Club Sale | It’s done!

Status
Not open for further replies.
Tarrou said:
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.
Click to expand...
People said the exact same thing when Sky came around. The funny thing about football is that it always seems to attract more and more investment, and you can bet the PL finds a way to level things. Whether that be more investment, changing the rules or introducing a transfer window spending cap.

The PL is a brand that want the biggest and best football on offer, with all the global superstars in England playing in its league. They will do whatever it takes to make that happen while keeping it as the most competitive league in the world. These guys have literally nothing else to do with their time, believe me when I say they'll find a way to work it out.
 
I don't really get people having an issue with Qatari ownership.

I do get the sad truth that a football club based on its local community, especially for a club like man united, is dead. But hasn't that been the case for years? I mean the club has been owned by Americans for 18 years, and the only reason we don't feel the club is owned by a foreigner is because our owners don't give a crap about the club. They barely attend games.

If the fear is financial doping, and sketchy business, that might happen, but it might happen under any ownership, and i do firmly believe that we make enough money to compete, as our spending number suggests, and we can attract top sponsorship as we have an excellent brand name. All we need, as a start, is no leeches sucking out money for personal gain like the glazers.

Finally, the issue with the morality of the gulf countries, while they do not have to be reflected in our club, are we really arguing that the morals of the west are something to look up to? i mean the whole world is basically going to hell, but do we really want to make the issue of lack of morality a problem related to gulf countries? what morality and human rights issues do the glazers and sir Jim represent? i for one am not a fan of an American owner who spends a million dollars on a private jet to watch 4 games. I'm not saying they are a moral beacon, but i do think its naive to think that this is a problem uniquely found in one part of the world.
 
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...
This is the point. He doesn't need to be either.

United can be run slightly worse than City and still end up right at the top. The club generates enough of its own money to absorb quite a lot of missteps. Hell, look at the fact we're 3rd right now.

We're also not likely to be run as a vanity project like PSG. That club is transparently owned by a state investment fund so have a reason to splash the cash. The 92F, on the other hand, are nominally a private enterprise. They just need to not be idiots. Simply looking at their negotiation strategy for the purchase of the club shows that they aren't or else they would have slapped $6b on the table months ago.
 
Rooney in Paris said:
It's about morality too. But having read through this thread, it's very clear most people don't care about that.
Click to expand...

Does it only apply to football clubs? No one wants to answer that it seems. It's understandable that you don't want an ownership for said reasons, but projecting being morally superior to those who don't share the same sentiment is a bit special considering you probably don't give enough feck about those issues in your daily life (which also is understandable). Personally, if we are to be bought by Qatari state in the future, then I hope there will be constant focus on their issues instead of full-on boycott.
 
Pexbo said:
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.
Click to expand...

I think it was @Lentwood who made the point of how much they spent in a short amount of time, with a sporting direction (we've lacked) so they got to the level of just needing to add to what they're already building. Which - aside from any cheating - is the main difference between the two clubs. If we add in the cheating, then of course they've had a much bigger appeal to players we've likely not been able to purchase.

Any comparison - which is quite common in the media - of total net spend over a decade or so completely ignores vital context.
 
LARulz said:
So any actual update or people still just talking hypotheticals?
Click to expand...

Aside from some after-hours trading (share price up from $20 to $24) and some excitement in the Twitterverse, no real updates since last week. Both bids are seemingly confident that they will be chosen as preferred bidders, but it doesn't look like the Glazers have decided yet.
 
shabz said:
When you're getting to that type of wealth, what really is the difference between 50 billion and 330 billion apart from the 280 billion? They can both comfortably spend whatever they want and it wont be a dent in their pockets. So I dont think Saudi could blow Qatar out the water as no one needs to spend 100 billion.
Click to expand...
fair point
 
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!
Click to expand...
At the cost of our entire stadium falling apart and third grade facilities. People fail to mention that when they talk about the money we've spend. Unlike City's owners who can not only throw money at state of the art infrastructure, but players and a vast scouting network.
 
Windup and ITK bollocks
There's something big brewing...it's getting ready to drop...if you're lucky you can get a good whiff of it on Twitter right now.
 
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...
Jassim will most likely ask PSG’s owners for advice, and as far as big clubs go, PSG are a mess.
 
kafta said:
I don't really get people having an issue with Qatari ownership.

I do get the sad truth that a football club based on its local community, especially for a club like man united, is dead. But hasn't that been the case for years? I mean the club has been owned by Americans for 18 years, and the only reason we don't feel the club is owned by a foreigner is because our owners don't give a crap about the club. They barely attend games.

If the fear is financial doping, and sketchy business, that might happen, but it might happen under any ownership, and i do firmly believe that we make enough money to compete, as our spending number suggests, and we can attract top sponsorship as we have an excellent brand name. All we need, as a start, is no leeches sucking out money for personal gain like the glazers.

Finally, the issue with the morality of the gulf countries, while they do not have to be reflected in our club, are we really arguing that the morals of the west are something to look up to? i mean the whole world is basically going to hell, but do we really want to make the issue of lack of morality a problem related to gulf countries? what morality and human rights issues do the glazers and sir Jim represent? i for one am not a fan of an American owner who spends a million dollars on a private jet to watch 4 games. I'm not saying they are a moral beacon, but i do think its naive to think that this is a problem uniquely found in one part of the world.
Click to expand...

really?
 
crossy1686 said:
People said the exact same thing when Sky came around. The funny thing about football is that it always seems to attract more and more investment, and you can bet the PL finds a way to level things. Whether that be more investment, changing the rules or introducing a transfer window spending cap.

The PL is a brand that want the biggest and best football on offer, with all the global superstars in England playing in its league. They will do whatever it takes to make that happen while keeping it as the most competitive league in the world. These guys have literally nothing else to do with their time, believe me when I say they'll find a way to work it out.
Click to expand...

nobody said that when Sky came around

and even if they did, it’s no where near comparable
 
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...

I always enjoy reading your posts and the way they’re broken down so easy to understand the financial specifics, cheers mate.

The financial monster we are debt free scares the life out of rival clubs and reality is Qatar don’t need to financially dope us up, we just need to be free of the ridiculous restrictions enforced on us under the parasites.

If Qatar get the stadium up to 90K capacity and renovate/improve the stadium and surrounding areas then it puts us on another level to every other club in the world due to our global appeal and revenue within FFP, we’re the only club in the world able to do it as Real and Barca don’t have the TV revenue that we do with the PL.
 
A lot of my friends feel no sale is more likely than Qatari sale - but it seems only rationalised by pessimism rather than facts/logical deciphering.
 
one thing for sure, all this dithering and delaying is like a mirror image of the transfer sagas of the last number of years. We can now be sure (if anyone had any doubts before) that the Glazers dithering over signing off on deals are the main reason for transfer messing and cock ups.
 
Adebisi's Hat said:
one thing for sure, all this dithering and delaying is like a mirror image of the transfer sagas of the last number of years. We can now be sure (if anyone had any doubts before) that the Glazers dithering over signing off on deals are the main reason for transfer messing and cock ups.
Click to expand...
Absolutely. Apparently it was Joel Glazer who would sign off all transfer. No wonder we had so many drawn out sagas.
 
BarstoolProphet said:
We're getting back to the superior fan stuff now? Or does morals just apply when it comes to football clubs?
Click to expand...

I'm not the one making the comparison between the emotional engagement with a football club and filling up my car...
 
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...

Absolute quality post here, great stuff
 
JagUTD said:
I'm not the one making the comparison between the emotional engagement with a football club and filling up my car...
Click to expand...

Probably not, but you are one of them who project being a (morally) superior fan if you are against potential Qatari ownership. Reality is that even in Manchester, United fans are divided on what they want. And there's nothing to suggest that one group is more invested in the club than the other - most likely all wants what's best for the club even if they disagree on the road there.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.