09 Oct 2025 09:24:30
Anyone seen the post by Turki alalshikh? Seems to be saying United are close to selling to a new investor. Whether that's full sale or just extra funding who knows. Might also just be bs for publicity. What do we think?
09 Oct 2025 13:49:50
Believe there was a clause in the Ratcliffe deal that after a certain period allowed the Glazers to sell and Ratcliffe would be forced to sell his holding for the price per share the Glazers agreed.
Anything that gets the Glazers out and debt paid off in full will mean popping Champagne corks
The next question is whether the prospective buyer has enough money or is it just the Glazers want to raise more money by selling more shares but not concede control. Not completely sure on the company structure but think if Ratcliffe were to buy more shares that took him over 30% he may be required to offer to all shareholders the same price per share in a full takeover. Hence why he sits at below 30%. Unless there is a clause saying they can’t, then as long as they retain overall 51% the Glazers may sell shares above that level to someone else and pocket the next load of cash. The club won’t benefit until they and the debt are gone completely. A happy day.
09 Oct 2025 15:25:30
The freeze period ended around mid August RedMan. The 1958 were planning a protest before the Arsenal game but cancelled due to some positive feedback from fans regarding signings and the new training centre. I found it interesting the SJR would put so much money into a project when potentially he could be forced sell his shares. Apparently he gets the opportunity to match any offer the Glazers recieve. I posted that it felt like something was in the pipeline. It’s interesting an individual like Turki Alalshikh would post something like this but no idea if it has any substance. I also, perhaps reading too much into it, found the wording of ‘investors’ rather than buyers/ owners interesting and maybe deliberate?
There has also been no movement from the 1958 recently who have been so vocal and active in their protests to the Glazers. You do wonder if they have been briefed that something is happening?!
OR this could all be nonsense and we are getting excited about the Glazers being gone for nothing ?.
10 Oct 2025 08:46:58
Probably linked to investment in the stadium.
10 Oct 2025 11:12:21
Someone buying up all the seat licences?
10 Oct 2025 14:15:39
turki says a lot of stuff. would not spend too much on what he says. He likes the attention.
10 Oct 2025 15:50:24
If only this were true….
10 Oct 2025 21:09:52
redseven are you for real? The Glazers are awful, but wanting to be a pawn in a sportswashing operation isn't something I'd like to see happen.
11 Oct 2025 11:16:09
I'll be very happy to see the back of the Glasers. They have offered nothing to our club but have taken plenty from us.
That said I am cautious over who it is who eventually buys them out. I'm overall pleased with how INEOS have managed things since they bought into the club. I wouldn't want any new ownership to rock the boat with that. Ideally a change in ownership would either see a total buyout by INEOS, or they at least own the controlling stake in the club so as to not complicate the running of the club.
We have to remember that anyone prepared to pay the eye watering costs of buying us will be doing so with their own agenda, and that may or may not be in our best interests.
Be that sports washing or merely for financial gain. The last thing we need is a power struggle with billionaires squaring off against eachother across the board room.
Personally, what would be my ideal situation is for INEOS to increase their stake to around 70% or more, then maybe a minority stakeholder comes in with around 30% stake. Meaning we are shot of the Glasers, but there isn't going to be a power struggle, or change in how the club is currently being run. INEOS owning a significant majority over anyone else makes things far more secure.
I have a feeling that Sir Jim might set things up and in place for some kind of partial fan ownership held in trust for after he dies. Meaning his legacy will be rebuilding the club and then giving it back to the fans. INEOS is suspect will still own a majority and controlling stake, but the rest being fan owned.
11 Oct 2025 12:44:51
Nothing could be worse than the Glazers and the debt they have saddled the club with.
If somebody agrees a deal with the Glazers, Ratcliffe will have the opportunity to match it. I’m still not completely sold on INEOS, though, so whether he does or he doesn’t, I’ll be glad to see the back of the yanks.
11 Oct 2025 14:30:01
You mention sportswashing but conveniently forget to mention the awful history of the glazer family in American politics DonRed?
Extremely large contributors to the Bush presidental campaign, which eventually led to an illegal war that killed millions?
Its only fair to mention both, two cheeks of the same arse as far as I care, but you must be fair. Again, I absolutely do not agree with sport washing nor would I endorse for any of these c**** to own the club, who are undoubtedly involved in atrocities across planet. No to both!
11 Oct 2025 15:36:56
One is some prats I don't like. The other is a government funded operation to detract from horrific acts. You are equating direct involvement with indirect. That is whataboutism. I'm also not sure about your analysis of this. The Glazers give money to anyone that'll suit them. They funded a lot to both the Trump and Harris campaigns last time. You are stretching very much imo to put those two on the same footing.
11 Oct 2025 16:14:38
"Some prats I don’t like" is doing a lot of heavy lifting there and i’m not saying the UAE investors and the Glazers are identical, one’s a state trying to polish its image. But let’s not act like the Glazers are some neutral ‘just business’ owners either. Their money’s been tied up in nasty sh1t
If the point is moral high ground, there isn’t one. It’s picking between a sportswashing operation and parasites who’ve bled the club dry while funding war-mongers. Different flavours of the same ? sandwich. I just don’t want either anywhere near United. ”.
11 Oct 2025 16:18:45
And no, that’s not whataboutism, that’s just called having a memory. You don’t get to downplay one set of rotten politics just because it’s wrapped in a different flag.
If we’re talking morals, the Glazers have happily bankrolled people who create the mess, while the other lot are using football to cover theirs. One’s direct, one’s indirect, both are still rotten to the core.
One stinks less loud, that’s all. Still stinks.
12 Oct 2025 14:53:04
Saying that I shouldn't take sportswashing seriously because of some other indirect involvement via funding a politician before they took an action is pretty much the archetypical example of whataboutism.
12 Oct 2025 17:38:34
That’s not what I said at all. I never told you not to take sportswashing seriously, I said don’t act like the Glazers are some moral alternative. And no, that’s not whataboutism, pointing out that both sides are rotten isn’t deflection, it’s context.