Yeah, and because in the original offer Radcliffe was proposing a major shareholding, he was in a position to dictate terms of a total buy-out and eventually oust the Glazers within a couple of years - this new proposal, to me, suggests he is just after the money too. In that case, the lesser of two evils is the oil money, but I suspect the Glazers will refuse to sell for less than their £6bn valuation.
We will be better off with the Glazers than with Radcliffe. He doesn't have a good track record as an owner. We don't want to run a campaign of Glazers out by any means necessary only to get an even worse owner. And yes, it certainly can be worse given how much we have spent in transfer in the last decade. I don't think Radcliffe would be anywhere near as generous in spending. Qataris are probably the only type of owners that have the mantle to take on the club without shtty leverages. Take on the club and redefine it from top down along with the city around it. As much as I hate it, it is the only viable option on the table unless we want to become a pass-around club from one owner to another.
Why do people only focus on what has been spent (wasted) on players? Have you seen the debt? Have you seen that Old Trafford hasn't been upgraded since they 'bought' us (course not, you've never been)? You can't buy a pint at Old Trafford. Take that in; they can not sell you a pint! You get warm plastic bottles of piss. When I go, I very fortunately sit next to the aisle. Because otherwise, I don’t fit. It's not comfortable in any way. The roof leaks in parts, the toilets are ****e, you can't get WiFi. There's a good ****ing deal more to this than buying players.
Fundamentally the debt is structured. It didn’t stop them wasting money in transfers and insane salaries. They had a shtty administrator in the name of Woodward that failed at allocating funds appropriately and took on crazy vanity projects. That’s why the fundamental infrastructure has been ignored. Let’s not be under the illusion that Ratcliffe will have no leverage, especially given he’s part of a fund group. No one has £5bn in cash to spend in real terms except if you’re from the Middle East.
Not sure why anyone would buy someone else's debt tbh? That shouldn't really be held against Ratcliffe. Woodward didn't cause the debt either. If anything, he did everything he could to create funds and sponsorship to keep the club afloat. The only people culpable for the debt are the Glazers. They take everything and they give nothing.
I don’t think that the debt itself is the problem. Evidently, there’s been plenty of money to go around. Simply having no debt doesn’t even equate to good owners but it surely helps. Most assets of this kind in the billions of pounds usually have debt elements to it and current operating profit is not that great to offset the huge debt. So, the best likely outcome is for someone with real money to come in. Private equity funds from the West will not be an good option in that scenario because they live off debts. Another option is perhaps for a large enterprise to come in the mild of Amazon, Apple, etc. But that scenario will likely not happen because they don’t buy sports teams.
David Beckham spoke openly in a business interview that Manchester United needs a change of owners to start again. They asked him if he’s part of any arrangement with Qatar group, and he answered no. It looks like something is brewing again. But then again, it is reported that Glazers will like Ratcliffe minority stake in the club which is just a useless solution. Qatari group is the only viable option on the table if this great club is to become stable again.
Oh ****..... Qatari businessman Sheikh Jassim bin Hamad al Thani has withdrawn from the process to buy Manchester United, Sky News understands.
Manchester United: Qatar's Sheikh Jassim withdraws from process to buy club - https://www.bbc.co.uk/sport/football/67107688
Personally, I think it is a bargaining tactic, a shrewd move by the Qataris to demonstrate to the Glazers what will happen to the share price come trading on Monday, the price could fall as much as 10%, devaluing the club to well below the offer value that the Qatari's have bid. The opening few days of trading should prove interesting (especially since I unloaded my wedge of shares )
I'm actually glad we're not going to be operated by an oil emirate. Delighted really. Where it leaves us, I don’t ****ing know. I really don't. I've been very, very sad at the whole idea the club is being literally flogged. I'd like the Glazers to make some statement of sorts, anything really. Instead of the constant guessing. Because that is all it ever is. Honestly, does anyone want to be City? Abu Dhabi FC? Really, is that what we want? Absolutely ****ing **** that.
I just want an owner that gives a **** about the club and not just the revenue it attracts. I didn't mind the idea of the Arabs owning us because i believed they would better us overall, i quite like the idea of Ineos owning us because i know Ratcliffe would do everything in our interest. What i am now worried about is Ineos willing to part with £5B for a minority share (25%), that will leave the Glazers in controle and they can't even agree among themselves wether to sell or not. Things are now looking bleak for the long term.
Well I doubt it's £5 bill for 25%, as that makes it £20 bill for 100%. As apparently they wanted £6 billion. Only! As I said, all guessing. Be very helpful if the Glazers could state their intentions.
I think Ineos will be terrible owners frankly. That bothers me! I certainly wouldn’t want Qatari group if we had great options on the table, but the optics of this means that what the club really deserves is someone with capital and zero leverage, and I don’t see any funds coming with that type of cash outside of the Middle East. No point swapping current owners for another one with no real cash which effectively means they will be in it for money. Treat the club as a capitalized asset that they too can milk into the future. Is that what we want?
The last thing i read (earlier today) said Ratcliffes bid was still on the table and he would be willing to accept 25%, no mention of a lower bid though i recognise this would seem way too much. Regardless of the value of the offer though, 25% is pointless while the Glazers still have majority holding.
