18 Feb 2023 13:30:49
I would have been in favour for Jim Rathcliffe and INEOS to purchase the club not so long ago but their statement is quite worrying.

They want a majority stake in the club which would imply some of the Glazers possibly staying on.

They have been working with Goldman Sachs and J. P Morgan in regards to the takeover. Me personally I don't want J. P Morgan anywhere near the club after issuing a loan of £700 million pounds and receiving nearly £1.5 billion in interest payments alone. It seems they would love to be in bed with the new owner of the club.

In their statement they said there would be no additional debt added onto the club which would mean the current debt stays (and why wouldn't it, J. P Morgan involved that would suit them) . Which would mean the club is still cannibalising itself to pay off that predatory loan.

The undertones of appealing to the worldwide fan base by saying "let's put Manchester back in Manchester United" is straight from Donald Trumps playbook. As Yaz pointed out, this fella couldn't give a toss about England.

Nothing in regards to facilities, nothing in regards to investment. Just very hollow buzz words.

It looks like Jim would jump straight into the bed that some of the Glazers will soon vacate.

1.) 18 Feb 2023
18 Feb 2023 13:55:39
Well said Mumbles! We need much more detail than an embarrassing slogan straight out of the Donald Trump playbook!

2.) 18 Feb 2023
18 Feb 2023 13:58:14
Completely agree. This is what I made of it to.

3.) 18 Feb 2023
18 Feb 2023 14:29:44
The club is too big for him. Majority stake suggests either still some glazer involvement or he can’t finance all at the moment and would buy them out over time. Qatar statement suggests they probably are looking at expanding and redeveloping Old Trafford, Manchester Airport may also benefit. This is probably why Visit Saudi pulled out from a sponsorship deal.
ineos should look at Tottenham where they already hold a sponsorship deal.

4.) 18 Feb 2023
18 Feb 2023 15:00:20
This is all wild speculation. No mention has been made of the Glazers being involved at all. Ineos could for example by only the Glazers share and thus be majority shareholders. I would await detail which doesn't have to be provided yet before jumping to conclusions.

{Ed014's Note - nooo jump to conclusions it’s much more fun! ??

5.) 18 Feb 2023
18 Feb 2023 16:27:31
Guys 100% of the club is a majority. and 2 the glazers don't own 100% of the club.

6.) 18 Feb 2023
18 Feb 2023 16:39:45
A majority owner in terms of a business means owning more than 50% of the company. If you own 100% you are simply the owner, no need for term majority in this case.

And the Beeb are quoting a source close to the bid as saying majority owner means the Glazers share.

I have always wondered what a source close to the bid/ subject means in journalistic terms. Does this means the spoke to a mate of Jim?

7.) 18 Feb 2023
18 Feb 2023 16:45:24
I think JR is looking at a full takeover, however he might have partners involved in the bid who might own a minority stake in the club. Meaning he/ INEOS own say maybe 70 or 80% while his partner/ s might own 20-30%.

8.) 18 Feb 2023
18 Feb 2023 16:50:22
The statement clearly mentioned not adding debt but neglected mentioning they qould clear it. As J. P Morgan are involved, I'm sure they're very keen for the interest payments to be paid and nothing off the main loan as its made them a mountain of cash.

It's all speculation but if this statement came from a U. S investor and not thinly veiled in a Union Jack, no one would touch this bid.

9.) 18 Feb 2023
18 Feb 2023 17:27:36
Spot on again Mumbles.

10.) 18 Feb 2023
18 Feb 2023 17:56:05
I would think that details will slowly be fed out. From what I read if the Glazers wish to proceed, then the parties will present more detailed plans (after being given more detail of Uniteds finances) and prepare the final bid I detail as it were and this is what Raine group will present to the Glazers with their own preferred or recommend bidder.

11.) 18 Feb 2023
18 Feb 2023 17:59:27
Jim Ratcliffe net worth is around 30 billion. So would he put in 5 billion of that to purchase the club and then would he have the appetite to put in a further 5 into facilities, stadium etc? don't think so. Unless there is further debt.
As for Qataris, this is loose change.

12.) 18 Feb 2023
18 Feb 2023 18:31:28
Mumbles is bang on.

In an ideal world, I'd sooner have the INEOS Group bid.
However, this world is not at all ideal and this bid smells a bit wrong. It already shows signs of asset-hugging with little flexibility for the necessary core development required.
For redevelopment of OT and other facilities, the writing on the wall tells me that further debt will arrive.
The assurance of no additional debt means absolutely nothing, business does not work that way.

I'll have a Q please Bob.

13.) 18 Feb 2023
18 Feb 2023 19:11:30
It’s already been clarified. Instead of bad faith arguments why not just say “I want oil money and I am willing to purposefully misunderstand everything else to get it. ”

He’s buying full glazer stake.

14.) 18 Feb 2023
18 Feb 2023 19:30:10
The Ineos / Ratcliffe statement seemed very weak. In contrast to the Qatari one which felt they’ll spend anything needed to get United back to the top.

I’m sorry but I am not seeing the love-in with Chelsea season ticket holder Sir Jim Ratcliffe. I appreciate the concerns around Qatar as a nation but as I’ve noted elsewhere the English hardly have a right to call other nations do we. As for Ratcliffe, he’s more of a Grey Knight than a White one as some very suspect business practices. Nobody makes a few billion without some blood on their hands somewhere.

I watched the ‘FT live’ event with Ratcliffe a few months back and accept, regardless whether he supports United, Chelsea or both, he does seem a charming and engaging guy. I do not get the impression though that he’s even interested in, let alone would be able to, compete with the Sheikh Al Thani bid.

15.) 18 Feb 2023
18 Feb 2023 20:54:29
Wild that y’all are getting so sucked into the bluster and PR of the Qataris that Sir Jim as a successful billionaire not jumping on a couch and screaming platitudes and pumping out PR to every rag is viewed as “not caring”.

He’s an old British guy who is calculating, smart, and not some goon. Not sure what people want from him. You want a calm person running the club.

{Ed014's Note - he doesn’t have as much money though ?‍♂️

16.) 18 Feb 2023
18 Feb 2023 21:02:01
Ed002 reckons he would be a very good owner. That's enough for me, he is usually bang on with this stuff.

I mean, it could also be said that the Qatari statement was full of loveliness and promises to appease the fans. Looks like it's worked ?.

17.) 18 Feb 2023
18 Feb 2023 21:36:07
Sir Jim is actually the long lost Glazer half brother, he's going to double dip on his dividend for the 17 years he's missed out on.

18.) 18 Feb 2023
18 Feb 2023 21:42:31
Chris and angelred. I'm not all in on Qatar at all, in fact I would love alternative. US Hedge fund Elliot are looking to finance prospective buyers. I have a huge issue with the club being used to pay back a loan secured against the club.

The Glazers have bled the club dry and kicked the can down the road for 18 years. We're now facing a stadium that needs immediate investment, a training facility that doesn't compare to our rivals. The money the club generates is uses to pay off the interest payments of a loan against the club.

If Rathcliffe is happy to keep that loan (which he hasn't stated he would clear) then we're going to be in the same situation where our money isn't used for furthering along the football club. It looks like he's using financial institutions to secure funding who will want to be paid back.

A hedge fund are now looking to prop up potential investors. These guys make money from their investment. They'll will do what FSG did, come in spend a bit to succeed and shut off the taps.

This isn't Arab=bad, British=good or vice versa. I am vehemently against the new owner buying the club with money they don't have. The rules changed after the Glazers bought us that you could no longer do a leveraged buy out. If Jim or a hedge fund buy us, make it clear that Man Utd are on the hook to pay back that money and that is something I do not want. If that is not the case with Rathcliffe, he needs to be clearer.

19.) 18 Feb 2023
18 Feb 2023 23:13:36
Chris.

You insinuate that anyone who reads into the INEOS bid and is less than convinced must think the Qatari bid is utterly without issue.
You also insinuate that people are prepared to set morals aside for oil money.

Now, think about where our refined oil comes from.
Here's a question for you.

Do you drive and/ or do you neglect to overtly judge anyone else who does?

20.) 19 Feb 2023
19 Feb 2023 00:10:59
We must avoid the oil money and plump for the Petro-Chemical giant instead.

21.) 19 Feb 2023
19 Feb 2023 11:10:18
Woggle - interesting point about people’s moral objections. Seldom are they total. I remember years ago listening to a vegetarian giving me an impassioned argument against eating animals whilst wearing leather shoes.

There’s a harsh reality in whoever buys United that there will be no such thing as a perfect owner. Anyone with £5-7b to spend on a football club is unlikely to have completely clean pair of hands.

22.) 19 Feb 2023
19 Feb 2023 11:19:21
It is everything Mumbles said. The best decision for United needs to be where there is investment in it, not leverage against it - again. Not increasing debt isn't good enough. Anyway, Glazers are not going to decide though based on anything other than who pays them the extra dollar.

23.) 19 Feb 2023
19 Feb 2023 11:41:33
Absolutely spot on again Mumbles.

24.) 19 Feb 2023
19 Feb 2023 16:44:33
The only thing you're all missing is the decision will be made in the best interests of the glazers not necessarily what's best for the club as you see it.

25.) 20 Feb 2023
20 Feb 2023 09:46:41
Jim’s plan is to buy the glazers out of their 69% stake in United - the other 31% is spread across the market and he will slowly eat that up too following the full purchase

Still don’t like the “struggle” to afford us.

Footballs changed, so give me some oil money so we can have a new stadium.

It doesn’t change how much we spend in the transfer market anyway as we’ve always spent the most.

If the Qataris win, we are the first “big” club to be bought by a state so there is no other team we can reference to understand how this may play out.