Diafol

Why would someone who will still be putting debt on the club he your first choice.

He certainly isn’t mine.

comment by Vidicschin (U3584)
posted 14 seconds ago
Diafol

Why would someone who will still be putting debt on the club he your first choice.

He certainly isn’t mine.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
VC.

I don't think any bid is going to be exactly what we're looking for really and tick all the boxes.

My understanding is that the debt wouldn't be on the club but Ineos themselves. Someone who knows far more about accounting than me would be able to explain better.

Also, and I'm not really afraid of admitting this, I didn't like the idea of teams like City, Newcastle, PSG being pretty much state-owned so I can't be a hypocrite here. It could be pie in the sky but I like in the statement above the reference to "progressive, fan-centred approach to ownership". Would that be a model that could work? Who knows. As long as he's true to his word and does deliver this though that's my reasoning.

Unless Radcliffe can confirm that there will be no debt placed on the club, it's a no from me. And his refusal to do so speaks volumes imo

The Qatari delegation yesterday didn't include Sheikh Jassim. I wonder if that'll make any difference to how it goes?

------------------------------------------------------------------

I'd be surprised if that had any bearing

comment by Red Russian (U4715)
posted 7 seconds ago
The Qatari delegation yesterday didn't include Sheikh Jassim. I wonder if that'll make any difference to how it goes?

------------------------------------------------------------------

I'd be surprised if that had any bearing
----------------------------------------------------------------------
I would expect that the Glazers would only be looking at the bottom line but, and this is appropriate with Dave Brailsford involved, even small marginal gains could make a difference IMO. If it's very, very close it could tip the balance. I also think it's pretty good PR for Ratcliffe to be there today as well.

Boring. We don't want some boring businessman taking us over. This is modern football and we need to be trying to match and better the likes of City, PSG and Newcastle. We want robot clones of peak Ronaldo. We want those in charge of financial fairplay hung and quartered on the sly. We need to go all out for success, not some mr nice guy that might keep some old guy happy by doing things "the United way". Fack him, let's get killing construction workers en masse and get the club to where it needs to be.

Fack him, let's get killing construction workers en masse and get the club to where it needs to be.

—

As long as the club is winning trophies, let the people die…..

“We also recognise that football governance in this country is at a crossroads. We would want to help lead this next chapter, deepening the culture of English football by making the club a beacon for a modern, progressive, fan-centred approach to ownership.

"We want a Manchester United anchored in its proud history and roots in the North-West of England, putting the Manchester back into Manchester United.”



Mancs have been done over by the club for too long. The balance needs redressing.

Well.... He says the right things about 'putting the Manchester back into Man United'. And he is a very wealthy man with a very profitable business.... and he has experience of owning a (smaller) football club....and claims to be a lifelong Red.....

BUT

The whole reason why we supporters have been fighting the Glazers since Day 1 of their tenure, is because of the debt they have saddled the club with.. And the dream has always been that Man United should operate free of debt one day. The most Jim has implied about this so far is that he says there will be no 'fresh' debt for the club under his tenure.

The prospect of continued debt on the club has to be cleary erradicated if Jim is to be taken seriously as a potential owner. Something that the Glazers probably wont see as a deal breaker for them. Obviously.

Are there reasons why the debt wouldn't be paid off? Tax reasons maybe?

If you're capable of easily paying 6bn or so for something, would another £500m be too much of a stretch?

comment by Lorent Tolaj (U1734)
posted 15 seconds ago
Boring. We don't want some boring businessman taking us over. This is modern football and we need to be trying to match and better the likes of City, PSG and Newcastle. We want robot clones of peak Ronaldo. We want those in charge of financial fairplay hung and quartered on the sly. We need to go all out for success, not some mr nice guy that might keep some old guy happy by doing things "the United way". Fack him, let's get killing construction workers en masse and get the club to where it needs to be.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
The Three Laws of Ronaldobotics:

First Law: A Ronaldobot may not injure a human being or, through inaction, allow a human being to come to harm. Studs-up challenges are right out.

Second Law: A Ronaldobot must obey the orders given it by its manager, teammates and match officials, except where such orders would conflict with the First Law or are plainly disrespectful towards the Ronaldobot.

Third Law: A Ronaldobot must protect its own legacy and bank balance, and ensure that it is accorded due respect, as long as such protection does not conflict with the First or Second Law.

Release the Ronaldobots! 🤖

comment by Baz tard (U19119)
posted 5 minutes ago
Fack him, let's get killing construction workers en masse and get the club to where it needs to be.

—

As long as the club is winning trophies, let the people die…..
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Do you think the takeover will affect any players that are currently not playing for the club but are still eligible to play?

I don't know who I want. But I know who I don't want.

comment by manusince52 (U9692)
posted 2 minutes ago
I don't know who I want. But I know who I don't want.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Agreed, no to RATcliffe

comment by Lorent Tolaj (U1734)
posted 1 minute ago
comment by Baz tard (U19119)
posted 5 minutes ago
Fack him, let's get killing construction workers en masse and get the club to where it needs to be.

—

As long as the club is winning trophies, let the people die…..
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Do you think the takeover will affect any players that are currently not playing for the club but are still eligible to play?
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Yes. I think with the murder money we’ll just buy every player in the world, and win every game 3-0 by default as noone will be able to field any opposition

With the debt, I think we have to look at the wider context.

A part of the reason why the debt has remained is that the Glazers have been pulling vast dividend payments out of the club each and every season.

If they hadn’t have done so, and those funds had instead worked to pay down the debt, compounded, I believe the debt would have been wiped clean by now quite comfortably.

If Ratcliffe (or any other buyer) were to come in, *not* clear the debt (maybe wiping part of it), but commit to paying it down with the same kind of money the Glazers have been leeching out every season, all else being equal it’d fairly quickly become a non-issue.

I don’t give a fck about the debt if it doesn’t impact the ability to run the club and supply funds to redevelop or build whatever is needed, as well as investing in the team.

The word debt doesn’t mean we’ll continue to scrimp on fixing a leaky roof or take a decade longer than other clubs to get Wi-Fi put in the media facilities/press conference rooms etc.

Glazers could’ve still done those things if they’d used the clubs profits for those purposes not to draw out for themselves.

I heard on Talksport earlier that the Qatari's have said that they will be submitting and improved offer following their meeting yesterday.

Remember that the higher the debt is, the larger the servicing costs.

Added to a commitment to using what would have been dividends under the Glazers to pay down the debt, even wiping out say a third of it would release (something like) a third of the servicing costs (so another £10m or so right now).

As you start to pay it off, it gets easier and easier to do so.

comment by FFS Mike. (U1170)
posted 3 minutes ago
I don’t give a fck about the debt if it doesn’t impact the ability to run the club and supply funds to redevelop or build whatever is needed, as well as investing in the team.

The word debt doesn’t mean we’ll continue to scrimp on fixing a leaky roof or take a decade longer than other clubs to get Wi-Fi put in the media facilities/press conference rooms etc.

Glazers could’ve still done those things if they’d used the clubs profits for those purposes not to draw out for themselves.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Yes, also this.

I have not heard Jim say yet that he will be ploughing profit or dividends he or his Company is due out of owning Man United, whilst in debt, back into the club rather than to themselves.

Are there reasons why the debt wouldn't be paid off? Tax reasons maybe?

……

Any takeover would clear the debt technically. However it appears (by what I have read) that Ratcliffe is having to go the same route as the Glazers and borrow money to finance the deal, thus incurring debt which he will have to put somewhere, which will in all likelihood be the club.

Make this live please admin so it's THE thread for takeover talk!

comment by RB&W - Whiteside has done it again (U21434)
posted 1 minute ago
I have not heard Jim say yet that he will be ploughing profit or dividends he or his Company is due out of owning Man United, whilst in debt, back into the club rather than to themselves.

----------------------------------------------------------------------
TBH, I’m more interested to hear what he has to say about long term strategy holistically, rather than just the debt in isolation.

The debt is and has been a serious issue. But the Glazers have always made it far more of one than it necessarily needed to be.

Jim will transfer the debt to Ineos and Man Utd will become debt free.