody is buying a football club at over 5bn for the “tasty dividends”.
That news is like a few days old now
Go on government.
Didn't they already welcome the bid 3-4 days back?
At the end of the day none of us are close enough to this deal to know the ins/outs. Is it confirmed anywhere in writing that INEOS are either clearing the current United debt or that any new debt taken on to facilitate the takeover will serviced solely by INEOS?
Tweet
— Twitter API (@user) date
There’s also no way they’d invest in the way Jassim would.
Of course they do, ME will level Manchester up so they don’t have to
Sure mate I dont blame you for not reading the entire 800 pages. Their stance have been clear from the start though
Tweet
— Twitter API (@user) date
Chelsea were bought by an American investment firm, for 2.5bn plus a guarantee of 1.75bn investmenft (I think they're already over a 3rd of this from their transfers so far
) and that's a club with a far lower profile than us. Do you think clearlake arent expecting a return on investment at some point?OK, so not a public statement then? The sheikh has publicly stated his bid will be debt free in the statement they put out.
Torah I think
They aren’t expecting that return to be from dividends. They’re expecting to grow the value of the asset by increasing revenues through what they believe to be huge untapped growth in media rights.Chelsea were bought by an American investment firm, for 2.5bn plus a guarantee of 1.75bn investmenft (I think they're already over a 3rd of this from their transfers so far
Those other owners won't be allowing their company to have debt put against it out of the goodness of their heart and so Jimmy has a new play thing. They'll be financially rewarded somewhere down the line
Echo echo echoooo
The Glazers are 100% selling. Qatar & Ratcliffe will walk away for good if they don't accept what's on the table now - they won't suddenly come back with another billion next year (nor will anyone who wasn't remotely interested at £4-5b appear with £6b).
I dont believe they addressed the existing debt, only that this will not be a Glazer style takeover. Sounds more like an old billionaire wanting to fulfill a childhood dream, and his two INEOS buddies (being forced to?) tagging along. Even if people favour the Qatar bid because "mo money", there is no need to demonize Sir Jim.
I've basically given up, but you never know, I guess.
Correct. They have already invested in cricket in the gulf.
I'd have said media rights were the opposite, a bubble that'll eventually burst, certainly not something that's going to massively increase the value of Chelsea from 4.25bn. Increasing the value of the asset also relies on having people who would actually pay that much, which kinda decreases if you're expecting 6-7bn. United are a bit of an exception as such a huge global brand
Tweet
— Twitter API (@user) date
Keegan said that a decision would likely be made around Easter (Early April) about who the preferred bidder is
Nowhere in this article does it saying anything about clearing the debt.
But again, it's not actually a public statement, it's "sources close to the bid" and we've heard a ton of contradictory stuff from sources close to both bids. If he won't clear the existing debt then really it's as bad as the Glazers staying on, the debt is crippling us, and the other ineos shareholders will want some return on the 5-6bn. Plus the investment in infrastructure, if they won't commit to clearing the existing debt, its hard to see them beating the Qatar bit, and also investing in the stadium and facilities to the level required
Ha I keep forgetting that.
I absolutely get why people are strongly opposed to the Qatar bid and I massively respect those who wouldn’t put success over their own morals and beliefs. At the same time though, I don’t know how anyone could possibly be in support of the INEOS bid when we hear things like this. We’ve spent 18 years wanting rid of the glazers and the debt & could potentially end up in the exact same situation with the new owners, if not worse.
