The Manchester United Club Thread **Sponsored by Comedy Central**

Just been watching some videos on Sir Jim and the refinancing the Utd debt with Goldman Sachs. Man Utd fan channels and fans alike are now making a u-turn on wanting Jim as the owner because that debt is still associated with UTD but under INEOS. It wont be associated with us because its INEOS debt. Some people can't grasp that. They are now thinking maybe being State owned is better. Do people think that these oil States will just swallow the 800m in debt and not want it back? Of course they want it back, how? I have no idea, but billionaires dont throw money away. They will get it back. Billionaires are billionaires because they don't throw money away.

Who ever the owner will be, they will still get their 800m back one way or another.
 
Ah the old stick my hand in the air feeekick, similar to the hand in the air corner. Not to be mistaken for the hand not in the air corner / free kick.
 
Droolinggimp said:
Just been watching some videos on Sir Jim and the refinancing the Utd debt with Goldman Sachs. Man Utd fan channels and fans alike are now making a u-turn on wanting Jim as the owner because that debt is still associated with UTD but under INEOS. It wont be associated with us because its INEOS debt. Some people can't grasp that. They are now thinking maybe being State owned is better. Do people think that these oil States will just swallow the 800m in debt and not want it back? Of course they want it back, how? I have no idea, but billionaires dont throw money away. They will get it back. Billionaires are billionaires because they don't throw money away.

Who ever the owner will be, they will still get their 800m back one way or another.
Click to expand...
These middle Eastern states don't what their money back. They literally have more money than they can spend. They will buy every single thing in this country that we will sell to them. Property, businesses, football clubs, politicians. They'll gobble it all up and at some point in the future everyone will realise it's a terrible idea.
 
Love me a good sideshow bob hairstyle. Only player in the league that needs holding down and forcefully shaving is Chalobah. Looks like a poo hanging off his head. Awful.
 
bazzabear said:
What does the green highlight mean? "Not including funding provided via non-existent shell companies"?
Click to expand...

It was taken from an article about City apparently so they are highlighted.

Amazing to see how much some owners have ploughed into clubs only for them to be utter dross.
 
It sounds like the Qatari's are going to be submitting a formal bid before the end of the week.

Don't think it'll be quite that simple as they won't bow down to the Glazer's crazy demands, but if they are genuinely keen I'm sure it'll get done...

So we'd have largely the same owner as PSG (I think).
 
Robbo said:
It sounds like the Qatari's are going to be submitting a formal bid before the end of the week.

Don't think it'll be quite that simple as they won't bow down to the Glazer's crazy demands, but if they are genuinely keen I'm sure it'll get done...

So we'd have largely the same owner as PSG (I think).
Click to expand...
I thought teams who have the same owner can't play each other in European games? I'm really not looking forward to them buying us when you see the state of PSG,all them superstars,and they still can't win the CL
 
Case1987 said:
I thought teams who have the same owner can't play each other in European games? I'm really not looking forward to them buying us when you see the state of PSG,all them superstars,and they still can't win the CL
Click to expand...

There are exceptions, like Red Bull owns multiple teams. If they can show UEFA that each team is operated independently and convince UEFA of this (ahem lol), then they can.

So basically, yes it's written in the rule that they are not supposed to..but they can.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom