Will they stick to their word? If yes then that would be a first.
Club Sale | It’s done!
- Thread starter JB08
- Start date
- Status
They are going though so don't see your point? We all agree they have been terrible owners.
We will be getting a new stadium or redevelopment. It has to be done.
But they will be out, as owners, that’s the whole point. Or ‘we want Glazers out’ was all along just a highly emotive reaction due to personal dislike? What does it matter if they stay if they have no say over the strategic direction of the club, or the day to day running, or anything?
As for ‘understand football’ and ‘no debt’, we could go round and round all day to no avail. Real Madrid is servicing a billion euro in debt and it doesn’t affect their operation, the football savvy people like Oliver Kahn is making Dortmund competitive with Bayern in BuLi. Any form of new ownership will be a leap of faith, because less face it, having the biggest budget in Ligue 1 by an enormous margin and lost the league to Montpellier, Lille and Monaco hardly screams competence about Qatari regime either, morals aside.
What’s stopping Ratcliffe doing what SJ has done and committing to repaying the debt, rebuilding OT, investing heavily in club infrastructure, youth etc? He could placate the fanbase and get everyone on side now rather than waiting. He’s dropped the ball in the PR front.
He is in fact a United fan. The only United fan involved in the bidding process.
Yes he also held a season ticket at Chelsea and I'd imagine he now catches the odd Nice game as well. Plenty of people support one club but often watch another, particularly if said club is local to them at that point in time.
Not that it really matters, but it's just another of those silly little things you anti Ratcliffe lot cling to in desperation.
Ineos will have investors, partners, those with a financial stake in the business. Those who rely on its success. The idea ANY businessman is going to say "I'm going to take half of this and shove it into buying a football club lads, cool?" Is insane.
No doubt Ratcliffe will partially front some of the money himself but its fantasy stuff to believe there won't be eye watering levels of borrowing compared to what we're used to.
No doubt Ratcliffe will partially front some of the money himself but its fantasy stuff to believe there won't be eye watering levels of borrowing compared to what we're used to.
It is the end of the line. Quite frankly I'd rather see us being owned by Elliott then Ineos. At least they know how football works.
Maybe his end goal isn't to win PR but to actually get the club back to where it should be.
If you condone Qatari ownership you effectively to some extent condone everything else they do. That’s how sportswashing works.
The Glazers will still be here, same with the debt. The only thing that changes I'd that the guy who took nice and Lausanne to the ground will have the biggest say on how the club will be run
I know United fans who go to Bolton, Wigan, Blackburn, Burnley. I've been to Accrington a few times this season. It's easy to get tickets, it's a good day out with the lads.
Nothing wrong with it. If I lived in London, I'd probably go watch one of the local sides I could get tickets for.
Goldman Sachs
If a billionaire has time to go watch Chelsea a billionaire has time to make it to Manchester because of his billions.
It’s not us getting trains and busses!
At least you're open and honest. Basically you don't care about what happens to Qataris as long as Utd are successful. Who cares if they let thousands of people needlessly die eh? As long as we get another PL trophy soon right?
Doesn't reflect well on you as a person but at least you're open and honest about it.
But it will be INEOS buying the shares.
This isn’t SJR on a solo crusade to save the club like some seem to think it should be. Behind his plans (which may well be driven by personal interest/love for the club) is a sound business proposal.
Probably. Whoever they aren't going to be happy to see money diverted. People think 'net worth' means 'in the bank'
When you see a business man's reported 'net worth' it's a fair bet to reduce it by 40% and assume the majority of it is tied up in investment, ventures and other businesses.
I don't mind the moral arguments at all. I would prefer them in a separate thread but it's no big deal.
I do mind people trying to say Ratcliffe will invest in the club when it's obvious he wouldn't pour money in as a part-owner to benefit other owners who only want to take money out. He is in it for the money himself, and if people think that is at least better than the Qataris then that's there choice, but I wish they would keep their justification to the moral side rather than making up stuff about the economics and share control.
Weren't the bidders told not to say too much regarding public PR? Catering to the fans is pointless if you don't actually end up buying the club.
Ineos make a net profit of £2.5bn a year, the majority of which will be to investors or reinvested.
You can't look at operational revenue and assume that's money they have to buy a football club. No more than you can look at someone's net wort if £13bn and think that means they can buy outright anything that costs up to £12.99bn
Neither thing is true. You might as well expect your granny to afford a Mercedes because the home she owns is worth more than the value of the car
Congratulations!! You’ve done it!! You’ve finally lost all credibility!!
Think folks look at somebodies wealth and presume it is all in money. Might be in all sorts of commodities.
Here we go again with the baseless propaganda. Do you know how many people die on uk construction sites a year?
Last year 1008 Americans died on construction sites.
Construction is dangerous. It always will be - all effort must be taken to protect people on work sites.
Qatar carried out a LOT of work for the world cup. It was done in a relatively short time too.
It wasn't like it was state sponsored execution of brickies.
And where are these fantasy owners? If they haven't come forward to bid now what on earth makes you think they'll bid in the future?
Get off your high horse mate there is thread in General named Revolution in Iran that's not even 10 pages long I can see how much Posters here are really worried about Human Rights Violations .
We are all mostly big hypocrites but as you said some are more willing than others in owning it .
They will be here as minority shareholders who have no say on the running of the club. I’m old enough to remember a time in the not too distant past that they were lauded as non-meddling owners when we were winning everything in sight with Fergie. We don’t know about the debt, it could be transferred to INEOS to service, in which case it is a non-issue, it could be here in its entirety, in which case we can still be one of the biggest spenders in the market, while capital injection on infrastructure projects is on INEOS. We simply don’t know what’s going to happen.
As for Jimbo, I share some of your sentiments regarding him and the stewardship of his best pal Dave Brailsford, but ultimately, as said, taking Nice from an average 6th place finish in the league to what, 9th? And relegating Lausanne is at worst comparable to losing the league to giants like Montpellier and Lille with 10 times their budget. They aren’t exactly chalk and cheese here, if you want to be critical then best be fair.
By partnering with the people who’ve put us in this position? It’s all down to credibility, Ratcliffe doesn’t seem to have much, seems more of an opportunist given he also tried to buy Chelsea. Given how restless the fanbase has been, you don’t think a little positive PR would help and lift the mood around the club? It’s an odd way to buy a business when your main customers don’t know your intentions.
Sir Jim isn't the UK government. The Qatar bid very much is a state bid . INEOS don't let their employees die needlessly and treat them like slaves. They also don't persecute people who are homosexuals.
It's really not that difficult to grasp unless you're massively clutching at straws to justify being owned by a regime that has a disgraceful track record.
Obviously SJR net worth is made up of investments and assets. That doesn’t mean it isn’t money he has access to if he wants it. He just liquidates an asset (usually by selling it on) and boom he’s cash rich.
His assets can also be used to borrow against. As can INEOS’. In either case the club wouldn’t be responsible for the associated debt.
His assets can also be used to borrow against. As can INEOS’. In either case the club wouldn’t be responsible for the associated debt.
Just wait until UEFA formally allows owners to own multiple clubs. I also believe that in 12 months time these idiots will be more desperate
However as said I prefer Elliott to ineos so. .
Its been 4 months? Seems like only a month
I’d say helping killing the planet is up there is not not? Isn’t that just as important or does that not suit?
The Qatari govt didn't build the stadiums. It wasn't Beureucrats and ministers running construction sites it was private companies. What evidence do you have that workers died due to negligence? Other than accusations?
Shiekh Jassam and his business are independent of the Qatari govt.
Qatar doesn't persecute homosexuals. It has laws against public displays of affection.
This thread is CRAZY!
Please @Golden Blunder or any other mod act before something goes out of control.
Please @Golden Blunder or any other mod act before something goes out of control.
I think it’s a little easier for a billionaire to travel for a football match if he wants to. When was the last time this fan attended a United game?
It’s simply the process the Glazers have instigated to sell the club. If he wants to buy then he has to abide by their rules until the contracts are signed. You can bet whoever buys the club will flesh out their plans once they are no longer subject to NDA.
Gas?
I don't care if he's a boyhood fan. It means absolutely nothing when it comes to running the club. It could even be a hindrance if it makes them get overly involved.
My concern is that he is only buying a controlling stake and doesn't appear to have massive investment funds available. He's smalltime compared to big rich club owners.
The reason this concerns me is that, when combined with the fact that he looks at the club as an investment (hence INEOS, who won't invest without a return on their funds), that means dividends, which means money going out of the club. If he wasn't bringing outsiders in to be able to afford his bid, I'd be backing him as it would imply he's able to afford to not take money out of the club.
I would prefer the Qatari contingent because they have something to prove, they want to compete with UAE/City, it becomes an investment battle because they won't want to lose to them and finances become less of an issue. That means likely not taking out more than they put in.
Yes, there are moral concerns, but I look at Qatar as a nation that will want good PR and that means if they own our club, the owner will have to ensure they stay on the straight and narrow and also start improving their tolerances, which is a positive thing for Qatar's human rights. Pressure to have a good international image is something ownership of our club would increase.
Also, as I've said before, there is no such thing as a moral billionaire. If Ratcliffe was Qatari instead of British you bet your arse he'd play to the morals the laws there allow him to.
My concern is that he is only buying a controlling stake and doesn't appear to have massive investment funds available. He's smalltime compared to big rich club owners.
The reason this concerns me is that, when combined with the fact that he looks at the club as an investment (hence INEOS, who won't invest without a return on their funds), that means dividends, which means money going out of the club. If he wasn't bringing outsiders in to be able to afford his bid, I'd be backing him as it would imply he's able to afford to not take money out of the club.
I would prefer the Qatari contingent because they have something to prove, they want to compete with UAE/City, it becomes an investment battle because they won't want to lose to them and finances become less of an issue. That means likely not taking out more than they put in.
Yes, there are moral concerns, but I look at Qatar as a nation that will want good PR and that means if they own our club, the owner will have to ensure they stay on the straight and narrow and also start improving their tolerances, which is a positive thing for Qatar's human rights. Pressure to have a good international image is something ownership of our club would increase.
Also, as I've said before, there is no such thing as a moral billionaire. If Ratcliffe was Qatari instead of British you bet your arse he'd play to the morals the laws there allow him to.
How exactly does having a balanced view of the Glazers make one a stooge?
It isn't controversial to say they've been successful commercially but failed with footballing decisions and infrastructure redevelopment.
If Ratcliffe comes in and takes over from the things they've failed at and allows them to continue to create and exploit commercial opportunities, I can see how that would work.
- Status