I agree with this. The only team that has gone ludicrously crazy in the transfer market is PSG, the rest have gradually raised the bar in terms of their vision.
Club Sale | It’s done!
- Thread starter JB08
- Start date
- Status
The bold I definitely agree with and it would apply if the media criticism was currently a lot heavier too. In the long run the only way City lose if if they are actually found guilty of breaches and punished. If that doesn't happen, this will all be minimized in the future.
We don't live in the future though and right now football fans do view them quite negatively, I would say.
You mean the way all of real Madrid success is hollow and soulless because of their association with Franco and the advantage it gave them in the early days, or the Milan clubs with Berlusconi? The point is, in time people don't care about this, particularly for a club like us that already has a storied history and large fanbase, but in time city will become a big club, people will grow up seeing them as a great team, and start following them, and won't pay much attention to their ownership.
A small proportion of football fans do, people on post on here are far more engaged with that side if things than your average bloke that watches the game down the pub every weekend. I think there's a tendency when posting on a place like this to believe views on here are widely represented among the general population and they aren't really, if you look on social media people are far more in favour of Qatar, this place isn't really representative of football fans on the whole
But I don't care whether or not people will be bothered by it in 30 or 40 years' time. Honestly, I don't even care if other people are or are not bothered by it now; this is a purely personal opinion of mine.
Off topic but look at what Abu Dhabi are doing to that club. Plastic, embarrassing club that is doped up to the gills.
It isn't the money, it is getting the right people in to run the club efficiently, right management, right coaches, right scouting. Everything. We have had money, but the wrong people dealing with what happens with the money. It is not transfers that would be an issue, it is the club infrastructure being allowed to deteriorate while the management handed out stupid contracts to players not worth keeping, then signing past it players on extortionate wages that has been the problem. Whilst siphoning money to line their own pockets and running up massive debts.
Context?
Is it that they have allowed people to queue for ages and no tickets when they get to the end?
Who gives a shite about them. Their own fans hate the club. We therefore shouldn't be giving them any time around here, or wanting state ownership.
Well for starters since about 2015 I think, we've spent about 350m servicing dividends and interest payments, so just getting rid of those two would be a big boost, they'll build a new stadium which will eventually lead to increased revenues, plus they can probably just loan the club money at zero interest like abramovic with Chelsea
People look at psg, a club with far less tv revenue than the Premier league would generate for clubs, with much higher transfer spending and wage bills than us, Newcastle who were bottom of the league and didn't have much in the way of sponsorship spending 200m etc
You posted it pal not me
That's what I didn't get. If we shouldn't be bothered about them, why post it. Unless you read the replies it just looks like a successful club's fans queuing for tickets to a final. By the way how many tickets have the two sets of fans been allocated? Most of the capacity won't be going to actual fans of the clubs involved.You posted it pal not me
Hopefully 50-50 after the corporates. I doubt they will fill their allocation. was it their semi final where is was barely full for them? I’d imagine there will be a fair few day trippers to pad out their numbers.
I would imagine so. Trouble is UEFA officials and corporate take up a lot of seats.
Ah sorry i thought you were talking about the FA Cup final.
No the CL final. Both really. All these types of finals the fans do not get their fare share of tickets.
Have they shown themselves to be incompetent at Nice? I keep reading this as if it’s gospel, but online the only references I can find to their time there is an article basically saying they’re pretty satisfied with how things have gone since 2019:
https://www.monaco-tribune.com/en/2...f-sir-jim-ratcliffes-involvement-at-ogc-nice/
I’ve definitely not seen anything that qualifies them as being dumber than the Glazers.
Think it depends on the ambitions of the fans as well. Here the ambitions are a lot more, but also the Glazers are useless as owners.
Its not just more money, but rather the fact it becomes less problematic to spend it when necessary.
Under the Glazers we only seem to take out the checkbook when we finish outside of top 4, very rarely do we get backed when we're in a position of ascendancy. On top of that we have to endure very protracted transfer sagas, where we do business abominably.
Contrast it to City - whenever a signing doesn't work out, they're quick to sign someone until they get it right for the position. Pep must have gone through about 10 fullbacks before he had a hit with his current ones. Furthermore they're quick to ship out players who aren't good enough. Martial wouldn't have lasted 7 years under City. Nor would they have endured with De Gea because of 'other pressing priorities'.
We also wouldn't be in a position where we'd have to sign a championship striker on loan because our owners have shat the bed financially with their ownership model.
The issue isn’t the amount. It’s competence, consistency, a strategy etc. All of which we don’t have.
"The media will love us like City, and we'll have more fans in Asia if we take petrostate dollars!"
Some of these arguments are flat-out desperate. Why does it matter so much to some to have social media bragging rights or to have random fans in random countries supporting United b/c they win? I thought supporting a football club was personal but I guess I was wrong.
Couldn't agree more, that sums both clubs up perfectly.
I posted that because people said our success would be meaningless, but real Madrid don't seem to have that issue despite their questionable history, and it wouldn't happen to us either
Think it is also the ambition of the owners, theirs want to win, some will say at whatever cost. Ours were just happy to get Top 4 and their dividends, which is why they only spent when we did not get Top 4. SAF always strengthened the squad when we were in the ascendancy, until the Glazers turned up.
It's not remotely the same and the fact you're doing the whole childish "I know you are but what am I?" thing says that you know this but are making an argument in bad faith.
That's not relevant to the topic we were discussing and the second bit is speculation anyway.
That's quite amazing considering that they are 10th place, that Favre was saddled with a player (ie Barkley) whom he didn't even know were he plays and how old he is and that most of the new signings made had failed to make an impact including Ramsay whose name is mentioned in that article.
https://www.reuters.com/article/uk-soccer-france-nice-idUKKCN1VH07U
This is what Bob Ratcliffe said about Nice. “The ambition is to reach Ligue 1’s top four and regularly reach European championship (Champions League) within three to five years,”
They never achieved that goal. Meanwhile they work on audits done by bicycle man Brailsford, Bob Ratcliffe keeps getting kicked upstairs despite tanking in every role he was in, Galtier had criticised their recruitment and both Galtier and Favre left showing huge concerns of how things are being run
https://www.theguardian.com/football/2023/jan/20/manchester-united-fans-nice-jim-ratcliffe-psg
Petit had described them as not having a plan something that was echoed by those at Lausanne as well.
This is interesting as your saying that this is 4.25% of the 31% which would be left but are non voting shares so to give them a premium on those A Shares which is a similar to the B Shares they would receive even more money. So SJ bid of £4.8bn on 73.25% (£3.51bn) or SJR bid on £5bn on 69% (£3.45bn) 50.01% (£2.51bn), now I’m starting to understand how he offered them 20% to stay and 29.9% would be left on NYSE, A and B shares would be bought and converted into voting shares, this is incredibly messy.
Perfect fit then.
How is it to the detriment of the club?
FSG were fairly dire during the their first years at Liverpool. Dalglish as manager, Downing, Carroll, Charlie Adam etc.
They obviously learnt from experience.
I would say Ratcliffe's ownership of Nice is a good thing as I'm sure he'd have learnt a few things.
Projecting what has happened at Nice over the last few years onto a potential Ineos ownership of United is short sighted and simplistic imo.
Yeah that’s not great reading, that Guardian article doesn’t paint them in a great light, especially if he at one point had his brother working on an important role in the club. If they win the bid the only thing we can hope is that they take it more seriously at United, I don’t think they’d get away with the decisions mentioned in the article here.
Man City prior to Abu Dhabi was a small club with a local fanbase that bounced around the football divisions. They were bought and essentially became a phoenix club. They used the name of the club and their shirts, but essentially built and entire club on the framework of Man City. There is nothing about this current Man City that has anything to do with their history, or the club prior to Abu Dhabi. They went from Stephen Ireland and Shaun Goater and no success to Kevin De Bruyne and Erling Haaland and racking up trophies.
Manchester United has one of the most storied histories in the world of football. They are arguably in the top 2 biggest football clubs in the world. Their fanbase is massive, their history is massive their success is massive. Qatar can't buy Man Utd and turn them into something they aren't, because they already are a huge club, with big players, they pay big transfer fees, they pay big wages they have a history of success. We can't be bought by Qatar and then criticized when we buy Osimhen for a record breaking fee, because we have a history of signing players for record fees, Denis Law, Bryan Robson, Andy Cole, Rio, Veron, Pogba.
We will never be the next Man City, because they're still trying to be the next Man Utd. We just want owners to return us to the level we historically belong.
Manchester United has one of the most storied histories in the world of football. They are arguably in the top 2 biggest football clubs in the world. Their fanbase is massive, their history is massive their success is massive. Qatar can't buy Man Utd and turn them into something they aren't, because they already are a huge club, with big players, they pay big transfer fees, they pay big wages they have a history of success. We can't be bought by Qatar and then criticized when we buy Osimhen for a record breaking fee, because we have a history of signing players for record fees, Denis Law, Bryan Robson, Andy Cole, Rio, Veron, Pogba.
We will never be the next Man City, because they're still trying to be the next Man Utd. We just want owners to return us to the level we historically belong.
How so? If we cannot use past examples of mismanagement to suss out how they will handle United then what metric do we use to evaluate their performance? They have shown time and time again of being incompetent when handling sports projects. But we should all he happy Brexit Jimbo is buying us as he is not a nation state.
Absolutely correct.
It’s telling of just how bad the Glazers’ ownership has been that so many fans seem to not understand this.
Cards on the table, I do not have a Harvard MBA although I do have my have my own business and at least so far haven’t filed for bankruptcy protection.
Question: why is the Glazer debt being dismissed as irrelevant by pundits in the valuation of the offers from Sir Jim and Shiek Jassim?
Jassim’s offer clears the roughly £1B debt, and Sir Jim’s does not…at least so it seems. If that debt isn’t cleared, it’s still there and if it’s still there Jimmy, Joel and Avram are presumably still obligated to service that debt. Or is there is something obviously missing in my two cent analysis of the nature of this debt that makes it reasonable for the British media to ignore this aspect of the relative valuations of these two bids?
Question: why is the Glazer debt being dismissed as irrelevant by pundits in the valuation of the offers from Sir Jim and Shiek Jassim?
Jassim’s offer clears the roughly £1B debt, and Sir Jim’s does not…at least so it seems. If that debt isn’t cleared, it’s still there and if it’s still there Jimmy, Joel and Avram are presumably still obligated to service that debt. Or is there is something obviously missing in my two cent analysis of the nature of this debt that makes it reasonable for the British media to ignore this aspect of the relative valuations of these two bids?
Trouble is you can't really judge. Tampa Bay won two Superbowls, but they are sh*t owners for us. SJR would be stupid if he tries to run Manchester United like Nice. We are on another stratosphere.
That is very well put.
The Raine group asked all interested parties, even if they wished to buy a minority or refinancing package to value the club in its full entirety. The current share price is $19.16 and the market cap is $3.09billion that’s the full value of the club if all shares were to be sold at that price.
However because two main bidders are trying to take over the controlling shares of the club, they have to bid for the full value of the club so by SJR offering £5bn which is more likely his bid not £6bn that is $6.2bn which is double the market cap, he can afford to be this bold because he does not intend to buy 100% of the club, he only intends to buy 50.01% or 69% which is (£2.51bn or £3.45bn)
SJ bid is different because he has made it clear they will buy only 100% of the shares, So his offer will be slightly lower, because he is offering a premium to the Glazers but also to all the other share holders. The part that people have missed and this is quite important is that the Glazers have Voting B shares and A shares too.
Apparently Darcie, Joel snd Avram have 4.25% of the 31% left, so he is theoretically offering the Glazers the opportunity to purchase their 73.25% of £4.8bn which is £3.516bn, In other words more cash now, probably not enough but the fact they met at Clarridges with Avram this week makes me think that we are near the end game, however the Qatar bid through 92 Foundation will probably have to offer another £500m to get the deal done or if it’s being done already they’ve offered more than what’s been circulated through the media.
You can analyse past performance but it's almost useless if your automatic hot take is some doomsday projection and you fail to contextualise things properly.
- Status