Club Sale | It’s done!

[stevoc]

I am glad you asked this question.

I will tell you how and why.

1. Competing on the pitch, they are competing for top 4 with 0 trophies in god knows how many years.
2. The stadium cost 1bn, United is 2bn.
3. They can't spend money - remember when they were building it, £0 spent in a window.
4. They took loans out, couldn't pay it back and then re-financed their loans.

https://smartseries.sportspromedia.com/news/tottenham-hotspur-stadium-debt-loans-refinance

This is what I want to avoid. I want Manutd to compete with for big titles, not Spurs.

So you don't want United to be self sufficient and you want the club to be financially propped up from outside funding. Ok fair enough mate I respect your view.

United don't need to get into £2b worth of debt to fund a brand new stadium, yeah a brand spanking new stadium would be great but the process could also be done over many years piece by piece when and if the club can afford it. In the past United funded the expansions and redevelopments of Old Trafford and Carrington through hard won success on the pitch and wise business decisions off it. We did all that while dominating the league for over a decade.

 

[DownRiver]

Red Bull owns several clubs, so does the City investment group. Qatar already own PSG. Technicalities, no idea.

I don't think the support for SJR has anything to do with names, but with the fact that those people don't want the club to be state-owned, doesn't even matter which country makes a bid.

Jassim has already mentioned HOW he will go about buying Manutd, separate from QIA. Everything is in place.

I have not seen how this will work from Ratcliff, INEOS is still mentioned as taking on the debt, which directly owns OG Nice.

 

[humdinger]

Been out of the loop on this over the weekend but how concerned should we be about this Glazer/Elliot potential partnership

We should be absolutely terrified! Worst option by far!

And obviously it is possible, although hopefully the least likely option.

 

[lsd]

Jassim has already mentioned HOW he will go about buying Manutd, separate from QIA. Everything is in place.

I have not seen how this will work from Ratcliff, INEOS is still mentioned as taking on the debt, which directly owns OG Nice.

Yeah he mentioned funding from a non existent company

 

[pocco]

I didn't say that's "just" what Manchester United is. The "go to Manchester" thing would maybe make sense if I wasn't 15-20 minutes walk from OT - I've posted pictures here before. I'm also not dismissive of people's concerns/issues with a potential take over - I'm just not particularly fond of making others feel bad about things they have little to no control over and/or sitting around in a circle lamenting a potential takeover when this was always a very real possibility.

Plenty of match going fans share similar sentiment:

Tweet

— Twitter API (@user) date

there's nothing inherently wrong with being a gold digger, by the way.

Unfortunately, you're on a Manchester United forum and discussing the sale of Manchester United. People will share their feelings and thoughts about this and everything, which is the great thing about the forum.

The people interviewed in that video have their own views, and that is fine. But listen to what they are saying - money, money, money. One mentions their human rights issues, but seems to get past that quickly because money, money, money.

We've been told for years and years that United don't need an investor (by United supporters groups) as we make enough money, and that the Glazers taking money, their debt and poor running of the club is the issue. So why do we need to sacrifice our image and beliefs, the relationship with female supporters and footballers, for more fecking money?

 

[pocco]

Yeah he mentioned funding from a non existent company

What's this?

 

[Berbaclass]

Yeah he mentioned funding from a non existent company

Not really true

 

[romufc]

Why shouldn’t United pay for their own stadium man?

Spurs had to, Arsenal had to, what makea us more worthy ?

There is someone willing to pay for it. That's why.

 

[strandty]

What's this?

He's referring to the Nine Two Foundation, which will be the 'company' that will own the Club should their bid be successful, similar to when the Abu Dhabi United Group purchased City in 2008.

 

[pocco]

He's referring to the Nine Two Foundation, which will be the 'company' that will own the Club should their bid be successful, similar to when the Abu Dhabi United Group purchased City in 2008.

Ah ok, I thought he was implying something else.

 

[romufc]

So you don't want United to be self sufficient and you want the club to be financially propped up from outside funding. Ok fair enough mate I respect your view.

United don't need to get into £2b worth of debt to fund a brand new stadium, yeah a brand spanking new stadium would be great but the process could also be done over many years piece by piece when and if the club can afford it. In the past United funded the expansions and redevelopments of Old Trafford and Carrington through hard won success on the pitch and wise business decisions off it. We did all that while dominating the league for over a decade.

The club is already self sufficient. With 600m debt. OKay, so you have worked it out, how will we repair the leaks ?

There is a difference between then and now. Back then when we were dominating, we were spending 40m on a player and that was massive, now a promoted club is spending that money.

Look, if you are happy with being self sufficient and finishing 5th, 6th, odd CL campaign, take 15 years to upgrade the stadium that;s fine.

I want success and a new stadium in 5 years, if there is someone willing to make this happen, I would take that. Football has changed, to compete you need rich owners.

 

[red thru&thru]

That poll is pretty solidly at 59-41%, when you told me an hour or so ago that there was no divide in the fanbase , because the open sewer of twitter was hugely in favour… My point was there very obviously is, as evidenced by your eyes and ears, but everyone is just steadfastly ignoring things they dislike… whether that be Twitter, the Athletic, or Forums.

Plus if you’re completely clear headed and untroubled by your personal opinion it’ shouldn’t matter, but people very clearly aren’t, which is why they’re trying to ‘wash’ their preferences with cherry picked popularity,

I’d agree there seems to be a preference for Qatar overall, but “most United fans have been won heart and mind by Qatar” is a ridiculous statement that basically aims to erase dissent.

The best we will know whether the fans are happy or not, the majority I'm talking about, is whether they turn up to the games. Whether the clubs socials see a steep nose dive. The presence of constant protests, like we've seen under the Glazers.

But even then, will this even give a true reflection of whether the fans are happy, or not? For me, to get an accurate feeling of fans will be difficult.

 

[redshaw]

I'd love to know more about how Ineos plan to service the debt.

Yes they're a big company, many ventures. We currently pay 20m a year for existing debt. To finance 6bn what type of payments will be added to Ineos, 60m+ per year? Redevelopment another 1-2bn needs financing, another 20m in interest for Ineos totaling 80m?

If you read how tight a ship Ineos have run so far, how much Ratcliffe has grumbled about the price of PL clubs, he said it's hard to reconcile the cost and value. Apparently scoffed at buying Chelsea a while back for 2bn before the recent sale. The plan to spend low and get Nice into the CL.

Running a tight ship can be very good, God knows how much United have wasted of its own money on players. I'm skeptical of how much would change under Ineos though. We might face tighter summer spends and just a facelift of OT, CL money is really required each summer to bolster funds yet the Premier League will become more difficult with Abu Dhabi, Saudi, and maybe Qatar owned Liverpool plus Boehly.

How can United compete with how much PSG are paying the likes of Mbappe with those signing on fees and loyalty bonuses or just in general going forwards.

 

[romufc]

I'd love to know more about how Ineos plan to service the debt.

Yes they're a big company, many ventures. We currently pay 20m a year for existing debt. To finance 6bn what type of payments will be added to Ineos, 60m+ per year? Redevelopment another 1-2bn needs financing, another 20m in interest for Ineos totaling 80m?

If you read how tight a ship Ineos have run so far, how much Ratcliffe has grumbled about the price of PL clubs, he said it's hard to reconcile the cost and value. Apparently scoffed at buying Chelsea a while back for 2bn before the recent sale. The plan to spend low and get Nice into the CL.

Running a tight ship can be very good, God knows how much United have wasted of its own money on players. I'm skeptical of how much would change under Ineos though. We might face tighter summer spends and just a facelift of OT, CL money is really required each summer to bolster funds yet the Premier League will become more difficult with Abu Dhabi, Saudi, and maybe Qatar owned Liverpool plus Boehly.

How can United compete with how much PSG are paying the likes of Mbappe with those signing on fees and loyalty bonuses or just in general going forwards.

Just have a look at Nice. They were the best run club in France apparently, now they are struggling, none of the signings have come off and managers are sacked regularly.

 

[DutchSerb]

The Glazers are most definitely not fine but I don't think you can bundle them with the Qataris.

I don't remember reading about thousands of Glazer employees dieing needlessly building and working in their US shopping malls.

Like I said.....most people on here want the Qataris because of money and has already been explained out transfer budgets are barely going to change anyway due to FFP.

I don't get this whole "most people just want money for transfers" comment when a lot of people here on the caf mainly want the Qataris because they'll be able to invest in the infrastructure and OT and they don't think Ineos or others are able to do that like the Qataris can.

 

[Semper Fudge]

The Athletic have had a clear agenda against the Qatari’s from the get go, it’s clear as day. It will make it even sweeter if the Sheikh does indeed win the race to takeover.

Looks like you’ve got a bit of oil on the end of your nose.

 

[stevoc]

The club is already self sufficient. With 600m debt. OKay, so you have worked it out, how will we repair the leaks ?

There is a difference between then and now. Back then when we were dominating, we were spending 40m on a player and that was massive, now a promoted club is spending that money.

Look, if you are happy with being self sufficient and finishing 5th, 6th, odd CL campaign, take 15 years to upgrade the stadium that;s fine.

I want success and a new stadium in 5 years, if there is someone willing to make this happen, I would take that. Football has changed, to compete you need rich owners.

Yeah I'm getting that.

It isn't a black and white either or situation though mate. United don't need a sugar daddy to compete, without the debt the Glazers lumped on the club we would be fine. Even with the debt we have been one of the biggest spenders in Europe in terms of fees and wages the last 10 years, we've just been ran poorly by the Glazers.

With wiser management on and off the pitch over the last decade we would have competed/won titles and funded stadium upgrades had it not been for the Glazers and their debt.

I expect/hope whoever buys the club will remove the debt as part of the purchase. From there on I wouldn't mind if they then left the club to live off it's own profits, though with the likely sale to Qatar that probably won't be the case.

 

[romufc]

Yeah I'm getting that.

It isn't a black and white either or situation though mate. United don't need a sugar daddy to compete, without the debt the Glazers lumped on the club we would be fine. Even with the debt we have been one of the biggest spenders in Europe in terms of fees and wages the last 10 years, we've just been ran poorly by the Glazers.

With wiser management on and off the pitch over the last decade we would have competed/won titles and funded stadium upgrades had it not been for the Glazers and their debt.

I expect/hope whoever buys the club will remove the debt as part of the purchase. From there on I wouldn't mind if they then left the club to live off it's own profits, though with the likely sale to Qatar that probably won't be the case.

Well, in the current day, you cannot say United don't need a sugar daddy because the evidence says otherwise. We are the biggest spenders and we do not compete for any top trophy.

In contrast, I can give you examples. City, Newcastle, Chelsea with sugar daddy's look alot better. City and Chelsea winning trophies.

The problem is, this comes from the owners, City owners have high standards, which means they want the best training ground, the best infrastructure. That is the reason they have developed those areas.

 

[Andersonson]

We should be absolutely terrified! Worst option by far!

And obviously it is possible, although hopefully the least likely option.

It's the second best option. If you have morals. If you want a new stadium and a lot of new players, its the worst.

 

[Giggsyking]

There's a poll on this very forum and it doesn't indicate overwhelming support for the Qatari bid.

https://www.redcafe.net/threads/act...ential-qatari-ownership.475659/#post-30158004

And there's a new one, currently sitting 50/50 let's see how that one pans out.

https://www.redcafe.net/threads/qatar-or-ineos-which-owners-would-you-prefer.475744/#post-30179907

Double not overwhelming enough?

 

[stevoc]

Well, in the current day, you cannot say United don't need a sugar daddy because the evidence says otherwise. We are the biggest spenders and we do not compete for any top trophy.

In contrast, I can give you examples. City, Newcastle, Chelsea with sugar daddy's look alot better. City and Chelsea winning trophies.

Would you say the club has been competently managed off the pitch from a business perspective and have we had sound long term planning on the pitch in terms of manager appointments/succession and player acquisitions etc over the last decade?

Newcastle and Chelsea look a lot better?

The problem is, this comes from the owners, City owners have high standards, which means they want the best training ground, the best infrastructure. That is the reason they have developed those areas.

Probably the not the main reason but we'll leave that for another thread.

 

[lsd]

Not really true

From what I can tell there is no such company as the 92 foundation

 

[stevoc]

Double not overwhelming enough?

Which one the new poll? Not really it was roughly 60/40 last I looked.

Overwhelming would suggest 80-90% of fans are in favour of it.

 

[Berbaclass]

From what I can tell there is no such company as the 92 foundation

Sorry I thought you meant the Qatari bank. My bad.

 

[ATXRedDevil]

These guys are bigger vultures than the Glazers.

Tweet

— Twitter API (@user) date

Yeah, their reputation precedes them, and it's not positive in the slightest.

 

[romufc]

Would you say the club has been competently managed off the pitch from a business perspective and have we had sound long term planning on the pitch in terms of manager appointments/succession and player acquisitions etc over the last decade?

Newcastle and Chelsea look a lot better?

This is a glazer thing, I agree the club has not been run well.

But those standards come from above.

What I do know from the 2 offers and their statement's, one wants 100% ownership and create a legacy with new stadium, infrastructure and money on playing staff. Profits to be used on women and youth teams.

The other wants majority ownership, with a view to win the CL.

Major differences include stadium, infrastructure. No mention about the women's team, youth team or anything.

 

[Spoony]

Which one the new poll? Not really it was roughly 60/40 last I looked.

Overwhelming would suggest 80-90% of fans are in favour of it.

I'm actually pleasantly surprised it's not 80/20.

 

[JagUTD]

The environment affects us all? Don’t downplay one to make a point .
Not environmentally friendly is like saying Qatar disapproves of homosexuality

What's that black stuff Qatars entire wealth is based upon?

 

[DomesticTadpole]

Yeah, their reputation precedes them, and it's not positive in the slightest.

Imagine if the Glazers renegaded on a payment or were slightly late. Rashford might get snatched off the street.

 

[Spoony]

What's that black stuff Qatars entire wealth is based upon?

Gas?

 

[ShinjiNinja26]

Looks like you’ve got a bit of oil on the end of your nose.

Ah, that’ll be coconut oil. It’s great for the skin, you should try it sometime.

 

[cyberman]

What's that black stuff Qatars entire wealth is based upon?

Again, that’s my point. Isn’t it a gas state anyway?

 

[M4YON]

What's that black stuff Qatars entire wealth is based upon?

Gas.

 

[Mockney]

I'm actually pleasantly surprised it's not 80/20.

There’s a conspiracy to not let people with Twitter accounts that just post “Penaldo clear” vote.

 

[Hester_manc]

Been out of the loop on this over the weekend but how concerned should we be about this Glazer/Elliot potential partnership

Very concerned. And I think this is the solution Glazers want. They are going to stay at the club.

 

[stevoc]

This is a glazer thing, I agree the club has not been run well.

But those standards come from above.

What I do know from the 2 offers and their statement's, one wants 100% ownership and create a legacy with new stadium, infrastructure and money on playing staff. Profits to be used on women and youth teams.

The other wants majority ownership, with a view to win the CL.

Major differences include stadium, infrastructure. No mention about the women's team, youth team or anything.

We know next to nothing about the plans of either bid mate, I wouldn't put to much stock into a 1/2 paragraph press release. The 100% ownership thing isn't really a pro/con for either bidder.

Now to be totally honest I'm not 100% sold on the INEOS proposal either until I know more. But even setting aside the reservations I have about State ownership and Qatar's human rights record. I would still prefer United to be self sufficient and not be funded by a sugar daddy. United with that sort of bottomless pit of funding for me just wouldn't feel right having watched the club be built up and earn everything it had won and built through hard work and excellent planning on and off the pitch during the SAF era.

 

[Giggsyking]

Gas pollute less than oil, coal and even wood.

 

[Withnail]

Out pops another conspiracy theorist

That's rich

As I said before either naive or disingenuous.

 

[DownRiver]

Why do journalists have selective, short term memory? How do you think Britain and the US were built and the untold devastation they committed around the world?

Tweet

— Twitter API (@user) date

Edit 1:

Tweet

— Twitter API (@user) date

Edit 2: Also, not that anyone cares, but I can’t reply and have a conversation about topics due to limited posting privileges - apologies if I can’t reply!

 

[mu4c_20le]

Tweet

— Twitter API (@user) date