Club Sale | It’s done!

[Nickelodeon]

Yes.
Never have i said anything about their owners. And never have i ever come up with the notion of buying success.

I even defended City in regards to "it's their money to spend"

Even with all the money in the world, football is still played on the same field with the 11 players on each side.
That's why we love it.

Fair enough. At least you're not a hypocrite.

 

[Devil You Know]

Here's the net spend since SAF retired:

1. Manchester City – £948.19million
2. Manchester United – £914.52million
3. PSG – £767.39million
4. Arsenal – £548.28million
5. Barcelona – £472.88million
6. Juventus – £467.6million
7. AC Milan – £415.76million
8. Chelsea – £388.35million
9. Liverpool – £340.64million
10. Bayern Munich – £388.58million

We've been spending ridiculous money for a decade. Ownership by 92F won't change that. And if you take away the Glazer dividends and loan repayments, that number could go up to almost £2000million!

We won't get any financial doping. We won't need it. It won't even be possible without it turning into a farce like Brewster's Millions. Chill out about the idea that we're about to lose our soul. All that's happening is that the brake will be released and United will be allowed to move ahead under our own steam.

 

[romufc]

With the money we spent we should have been able to spend more. It’s something like a Billion spend in 10 years but 1 billion was taken out.
That’s what I mean by Glazer rules. Make a bad buy like Maguire, Fred, Sancho and Pogba? We’re stuck with them. We can’t make a loss on their sales without needing to replace them at a higher rate and still improve in other areas.
City rotate players in and out because they can afford to. Laporte in the bench? No biggie. He’s gone in the summer no matter what loss they take. Madrid buy Hazard and Jovic at 200m odd? They’re not being forced to play the players, off to the bench they go alongside Bale. We’ll just operate transfers around them.
We are literally on that financial level but we have confused what Man Utd have become under the Glazers with what we are. If we were simply allowed to operate with what we generate you couldn’t tell a difference between that and being propped up by Qatar.

I agree with you.

City have bad buys, they just rectify it in the next window. Cancelo, one of the best full backs last season created problems and is out.

Yet, we are here hoping Martial comes good. City, instead realised Sterling, Jesus, ZInchenko can leave and let them go, we are here hoping to keep DDG's feelings happy.

That is the difference, they are there to win, we are sentiment FC.

Look at the number of players City have, how many do you think don't deserve to be there? Phillips?

Look at United, DDG, Maguire, Mctominay, Fred, Martial at the bare minimum.

 

[Real Name]

You’re the fella who doesn’t want Qatar ownership and be looking for Mbappe next month when they takeover.

I'm not that fella. Get of it.

 

[croadyman]

I can’t believe some people still think it’s not a state bid

Yeah it clearly is and I accepted that

 

[Moston Red]

Why is it everything this club does turns into a saga! We have a yearly transfer saga which generally turns into an embarrassment and now this. Drives me nuts.

 

[b82REZ]

I have not spoken about any further success for us under any ownership. I was talking about City.

So your post was pointless and added nothing to the discussion. Why even bother bringing City up in a thread about United being sold?

 

[Eddy_JukeZ]

I understand people being conflicted, but most people whose net worth is in the billions all have immoral acts to various degrees. Ratcliffe's company has constantly come under fire

Ideally I'd have someone akin to a saint owning us, but that's not realistic unfortunately.

Here's the net spend since SAF retired:

1. Manchester City – £948.19million
2. Manchester United – £914.52million
3. PSG – £767.39million
4. Arsenal – £548.28million
5. Barcelona – £472.88million
6. Juventus – £467.6million
7. AC Milan – £415.76million
8. Chelsea – £388.35million
9. Liverpool – £340.64million
10. Bayern Munich – £388.58million

We've been spending ridiculous money for a decade. Ownership by 92F won't change that. And if you take away the Glazer dividends and loan repayments, that number could go up to almost £2000million!

We won't get any financial doping. We won't need it. It won't even be possible without it turning into a farce like Brewster's Millions. Chill out about the idea that we're about to lose our soul. All that's happening is that the albatross around our neck is going to be removed and United will be allowed to function under their own steam.

The fact we've spent that much and still need to spend more is simply staggering. We have wasted so much money.

 

[DickDastardly]

Why is it everything this club does turns into a saga! We have a yearly transfer saga which generally turns into an embarrassment and now this. Drives me nuts.

It's good press.

Shitty winning the treble get's them zero media coverage. Nobody want's to read crap about them.

Us? You can make up stories that involve "Manchester United" in the headlines and you'll get tons of reach.

 

[pauldyson1uk]

Here's the net spend since SAF retired:

1. Manchester City – £948.19million
2. Manchester United – £914.52million
3. PSG – £767.39million
4. Arsenal – £548.28million
5. Barcelona – £472.88million
6. Juventus – £467.6million
7. AC Milan – £415.76million
8. Chelsea – £388.35million
9. Liverpool – £340.64million
10. Bayern Munich – £388.58million

We've been spending ridiculous money for a decade. Ownership by 92F won't change that. And if you take away the Glazer dividends and loan repayments, that number could go up to almost £2000million!

We won't get any financial doping. We won't need it. It won't even be possible without it turning into a farce like Brewster's Millions. Chill out about the idea that we're about to lose our soul. All that's happening is that the brake will be released and United will be allowed to move ahead under our own steam.

Transfer money has never been the problem, its how the money has been spent, we have bought some really bellends

 

[crossy1686]

Which still doesnt make it a good thing.

Nope but it's going to be the new normal. Change is inevitable.

 

[Marcelinho87]

Here's the net spend since SAF retired:

1. Manchester City – £948.19million
2. Manchester United – £914.52million
3. PSG – £767.39million
4. Arsenal – £548.28million
5. Barcelona – £472.88million
6. Juventus – £467.6million
7. AC Milan – £415.76million
8. Chelsea – £388.35million
9. Liverpool – £340.64million
10. Bayern Munich – £388.58million

We've been spending ridiculous money for a decade. Ownership by 92F won't change that. And if you take away the Glazer dividends and loan repayments, that number could go up to almost £2000million!

We won't get any financial doping. We won't need it. It won't even be possible without it turning into a farce like Brewster's Millions. Chill out about the idea that we're about to lose our soul. All that's happening is that the brake will be released and United will be allowed to move ahead under our own steam.

How much of that is Woodward and his reckless pursuit of names? We have spent a ton, no doubt.... We have spent it very poorly and I hope with new owners we recruit best in class which won't allow that to happen.

 

[The Boy]

Yep, so bottom line is we dont know

This post sums up 1657 pages of this thread quite succintly

 

[Pogue Mahone]

With the money we spent we should have been able to spend more. It’s something like a Billion spend in 10 years but 1 billion was taken out.
That’s what I mean by Glazer rules. Make a bad buy like Maguire, Fred, Sancho and Pogba? We’re stuck with them. We can’t make a loss on their sales without needing to replace them at a higher rate and still improve in other areas.
City rotate players in and out because they can afford to. Laporte in the bench? No biggie. He’s gone in the summer no matter what loss they take. Madrid buy Hazard and Jovic at 200m odd? They’re not being forced to play the players, off to the bench they go alongside Bale. We’ll just operate transfers around them.
We are literally on that financial level but we have confused what Man Utd have become under the Glazers with what we are. If we were simply allowed to operate with what we generate you couldn’t tell a difference between that and being propped up by Qatar.

You’re implying City are better able than us to rack up a massive net spend. Then why is the net spend at the two clubs so similar? And, more to the point, why would Qatari ownership make any difference to how well run we are in terms of buying and selling players better?

 

[Devil You Know]

Transfer money has never been the problem, its how the money has been spent, we have bought some really bellends

Exactly. The important thing is that the Glazers are going. I don't expect our new owners to need to artificially inject any cash into the playing squad. It'll happen organically.

 

[Rightnr]

Why is it everything this club does turns into a saga! We have a yearly transfer saga which generally turns into an embarrassment and now this. Drives me nuts.

The answer is pure and simple. The fecking Glazer rats.

We have seen how big of a role the owner of one of these institutions has. Having one that is decisive, focussed on success and willing to spent to achieve will make all the difference.

Just compare our transfer dealings before the rats took over (although admittedly before the social media age) and how things have been since. Or maybe even compare our running with how the scousers buy players.

It's all on these blood-sucking leeches and their incompetent appointees.

 

[romufc]

We won't get any financial doping. We won't need it. It won't even be possible without it turning into a farce like Brewster's Millions. Chill out about the idea that we're about to lose our soul. All that's happening is that the albatross around our neck is going to be removed and United will be allowed to function under their own steam.

Exactly. We might become more ruthless and even make more money from sales. Imagine if we could sell some of our talents and make £50/60m a summer on those and sell the likes of Maguire, Bailly, Telles etc..

This summer we have the potential to make over £100m from sales but we wont. We have the ability to make record kit and sponsorship deals with companies without them being owner driven.

Our commercial pull is different to city, we just need to be run better and we can improve alot.

 

[Pogue Mahone]

How much of that is Woodward and his reckless pursuit of names? We have spent a ton, no doubt.... We have spent it very poorly and I hope with new owners we recruit best in class which won't allow that to happen.

Why will we waste less money if this Jassim guy buys the club?

 

[VP89]

This is why the argument about buying success if we get state ownership is so fecking stupid.

To an extent, it doesn't matter how rich our owners are, they just need to embed a proper structure that is progressive whilst also being consistent with our club ethos.

As much as people want to hate Ratcliff, they have no idea what structure Jassim will put in. They don't know how much he will intefere, or how much the person he employs to run the club will intefere. They have no evidence to suggest that it won't be run similar to PSG.


That's why my stance has just been 1) Glazers out of the majority ownership and 2) owners that just manage us well and empower our managers/DoFs to do their work. NEVER to allow player power to reign. I don't give a feck where they come from any more, as long as they are consistent with the ethos of our club.

 

[Pogue Mahone]

Exactly. We might become more ruthless and even make more money from sales. Imagine if we could sell some of our talents and make £50/60m a summer on those and sell the likes of Maguire, Bailly, Telles etc..

This summer we have the potential to make over £100m from sales but we wont. We have the ability to make record kit and sponsorship deals with companies without them being owner driven.

Our commercial pull is different to city, we just need to be run better and we can improve alot.

Why? What makes you think any of this would be more likely under Qatari ownership?

 

[Annihilate Now!]

Why will we waste less money if this Jassim guy buys the club?

Well in theory a new owner wouldn't have an incomptent clown like Ed Woodward running the show and people who are actually good at their jobs instead - so when we spend big money it'd be on players who are actually worth it and it wouldn't be a waste.

But that's all in theory though - there's no tangible evidence to suggest this will happen.

 

[Castia]

Here's the net spend since SAF retired:

1. Manchester City – £948.19million
2. Manchester United – £914.52million
3. PSG – £767.39million
4. Arsenal – £548.28million
5. Barcelona – £472.88million
6. Juventus – £467.6million
7. AC Milan – £415.76million
8. Chelsea – £388.35million
9. Liverpool – £340.64million
10. Bayern Munich – £388.58million

We've been spending ridiculous money for a decade. Ownership by 92F won't change that. And if you take away the Glazer dividends and loan repayments, that number could go up to almost £2000million!

We won't get any financial doping. We won't need it. It won't even be possible without it turning into a farce like Brewster's Millions. Chill out about the idea that we're about to lose our soul. All that's happening is that the brake will be released and United will be allowed to move ahead under our own steam.

It’s because we have had a bunch of idiots running the club. I remember when City first got their money they was very much like United just spunking it on random flops. They soon realised they needed to get the off field team right and appointed the trio from Barcelona to run the club

First thing Qatar/Jim need to do is put in place a proper recruitment team with a proper plan to work alongside ETH.

 

[DavelinaJolie]

I can’t believe some people still think it’s not a state bid

Fans of other teams that have gone through this kind of process say the same thing. It's really not a surprise.

 

[Pogue Mahone]

This is why the argument about buying success if we get state ownership is so fecking stupid.

To an extent, it doesn't matter how rich our owners are, they just need to embed a proper structure that is progressive whilst also being consistent with our club ethos.

As much as people want to hate Ratcliff, they have no idea what structure Jassim will put in. They don't know how much he will intefere, or how much the person he employs to run the club will intefere. They have no evidence to suggest that it won't be run similar to PSG.


That's why my stance has just been 1) Glazers out of the majority ownership and 2) owners that just manage us well and empower our managers/DoFs to do their work. NEVER to allow player power to reign. I don't give a feck where they come from any more, as long as they are consistent with the ethos of our club.

And what’s really fecking stupid is the assumption by most people in this thread that we’ll suddenly become a well run club but only if Jassim buys us. Based on literally zero evidence that this will happen.

 

[Castia]

Why will we waste less money if this Jassim guy buys the club?

You’d assume they would want best in class staff running the club not the former bankers and non football experienced dipshits we have now

 

[Devil You Know]

How much of that is Woodward and his reckless pursuit of names? We have spent a ton, no doubt.... We have spent it very poorly and I hope with new owners we recruit best in class which won't allow that to happen.

It's also the Glazers. Their desire to make Manchester United a vehicle of commercial interests is what led to the policy for superstar names and undeserved wages. That in turn created a toxic dressing room of primadonnas. And the failures of the last decade have been inevitable.

Spending money hasn't been the issue. The problem has been with the direction the club has been taken. The Glazers have been revving the engine with the handbrake on. All I want from the 92F is to let the handbrake off. It's barely even going to be possible to put on the afterburners.

 

[Pogue Mahone]

Well in theory a new owner wouldn't have an incomptent clown like Ed Woodward running the show and people who are actually good at their jobs instead - so when we spend big money it'd be on players who are actually worth it and it wouldn't be a waste.

But that's all in theory though - there's no tangible evidence to suggest this will happen.

It’s a theory with not one shred of evidence to support it. Which makes it mind blowing to see how widely accepted it is in this thread.

 

[VP89]

And what’s really fecking stupid is the assumption by most people in this thread that we’ll suddenly become a well run club but only if Jassim buys us. Based on literally zero evidence that this will happen.

Exactly. I am actually worried there is a bigger chance of us drifting away from the things I affiliated our club with and was proud about.

Ratcliff may have been a car crash at Nice, but from the leaks that his party supposedly gave journalists, the proposed changes seemed to make sense. Sheikh Jassim however is a black box and we really have no idea which way he'll go in managing us. Whether we'll be as efficient as City or as slapdash as PSG - it is fair game.

 

[The Boy]

Why will we waste less money if this Jassim guy buys the club?

Hopefully from your point of view, the wasted money days of Ed W are over and the people in charge now seem to have a far better idea of what they are doing, that's if they stay in place with new owners though, it could all change again.

My thought for what it's worth, is that whether Jassim or Ratcliffe buy you, the biggest difference would be investment in youth facilities and training ground. It seem in the last 10 years especially in terms of what is on offer for young players looking to make a career you have been outstripped by City with many (certainly not all though) young players choosing City over you. For long term success that needs to change.

 

[Eddy_JukeZ]

And what’s really fecking stupid is the assumption by most people in this thread that we’ll suddenly become a well run club but only if Jassim buys us. Based on literally zero evidence that this will happen.

There isn't any evidence of it. We can just hope he'll not meddle too much and just try to hire the best in class.

We do have evidence of Ratcliffe being poor with his other 2 clubs though which is why I'm against him. He's hired some of his own mates to do business and it's been a disaster. The articles depicting his ownership at Nice are often damning.

 

[Pogue Mahone]

It's also the Glazers. Their desire to make Manchester United a vehicle of commercial interests is what led to the policy for superstar names and undeserved wages. That in turn created a toxic dressing room of primadonnas. And the failures of the last decade have been inevitable.

Spending money hasn't been the issue. The problem has been with the direction the club has been taken. The Glazers have been revving the engine with the handbrake on. All I want from the 92F is to let the handbrake off. It's barely even going to be possible to put on the afterburners.

Just as well we won’t see that policy under Qatari ownership, right?

 

[Nogbadthebad]

Why will we waste less money if this Jassim guy buys the club?

They -might- employ a better quality of professionals to oversee transfers and so on.

But that is not guaranteed of course. They would struggle to do worse though.

 

[Guapa]

What time does the NY Stock market open

 

[Nytram Shakes]

Here's the net spend since SAF retired:

1. Manchester City – £948.19million
2. Manchester United – £914.52million
3. PSG – £767.39million
4. Arsenal – £548.28million
5. Barcelona – £472.88million
6. Juventus – £467.6million
7. AC Milan – £415.76million
8. Chelsea – £388.35million
9. Liverpool – £340.64million
10. Bayern Munich – £388.58million

We've been spending ridiculous money for a decade. Ownership by 92F won't change that. And if you take away the Glazer dividends and loan repayments, that number could go up to almost £2000million!

We won't get any financial doping. We won't need it. It won't even be possible without it turning into a farce like Brewster's Millions. Chill out about the idea that we're about to lose our soul. All that's happening is that the brake will be released and United will be allowed to move ahead under our own steam.

For me this is the point everyone has missed about the Glazer ownership, the amount of money they have allowed the club to spend on transfers has been immense. The problem is they have never insured that money has been spent well. We have wasted more money then any club in football history over the last decade.

Whoever the new owner is, the number 1 thing we need from them is to put in place a team that knows how to look after a football club.

 

[romufc]

Why? What makes you think any of this would be more likely under Qatari ownership?

I said we might, I didn't say it is something that is definitely going to happen. This could happen with SJR too, not just Qatar btw.

I think of a few reasons why we could be more likely:

1. New owners to review structure - why we have failed and why we fail
2. Wanting to win - not rewarding failure - Jose and Ole got new contracts after 2nd place finish
3. Wanting to be the best - you dont spend £5bn for fun

 

[sifi36]

Here's the net spend since SAF retired:

1. Manchester City – £948.19million
2. Manchester United – £914.52million
3. PSG – £767.39million
4. Arsenal – £548.28million
5. Barcelona – £472.88million
6. Juventus – £467.6million
7. AC Milan – £415.76million
8. Chelsea – £388.35million
9. Liverpool – £340.64million
10. Bayern Munich – £388.58million

We've been spending ridiculous money for a decade. Ownership by 92F won't change that. And if you take away the Glazer dividends and loan repayments, that number could go up to almost £2000million!

We won't get any financial doping. We won't need it. It won't even be possible without it turning into a farce like Brewster's Millions. Chill out about the idea that we're about to lose our soul. All that's happening is that the brake will be released and United will be allowed to move ahead under our own steam.

If you normalise that for transfer fee inflation, City are far out in front. They spent ~500m Euros in three seasons from 2008-11 (United 100m) and 740m Euros from 2015-18 (United 535m, that's our highest for any 3 year period). Transfer fees pre-Neymar were significantly lower than they are now, and City have been adding the odd player here and there since then; they've only signed 5 players for more than 50m Euros since 2018/19.

The net spend argument always favours successful teams, they can sell their unwanted players for a lot more money, it used to work in our favour through the 90s and 00s and obviously now favours City given their recent success.

Edit: Quoted the wrong post.

 

[Puskas_007]

Bit of a masochistic question but am I right that when the Glazer's initially bought out the remaining shares to become de facto owners of the club, were the shares priced at £3 or thereabouts?

Just ruminating on the basic equation of how much profit they will make from purchase to sale of the shares (from a simplistic point of view - not taking into account the £Ms they've bled from the club etc).

 

[Marcelinho87]

Why will we waste less money if this Jassim guy buys the club?

I am not saying we won't, nor SJR - I am hoping they are just savvy enough to get the right people involved who won't.

 

[Tarrou]

Why will we waste less money if this Jassim guy buys the club?

the only logic behind it is it would be hard to do much worse

 

[VP89]

I am not saying we won't, nor SJR - I am hoping they are just savvy enough to get the right people involved who won't.

If they have state influence then there is a very comparable example that suggests this won't be the case. But I hope I am wrong.