Club Sale | It’s done!

Status
Not open for further replies.
UnitedSofa said:
Click to expand...


Someone help me out with this, so Qatar have bid £4.5 billion, but want the whole club, and SJR has bid £4.3 biilion, but just wants the Glazers share of the club.

Does this mean SJR has actually bid more? In that he has bid £4.3 billion for 69% of the club, and Qatar £4.5 billion for the while lot, or is SJR saying he vaules the club at £4.3 billion, so will actually give the Glazers around £3 billion for their share.
 
C'est Moi Cantona said:
Someone help me out with this, so Qatar have bid £4.5 billion, but want the whole club, and SJR has bid £4.3 biilion, but just wants the Glazers share of the club.

Does this mean SJR has actually bid more? In that he has bid £4.3 billion for 69% of the club, and Qatar £4.5 billion for the while lot, or is SJR saying he vaules the club at £4.3 billion, so will actually give the Glazers around £3 billion for their share.
Click to expand...
The latter. With the further detail as @Messier1994 explained before that it's generally the Enterprise Value being talked about, to adjust towards the value of the Equity the net debt needs to be discounted from the EV.
 
C'est Moi Cantona said:
Someone help me out with this, so Qatar have bid £4.5 billion, but want the whole club, and SJR has bid £4.3 biilion, but just wants the Glazers share of the club.

Does this mean SJR has actually bid more? In that he has bid £4.3 billion for 69% of the club, and Qatar £4.5 billion for the while lot, or is SJR saying he vaules the club at £4.3 billion, so will actually give the Glazers around £3 billion for their share.
Click to expand...

According to Ben Jacob both are aiming for the Glazers shares. However sheikh jassim is confident he will buy the rest later on. Ratcliffe is taking a more cautious approach and he doesn't want to commit to that
 
C'est Moi Cantona said:
Someone help me out with this, so Qatar have bid £4.5 billion, but want the whole club, and SJR has bid £4.3 biilion, but just wants the Glazers share of the club.

Does this mean SJR has actually bid more? In that he has bid £4.3 billion for 69% of the club, and Qatar £4.5 billion for the while lot, or is SJR saying he vaules the club at £4.3 billion, so will actually give the Glazers around £3 billion for their share.
Click to expand...
Bid is for Glazer share only. Glazers can’t conduct sale for shares which they dont own and is publicly traded
 
devilish said:
Qatar had to find a clever way to get what they wanted and they'll probably did it through Jassim. Its not that different to Red bull or INEOs owning multiple clubs. Regarding consequences well total UK imports from Qatar amounted to £8.1 billion. It invest heavily in the UK which include the Shard, Harrods, which Qatar bought in 2010, a 20% stake in London Heathrow, and 25% ownership of British Airways's parent company IAG.They are also major suppliers of gas. In few words Qatar hold the UK by the balls. If you wish to learn more then I suggest you read this article. So I am not too worried about repercussions.

https://www.theguardian.com/business/ng-interactive/2022/nov/05/how-qatar-bought-up-britain

Regarding club management well they had been maeh. However they did invested alot of money into PSG and they currently dominate the French league. The only thing INEOS won was 1 promotion with Lausanne. The Swiss club got relegated twice under their watch. Finally their staff include racist Moody and someone accused of doping.

I am not defending anything. I am just stating what seems pretty obvious to me, some of which is anti Qatari bid. For example Sheikh Jassim is a front man and Keegan seems quite biased towards the Qatari bid. Now if you're only seeing the anti Ratcliffe stuff then that's your own problem.
Click to expand...

Yeah I'm not buying your reasoning though. You don't feel sorry for Qatar because they are getting a raw deal by some members of the press. You're defending them because of their deep pockets. Let's not start pretending it's anything else. If Ratcliffe was the more attractive proposition in your eyes your opinion would be the exact opposite.

Basically sportswashing works.
 
Ghostrider318 said:
I think its been widely reported that INEOS wont clear the debt and will only buy out the glazers . They will raise debt for it but it will stay on their books and wont be transfered to us
Click to expand...
We are all gun shy when we hear the word "debt", but it is a very important distinction that the Glazers debt was leveraged on the club, meaning it was part of every financial report of the club, the club was paying the interest, etc. Ineos being responsible for the debt would not restrict the finances of the club.

I have seen some say that Ineos wouldn't take that debt out of the kindness of their hearts, and so will wanr something in retuen. Well, they're not buying the club out of the goodness of their hearts either. And neither are Qatar. Whether they want it to increase in value or as a means of sportswashing/greenwashing, United will be beholden to them.
 
Nou_Camp99 said:
Yeah I'm not buying your reasoning though. You don't feel sorry for Qatar because they are getting a raw deal by some members of the press. You're defending them because of their deep pockets. Let's not start pretending it's anything else. If Ratcliffe was the more attractive proposition in your eyes your opinion would be the exact opposite.

Basically sportswashing works.
Click to expand...

I think I had explained myself enough. Regarding sportswashing/greenwashing well what can I say? I never liked our owners and in time they got worse. I can't see that trend changing with either Qatar or SJM. However from a quite a young age I can make a clear distinction between the owners and the club. I can love the latter while despising the former. The Glazers gave us loads of practice on that.

If I have to choose between assholes then I go for someone with deeper pockets and with a club mission statement that doesn't seem to be stolen from the side of a bus. Ah and I prefer that winners own the club rather then proven losers
 
Rightnr said:
The OT refurb is an option with Qatar, for sure. They won't care about losing revenue while it's ongoing but with a Ratcliffe, we'll be even more constrained.
Click to expand...
If they don't care about losing revenue then they shouldn't own any football club, especially United as that plays a big part towards FFP.
 


Mike Keegan is close to the Qatar bid, make of that what you will
 
pascell said:
If they don't care about losing revenue then they shouldn't own any football club, especially United as that plays a big part towards FFP.
Click to expand...
Again, I wonder if some of you are intentionally acting silly.

If we are owned by Ratcliffe, he'd expect us to pay our way (based on the currently available public information and his stated intentions) and it's easier to build a brand new stadium because that'll retain the full revenue streams from the current one.

Qatar would be happy to inject money for the stadium and that is not part of FFP. The amount we'll lose in terms of revenue from the redevelopment would be tiny, so as long as someone can just provide the cash (like Qatar), it doesn't really matter for FFP.
 
Plant0x84 said:
Responsibility for what? Any why the DOF and not the CEO?
Click to expand...

Presenting «the club’s scouting network, transfer strategy and first team operations» to the prospective buyers. It‘s in the Daily Mail article.
 
MiamiSpartan said:
We are all gun shy when we hear the word "debt", but it is a very important distinction that the Glazers debt was leveraged on the club, meaning it was part of every financial report of the club, the club was paying the interest, etc. Ineos being responsible for the debt would not restrict the finances of the club.

I have seen some say that Ineos wouldn't take that debt out of the kindness of their hearts, and so will wanr something in retuen. Well, they're not buying the club out of the goodness of their hearts either. And neither are Qatar. Whether they want it to increase in value or as a means of sportswashing/greenwashing, United will be beholden to them.
Click to expand...

Agree. Unfortunately INEOS hasnt really done much for the clubs they already own. Not only will they need to splunk 5bn for the club, well need another 1-2bn for the stadium and facilities and just dont see them raising all that debt right away and cant even imagine how they will recoupe even half of that money ( im probably too poor to do so ). Qatar on the other hand will treat us as a vanity / sports washing project and pump money into the club. However unlike Citys owners they havent really set any structure in place for PSG and it feels like a player dominated club ( I know PSG owners and the people interested in buying us are being touted as sep entities but i highly doubt that )
 
Rightnr said:
Again, I wonder if some of you are intentionally acting silly.

If we are owned by Ratcliffe, he'd expect us to pay our way (based on the currently available public information and his stated intentions) and it's easier to build a brand new stadium because that'll retain the full revenue streams from the current one.

Qatar would be happy to inject money for the stadium and that is not part of FFP. The amount we'll lose in terms of revenue from the redevelopment would be tiny, so as long as someone can just provide the cash (like Qatar), it doesn't really matter for FFP.
Click to expand...
Development of infrastructure does have to be include in FFP now.

Loss in earnings from no revenue would be tiny? You're just being naive and ignorant, clubs nearly went under during covid due to no revenue and fans in stadiums.

The only one acting silly is yourself, because you know feck all on the subjects you're talking about.

Yes, let's get Qatari owners and be bank rolled by them, we'll never fall foul of FFP that way, what an embarrassing post.
 
RORY65 said:
They will have the red carpet rolled out as part of the PR campaign, part of the reason that City avoided scrutiny for so long was by having members of the media wowed by their whole set up and ensuring that they had access and a nice spread at every game (unlike journalists at Old Trafford currently who repeatedly whinge about the mediocre catering and poor wifi).

There's also nothing wrong with being opposed to state ownership, it shouldn't be supported and it's not good for the league if the biggest club (or any club) are owned by a state and it's not like Whitwell or the Athletic have gone particularly far with their views.
Click to expand...
Yeah it's just people taking any slight opposition to Qatar as hatred. The Athletic haven't been all pro-SJR
 
pascell said:
Development of infrastructure does have to be include in FFP now.

Loss in earnings from no revenue would be tiny? You're just being naive and ignorant, clubs nearly went under during covid due to no revenue and fans in stadiums.

The only one acting silly is yourself, because you know feck all on the subjects you're talking about.

Yes, let's get Qatari owners and be bank rolled by them, we'll never fall foul of FFP that way, what an embarrassing post.
Click to expand...
Only involves FFP if the club pays for it. An owner can invest in infrastructure out of their own pocket. You can’t stop owners building or renovating away from the football club, there can’t be a rule to cover it
 
Andycoleno9 said:
What that "includes Man Utd dept" means? That Glazers will get 4,5 bil but then use 600mil to clear dept? I don't get...
Click to expand...
It means their initial bid values the club at £4.5bn including the debt, so clearing that is part of the £4.5bn. It should be noted that that is the valuation of the club including the debt as well, not just the Glazer's share, so the price they would receive based on those bids would be lower than £3.9bn (i.e. 4.5bn - 600m) given that they only own 69% of the shares.
 
pascell said:
Development of infrastructure does have to be include in FFP now.

Loss in earnings from no revenue would be tiny? You're just being naive and ignorant, clubs nearly went under during covid due to no revenue and fans in stadiums.

The only one acting silly is yourself, because you know feck all on the subjects you're talking about.

Yes, let's get Qatari owners and be bank rolled by them, we'll never fall foul of FFP that way, what an embarrassing post.
Click to expand...
:lol:

I might not be 100% on the future FFP rules (and you haven't provided a source and the current rules sure as hell exclude them) but the way you're talking, one would think the whole stadium would be closed during the renovation. It would be one part of the stand, so I imagine it'll be 20-30% capacity. If you think that'll make us go under, you're absolutely clueless.

Total revenue from matchday is something like £100m, so making the CL would more than make up for it.

Also, Qatar can pump money into the club through sponsorship deals and other creative ways.
 
Chief123 said:
It looks like money itself has actually guaranteed success for PSG so that’s a bad example.

After having 18 years without winning the league, since they were acquired by the wealth of Qatar they’ve won 8 out of 10 league titles and well on their way to win their 9th in 11 this season.

Yes they’ve not won the UCL, but they’ve come closer than they ever have before under Qatar ownership.

As erratic as their ownership might appear, it’s certainly brought them success with money.
Click to expand...

Sigh.

You are the 3rd person now that has misinterpreted my post and/or didnt read it or the post I was replying to.

Someone said Qatari money would make any club the single most formidable club on the planet.

That hasn't been the case at PSG after a decade of Qatari ownership. Ergo money actually doesn't guarantee anything. Which was my point.
 
stevoc said:
I could be wrong but I interpreted that as both Qatar and Ineos are bidding with the debt in mind. And by that I mean they are subtracting the debt from their bids.
Click to expand...

Agree on this hence Qataris bd was reported from journalists in Qatar as being £5bn not £4.4bn or £4.5bn. The Glaziers actual want £6bn which is insane
 
SirAF said:
Presenting «the club’s scouting network, transfer strategy and first team operations» to the prospective buyers. It‘s in the Daily Mail article.
Click to expand...
Oh, thanks.

This is why aggregators are disliked in the Transfer Tweets threads.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.