Club Sale | It’s done!

Status
Not open for further replies.
Mmm-Qatarian said:
I'd argue most of the people who want Ratcliffe rather than Jassim want him because of what he isn't rather than what he is. That's certainly the case for me, anyway.

Ratcliffe might well be a ruthless piece of shit businessman, but he isn't almost certainly a front for a sportswashing venture for an abhorrent regime. The same cannot be said for Jassim, and I'm afraid those who claim otherwise are simply hypocrites because they would not be this willing to give the benefit of the doubt if it were another club involved.
Click to expand...

You are arguing alone, I don't care who wants what and didn't ask.
 
Mr Pigeon said:
:lol: I could imagine that sketch but with one of the Glazers in his place.

"It's still nil-nil, Chris!"
"You're at the game?"
"...Yes..."
"The game at Old Trafford?"
"...Indeed..."
"But United have just scored."
"...oh yes, Chris. Wow! The crowd are making the stadium around me shake. It's really quite something."
"Who scored the goal, Avram?"
"....I think the connection is a li-"
"Avram! Who scored the goal for United?"
".... Cristiano Ronaldo...?"
"You're not at the game are you, Avram? You're IN FLORIDA washing your ponytail aren't you?"
".....sorry, Chris."
Click to expand...

:lol: oh god. Don't make me remember the 9/11 skit.
 
Rooney24 said:
You can’t narrow down the impact to one year or “recently”. That’s just nonsense.

you have to look at the whole period they have been in charge. And the fact there is they have taken out more than £1bn much of which could have went into transfers
Click to expand...

I'm looking at the impact going forward under a potential SJR ownership without the existing debt being cleared immediately. My argument is that the yearly debt repayments aren't a biggie relative to the sort of spend that's required turned over at an elite football team.

For illustration of my point, the Sancho package will cost the club £163m over 5 years and he has had minimal impact after 2 of those years. So by equivalence he'll cost the club more than half a decade of existing debt repayments.

If Mason Greenwood ends up being released, that's probably a £150m asset getting wiped from the balance sheet (given current transfer prices, his age and talent levels). That was potentially another half decade of existing debt repayments!

To reiterate my point - £30m a year is chicken feed relative to the reality of volatile financial movements that happen regularly at elite football clubs.
 
Berbaclass said:
Click to expand...

Yup, it's literally Qatar now or we become Spuds in the coming years.

If Qatar go and slap down the 4bn for Spurs, some of the United fans on here will have to tie themselves in knots to explain how we're ever winning a title again short of a blanket ban on state clubs.
 
JPRouve said:
I was asked about it, I didn't brought it up.
Click to expand...
Alright, point taken. My original comment still stands, though. This is a lesser of two evils situation, and whilst "just a businessman" is indeed perhaps a rather naive statement to make about a petrochemicals billionaire, I believe @Chesterlestreet was correct to ask the question of whether Ratcliffe and Jassim are really comparable in the realm of state and political influence.
 
Rightnr said:
Yup, it's literally Qatar now or we become Spuds in the coming years.

If Qatar go and slap down the 4bn for Spurs, some of the United fans on here will have to tie themselves in knots to explain how we're ever winning a title again short of a blanket ban on state clubs.
Click to expand...
Alright, I don't know how popular this sentiment will be, but I for one would rather we never won a Premier League in the next ten years than become City's regen.
 
DownRiver said:
They have an open opportunity now, not wait a few years for another PL club to open its doors.

Also, QIA can buy out 92 foundation in the future. Also, UEFA president said they may change the rules for an entity to own multiple clubs.
Click to expand...
If they could then why go to the trouble of hiding it behind Jassim.
 
HarryP said:
You're completely misunderstanding my point.

I never said the Glazers haven't taken x amount of money out over the years, what I said is that recently the debt repayments aren't massively eating into the transfer budget. They're around £30m a year which generally will only get you an average player in today's market.
Click to expand...

Could have done with that in January
 
Mmm-Qatarian said:
Alright, point taken. My original comment still stands, though. This is a lesser of two evils situation, and whilst "just a businessman" is indeed perhaps a rather naive statement to make about a petrochemicals billionaire, I believe @Chesterlestreet was correct to ask the question of whether Ratcliffe and Jassim are really comparable in the realm of state and political influence.
Click to expand...

And I answered his question, I even gave an answer that both of you will agree with. But let me ask you this who has more political influence in the UK, Ineos or Hamad Al Thani?
 
UnitedSofa said:
What?

It’s someone giving their opinion for christ sakes
Click to expand...
And every other opinion with sub numbers turned out to be wrong.
There’s a reason it says
Do not post dodgy tweet sources
In the title and it’s not his opinion, he literally says one of their sources in a post.
It’s bullshit

Edit
the people we spoke to believe he will be there.
 
Random Precision said:
There is a legal option….although it’s a nuclear option. City could decide to mount a legal challenge against FFP and even FMV. Both FFP and FMV if challenged could be ruled a restriction of trade. There is legal opinion out there that suggests if a legal challenge was made it stands a good chance of being successful.
Click to expand...

Might be a hard sell given they enthusiasticly signed up to FFP in the first place (possibly because they were confident they could get around it without being caught out)
 
Mmm-Qatarian said:
Alright, I don't know how popular this sentiment will be, but I for one would rather we never won a Premier League in the next ten years than become City's regen.
Click to expand...
How about 20, 30 or even 50? Shall we become mid-table to make sure no one can say anything? What happens when Green peace start on Ratcliffe?
 
HarryP said:
I'm looking at the impact going forward under a potential SJR ownership without the existing debt being cleared immediately. My argument is that the yearly debt repayments aren't a biggie relative to the sort of spend that's required turned over at an elite football team.

For illustration of my point, the Sancho package will cost the club £163m over 5 years and he has had minimal impact after 2 of those years. So by equivalence he'll cost the club more than half a decade of existing debt repayments.

If Mason Greenwood ends up being released, that's probably a £150m asset getting wiped from the balance sheet (given current transfer prices, his age and talent levels). That was potentially another half decade of existing debt repayments!

To reiterate my point - £30m a year is chicken feed relative to the reality of volatile financial movements that happen regularly at elite football clubs.
Click to expand...

The point I picked up on in your post a few pages ago was that you said the Glazers spend up to the limit within the FFP rules which is clearly not the case.

to make it simpler if we have £100m to spend in a window to be within
FFP and they take a £10m dividend and pay £30m in debt repayments then we have £60m in reality. Even if they didn’t take a dividend in recent times and only pay down the interest that still takes us down to £70m.

if City have the same £100m, they have a full £100m to spend in the transfer market.

if you think that’s chicken feed or doesn’t make a difference then I don’t know what else to say.
 
Rightnr said:
Yup, it's literally Qatar now or we become Spuds in the coming years.

If Qatar go and slap down the 4bn for Spurs, some of the United fans on here will have to tie themselves in knots to explain how we're ever winning a title again short of a blanket ban on state clubs.
Click to expand...
Sounds like the best route to go.
 
JPRouve said:
And I answered his question, I even gave an answer that both of you will agree with. But let me ask you this who has more political influence in the UK, Ineos or Hamad Al Thani?
Click to expand...
INEOS, absolutely. My counter to that would be that Hamad Al Thani's political influence over Qatar is more considerable than INEOS' over any single state, probably by a considerable margin.
 
Mmm-Qatarian said:
INEOS, absolutely. My counter to that would be that Hamad Al Thani's political influence over Qatar is more considerable than INEOS' over any single state, probably by a considerable margin.
Click to expand...

So you are 100% agreeing with what I wrote in my initial post? What are you countering?
 
Rightnr said:
How about 20, 30 or even 50? Shall we become mid-table to make sure no one can say anything? What happens when Green peace start on Ratcliffe?
Click to expand...
I'm seriously considering just not supporting the club if it becomes a sportswashing venture, so yeah sure, I'll still take your made up scenario.
 
Reapersoul20 said:
I still can't get over that complete and total moron with a Qatar flag at OT.

A fecking Qatar flag. He was lucky it only got stolen off him. A few digs wouldn't have been appropriate, but the fact he felt empowered to go out into OT with that flag and not expect opposition is just so mind-blowingly stupid.
Click to expand...
Is this how you engage in dialog with others who disagree with you, you bully them, steal their belongings, few digs ? You sound like an autocratic country leader.. The irony.
 
Rooney24 said:
The point I picked up on in your post a few pages ago was that you said the Glazers spend up to the limit within the FFP rules which is clearly not the case.

to make it simpler if we have £100m to spend in a window to be within
FFP and they take a £10m dividend and pay £30m in debt repayments then we have £60m in reality. Even if they didn’t take a dividend in recent times and only pay down the interest that still takes us down to £70m.

if City have the same £100m, they have a full £100m to spend in the transfer market.

if you think that’s chicken feed or doesn’t make a difference then I don’t know what else to say.
Click to expand...

The debt repayments of ~£30m need to be balanced against the yearly revenues which are ~£650m. It isn't that much when you look at it like that. It's literally like the cost of a decent fallback. It can be worked around pretty easily under SJR and wiping it isn't the holy grail it's made out to be.
 
JPRouve said:
So you are 100% agreeing with what I wrote in my initial post? What are you countering?
Click to expand...
I was countering this point in particular:

JPRouve said:
But people need to remember something that they seem to willingly ignore or brush aside, the most influential people outside of political leaders are men like Ratcliffe, leaders in the petrochemical, energy, pharmaceutical industries and banking those people are the main source of corruption, political manipulation, dubious laws and regulations making in the world and in particular in our western countries, someone like Ratcliffe has more political power than most members of any british/french government, he has more influence on the EU or similar organization than most members of parliaments or political boards.
Click to expand...

(Corrected for proper quotation format)

My point was that I don't think people are less ignorant of it and more just considering the situation through the "lesser of two evils" lens.

Regardless, if I misinterpreted your post I extend my apologies. I think it was largely correct.
 
HarryP said:
The debt repayments of ~£30m need to be balanced against the yearly revenues which are ~£650m. It isn't that much when you look at it like that. It's literally like the cost of a decent fallback. It can be worked around pretty easily under SJR and wiping it isn't the holy grail it's made out to be.
Click to expand...

OK. So then I have 2 questions for you if this isn’t that much.

1. why are the vast majority of fans opposed to the Glazer ownership?

2.Why have we fallen so far behind other clubs and Man City in particular ?
 
Status
Not open for further replies.