I'm utterly clueless, so why does paying off the credit stream indicate a sale?
Club Sale | It’s done!
- Thread starter JB08
- Start date
-
In the latest episode of the United Hour Podcast, Nik (@Rood) is joined by CEO Duncan Drasdo and Financial Director Andy Green from the Manchester United Supporters Trust for a special episode on all things behind the scenes at Old Trafford including a brief history of MUST and their aims today, views on INEOS and Sir Jim Ratcliffe so far, and the Old Trafford regeneration.
- Status
I'm utterly clueless, so why does paying off the credit stream indicate a sale?
What kind of proof would convince you even as a person who doesn't care whether it's a private bid or a state bid , I could reluctantly buy it's a fully private bid but only thing which would truly convince me it isn't a State bid is if QIA rock up at Liverpool and buy it otherwise doubts would be always be there .
It's looking increasingly likely that his family's private investment fund is capable enough to take on such an investment so even in the unlikely event he spoke out about it, then he would probably point to that. If you want a detailed overview of how and when they amassed the capital in a 60 Minutes setting, then you will hit a wall. In general billionaires rarely if ever speaks about that topic in detail, on top of that ME Royals are notoriously reclusive. Even SJR would oppose to that.
It's the Emir of Qatar that I think is the biggest risk of "cutting him off". Even if he has tens of billions to his name currently (which I'm not convinced of because there's still not enough record of assets to indicate such amounts, it's still in the single digits), I don't think he'd get to keep most of that or would have anywhere near the influence he currently did, if he suddenly became persona non grata in Qatar. The Emir cutting him off would actually possibly sic other police/tax organizations onto him.
My comment is in no way a prediction that he will or won't be cut off by the Emir, as I don't claim to have any insight to internal Qatari royal family politics, but just pointing out where I think the risk lies.
Like you said, source of funding. Prove it’s not from sovereign wealth.
Because that's what people want so that's what they're giving them, now they can say they brought in laws that people asked for.
How so? Where has all this family wealth suddenly come to light from?
Also I’d question if it truly is a private bid then what return are they looking for?
And that's exactly what a state backed bid presenting itself as a private one would say.
Wasn't he cut off in 2013 when HBJ lost his power. He's not close to the Royal family. so..
And that's exactly what a state backed bid presenting itself as a private one would say.
The thread has gone from he has to hide, to, well that is what he has to say.
JR will also have to prove, given INEOS don't have the cash, we'll see if he also can prove he's not state backed. I hope he's moving back to the uk
There's every possibility Sheikh Jassims funding is coming from a similar source if it truly us a private bid.
Which is the same thing.
why?
I’m no expert either, possibly @Messier1994 can chime in with more detail however it would suggest to me they have not took dividends and funnelled funds to clear the credit line to polish the books prior to a sale.
It’s not their typical behaviour when it comes to finances as you know so the thought process would be they have done this to assist in the sale.
I’m not sure if the credit line is on them either and if it would benefit then not to have it hanging over.
This is going to surpass 1000 pages in the middle of the night so most of us miss it, isn’t it
Even if the Qatar bid was state backed, the new ruling wouldn't rule them out from purchasing United.
The wording in the PL rules follows the the EU's version of the Magintsky act. So North Korean and Russian guys mainly.
The wording in the PL rules follows the the EU's version of the Magintsky act. So North Korean and Russian guys mainly.
Do we know if they're still confident about their bid ?And that's exactly what a state backed bid presenting itself as a private one would say.
BORING
He was removed from his government positions, yes, but he still enjoys some protections and benefits afforded by the govt, such as being able to claim that he is a diplomat for Qatar which keeps him from being sued in the UK and elsewhere.
I mean that football is not an (entirely) independent bubble like your posts seem to imply and therefore cannot supersede the conveniences of the places … so for Qataris (!) being successful in buying United (!!), the England gov must approve, at least indirectly… sort of golden share, if you like the term.
You stop me again whilst I’m walking and I’ll cut your fecking jacobs off
Well in the scenario where this is a state backed bid masquerading as a private one.
Then hiding that fact (ie we're not state backed) or saying "we are a 100% a privtate endeavour", are essentially the same thing.
He lost his high-ranking government roles but still held several official diplomatic roles afterwards. There's no indication of bad blood between him and the ruling branch, and most certainly he will have the blessing from the Emir himself for buying United even as a private as it aligns perfectly with Qatar's overall vision and strategy to diversify their economy.
Makes sense considering all the money he's invested I suppose, he deserves some basic privileges like being able to run over someone with his car and flee the country.
Do we know if they're still confident about their bid ?
I would say so, the Glazers are off I think.
Shame the whole premise falls down because he was assumed guilty.. oh natural just on social media
I guess marginally it's better if a company currently isn't using its revolver loan than if it is. But financial analysis isn't so stupid, if the cash were sitting available in a bank account that also shows up in the balance sheet, so anyone can see that it could potentially be used to pay the revolver. Doing it or not doing it doesn't greatly change things.
The treatment of cash and debt is some of the simplest stuff in valuation of a company. You estimate the Enterprise Value (usually the a Discounted Cash Flow model), then if there's cash in the company you add it, and if there's debt you subtract it, to get to Equity Value. Equity Value can't be created by simply paying debt with existing cash or taking out debt to have cash. You capital structure (equity vs debt) can create value over time depending on a lot of factors, but not instantly as the very simple math of assessing Equity Value is just adding and subtracting the cash or debt.
Thank you.
I know you say it doesn’t greatly change things but given it’s the Glazers we are dealing with, and they haven’t took dividends yet again, would you not say it’s positive?
Interesting, given the HBJ branch of Al Thani house no longer hold any government positions. That looks shut out, regardless of what you call no bad blood. Whether or not it (the bid) aligns with the overall strategy is irrelevant.
Are you aware you used scenario only in the last reply, at no other stage did you use it. Read your "posts" again..
Yeah, that’s also why an owner immediately extinguishing at least partially the enormous debt shown in the balance sheet is the most favorable outcome for the future health of a club. It’s pretty evident that the Glazers do not want to put any money into, and that their usual “levers” are exhaust… therefore, the bucket will pass on to the next owner, the richer / without re-structuring needs the better for the club.
I haven't followed this the past week or so, where are we at? Last I heard there were second round bids and we were waiting on Qatar to bid - assume they did or at least rumoured to? And assume Jim is trying but basically can't afford it. I head about the 3rd bidder hoping for a 50/50 split with the fans... We were hoping this would be done by Easter right?
I'm starting to worry about Glazers not selling preferring investment (the news on our debt being the same today as when they took over isn't great) or that Jim is just another Glazer type with a little more emotion but also can't afford it. To think Glazers are going to walk away with 5-6bn is ridiculous but as businessmen fair play.
I'm starting to worry about Glazers not selling preferring investment (the news on our debt being the same today as when they took over isn't great) or that Jim is just another Glazer type with a little more emotion but also can't afford it. To think Glazers are going to walk away with 5-6bn is ridiculous but as businessmen fair play.
All else equal, like I said you can't create value out of thin air by keeping cash in or out of a company as it all gets accounted for in valuation, but it is generally easier for an acquirer to buy a company that currently has less leverage (debt) than one that has more. Because that gives the buyer more flexibility about what kind of capital structure they want to put in place (how much debt they want to fund the business with).
Sorry that sometimes I just seem to dispel or argue against things people say, when I think there's a misconception related to corporate finance, and that I don't offer my own view of what it specifically means in terms of United, but that's because I haven't and I don't think I will really take the time to analyze United's finances more thoroughly.
The "sudden" you are referring to is that those interested have probably suspected it for years, but noone outside of financial circles gave a feck before he was heavily involved in the potential takeover of United. After he left his government roles he set up Al-Mirqab, his private investment firm. They haven't made their asset portfolio public but judging by reports over the years it seems he has invested a lot in real estate (plus the 1bn Heritage Oil case) among other things. He is also said to be running Precision Capital, a bank holding company, which, by the looks of it, are controlling close to 100bn worth of assets if not more.
He is featured prominently in the three Paper leaks where he is seemingly involved in heaps of offshore companies which are hard to estimate the true asset value.
Anyway, judging by your post history with the pure negativity towards anything involving the Qatar bid (not bothering to fact-check anything, the sudden and weird direct comparison to the Malaga situation etc.) and constant defence of the SJR & INEOS bid (even trying to joke about SJR's probable tax evasion tactics), I suspect no information they could realistically provide you with that counter the state-bid would be deemed acceptable to you.
You obviously haven’t looked at my posting history very closely!
Also weird flex when I literally asked a question to further my understanding of what you had posted. But hey, get all defensive that’s fine.
I've defended against the type of negativity you reference and questioned the lack of questioning towards JR/INEOS when there seems more public information available. One thing concerns me about HBJ. Jassim, i understand, is the representative of Al-Mirqab capital at QIB. While the is no evidence that provides Al-Mirqab Capital with advantages, it reminds me of how management/owners can try to gain influence. Possibly good for united, but equally, i hope it's not a Maxwell moment.
Bank assets are very different from equity value, because of the business model of banks (much more levered than other businesses). Credit Suisse had around $500bn in assets before the Swiss govt forced them to be taken under by UBS a couple of weeks ago.
The thing about it is that even in specialized finance information sources it is hard to find much about what Al Mirqab owns or what it's been involved in. I pulled them up using my Bloomberg Terminal and sure enough they're there, and Shabaz and Jassim's profiles show up as linked to it. But the only news related to it is from the Heritage Oil acquisition in 2014, and then subsequent actions by Heritage Oil. If they owned stocks in the US or other jurisdictions that would generally show up as you have to file that sort of thing, and there's nothing in that sense. And it doesn't seem like they've done that much other business in Europe or the US, or if they did they've done it under a completely different name and somehow also kept it obfuscated enough that even the specialized information tracking tools within finance haven't picked up it was actually them.
Glazers are in a fix. You can see why they want to sell
No need to apologise at all. Nice to have you contributing.
- Status