Club Sale | It’s done!

Status
Not open for further replies.
What about cheating like the 100+ charges City are facing for cooking the books? In other words, if it isn't allowed, are you still ok with cheating?

Legally Qatar isn't going to be able to spend 500m+ per year like many (not necessarily you) are fantasizing about. The amount that Qatar and Ineos would be able to spend would be essentially the same.

That was the only way City could compete at the highest level and TBF apart from few exceptions (ex Manchester United, or Juventus post 2000s) its how football had been run since time immemorial. The Serie A glory days were down to owners pumping money into their clubs and we all know that Blackburn and Chelsea would have never competed otherwise. United itself was saved by John Henry Davies and four other investors who saved the club from bankruptcy.

I am pro Qatar because of three things. First of all, the offer is simply better. It entails no debt, a new stadium and a complete takeover which means that the Glazers will be out. By removing debt and by improving the infrastructure we would be able to spend more on other things. Also a rich owner would be more then willing to let 'assets' like Maguire leave on cheap/free which in turn would give us more room on offering salaries to better players instead.

Secondly INEOS had proven itself to be incompetent football owners. I am aware that Jassim has no football experience and PSG could be run better. However I'd rather rely on a passionate unknown rather then a proven incompetent man who thinks that its good idea to involve a cyclist man with a chequered reputation into football

Finally I very much doubt that the EPL would dare punishing the likes of Abu Dhabi, Saudi and Qatar. These states invest too much in the UK for the government to dare irking them
 
Last edited:
I keep saying this too but for whatever reason most people don't want to engage with it.

Most of the top clubs these days spend right up to the FFP limit (including the Glazers!) on squad building because they know they have to in order to stay relevant because the competition is so fierce. It's basically a given.

Ratcliffe knows this and he essentially alluded to it in a recent long form interview.

He isn't going to buy a controlling share in the club only to kill it's competitiveness by limiting spend to well under the FFP allowance in order to pay off debt or help pay for the new infrastructure upgrades etc. It's totally illogical.

I can't really see any way in which the Qataris significantly outspend him unless they do so illegally.

I think in a practical sense, it comes down to who you trust to run the club in terms of decision making, not who will spend the most money.

The absolute massive difference being that the Glazers first siphon off from that pot dividends to themselves and debt repayments. Then they have a figure they can allocate towards transfers.

so it’s not right to say they spend anything close to the FFP limit.

Whereas clubs like City have no such worries.
 
I think that in the company's articles of association there's a drag along clause that forces owners below a certain threshhold (presumably all other owners in this case) to sell if the majority shareholder sells, so that minority owners doesn't mess up mergers or sales like this.

Imagine you have a startup business today and you need someone to help you with something small but crucial, say something that'd be worth £3k. You don't have the money at the moment, or you have a cash flow issue (very common in the beginning), so you offer this person 0.5% of your business instead of money. 5 years later your business have boomed and an investor wants to buy your entire business for a huge amount of money, say £10 million. Now you don't want that person that helped with something that was worth £3k 5 years ago to stall the enitre sale because he or she believes your business will be worth even more later, or some other stupid reason. I am not sure how it works for companies listed on the New York Stock Exchange as I don't trade there, but in a non listed company you'd never take a small owner onboard without a drag along clause in the contracr or articles of association because of precisely this.

If you exclude personal/fanboy reasons for owning Manchester United and look at it from a pure business perspective, you're likely to get a really good deal here as minority owner. Usually the same deal as the majority shareholder. As the business of Manchester United is well established, the business is not likely to develop in a way that the majority shareholder could not forsee and thus this is reflected in their asking price, which you get a part of. Please see the link below.

https://www.investopedia.com/terms/d/dragalongrights.asp

I don't think Qatar whould say that they bid for 100% if this was not possible. They will presumably take it of the NYSE.

Valuations are usually per share and not for 100% or 69%. Then it needs to be multiplied with 69% of the total number of shares to get the Glazers family's share of the bid.
Yeah you are probably right. Could be interesting from an academic point of view to study the rules regarding this particular subject. Also the company is registered in the Cayman Islands and listed on the NYSE. Would be interesting to know which set of rules would be applicable in the present circumstance.
 
The problem is that this dilly dallying by the Glazers is going to cost us some good players being bought by other top PL teams.
We will lose out.

It's already cost us as most teams are already working on deals whereas we are completely hamstrung.
 
What about cheating like the 100+ charges City are facing for cooking the books? In other words, if it isn't allowed, are you still ok with cheating?

Legally Qatar isn't going to be able to spend 500m+ per year like many (not necessarily you) are fantasizing about. The amount that Qatar and Ineos would be able to spend would be essentially the same.
This is actually a very well made point however it’s not how much you spend, it’s the way you spend it and under the Glazers and in particular Ed Woodward, we’ve been the laughing boys of European Football, we’ve only sold Daniel James for a profit , Angel Di Maria and Romelu Lukaku for anywhere near what we paid for them or a and most of the players we’ve bought have been huge failures, only last summer can we say we had 2 huge successes, 1 moderate success and 2 players where the jury’s still out.

We need to see a plan for the future, Ole at least tried with the youth and we might have Garnaucho and Amad next season because of this with A Fernandes and F Pellistri the season after.
 
It astounds me how many are seemingly willing to twerk for Jim all in the name of morality. The irony.

The reality is that nobody who can afford to spend 6 billion on buying a football club can afford it without being a bit of a C*nT

It's trying to decide who is the lesser of two evils that is the dilemma.
 
The absolute massive difference being that the Glazers first siphon off from that pot dividends to themselves and debt repayments. Then they have a figure they can allocate towards transfers.

so it’s not right to say they spend anything close to the FFP limit.

Whereas clubs like City have no such worries.

It's not a massive difference at all. They haven't taken dividends out in a while and debt repayments amount to the price of an average fullback, ie. they are very small in the grand scheme of things.
 
Id applaud FIFA/UEFA if they decided that all state owned club must be sold in exchange of a level playing field. But it ain't going to happen. Thus if 'cheating' is allowed then its not cheating at all. Thus I'd rather see my club benefiting of everything that football provide then being run 'responsibly' by people who relegated a Swiss club and who thought that signing the likes of Barkley, Ramsay, Schmeichel + involving cyclist man in football is a good idea.

It won't happen as the legal fallout would be astronomical. There's every chance the PL won't be able to sanction City either for their infringements as the legal resources at their disposal could tie the PL in knots for years, if not decades. Not to mention the political pressure not to alienate a favoured ally. At most there will be a fine or a sentence that will be greatly reduced on appeal.
 
Off topic but racism refers to more than race.

Not really. It's used in many incorrect ways to label and shoot down anyone who strays off the politically correct agenda at the moment however.

A racist is someone who believes that the human population can be categorised and classified into hierarchies based perceived biological differences, that it is very important to live by this taxonomy and (very importantly) that the races this person believes to be inferior can be exploited through such things as discrimination or antagonism.

It's very scary and it should be not dilluted with social constructivism. EG, as has been discussed in this thread before, being in favour or Brexit in order to stop a wage dump on low educated jobs and to protect access to public healthcare is not racism.
 
Can you ruin something once it has already been ruined though?

The horse has bolted as they say.

What I find harder to digest is posters who have spent years claiming City’s success is meaningless. Those are the ones who will struggle to stay consistent most if Qatar buys us.

Fans will always change the narrative to fit their current agenda I suppose.

Personally I think this whole thing is bigger than just the Utd takeover. The league is in danger of totally getting away from itself now. Where does all this end?

UAE v Qatar v Saudi. It will be Kuwait and maybe Iran next up.
 
It's not a massive difference at all. They haven't taken dividends out in a while and debt repayments amount to the price of an average fullback, ie. they are very small in the grand scheme of things.
They skipped dividends one year. This year. The year they are actually selling.

Between dividends and debt we average over £50m per year.

You’re trying to gaslight us if you think that is not significant to our transfer operations.
 
Fans will always change the narrative to fit their current agenda I suppose.

Personally I think this whole thing is bigger than just the Utd takeover. The league is in danger of totally getting away from itself now. Where does all this end?

UAE v Qatar v Saudi. It will be Kuwait and maybe Iran next up.
Or as per status quo United v Arsenal in LA
Liverpool v Villa in New York
 
It's not a massive difference at all. They haven't taken dividends out in a while and debt repayments amount to the price of an average fullback, ie. they are very small in the grand scheme of things.
Mods, come on. At least tag him as a Glazer sympathiser, so people know what they're dealing with.
 
That was the only way City could compete at the highest level and TBF apart from few exceptions (ex Manchester United, or Juventus post 2000s) its how football had been run since time immemorial. The Serie A glory days were down to owners pumping money into their clubs and we all know that Blackburn and Chelsea would have never competed otherwise. United itself was saved by John Henry Davies and four other investors who saved the club from bankruptcy.

I am pro Qatar because of three things. First of all, the offer is simply better. It entails no debt, a new stadium and a complete takeover which means that the Glazers will be out. By removing debt and by improving the infrastructure we would be able to spend more on other things. Also a rich owner would be more then willing to let 'assets' like Maguire leave on cheap/free which in turn would give us more room on offering salaries to better players instead.

Secondly INEOS had proven itself to be incompetent football owners. I am aware that Jassim has no football experience and PSG could be run better. However I'd rather rely on a passionate unknown rather then a proven incompetent man who thinks that its good idea to involve a cyclist man with a chequered reputation into football

Finally I very much doubt that the EPL would dare punishing the likes of Abu Dhabi, Saudi and Qatar. These states invest too much in the UK for the government to dare irking them

All of this is true. I also think morally the 3 parties involved in this deal are all shady. There are no ethically sound billionaires that I know of who can also steer us back in the right direction. I just want the best deal for the club and the people of the city and for the glazers to be out because everything the glazer kids touch turns to shit (apart from their inherited ‘investment’ in Utd, that was very smart from Malcolm)
It’s time for something completely different. Even if we just went the way of Dortmund and became the best club in the world at nabbing and playing the Haalands Camavingas and Bellinghams at 18 and developing them over a few years into a CL force. That would be lovely. We don’t need to go out making 100 million statement signings every summer. We just need to have a long term plan and not be stuck holding onto expensive duds while really great and cheap young players end up elsewhere.
 
Not really. It's used in many incorrect ways to label and shoot down anyone who strays off the politically correct agenda at the moment however.

A racist is someone who believes that the human population can be categorised and classified into hierarchies based perceived biological differences, that it is very important to live by this taxonomy and (very importantly) that the races this person believes to be inferior can be exploited through such things as discrimination or antagonism.

It's very scary and it should be not dilluted with social constructivism. EG, as has been discussed in this thread before, being in favour or Brexit in order to stop a wage dump on low educated jobs and to protect access to public healthcare is not racism.

Yes, really. Whether you like it or not(and I personally don't like it), racism extends beyond race, there is a recognized overlap between for example racism and xenophobia. The meaning of these terms is more nuanced than you think.

https://www.merriam-webster.com/words-at-play/xenophobia-and-racism-difference
 
The reality is that nobody who can afford to spend 6 billion on buying a football club can afford it without being a bit of a C*nT

It's trying to decide who is the lesser of two evils that is the dilemma.
It isn’t really a dilemma for anyone looking at it logically.
 
It won't happen as the legal fallout would be astronomical. There's every chance the PL won't be able to sanction City either for their infringements as the legal resources at their disposal could tie the PL in knots for years, if not decades. Not to mention the political pressure not to alienate a favoured ally. At most there will be a fine or a sentence that will be greatly reduced on appeal.

You've literally no idea what you're talking about.

What legal fall out? There is diddly squat City can do legally if they're found guilty. No appeal to CAS as they don't have jurisdiction and they've already exhausted all of their legal options in trying to halt the process reaching this far - and failed every single time.

If found guilty they can appeal but it only goes to another independent arbitration panel and then that's it - there's no more recourse available to City.

And in the event they are found guilty, the PL will have no choice but to throw the book at them. Otherwise they will be sending a message to every other PL club that it's ok to commit the most egregious offences and you'll only get a slap on the wrist if found guilty - which would destroy the credibility of their product.
 
We're on page 1,344 now and these arguments have been going round in circles for months. You've all been here years so know the rules on not insulting others and the need to be careful when accusing others of racism.

Asking for calm, reasoned debate in this thread feels a forlorn hope. The guy in a Qatar flag is obviously a massive tit (assuming the pic on twitter I've seen was real), but was a minority of one and no doubt a thick, attention-seeking twat.

Yes the pic was real. I was sat 3 rows behind them. There was a small scuffle that broke out with a lady who tried to take the flag from the guys holding it up but they got their flag back from her.
 
It won't happen as the legal fallout would be astronomical. There's every chance the PL won't be able to sanction City either for their infringements as the legal resources at their disposal could tie the PL in knots for years, if not decades. Not to mention the political pressure not to alienate a favoured ally. At most there will be a fine or a sentence that will be greatly reduced on appeal.

Of course it won't happen just as I am pretty sure that this whole ordeal around Manchester City will end with just a slap at the wrist. The UK government can't afford pissing off oil rich states who pump millions if not billions of dollars in the UK economy
 
Yeah you are probably right. Could be interesting from an academic point of view to study the rules regarding this particular subject. Also the company is registered in the Cayman Islands and listed on the NYSE. Would be interesting to know which set of rules would be applicable in the present circumstance.

Yes I do not know the rules in these cases, but Qatars solicitors would probably know what is possible.
 
It astounds me how many are seemingly willing to twerk for Jim all in the name of morality. The irony.
Just over a week ago there were people who struggle to feed their kids lining the streets twerking for a man in a golden carriage. Sometimes, morality takes a backseat to the dance of circumstance.
 
I wasn’t aware this account was supposed to be real

Meanwhile Raine group tweeted this, make of it as you will:

26872089757_22c2e6e58b_b.jpg
 
Yes, really. Whether you like it or not(and I personally don't like it), racism extends beyond race, there is a recognized overlap between for example racism and xenophobia. The meaning of these terms is more nuanced than you think.

https://www.merriam-webster.com/words-at-play/xenophobia-and-racism-difference

No. Read the link you provided. Their conclusion is that racism is different but a person can be xenophobic AS WELL as a racist. Isn't this prety obvious? What racist would not oppose immigrants?That person is more or less always going to be xenophobic as well. This doesn't mean that the terms are the same.

It's very dangerous to dillute terms like racism because when you oppress something it comes back stronger. This has been shown in other fields of social science. In Scandinavia the differences in choices of career between men and women have increased as a result of measurements aiming at decreasing them. In In the case of racism this means that when all objections to multiculturalism is considered racism, people who oppose multiculturalism but are not racists are going to start thinking that perhaps racism is not that bad as it's been labelled. Then the door or open for actual racism to enter the political agenda.
 
Not really. It's used in many incorrect ways to label and shoot down anyone who strays off the politically correct agenda at the moment however.

A racist is someone who believes that the human population can be categorised and classified into hierarchies based perceived biological differences, that it is very important to live by this taxonomy and (very importantly) that the races this person believes to be inferior can be exploited through such things as discrimination or antagonism.

It's very scary and it should be not dilluted with social constructivism. EG, as has been discussed in this thread before, being in favour or Brexit in order to stop a wage dump on low educated jobs and to protect access to public healthcare is not racism.

Incorrect; biological race has many flaws, go check your DNA, race is a social construct.
 
Be very interesting to see their reactions if Qatar do a similar deal and allow the Glazers to remain in the background with a small minority.

In fact if Sir Jim was offering 100% buyout and Qatar was only offering enough to remove them as majority owners but also pledging massive transfer kitty they'd still prefer Qatar.

It is so painfully obvious what they want.

Yeah you do make a good point about what happens if Qatar offered a similar deal
 
No. Read the link you provided. Their conclusion is that racism is different but a person can be xenophobic AS WELL as a racist. Isn't this prety obvious? What racist would not oppose immigrants?That person is more or less always going to be xenophobic as well. This doesn't mean that the terms are the same.

It's very dangerous to dillute terms like racism because when you oppress something it comes back stronger. This has been shown in other fields of social science. In Scandinavia the differences in choices of career between men and women have increased as a result of measurements aiming at decreasing them. In In the case of racism this means that when all objections to multiculturalism is considered racism, people who oppose multiculturalism but are not racists are going to start thinking that perhaps racism is not that bad as it's been labelled. Then the door or open for actual racism to enter the political agenda.

You are arguing for the sake of it, here is the conclusion:

Semantic Overlap
Once again, while it is certainly possible to distinguish between xenophobia and racism on a number of levels, it is also possible that the words may be used almost interchangeably. Each word may also have some degree of semantic overlap with nativism, which is defined as “a policy of favoring native inhabitants as opposed to immigrants” or “the revival or perpetuation of an indigenous culture especially in opposition to acculturation.”

Please be advised that there are many words which have definitions that are not accepted, or employed, by all the speakers of a language. Racism and xenophobia are likely two such specimens, and serve as reminders of both the messiness of the human condition and the human vocabulary.
 
The idea that it will deter investment is simply stupid. Even with the windfall tax they still get to profit in the billions. They just don't want to pay a single penny.
He's is saving money to pay off (some) glazers
 
Id applaud FIFA/UEFA if they decided that all state owned club must be sold in exchange of a level playing field. But it ain't going to happen. Thus if 'cheating' is allowed then its not cheating at all. Thus I'd rather see my club benefiting of everything that football provide then being run 'responsibly' by people who relegated a Swiss club and who thought that signing the likes of Barkley, Ramsay, Schmeichel + involving cyclist man in football is a good idea.

Yeah that's what should have happened way back in the summer of 2008,you could even argue 2003 before Abramovich bought Chelsea
 
You've literally no idea what you're talking about.

What legal fall out? There is diddly squat City can do legally if they're found guilty. No appeal to CAS as they don't have jurisdiction and they've already exhausted all of their legal options in trying to halt the process reaching this far - and failed every single time.

If found guilty they can appeal but it only goes to another independent arbitration panel and then that's it - there's no more recourse available to City.

And in the event they are found guilty, the PL will have no choice but to throw the book at them. Otherwise they will be sending a message to every other PL club that it's ok to commit the most egregious offences and you'll only get a slap on the wrist if found guilty - which would destroy the credibility of their product.

There's no way the UK government, especially if it's still the Tories, wouldn't apply pressure to the PL to make this go away. The same way they did exactly the same when Saudi Arabia's bid for Newcastle was initially turned down.
 
Yeah that's what should have happened way back in the summer of 2008,you could even argue 2003 before Abramovich bought Chelsea

I follow both the Serie A and the EPL and this sort of things were the norm in the Serie A. The situation became so silly that Brescia who was a struggling Serie A side could afford buying a top CM from Real Madrid. They even kept Hagi when they got relegated in the Serie B. The first club I remember who won the EPL thanks to his owner bankrolling it were Blackburn. Blackburn broke the British record for signings twice in three years (ie Shearer and Sutton).
 
Status
Not open for further replies.