Good post.
The reason I showed you a 10 year old report is because that is when the long term loan was agreed.
Its debt that has to be paid though, its not going to just sit quietly in the background and be allowed to spiral out of control year on year whilst SJR/Ineos pump funds into the clubs infrastructure is it?
I mean his local boy persona.
Its 14 miles from my front door to OT, and I've lived in and around the area all my life.
There have been absolutely no problems with PSG’s women squad (which is better than ours) or with their LGBTQ+ community. We can expect something similar, in that aspect, for United.
Rebuilt!
My view is that it is by far the worst thing we can do.
He's talking about giving YOUR money and YOUR support to the club while they do terrible things in THEIR country (Qatar).
There is a scenario where Ratcliffe could be willing to pay 200m/year over 30 years to service the debt that he contracted. The issue is how long are the terms of that loan and what happens when Ratcliffe passes away before his 100th birthday?
I do not appreciate the implication of this comment. I agree that match-going fans are special and deserve more of a say in the process but the implication that fans from elsewhere do not share the same lifelong attachment to the club is not appropriate. Furthermore, more substantively on your point that match-going fans might feel differently about Qatar, Gary Neville said that in his poll of roughly 200 people at OT before the game yesterday, 70% wanted the Qataris.
https://www.gurufocus.com/term/Effe...C#:~:text=2022 was $781.7 Mil.,2022 was 4.80%.The reason I showed you a 10 year old report is because that is when the long term loan was agreed.
I hope you understand what long term means. They dont change the interest every year in a long term loan
Also, your words "
there are different kinds of debt, it makes far more sense to take a low interest loan and pay it off long term with the extra revenue, than it does to spend your available cash.
That’s not what the Glazers have done, that is a very different kind of debt for a very different reason. "
I am asking you what is the different kind of debt the Glazers had to Ineos, you said it not me.
Whats your view on Saudi Arabia pumping millions upon millions into the club over the years?
Well if he borrows the entirety of 6bn it would take 30 installments of 200m, that's without interests.
They don't make any decisions at the club, are barely visible.
The money we give to the club will be spend on the club. While possible, it is extremely unlikely that they will take money out of the club.
Exactly.
This is a very serious concern. Let's say JR does have the best interests of the club at heart, what happens when he's gone and someone else has to take over? What if they just see the club as a way to make money/not invest in.
They have, and their ask is for any prospective owner to 'commit to making the sport for everyone'; if the Qataris are successful I fully expect them to provide these commitments, and to go on to support and fund the womens team and support LGTBQ+ rights, as Qatar already have at PSG.
Elliot will have higher interest than the banks. From banks like JPMorgan etc, you could probably expect 6% interest right now, so a 5B debt over 20 years would cost around 8.6B or around 430m/year.
How the hell is the club to supposed to pay that off?
Right, so on one hand I am told by you wait till the details and on another hand you are telling me how SJR is going to finance it?
So you prefer not to have success?
With the Glazers it would cost less since Joel and Avram own a third of the club. With someone else it could cost way more. Ratcliffe can sell some of his assets to finance the purchase faster, from the outside Ratcliffe and the Qatar bids seems to be the least damaging and potentially positive but they all come with big issues.
I’m not sure what exactly constitutes a ‘sugar daddy’, but there’s still risk and jeopardy involved with INEOS ownership as the company can go bust.
It won’t. It will likely be covered by Ineos, but then they might decide to take some money out of the club. With them owning just 70% of the club, it will also mean that they likely won’t spend their own money in the club (as I explained in some previous post, it does not make sense to put money in the club where a large part of it is owned by other people, in this case it would be the equivalent of buying 70cents for 1 dollar), and they already mentioned that they won’t clear the current debt.
If you listen to some here, they won't.
