Club Sale | It’s done!

Status
Not open for further replies.
Nytram Shakes said:
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.
Click to expand...

They did allow the club to spend money, but that was only because top 4 no longer became a guarantee.

If more money was spent in the latter years of SAF's reign, we'd have 2 more league titles right now sitting on 22 instead of 20.

That transfer window in 2009 under their stewardship was a disgrace.
 
Castia said:
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
Click to expand...

Yeah City didn't get that side of things right until the two main Barca honchos came in
 
The Boy said:
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.
Click to expand...

Yeah I would completely agree with that
 
AnotherLondonManc said:
We're not Man City, mate. Even before the potential Saudi ownership, we're already spending about as much as FFP allows. I don't expect our transfer spending to increase much following the purchase. It can't.

What we will be able to do though, is renovate the stadium and training/youth set-up, and clear the debt. Which I'm sure we can all agree is a good thing.
Click to expand...


Ok it’s not Saudi but Qatari investment and the FFP up until this year was a myth, we could have spent £300-400m for the last 3/4 transfer windows had we not made a loss and had a debt wedged against the club and serviced the debt with our own money generated by match day, commercial and broadcasting revenue. This year is completely different with the new FSP rules coming. We can
Only spend 90% of our revenue on Financials, Wages, Agent fees etc. Now even if the club turns over £600m but loses £120m and then spends £40m on top of that loss just to service the £535m debt you’ve just lost 25% of your sustainability through gross mismanagement.

Assuming SJ through 92 Foundation take over as it looks likely now, then the following happens in a 12 month timeframe;

1. They immediately pay off the debt and therefore there is no more payments from the club to service the debt.

2. A new shirt sponsor can maximise the club merchandising potential

3. Without debt, the club has more room to work in this year transfer window.

4. If the correct players are sold like D Henderson, S Mctominay, B Williams, DVB, A Ellanga, H Maguire for even £80-90m the club could spend £300 this summer and £150m in the winter quite easily. Due to SJ 92 foundation having actual cash available this summer, they could even sign a marquee signing like Neymar or Mbappe but not both.

5. Your 100% right about stadium, training ground and infrastructure improvements, they can spend as much as they wish in these areas without any effect on FFP or FSP.

6. Next year 24/25 season the FSP will be allowed at 80%, assuming potential
Trajectory of a club without debt and payments to service debt. A new shirt sponsor deal will push united Turnover to £700m including CL football, a number which looks ridiculous but City will achieve this revenue figure at the end of this season after their treble.

The club owes nothing now so can spend 80% of the £700m on wages, Financials and agent fees, so £560m is left assume our financials and wages are £360m, the club now has potentially £200m in their transfer and agent fee budget, however should a player like Mbappe be purchased on a 4 year contract at £200m with a wage of £750k per week the transfer would be £50m amortised plus his wages of £30m meaning £80m of the budget would be used so the club would still have £120m left over.

The Glazers have prevented this from happening due to the debt and they’ve run the club into the ground, I for one can’t wait to see them go and the sooner the better, the type of player we buy will improve and anyone who doesn’t cut it won’t linger around old Trafford like a bad smell, they will be shown the door immediately!
 
Pogue Mahone said:
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?
Click to expand...
A lot of their attacking players were bought at expensive fees at the time but those massive numbers at the time lessened when the market went mad just after?
Up until what? 2 seasons ago their attackers were all at City for a good 5/6/7 years so almost their entire spend was constantly on FBs and CBS. It was touching 300m over a few summers window if I remember correctly.
To have most of their spend on non attackers was madness.
I’d also argue they were allowed to continue as normal while spending hundreds and hundreds millions more on Stadium and training ground upgrades. Other clubs simply can’t do that, hell we had to neglect our infrastructure to keep up. Add that to the under the table deals they’re getting done for and it means out money spent is nowhere near theirs.
I don’t think I’ve said new owners are guaranteed to make a difference in buying and selling? What I would say is that it would give us greater scope for making mistakes simply by allowing United to be United again.
We wouldn’t be bringing in Weghorst or Sabitzer on loans, that’s for sure.
 
People who now start boycotting the club…. :lol:
You better not celebrate any trophy we will win from now
 
If we’re talking transfers and general running of the club nothing scares me more than Jim. He’s made Woodward look competent.
 
Devil You Know said:
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.
Click to expand...

Which begs the question, why on earth are some people so keen for us to be tied to state ownership?

As that spending makes clear, it isn't for the benefit most clubs would get of being able to spend competitively in the market. Because we can do that regardless.

The only thing we haven't been able to do is spend on infrastructure adequately, but you don't need state-ownership to do that either. Just someone willing/able to raise investment resources in a manner that doesn't overly impact that current ability to spend competitively.

With so little to gain (relative to other clubs), the desire for state-ownership by some becomes aggressively amoral.
 
Pogue Mahone said:
Just as well we won’t see that policy under Qatari ownership, right?
Click to expand...
We may do. It may also happen under British ownership. The difference is that that was primary policy for the Glazers. It can't get any worse than it has been under them.

Their priority was buying marketable players to make for a marketable club, with each big name getting their egos getting stroked at every turn. And then the remainder of the squad having their contracts extended so as retain asset value in order to get favourable terms from banks. It created a poisonous dressing room atmosphere with a culture of entitlement and laziness.
 
I love how everyone talks about City’s netspend knowing full well their corrupt backdoor deals.

Who the feck knows how much they are actually paying when it comes to transfers and wages
 
Eddy_JukeZ said:
They did allow the club to spend money, but that was only because top 4 no longer became a guarantee.

If more money was spent in the latter years of SAF's reign, we'd have 2 more league titles right now sitting on 22 instead of 20.

That transfer window in 2009 under their stewardship was a disgrace.
Click to expand...
I’m not saying the Glazers are great owners.

Yes, they have only allowed us to spend to keep us near the top of the league, but the point there is no issue at all with the amount of money the Glazers have let us spend over the last decade. The problem is there is they didn’t put a team in place who knew how to spend that insane sum of money.

That’s why are squad is still all over the place.That’s why we are no way near city. It’s not lack of funds that’s the issue under the Glazers it’s knowledge as to how to spend it.
 
Tarrou said:
its never mattered
Click to expand...
Football's headed this way, most clubs will have minority state investment at some point in my opinion. I'm not excited to be owned by a state but if that happens at least we know we won't find ourselves in a Malaga type situation in a few years where the owners just get bored and feck off leaving us a mess.

The PL are powerless to stop teams like City and Newcastle from running away with the league so the only alternative is to attract more state ownership to level the playing field.
 
Woziak said:
Ok it’s not Saudi but Qatari investment and the FFP up until this year was a myth, we could have spent £300-400m for the last 3/4 transfer windows had we not made a loss and had a debt wedged against the club and serviced the debt with our own money generated by match day, commercial and broadcasting revenue. This year is completely different with the new FSP rules coming. We can
Only spend 90% of our revenue on Financials, Wages, Agent fees etc. Now even if the club turns over £600m but loses £120m and then spends £40m on top of that loss just to service the £535m debt you’ve just lost 25% of your sustainability through gross mismanagement.

Assuming SJ through 92 Foundation take over as it looks likely now, then the following happens in a 12 month timeframe;

1. They immediately pay off the debt and therefore there is no more payments from the club to service the debt.

2. A new shirt sponsor can maximise the club merchandising potential

3. Without debt, the club has more room to work in this year transfer window.

4. If the correct players are sold like D Henderson, S Mctominay, B Williams, DVB, A Ellanga, H Maguire for even £80-90m the club could spend £300 this summer and £150m in the winter quite easily. Due to SJ 92 foundation having actual cash available this summer, they could even sign a marquee signing like Neymar or Mbappe but not both.

5. Your 100% right about stadium, training ground and infrastructure improvements, they can spend as much as they wish in these areas without any effect on FFP or FSP.

6. Next year 24/25 season the FSP will be allowed at 80%, assuming potential
Trajectory of a club without debt and payments to service debt. A new shirt sponsor deal will push united Turnover to £700m including CL football, a number which looks ridiculous but City will achieve this revenue figure at the end of this season after their treble.

The club owes nothing now so can spend 80% of the £700m on wages, Financials and agent fees, so £560m is left assume our financials and wages are £360m, the club now has potentially £200m in their transfer and agent fee budget, however should a player like Mbappe be purchased on a 4 year contract at £200m with a wage of £750k per week the transfer would be £50m amortised plus his wages of £30m meaning £80m of the budget would be used so the club would still have £120m left over.

The Glazers have prevented this from happening due to the debt and they’ve run the club into the ground, I for one can’t wait to see them go and the sooner the better, the type of player we buy will improve and anyone who doesn’t cut it won’t linger around old Trafford like a bad smell, they will be shown the door immediately!
Click to expand...

Won't allow myself to think it's remotely possible but if you had to pick one out of Neymar/Mbappe
 
Based on the assumption that SJ is a winning this race, why does Sir Jim not just up his own bid?

Given his wealth, shrewdness and ability to obtain finance you would assume that he has and the Glazers being Glazers will never turn down the opportunity to make some more money and will obviously consider it, however, this will not be the case if the following are correct:

1. The majority of the siblings want to sell for the best price available now and SJ’s bid is the best, again here Sir Jim could just up his own bid and then this literally carries on

2. A problem might be that even if the above occurs they still have the issue with the Class A shareholders

If .2 is a real concern, although you would have assumed that both the Glazers and SJR would have thoroughly investigated this and were comfortable with excluding the Class A shareholders, however if it is a concern then it doesn’t really matter what new bid SJR enters unless he bids for the whole club and not just the Glazer majority.

Perhaps SJ’s team also know the strength of feeling amongst the Class A group and knew their bid would eventually succeed but also didn’t want to hang around for the whole of summer before a final decision to be made and tweaked their offers to add a bit of inertia?

sullydnl said:
Which begs the question, why on earth are some people so keen for us to be tied to state ownership?

As that spending makes clear, it isn't for the benefit most clubs would get of being able to spend competitively in the market. Because we can do that regardless.

The only thing we haven't been able to do is spend on infrastructure adequately, but you don't need state-ownership to do that either. Just someone willing/able to raise investment resources in a manner that doesn't overly impact that current ability to spend competitively.

With so little to gain (relative to other clubs), the desire for state-ownership by some becomes aggressively amoral.
Click to expand...


However you have to note that this is NET spend.

United have been uniquely poor at selling and therefore, you would guess, City have spent a lot more GROSS.
 
Nickelodeon said:
I have only one question for you and people who've raised a similar argument. Has this been your consistent thought process through the years? With Chelsea, City and Newcastle, did you honestly never raise the oil/blood money or bought the success questions?

Or has it just changed because we may become one of them?
Click to expand...

I feel like many are missing the point - those clubs relied/rely/will rely on nation states to fund their ambitions, without that they wouldn't be where they are.
With United its different, we don't need the backing of a nation state to compete financially, we are a behemoth and have spent just as much as those nation funded clubs.

We have just been ran incredibly poorly.

What we need is an owner that won't take out money from United, money that we make ourselves. Whether that is Sheikh Jassim or Sir Jim, it doesn't really matter, they just need to run us properly.

The difference between the two potential owners though has one completely resetting the last 18 years, and allowing us to spend our money on ourselves. While the other allows the current ownership to still have their claws in us, somewhat, and is still murky about whether we'd be saddled with more debt.

That, coupled with seeing the lay of the land when it comes to the footballing world, I can understand why most prefer the owner that has said they will wipe away the debt, invest in Old Trafford, improve Carrington, and allow our money to be spent on our team and not squirrelled away paying for some mansion in Florida or whatever!
 
Pogue Mahone said:
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?
Click to expand...
The thing is it’s impossible to compare us with City because we know City partake in dodgy financial dealings. You can’t trust what they report.

Since 08 they have spent £500m more than us. That’s non trivial and is about a third of our total spend.

Since Pep has signed our spendings are similar yet they have recouped £300m more. We have trouble shifting players because of high wages and how that affects the books. If City are paying players off the books they don’t have to worry about that so they can push for higher fees and settle with the player off the books.

115 charges tells you there is zero integrity to their reported accounts so making any comparison with United is futile.
 
Pexbo said:
Let’s say the Qataris have agreed with the Glazers to buy 100% of the club for $35… if they are hell bent on buying 100%, what is stopping the market deciding they are actually $50 a share?
Click to expand...
The stock market can go up and down as it pleases. However, Jassim would be purchasing the stock market shares at the takeover agreed price.
 
Pogue Mahone said:
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.
Click to expand...

It’s based on hope. The hope that no one else can be as bad as the Glazers have been. That’s why we’ve been desperate to get rid of them for the last 18 years and welcome new ownership from anyone that isn’t the Glazers. Now we’ve got 2 options put in front of us, one of which is offering to clear the club debts and pledge a further billion in investment but is an unknown in terms of ownership. The other is a fella who isn’t willing to clear the debt, has a shite track record of owning football clubs and is looking to jump into bed with the existing owners. You can’t blame people for having a bit of optimism at the prospect of the Sheikh taking over, no one has a crystal ball and it could well go tits up but we won’t find that out until it becomes a reality.
 
Suv666 said:
I love how everyone talks about City’s netspend knowing full well their corrupt backdoor deals.

Who the feck knows how much they are actually paying when it comes to transfers and wages
Click to expand...

Can they be proved guilty is the question
 
Rooney in Paris said:
Completely missing the point.
Click to expand...


Hardly. It's not the first instance we've seen this behaviour, nor it will be the last. It's always about some people wanting to be "the true" fans.

If it was about morals, you'd have dropped watching football altogether a long time ago.
 
crossy1686 said:
Football's headed this way, most clubs will have minority state investment at some point in my opinion. I'm not excited to be owned by a state but if that happens at least we know we won't find ourselves in a Malaga type situation in a few years where the owners just get bored and feck off leaving us a mess.

The PL are powerless to stop teams like City and Newcastle from running away with the league so the only alternative is to attract more state ownership to level the playing field.
Click to expand...

I actually meant it never mattered that people think it’s a private bid

it matters to me that its a state bid, because I see the PL imploding on itself if it continues in this direction. We could have a situation soon where the top 6 are all mega rich states and the rest are fecked. That kills the competitive side if things and interest slowly shifts to another league.

The cat is out of the bag now though and it seems impossible to change the rules to get them to all feck off.
 
There are no guarantees under new ownership but I'm pretty confident the club will at least operate quicker when the Glazers sell. They haven't a clue between them, that family.
 
adam118 said:
This is just saying this is according to reports in Qatar, no new sources here I am afraid.

I do think there is something in this though, I am sure we would have denials by now as it has been 12 hours since the news broke.
Click to expand...

We sort of got that from Jacobs and Stone
 
Tarrou said:
I actually meant it never mattered that people think it’s a private bid

it matters to me that its a state, because I see the PL imploding on itself if it continues in this direction. We could have a situation soon where the top 6 are all mega rich states and the rest are fecked. That kills the competitive side if things and interest slowly shifts to another league.

The cat is out of the bag now though and it seems impossible to change the rules to get them to all feck off.
Click to expand...

As long as there are more then 20 mega rich states or billionars like Sir Jim in the world, we're good.
 
Don't quite understand some of the anti Qatar comments on here. They'll have to adhere to same financial fair play regulations as would Sir Jim. They can't just throw a billion at ETH and tell him to go shopping. However, what this will allow is a progression in terms of the Stadium, Local Infrastructure and the training facilities. Some on here would be happy to get pi$$ed wet through watching a game and happily wade through a couple of inches of urine whilst taking a leak
 
VP89 said:
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.
Click to expand...
What changes? We have heard very little from Jim’s camp
 
cyberman said:
What changes? We have heard very little from Jim’s camp
Click to expand...
There was a leak some months ago that he'd look to bring in the likes of Paul Mitchell or similar whilst some part of Jassim's plans suggested involving ex players.
 
KiD MoYeS said:
There are no guarantees under new ownership but I'm pretty confident the club will at least operate quicker when the Glazers sell. They haven't a clue between them, that family.
Click to expand...
Agree with that. Whoever buys us cannot surely be as indecisive as these clowns. It isn't always the money they have spent being the problem with me. It is messing about all summer apparently to get the price down, then spending even more. Just get transfers done.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.