Respected financial expert Ben Foster
Club Sale | It’s done!
- Thread starter JB08
- Start date
-
In the latest episode of the United Hour Podcast, Nik @Rood and Imran @Annihilate Now! start with the good news by celebrating Manchester United Women's emphatic FA Cup win over Spurs at Wembley and the future of manager Marc Skinner.
Then it's the bad news and the ever worsening form of our Men with losses to Arsenal and Palace.
Finally the main debate - ETH Out now or keep him until the end of the season - if not longer. Are you Team Nik or Team Imran?
- Status
That's the bit that now doesn't seem as likely as it did before.
Nope.
But I'm not aware of them engaging in any slave labour or openly discriminating against gay people.
Ratcliffe is already a billionaire so not sure if buying Utd is anything other than a vanity project feeding his ego, the flagship if you like on top of all the other sporting interests that Ineos are involved with.
Ask yourself how much money Ineos make from any of the sport organisations they own/sponsor, or any of the existing football clubs they sponsor/own. The answer is more than likely nothing.
It is clear as day to anybody with an ounce of common sense they are not doing this for profit, personal profit that is. The club will profit as we have for many years, and hopefully at a better rate of return without money being leached out. There are a lot of rumours Ineos will be sold shortly to "big oil". If/when that happens the debt will in all likelihood be wrapped up in the sale price with the club moving under a separate business debt free. At that time the ex-Ineos owners will be exceptionally wealthy with more liquid assets.
Some of the above is speculation, but it is much more believable speculation based on what we actually know than the speculation on what Qatar have promised, since we don't even know the source of funding, wealth of Jassim and his family etc.
I'll say it again, this thread would be much shorter if people just admitted they want what City appear to have: unlimited oil money.
Here's a hypothetical though - once the debt is moved around, the interest payments and dividends gone and the turnover/profit set back to normal how much do people think the new owner would need to put in place to "compete". Based on history of when we made decent profits I think the amount would be relatively small, maybe £150-200m each season on top of what we earn as profit, and both of the prospective owners can easily manage that.
Another general question - do people honestly believe that even Qatar would invest in the stadium and Carrington without debt? I'm pretty sure they have already stated they would use bank loans (at 0% interest if I remember rightly). As others have said "debt is debt". No investor who has a billion sat around in a bank is going to pay for that type of work, they would take a loan and use that billion as an investment in something else, that has a higher interest rate than the debt.
They need to up their bid which going by what they have said previously, they won’t be held to ransom by the Glazers and will walk away.
Don't really disagree with him. He's speaking on his own behalf as a fan/ex-player
Also if that's the case can ignore literally everybody who isn't a financial expert, and then begs the question why you even come to discuss with non experts
This is a great post. Debt isn’t the enemy you think it is people!
If after all this the best we can do is Jim teamin up with Glazers, it will be quite a damning set of circumstances.
Indeed.
In terms of the spending on players required, it's important for people to remember that we've spent as much as we have because we've been failing, leading us to throw good money after bad and going through repeated "rebuild" phases. Once you get to the point where you actually have a functioning high-level team and you're just looking to maintain it season by season, the need to spend greatly drops. For example City's net spend over the last five years (officially, anyway) has been approx -€21m, -€96, -€109m, -€45m, and +€11.6m.
No we can't. It's why the glazers are looking to sell a stake because they can't get oil from the United tap anymore. They couldn't even pay themselves a dividend last quarter because we have no money. Why do you think someone like Gakpo or Felix who could easily been had didn't happen while we had to settle for a Burnley player who was on loan to a Turkish club?
And now we are gonna be saddled with more debt without paying any of the debt the glazers put us
Certainly would be a blow considering everyone thought there would be a lot of interest.
Got to say a lot of the defences about INEOS and debt is very similar to what we heard about the Glazers in the beginning. A lot of it comes down to getting the right coaching and recruitment which INEOS have shown to be great at and so there isn’t a need to have much room for mistakes.
I agree with Ben Foster's sentiments.
All I want out of the new owners are to clear the debt, invest in the club infrastructure and hire the best football people to run the club as they see fit. Anything else is a bonus.
We've been nerfed by debt repayments for so long. It's a miracle and a testament to the club's commercial strengths that we've only just began to see the effects of that. Clear the debt, and let the club compete on it's own merits without being hamstrung.
I suppose this makes me more of a Qatari bid supporter than INEOS and Ratcliffe, then so be it.
Heads up I struggle to balance my bank statement so you can safely ignore my hot takes.
It would be the 2nd worst outcome, with the Glazers staying in total control being the obvious worst. I don’t see why anyone could be positive or excited by this potential mess.
You say that but the customers were happy to fill up the stadium, with very few exceptions.
If the Glazers got away with it for so long, a Union Jack draped owner will basically play the OGS card at a high level and for longer.
EtH will win a couple of smaller trophies and the customers will keep delivering.
Thanks for the info Mr.Gill, afterall it worked so well last time you told us not to worry about the debt.
It's not just media BS. Ineos valued the club (as a whole) at more than what the Qataris did. The Glazers can sell outright to him now at that valuation of they want, in which case they get more than Qatar is offering. Joel and Avram reportedly don't want to sell now. Thus the option for them to stay (and according to Castles, with a big incentive to sell with within the next 2 years).
Anyone using Qatar wanting to buy out the additional 31% notn wned by the Glazers as proof that they're offering more is the spin. Qatar's bid did not include that 31%, because the Glazers can't sell that. They would do that later, separately, and likely at a MUCH lower price per share than they offered the Glazers.
The fact is, according to reports, that Qatar NEVER bid for a valuation of the club anywhere near what the Glazers would accept. If Qatar were the only bidder, the Glazers would stay in full control.
Posters on here have short memories before the Sheik said he was interested in buying the club, people were hailing Jim Ratcliffe as our saviour.I would rather have him making decisions than the glaziers anytime.
What would be the second worst outcome?
If news had broken last Summer that Ratcliffe had agreed a deal to become the majority shareholder and the Glazers influence would be dramatically diluted, everyone would be popping the champagne corks.
But because the spectre of a full sale was raised and Qatar dangled their oil money, Ratcliffe suddenly becomes a 'British Glazer' who wants to line his own pockets and has no interest in the welfare of the club. Absolutely embarrassingly juvenile stuff from anyone speaking like this.
But because the spectre of a full sale was raised and Qatar dangled their oil money, Ratcliffe suddenly becomes a 'British Glazer' who wants to line his own pockets and has no interest in the welfare of the club. Absolutely embarrassingly juvenile stuff from anyone speaking like this.
I meant any news in general to be fair
The more I’ve thought about it I’m okay with either outcome. I think both take the club in a better direction.
Them too.
Ben Foster shares his preference for Qatar, acknowledges it requires putting morals to one side, which he then blames on fans rather than owning himself.
He's a wrong 'un, that one, I keep trying to tell people.
Now you on the other hand are a source of insightful analysis
Rat and Glazers tag team. I’ve yet to read anything reassuring about that potential outcome.
This is a terrible post, and I cant become a verified user?! You are just assuming they would want to clear the debt over time, they flippin wont.
There is tax deductibles, share holders to please first. Then there is extra debt from sorting out the stadium, or even better building a new one.
Man City have got to where they are by paying for the best of everything, from Cleaning Staff to Manager.
We will be sitting around watching Newcastle, Man City, probably Liverpool and Spurs when they are sold winning everything, whilst we go the same way as Nice.
But hey at least we will have that proper Club status, even though we are owned by a greedy corporation.
I totally agree the absolute disdain for the Ineos group is just crazy, they don’t have the money to buy the club, they can’t afford to buy players or invest in stadium rebuild, it’s a complete hog wash. If the company gave outbid SJ and Qatar they have the funds as this has been checked in the last two weeks. For the record Ineos have amounted nearly €10bn Of profits in last 8 or 9 years. Look below at link https://www.statista.com/statistics...the gross profits,at nearly 1.3 billion euros.
I accept that some of this is being used to reinvest in their core business but the annual Turnover is $60 billion and making a profit. It’s been know for years that the company has been stockpiling cash, building up reserves to invest.
Now just because you have a pot of gold doesn’t mean you always use it, but you can use it as collateral where you can use a banks money at more favourable rates because your business rating is blue chip like Ineos but the notion that they can not afford to buy man United, absorb the debt or pay for players is insane.
The club under SJR will be miles better off financially, the two goblins unfortunately might stay and there may be real questions on how much of a fan SJR is and how much he wants to win, but with new FFP and sustainability rules, he has more than enough money to make united a force again, they may not be as rich as they would have been under Qatar but is that really what people wanted with all the human rights and homophobia issues that come with that now confirmed state bid .
We didn't struggle with debt but we struggled with their incompetence. The money wasted on dogshit players like Pogba, Sanchez, Lukaku and others who didn't deliver any sporting success could have renovated Old Trafford or if it had been spent by someone who knew what they were doing would have funded a PL or CL win. Let's not rewrite history, if Woodward had moved heaven and earth to land Klopp we'd talking differently right now.
Glazers have never really invested a penny of their own money into the growth of the club. If they had they would be selling for much right now, imagine if they had put in just a portion of the money they got when they sold off shares on the NYSE we would be so far ahead of the competition. Ten years ago 500m would have been enough to mordenize facilities, for example. If INEOS follow the same script they would have the same issues.
Am I missing something about Ratcliffe's bid?
It doesn't strike me that he's keeping Joel and Avram around so they can hold hands and make all the decisions collectively. It sounds like they'd have very little influence over decision-making going forward, and would purely be there because they think they can get more for their shares in the future. Essentially, it seems like a ploy on his part to try and win out against a stronger financial force in Qatar.
Ideally, I'd rather have all the Glazers gone now, but I'd also ideally not have us become a soul-dead sportswashing project.
It doesn't strike me that he's keeping Joel and Avram around so they can hold hands and make all the decisions collectively. It sounds like they'd have very little influence over decision-making going forward, and would purely be there because they think they can get more for their shares in the future. Essentially, it seems like a ploy on his part to try and win out against a stronger financial force in Qatar.
Ideally, I'd rather have all the Glazers gone now, but I'd also ideally not have us become a soul-dead sportswashing project.
I be actually like Golbridge but he didn’t even know like a lot of people what the bid was for and how it was structured
I don’t mind Goldbridge, he’s a funny bloke, but my word is he insufferable when it comes to this takeover business. Although he’s not as bad the idiots he’s energizing and egging on who send in stuff about being furious at fans for not storming the pitch and setting OT ablaze, constantly slagging off match going fans etc. beyond idiotic shite.
You are 100% spot on. I remember those days and the conversations in here were very similar.
I agree.
I think there's another twist to come in the coming days because I've always felt the Qatari group was waiting for Ratcliffe to completely show his hand, which he seems to have done now. And it's not a surprise that Ratcliffe is looking to get his foot through the door even if it means keeping the Glazers around on a minority stake.
Because when the news first broke about Ratcliffe wanting to buy the club last year via The Times and Matt Dickinson in particular, it was reported about Ratcliffe even being open to a minority stake, which would eventually lead to a full-takeover in the future.
On the other hand the Qatari offer has been described via reports as one where the Qatari group won't be reckless and they're said to be vary of the the Glazers/Raine making them bid against themselves. So I feel now that Ratcliffe has possibly shown his hand in the final round of bidding, that Qatar will counter his offer. Which makes sense at this stage rather than reports about them blowing the competition out of the water, which isn't at all sensible.
I'm sure there are a lot of echoes.
But in actual factual terms, there are massive differences differences between the two scenarios. Which is a lot more important than whether arguments on the internet sound familiar.
Oh, he definitely doesn't come across as the most clued-in on the deal here but there is an element on here that whenever anything gets posted from the social media side is quick to not just criticise but call names. Listening to them, you'd think some of these guys are the devil. They also are first to pass judgment if you offend their sensibilities.
Some (a lot actually) of these same people are pushing for Ratcliffe in such an unashamed way it's unbelievable hypocrisy. Proper Brexit gammon stuff.
Well, they are getting to partner with a like minded individual in Ratcliffe, so no surprise that want to stay on.
- Status