Club Sale | It’s done!

Status
Not open for further replies.
Mickeza said:
Athletic article says they’ve bid 4.5bn and will go higher.
Click to expand...


Ahh, well it's as obvious as the most obvious thing in the world. Till then we'll probably add another 600 pages to this thread.
 
villain said:
We are cash poor, we literally don’t have money until the end of the season when PL & sponsorship money pays out - and even then we still have transfer debts to pay, so we won’t be able to spend anywhere near 200M.

We need to be sold.
Click to expand...

First time in my memory that we have 3 loanees in a window and two of them in the starting 11 on Sunday.

Not sure what else folks here need to illustrate our current financial position.
 
Marcus said:
I have an idea. Why not support the Qatar bid to buy United and they revamp the Stadium, training facilities and clear the debt. Then after all this is done, fans can protest their ownership and force a sale to Ineos? Win-win? Then we don't have to worry if Ineos will clear our debt or have enough money to put into infrastructure. They use us, we use them? All's fair?
Click to expand...

you think the qataris are that dumb ???
 
Cassidy said:
Are you sure? It seems their sale cooled off because we went on the market. However FSG would be open to selling if they can get the price they want
Click to expand...

Make of it what you will but FSG announced yesterday that Liverpool is not up for sale.
 
sglowrider said:
Like a multiple-choice question of Life... it usually answer E, all of the above. Bezo bought the Washington Post and looking at buying the Washington Redshins or whatever they are called nowadays.

Its just not a new thing. Even Steve Gibson bought Middlesbrough years ago and did it, on a smaller scale; his company is based in Middlesbrough. There is always a non-altruistic element.

The question is how do you measure 'soft power'? It's longitudinal.

Whereas we can certainly measure the financial gains of say an Elliot or even an INEOS bid (though I think there is some element of greenwashing in their equation.) Its not sustainable at the price/loans/debt that's required going forward.

And also I do not link my personal identity to the Club directly and its supposedly ethos. I think I am more than that as a person -- not someone who is determined by some external 'identifier' and especially something that I have almost ZERO control over.

Thats why so many are upset -- they wholeheartedly support the club and therefore directly see themselves as part of some evil regime. (Nobody ever wants to see themselves as evil --- even the terrorist that flew the planes into some building a couple of decades ago. Everyone likes to see themselves as doing good.)

That's why as they mature they will recognise that the owners or even Manchester United as a club isn't just who they are in terms of their primary identity. They are more than that.

Or when we start winning silverware all this will blow over. But they have not delinked that external identifier of who they are, still.
Click to expand...
sglowrider said:
There are probably only a handful of people in the world that would have such a reputation.

Even Bill Gates and all that the Gates Foundation has achieved, will have a bunch of blowhards complaining about how evil he has been --- or the conspiracy theorist who will claim that he will use United to control the world with subliminal messaging at OT.

Even Jesus would struggle in this woke world we are living in.
Click to expand...

Two of the worst takes I've seen on this issue. Those of us that have an issue with the take-over due to the human rights abuses in Qatar and/or don't want the club state owned need to gain some maturity and even if the owner was Jesus the wokies would be up in arms.

Jesus did struggle btw. He was crucified mate.
 
sglowrider said:
First time in my memory that we have 3 loanees in a window and two of them in the starting 11 on Sunday.

Not sure what else folks here need to illustrate our current financial position.
Click to expand...

Not saying we're in 'great' financial shape (the opposite) but the club is in the process of getting sold, the club had to sack a striker in December who needed replacing, Newcastle recalled the back-up keeper we had on loan who needed replacing, in January a midfielder was injured for the season who needed replacing and we've just came off the back of spending more in the the summer window than we had probably planned for.

That series of events would explain why we have signed 3 players on loan in one window.
 
enghuei said:


Key points:

1. Consensus is that the bid is in the region of £4.5billion ($5.4bn) and it can go higher if needed.

2. HBJ (Jassim's father) personally owned almost half of Qatar Airways when he sold his shares to QIA back in 2014.

3. Much of Jassim's money is tied to HBJ's wealth, which is thought to be run into the billions. For what it is worth, the 2022 Sunday Times Rich List had HBJ's personal wealth at just over £2billion, a number many believe is very, very conservative.
Click to expand...


So he’s the son of someone who used to be involved in the Qatari Government, there’s no evidence to suggest that he is still tied in anyway, in fact his father’s involvement ended when the current Emir took reign?

We don’t know rich he actually is, because these ‘Rich List’ things are never accurate, but in any case his father is seemingly rich enough anyway and therefore wouldn’t need State funds.

What am I missing here? This doesn’t marry up with the other reports of this being the Qatar State owning us in all but name.
 
Mickeza said:
Athletic article that’s just gone up about it says United being for sale played a part in them not selling as it took interest away. That strong rumour around Qatar going for Liverpool before switching to United does seems to fit.
Click to expand...

Yeah it's probably a face saving exercise as all the potential buyers looking to buy a PL club are focusing on United and ignoring Liverpool. They'll probably go up for sale again in a year or two.
 
crossy1686 said:
I mean, you have to laugh at people questioning the credibility of of support of someone who’s willing to cough up somewhere between £4b-£6b to purchase the club. For me, you could have started supporting United 10 minutes ago after supporting Liverpool all your life, but the second you cough up that amount of money to purchase the club makes you a pretty staunch supporter regardless I’d say.

So come on then you plastic bastards, you might have been supporting United for years but when was the last time you spent £5b on the club?
Click to expand...

Or maybe he is a shrewd businessman that recognises the opportunity to own one of the biggest brands in the world. Notice I said brand not sports team.

The fan angle is just that, an angle.
 
Adnan said:
Click to expand...

As much as I want Qatar for the possibilities of their resources, that bit about the women not being forgotten is hilarious.

We won't forget the women, tacked on the end, as if you're talking about a pet. This is where United fans need to be vocal and demand support for all parts of the club if we do get bought.
 
3 fecking thousand?

This goes somewhat towards my point of being state owned or being seen as state owned.
I don’t blame UEFA for not being able to sort through that
 
villain said:
So he’s the son of someone who used to be involved in the Qatari Government, there’s no evidence to suggest that he is still tied in anyway, in fact his father’s involvement ended when the current Emir took reign?

We don’t know rich he actually is, because these ‘Rich List’ things are never accurate, but in any case his father is seemingly rich enough anyway and therefore wouldn’t need State funds.

What am I missing here? This doesn’t marry up with the other reports of this being the Qatar State owning us in all but name.
Click to expand...

The Athletic have been very ant Qatar in everything they are doing. They clearly realise that if the club gets sold to a Qatari, they will not be able to get scoops they could with Ratcliffe.

They were also running Poch campaigns before ETH got the job.

Whatever the Athletic have been reporting, its for their good, not Manchester United.
 
I don't want someone whose just going to cock wave when it comes to first team spending. Money had never been issue is been shit recruitment with no forethought largely because of the importance other men put on cock waving.

Back the manager, whether that's spending £200m or nothing
 
villain said:
We don’t know rich he actually is, because these ‘Rich List’ things are never accurate, but in any case his father is seemingly rich enough anyway and therefore wouldn’t need State funds.
Click to expand...
If really just this guy on his own then he hasn’t got the money to make the claims he’s making.

villain said:
What am I missing here? This doesn’t marry up with the other reports of this being the Qatar State owning us in all but name.
Click to expand...
 
Rightnr said:
As much as I want Qatar for the possibilities of their resources, that bit about the women not being forgotten is hilarious.

We won't forget the women, tacked on the end, as if you're talking about a pet. This is where United fans need to be vocal and demand support for all parts of the club if we do get bought.
Click to expand...

I really don’t see a problem with the way the tweet was worded? Didn’t even need to mention the women’s team at all honestly. But got to address it because people think that being owned by a Qatari means they’ll fold the women’s team and stick up “no gays allowed” on every entrance in to Old Trafford.
 
villain said:
So he’s the son of someone who used to be involved in the Qatari Government, there’s no evidence to suggest that he is still tied in anyway, in fact his father’s involvement ended when the current Emir took reign?

We don’t know rich he actually is, because these ‘Rich List’ things are never accurate, but in any case his father is seemingly rich enough anyway and therefore wouldn’t need State funds.

What am I missing here? This doesn’t marry up with the other reports of this being the Qatar State owning us in all but name.
Click to expand...
It doesn't fit the narrative for them, they are trying so hard to push all anti Qatari news.
 
Rightnr said:
As much as I want Qatar for the possibilities of their resources, that bit about the women not being forgotten is hilarious.

We won't forget the women, tacked on the end, as if you're talking about a pet. This is where United fans need to be vocal and demand support for all parts of the club if we do get bought.
Click to expand...

That does read bad but it’s not an official statement. Hopefully it’s more of a reflection of the reporter’s priorities.
 
romufc said:
The Athletic have been very ant Qatar in everything they are doing. They clearly realise that if the club gets sold to a Qatari, they will not be able to get scoops they could with Ratcliffe.

They were also running Poch campaigns before ETH got the job.

Whatever the Athletic have been reporting, its for their good, not Manchester United.
Click to expand...

I noticed that the sentiment from The Athletic was turning yesterday too tbh, it’s becoming more balanced in their coverage.
Sweet Square said:
If really just this guy on his own then he hasn’t got the money to make the claims he’s making.


Click to expand...


We don’t know that though because how would The Times know exactly how much assets/investments/cash this random guy in Qatar has unless he or his financial advisors disclose that?
At best they can make a guess based on publicly available information (which is what they almost always do, hence the inaccuracy) but a lot of that information is usually outdated or inaccurate because their wealth isn’t always linked to their name (shell companies, offshore investments, stocks & property etc) it’s very possible for them to be off by billions especially when dealing with individuals who don’t disclose much about themselves.
 
devilish said:
A- The Glazers spent nothing to buy the club. They basically bought it and made us pay for it. Thus whatever dividends or loan interest payment United paid came from our pockets in exchange for nothing.

B- The Glazers also saddled us with incompetent people who literally threw 1B of our transfer money in the dumpster. Some of the main players bought (ex Pogba and ADM) were bought simply for brand name purposes and not to help us on the pitch. Finally most those transfers were bought on credit card and the debt surrounding these deals will remain long after the Glazers are gone

C- Because of dividends/loan repayments barely any money was spent on infrastructure. That means that whoever buys the club will be saddled with 2B to rebuild the stadium. Then there's the debt repayment for transfers, the squad still need to be strengthened etc.

D- One of those incompetent people owns 0.5% of the Class B shares. That means that he will be rewarded around 1.5m (probably more) for his lousy services.

Seriously its like defending someone who lives off on protection money simply because some of the businesses he's 'protecting' are still thriving.
Click to expand...

I know exactly how shit the Glazers have been, no need to preach that. No-one is defending their ownership here.

None of that though means only a state can save us.
 
JustinC00 said:
It's gonna be Elliot with the money suckers staying on, isn't it? We are so fecked if that happens.
Click to expand...
I reckon so. I think this was their plan all along. They are still hopeful of forcing through the ESL and that creates potential for club value to skyrocket - they will be hoping to hang on for another 5 years and then sell for £10bn+.
 
devilish said:
A- The Glazers spent nothing to buy the club. They basically bought it and made us pay for it. Thus whatever dividends or loan interest payment United paid came from our pockets in exchange for nothing.

B- The Glazers also saddled us with incompetent people who literally threw 1B of our transfer money in the dumpster. Some of the main players bought (ex Pogba and ADM) were bought simply for brand name purposes and not to help us on the pitch. Finally most those transfers were bought on credit card and the debt surrounding these deals will remain long after the Glazers are gone

C- Because of dividends/loan repayments barely any money was spent on infrastructure. That means that whoever buys the club will be saddled with 2B to rebuild the stadium. Then there's the debt repayment for transfers, the squad still need to be strengthened etc.

D- One of those incompetent people owns 0.5% of the Class B shares. That means that he will be rewarded around 1.5m (probably more) for his lousy services.

Seriously its like defending someone who lives off on protection money simply because some of the businesses he's 'protecting' are still thriving.
Click to expand...
Where does 1.5m (that I saw several times) come from? 0.5% of class B shares is around 0.35% of total shares. If the club sells for 5B-6B, Ed is gonna net 17-22m pre-tax.
 
villain said:
So he’s the son of someone who used to be involved in the Qatari Government, there’s no evidence to suggest that he is still tied in anyway, in fact his father’s involvement ended when the current Emir took reign?

We don’t know rich he actually is, because these ‘Rich List’ things are never accurate, but in any case his father is seemingly rich enough anyway and therefore wouldn’t need State funds.

What am I missing here? This doesn’t marry up with the other reports of this being the Qatar State owning us in all but name.
Click to expand...
I think the assumption that this would be state funds is lazy. Like you say, son of a prime minister of a country as rich as Qatar, along with being a banker for individuals in said country means he could theoretically have amassed the funds.

It doesn't fit TheNarrative(*TM).
 
villain said:
We don’t know that though because how would The Times know exactly how much assets/investments/cash this random guy in Qatar has unless he or his financial advisors disclose that?
At best they can make a guess based on publicly available information (which is what they almost always do, hence the inaccuracy) but a lot of that information is usually outdated or inaccurate because their wealth isn’t always linked to their name (shell companies, offshore investments, stocks & property etc) it’s very possible for them to be off by billions especially when dealing with individuals who don’t disclose much about themselves.
Click to expand...
The they in the tweet is quite clearly the Qatar state. The monarchy/state needed someone more obscure to get around UEFA rules.

Also the argument that we don’t know how rich the guy is and that he is a independent actor seems to be a massive argument against wanted him to own the club. Because of this
In a way we should all be hoping he's state-backed. Because if he was actually the chairman of a national bank suddenly producing billions in unaccounted for private wealth to the surprise of the autocratic government to which he is accountable, well that would be a whole other world of problems.
Click to expand...
 
Last edited:
Rightnr said:
As much as I want Qatar for the possibilities of their resources, that bit about the women not being forgotten is hilarious.

We won't forget the women, tacked on the end, as if you're talking about a pet. This is where United fans need to be vocal and demand support for all parts of the club if we do get bought.
Click to expand...

It's the Journo who tacked it on the end.

Others have also said he plans to invest heavily in the womens team mid statement, does that make you feel better?
 
Rightnr said:
As much as I want Qatar for the possibilities of their resources, that bit about the women not being forgotten is hilarious.

We won't forget the women, tacked on the end, as if you're talking about a pet. This is where United fans need to be vocal and demand support for all parts of the club if we do get bought.
Click to expand...

We don't have to pretend that the women's team is as important as the men's team in this deal. This is business, and what matters is commercial value.
If someone can bring the men's team back to the top, anything to do with the women's team won't be a deal breaker.

But this is a non-discussion, because you're just reading into things.
 
croadyman said:
I think truth be told we might be a less divided fanbase IF there was a middle option. So someone who is able to comfortably fund transfers,stadium, training facilities and hasn't got human rights issues. Unfortunately that option doesn't exist so its Qatar or Ratcliffe.
Click to expand...
That option IS Ratcliffe. This whole furore around the way he is choosing to fund the acquisition is just a distraction designed by the oil cash hungry brigade to detract from his bid, which sadly has got traction with the Glazer scarred fan base of this club.
The whole Qatar vs Ratcliffe thing has quickly become so entrenched and divisive that the other silent bids that we know nothing about are getting ignored and could be the real danger here.
 
Sweet Square said:
If really just this guy on his own then he hasn’t got the money to make the claims he’s making.


Click to expand...


Indeed if he isn't state backed then people should be more worried about his bid than Ratcliffe's. Because he'd have to have access to tens of billions to comfortably accomplish what he is promising.

If he isn't state backed then the question must be asked could he be borrowing it all?
 
Sweet Square said:
The they in the tweet is quite clearly the Qatar state. The monarchy/state needed someone more obscure to get around UEFA rules.

Also the argument that we don’t know how rich the guy is and that he is a independent actor seems to be a massive argument against wanted him to own the club. Because of this
Click to expand...

So they’re using someone who doesn’t have any direct ties to the State as a prop, gotcha. I can see why they’d need to do that to get around UEFA rules, but I don’t get what’s supposed to be the next phase of this plan once he actually owns us. All decisions are made with the blessing of the Emir afterwards? What happens when the current Emir leaves his position?
I don’t doubt it being a possibility, it just seems quite farfetched.
I mean is it impossible that this is just private wealth? Maybe I’m being idealistic, but both options seem as unlikely as each other.

Also just because his wealth isn’t known to Forbes/The Times doesn’t mean his wealth is unknown to the appropriate people in Qatar, that seems a bit of a stretch.
 
Plant0x84 said:
That option IS Ratcliffe. This whole furore around the way he is choosing to fund the acquisition is just a distraction designed by the oil cash hungry brigade to detract from his bid, which sadly has got traction with the Glazer scarred fan base of this club.
The whole Qatar vs Ratcliffe thing has quickly become so entrenched and divisive that the other silent bids that we know nothing about are getting ignored and could be the real danger here.
Click to expand...

Agreed, the real danger is investment to keep the Glazers at the club. Its a very real possibility.
 
Bert_ said:
I know that sounds extreme, but as soon as the established top names in football give in then its over in the long term. Everyone kicked off about the super league. If all top clubs become go down this route then it the future. Closed league for billionaires to have a dick swinging contest.
Click to expand...
Great post. You are absolutely spot on. This sale isn’t just about the future of our club, but because we are the biggest it’s about shaping the future of football in the UK and probably Europe too.
 
stevoc said:
Indeed if he isn't state backed then people should be more worried about his bid than Ratcliffe's. Because he'd have to have access to tens of billions to comfortably accomplish what he is promising.

If he isn't state backed then the question must be asked could he be borrowing it all?
Click to expand...
The article suggests the funding could be coming from his dad who is worth an absolute shed ton due to linking himself personally (sounds a lot like corruption…) into any deals he made on behalf of Qatar as PM - Barclays for example back in 2008. He also half-owned Qatar airways when it was sold in 2014. Nobody has a scooby how much he’s worth but the 2bn listed in the times rich list is thought to be “very conservative”.
 
Plant0x84 said:
That option IS Ratcliffe. This whole furore around the way he is choosing to fund the acquisition is just a distraction designed by the oil cash hungry brigade to detract from his bid, which sadly has got traction with the Glazer scarred fan base of this club.
The whole Qatar vs Ratcliffe thing has quickly become so entrenched and divisive that the other silent bids that we know nothing about are getting ignored and could be the real danger here.
Click to expand...
How is leaving the Glazers debt on the club simply a furore? Fans have every right to be concerned about that and it’s ridiculous to write off their worries as being oil cash hungry.
You’re being the other side of the same coin with this
 
villain said:
So they’re using someone who doesn’t have any direct ties to the State as a prop, gotcha. I can see why they’d need to do that to get around UEFA rules, but I don’t get what’s supposed to be the next phase of this plan once he actually owns us. All decisions are made with the blessing of the Emir afterwards? What happens when the current Emir leaves his position?
I don’t doubt it being a possibility, it just seems quite farfetched.
I mean is it impossible that this is just private wealth? Maybe I’m being idealistic, but both options seem as unlikely as each other.

Also just because his wealth isn’t known to Forbes/The Times doesn’t mean his wealth is unknown to the appropriate people in Qatar, that seems a bit of a stretch.
Click to expand...

He's only 42 so I don't imagine he'll be dying anytime soon.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.