I don'y understand it either.
If Ineos was a public company, there would have to be an official announcement to the Stock Market at some stage, but it isn't.
Sir Jim Ratcliffe: I want to buy Manchester United | Will make a bid for the club [Telegraph]
- Thread starter altodevil
- Start date
If Ineos was a public company, there would have to be an official announcement to the Stock Market at some stage, but it isn't.
Hasn't he confirmed he's interested in buying the club every 20 days since Easter?
Let's go Jimmy.
He's made a career out of buying out garbage chemical businesses and turning them into gold.
United would fit right into that mould.
As long as it's not some despot regime or some PE-like asset strippers like the Glazers doing a LBO, I'm sold.
He's made a career out of buying out garbage chemical businesses and turning them into gold.
United would fit right into that mould.
As long as it's not some despot regime or some PE-like asset strippers like the Glazers doing a LBO, I'm sold.
I wonder if this is a good deal for him, before a bob is made , if the sale goes ahead he could be 5b down, hes a business man so like most, needs to make money, stadium upgrade and as well yearly squad upgrade, hard see how he makes that money back, in saying that, i live in a small house and hes one of britians richest men so he has looked at it,
It's like when you buy a house - you don't look at it like spending 500k or whatever, financially it's an asset. So an owner doesn't have to look at the club as a yearly income thing. The amount the glazers withdrew is not much compared to the profit his company makes. It's better to just look it as an asset that grows over time. So if in 20 years they want to sell, they would want to earn a profit at that point on their original investment.
Looking at the other candidate as long as he doesn't take money away from the club it should be the best case scenario.
Last time he said he would be interested but the club wasn't for sale.
Polymers aren’t complicated. An aramid, for example, is far more complicated. Thicko.
Ah yes the other oil government's want to buy the club for the betterment of mankind
Still better than an oil state. Hope it goes through unless we get word of an even more appealing offer somehow.
Apparently this time he is Actively looking to get in the bidding process (Sky).
On the plus side, INEOS are polluting the planet, and want to get away with it more, so hopefully it means the "oil state" moaners can't use oil as a reason to complain, and have to admit what they mean by "oil state" once and for all?
It'll be interesting to see what their intentions are, probably going to end up with the club owing them a ton of money in loans (still better than the shite we have right now). INEOS Old Trafford is probably an obvious one. INEOS logo would look good on the shirt but not sure they can do that. Clearly I'm an expert on the subject.
As long as they're not the Glazers, asset strippers or human rights violators I'm happy with whomever takes over. INEOS, Dubai, Niall, even Elvis would be preferable to the wankers we've had choking the club to the point of suffocation.
Both Nice and Lausanne are in 10th place
I was thinking how ironic it is reading posters criticize oil states yet promote somebody who’s whole business relies on oil to produce the goods he sells.
Niall would be my favourite by far.
He's from Failsworth and he's probably a cnut but at least he's our cnut. Oh and he's not a Glazer.
Honestly not convinced by him.
Would need written confirmation that he will spend at boehly levels before even entertaining a bid from him.
Would need written confirmation that he will spend at boehly levels before even entertaining a bid from him.
Wasn't this the guy that said we made the wrong choice hiring ETH over Poch?
I've said it before but my only concern is that he would struggle to arrange £5 Billion in liquid assets, as he doesn't deal in currencies smaller than £10 Billion notes, and those ones are exclusively for lighting his cigars.
Not worried about any lack of investment to be honest. We're at a stage where if we don't invest in the team and the stadium the value will go down over time. Who's going to throw 5 or 6 Billions just to watch it turn into 4 or 3? Add to that the negative publicity that will follow from the fans backlash. What the Glazers have managed to do with the club can't be repeated now. I think our value peaked and the next phase requires a different approach.
There’s a quote around here (maybe in the take over thread) from Sir Jim about the Glazers being ‘dumb money’ with the way they have invested in the playing squad.
He’s clearly aware of the mess we’ve endured in the last 17 years, especially since SAF and Gill left the club, and I doubt he’ll stand by and over-see the same kind of incompetence Woodward was responsible for.
The task is not rocket science for Jim and co neither. We already got the right manager.
1. Buy United
2. Get in Van Der Sar / hire competent people
3. See results on pitch echo into commercial revenue
4. Profit
… and renew the stadium
1. Buy United
2. Get in Van Der Sar / hire competent people
3. See results on pitch echo into commercial revenue
4. Profit
… and renew the stadium
Look at the shit job that he’s done at Nice. He’s no better at running a club than the Glazers.
Owners of Premier League clubs :
I'd be very surprised if the price is anywhere near £5b. No club goes for that sort of price, Chelsea was £2.5b with a commitment to £1.75b in investment. AC milan went for about £1b last year or the year before.
Given the debt pile, the macro conditions and that broadcast incomes have likely neared their peak (hence the glaze'rs looking to sell), fair value is probably around the current stock market cap, £3.7b, which when you factor in the debt is closer to around £3b.
He'll likely be borrowing to buy it if he does, he's a specialist in doing deals and getting value out of them.
Well i hope its true, id take him. Being a United fan a plus also.
Q1 of the calender year or Q1 of financial year?
Factoring in chelsea lost 900k a week in the Abramovich era, the sale was being done under duress and they dont own their own stadium - 2.5bn is probably a low benchmark.
£4bn for United makes sense and with a number of interested parties that arent just consortiums (states, tech companies etc) - I dont think 5bn is beyond reach. Pretty sure some US sports teams have been valued in this range and united is always up there with them in terms of global valuation.
I also think that tv revenues havent peaked. Sports tv channels maybe topping out but the streaming services (apple, amazon) will likely provide the next leg up.
Add in the possibility of some kind of breakaway situation (europe or domestic) where collective bargaining tv rights might be supplemented by allowing clubs to sell virtual match tickets (think 3d 360 camera in a seat in the stadium for a vr experience) I think theres plenty of reason to think there’s growth to be had for the league and each team in it.
If 5 billion is any kind of strain on their net worth they aren't pumping that money to be poorer. They will pay themselves a chunk of the revenue to make sure they at least break even in their lifetime. Need a steve ballmer type who can afford to be more consumer than investor
Last edited:
Thanks Jim, but no thanks.
Unless you're willing to set aside your own cash to redevelop the stadium, I don't want you.
The last thing we need is to be paying down a stadium redevelopment using club revenue.
Unless you're willing to set aside your own cash to redevelop the stadium, I don't want you.
The last thing we need is to be paying down a stadium redevelopment using club revenue.
It's state backed clubs which are ruining the game. Whether oil funded or otherwise.
No owner would be perfect but this would be an improvement.
He seems to divide opinion for two reasons
1. He hasn't enough money to sustain it
2. Concerns about how he is running NICE
1. He hasn't enough money to sustain it
2. Concerns about how he is running NICE
personally I hope he succeeds in his bid
I just don’t want us being own by a state
I just don’t want us being own by a state
Problem with a consortium is that I suppose you never know fully who is involved and what the intentions of some of the group as well.
In fairness I don’t think it’s the oil they object to, so much as the murder, homophobia and misogyny etc…
True r.e the stadium, that does add value, and United is a bigger brand (though Chelsea is London).
American teams tend to go for more due to the closed nature of the league and how valuable the TV rights for the NFL are.
International revenue likely hasn't peaked for United, though it has for this 3-4 year cycle as most deals have been signed. Domestic TV definitely has peaked, it went down slightly in the latest rounds, and BT have noticeably parred back from sports right as they've sold/in the process of selling off BT sports. That should see domestic rights go down. The streamers were touted as coming into fill the void, but they've been very careful in going for low price picks as sports are an aggregate to their offerings, not the main focal point like it is for the traditional TV networks. A bigger deal won't be forthcoming.
The Glazer's and Fenway are smart, they know when the top has been reached. If anything having two iconic clubs go on sale at the same time will depress values, Chelsea's had a lot of interest as it seemed like the seller didn't want to sell, this time round there hasn't been many businesses people touted as being interested.