Club Sale | It’s done!

Status
Not open for further replies.
Figgins said:
It's not been ignored; it's got so many faults / holes it creates more questions. Unfortunately, some will fall for it without identifying holes.
Click to expand...

Interesting, I'm sure you'll be eager to reply to those posts and explain in great detail these many faults then?
 
cyberman said:
But is that what an exclusive means? Do you think they all share the same source?
Click to expand...
Reuters are one putting their reputation on stake so to speak with this one doesn't mean they cant be wrong but I highly doubt that .

I expect things to become clear soon enough .
 
Last edited:
The news of it taking another 12 weeks, potentially meaning no new owner is even in place for the start of the season is a disgrace but really not surprising. Milking us for all we are worth and then some, and disrupting plans for the summer window. Farcical at this point, it really is.
 
To be fair why would they care about an asset they are sellings future beyond the sale date. If they can squeeze another 500million out of the buyer's but it fecks up our next season they will (and should) do it.

Annoying for us but at least they are leaving soon.
 
11101 said:
:lol: I don't think that's the reason
Click to expand...
You don't think Qatar and such are under more scrutiny due to the WC and their sport purchases?
I think alot more people have a greater insight as to what goes on there than before all the sportswashing started.
 
Vault Dweller said:
The news of it taking another 12 weeks, potentially meaning no new owner is even in place for the start of the season is a disgrace but really not surprising. Milking us for all we are worth and then some, and disrupting plans for the summer window. Farcical at this point, it really is.
Click to expand...
But the new owner will likely be decided by then and could sanction transfers.
 
NotThatSoph said:
Why on earth would you pick two seasons like that? During the last 10 seasons United have a net spend 2-3x Chelsea's. United's wage bill is higher than Chelsea's by quite a margin.
Click to expand...

Because no one spends 600m in a season... So again englighten me on FFP, is it calculated on last 10 years?

Also, quick to point out the net spend, It is my understanding FFP is 3 years, but you will correct me on this no doubt.

https://uk.sports.yahoo.com/news/premier-league-five-net-spend-134509929.html
https://www.si.com/fannation/soccer...ked-by-net-transfer-spend-over-last-5-seasons


Chelsea are the highest net spend in the last 5 years. Manutd make more revenue than Chelsea, so they are able to spend more on their wages.

https://www.teamtalk.com/news/ranki...wage-bill-man-utd-above-liverpool-and-arsenal

https://www.mirror.co.uk/sport/football/news/chelsea-premier-league-wage-bill-30054153

https://talksport.com/football/1366184/premier-league-wage-bill-arsenal-chelsea-man-united/

Yep, Manutd's wage bill is quite the margin higher.
 
Why is everything this club do so damn slow? Transfers...Kit reveals...stadium planning...now the sale. Every other club shows off their kit when the season finishes and we wait until middle of July even though its leaked in May... same pattern follows with transfers.
 
Vault Dweller said:
The news of it taking another 12 weeks, potentially meaning no new owner is even in place for the start of the season is a disgrace but really not surprising. Milking us for all we are worth and then some, and disrupting plans for the summer window. Farcical at this point, it really is.
Click to expand...


small price to pay for me, I can get over a summer not signing the likes of Robin Koch while knowing that some of the wasters currently at the club will be gone soon.
 
gajender said:
It just means others aren't able to corroborate , Reuters are one putting their reputation on stake so to speak with this one doesn't mean they cant be wrong .

I expect things to become clear soon enough .
Click to expand...
Plus publications like that don’t rush out to corroborate. They either have the source or they don’t.
When the FT broke the news about 6 siblings being offered to stay and the penny starting to drop I didn’t see Reuters etc rush out to corroborate or call the story out. That’s because they aren’t gossiping football journalists who want to be ahead of every story and that’s not how they operate. Plus those very same posters who argue for corroboration didn’t seem so keen to go down that road when that story broke.
I wonder why?
Pretending otherwise is disingenuous at best
 
Last edited:
Adnan said:
Click to expand...

Is it typical for owners to 'know' football? Aren't most fans just hoping they hire the right people in the right places and don't strip the club of it's assets? Also random to include allegations levied at the manager as if that has much to do with Ratcliffe.
 
Zed 101 said:
Re: FFP without a takeover or investment this year we would be massively restr

I am not jumping to the defence of anybody here I am just wondering why posters are still listing the numerous human rights issues Qatar have... can we all just concede that Qatar have human rights issues and that Ineos have environmental issues.

How you weigh each one is personal, if you are a staunch environmentalist you will probably see the threat in terms of 10s of millions of people, species and environment extinction, it is which soap box you want to stand on, as is whether or not you can continue to support the club beyond the takeover, because face it the most likely outcome is that a sale does go through and tight now it looks like Qatar will be our new owners.

Sports washing is a myth, how many people would be talking out Qatar's human rights issues if not for the world cup, if not for the proposed Utd takeover? about hmmm sweet FA TBH because it is not happening in their back yard, I am guilty, there is a huge amount of apathy towards anything which does not directly affect people....

Realistically if people are serious about keeping pressure on Qatar, keeping Qatar under the microscope and trying to effect change in Qatar then the utd takeover is possibly the best thing that could happen.

As for the blood on the money, you could argue that the vast majority of Qatar's wealth is clean, it is what they have done in developing the country over the last decade which is particularly distasteful in terms of abusing migrant workers, and if you want to analyse the morality of any large investment anywhere you will almost certainly find blood and worse.
Click to expand...
This is such rubbish. We can have a take over without being in denial.

You deny sportswashing exists but are actually demonstrating exactly what what it is, by playing down Qatar's human rights issues because your football club may have slighlty more money to spend. Mental gymnastics. I suggest you do a bit more research before spouting off.
 
Lyng said:
JP Morgan are lending Ineos money for this.
Click to expand...

It's the world's largest bank, a system critical institution that has all loans and deposits basically guaranteed by the US government should anything happen. It is only natural that he uses JP Morgan to borrow money. Borrowing money doesn't make you involved with the bank's other actions or the bank's other client's actions.
 
Chief123 said:
The fact we are nearing the end game is the most pleasing aspect.

It doesn’t make a difference if this gets done now or another 2 months. Ultimately we’ve got a set budget we are allowed to spend due to the enforced FFP rule since last year locking it to 90% of revenue. Getting new owners in isn’t going to change that. The only thing that can change our budget for this window is player sales. I’d imagine the team that is in charge of recruitment and sales is going to be the same team in charge when the new owners come on board (for this transfer window at least).

So the best we can hope for is the takeover gets done regardless of timeframe and that we are able to move on some players in order to boost our budget.

We are going to have to ride the consequences of our poor spending in recent seasons for a couple more transfer windows at least I’d imagine.
Click to expand...
Don't we get extra room for signings if the new owners clear the debt? I believe we do.
 
“Jim Ratcliffe never invented anything. Sheikh Jassim changed football”
 
Laurencio said:
It's the world's largest bank, a system critical institution that has all loans and deposits basically guaranteed by the US government should anything happen. It is only natural that he uses JP Morgan to borrow money. Borrowing money doesn't make you involved with the bank's other actions or the bank's other client's actions.
Click to expand...
Same as being qatari doesn't make you accountable for other qatari's actions if that's the road we going on.
 
romufc said:
Because no one spends 600m in a season... So again englighten me on FFP, is it calculated on last 10 years?
Click to expand...

No one spends 600m in a season because it's very risky, Chelsea has committed to 8-9 years contracts to amortised the cost of those transfers, so they are hamstrung as to what they can spend in future windows without generating funds from selling off the bloats.

There's nothing that stop other clubs with similar revenue from employing the same strategy Chelsea did, clubs just don't tend to bet their squad health and finances on a couple of windows, if they don't pan out the way you want then you are fecked for 4,5,6 years with little ability to turn over that squad, and that's eons in football.
 
InfiniteBoredom said:
No one spends 600m in a season because it's very risky, Chelsea has committed to 8-9 years contracts to amortised the cost of those transfers, so they are hamstrung as to what they can spend in future windows without generating funds from selling off the bloats.

There's nothing that stop other clubs with similar revenue from employing the same strategy Chelsea did, clubs just don't tend to bet their squad health and finances on a couple of windows, if they don't pan out the way you want then you are fecked for 4,5,6 years with little ability to turn over that squad, and that's eons in football.
Click to expand...


We shall see about that this summer, looks like they will spend £70-80m on Caceido this summer.

They also have players they can sell.

The way we have operated with transfers has got us fecked anyway... all the money we have spent and we will need to replace most the big money signings in the next 2 windows anyway.
 
Zed 101 said:
Re: FFP without a takeover or investment this year we would be massively restr

I am not jumping to the defence of anybody here I am just wondering why posters are still listing the numerous human rights issues Qatar have... can we all just concede that Qatar have human rights issues and that Ineos have environmental issues.

How you weigh each one is personal, if you are a staunch environmentalist you will probably see the threat in terms of 10s of millions of people, species and environment extinction, it is which soap box you want to stand on, as is whether or not you can continue to support the club beyond the takeover, because face it the most likely outcome is that a sale does go through and tight now it looks like Qatar will be our new owners.

Sports washing is a myth, how many people would be talking out Qatar's human rights issues if not for the world cup, if not for the proposed Utd takeover? about hmmm sweet FA TBH because it is not happening in their back yard, I am guilty, there is a huge amount of apathy towards anything which does not directly affect people....

Realistically if people are serious about keeping pressure on Qatar, keeping Qatar under the microscope and trying to effect change in Qatar then the utd takeover is possibly the best thing that could happen.

As for the blood on the money, you could argue that the vast majority of Qatar's wealth is clean, it is what they have done in developing the country over the last decade which is particularly distasteful in terms of abusing migrant workers, and if you want to analyse the morality of any large investment anywhere you will almost certainly find blood and worse.
Click to expand...

Yes, both are less than ideal. The idea that someone criticising Qatar is therefore pro Ineos is based on nothing. It's an absurd assumption.

And maybe you are unaware but lots of people are concerned about human rights issues without the associated glare that Manchester United brings.

There are people mitigating the human rights issues in this thread because it'd make full throated support of the club tricky if they didn't. That is one fundamental of sportswashing there.

And yes you could argue that it's clean. You're entitled to do that. Lots would disagree.
 
Just throw the towel in Jim
Remad7 said:
Why is everything this club do so damn slow? Transfers...Kit reveals...stadium planning...now the sale. Every other club shows off their kit when the season finishes and we wait until middle of July even though its leaked in May... same pattern follows with transfers.
Click to expand...
I share your frustration on this sale process, but kit reveals?
We release them late because we are Manchester United, its a whole different level to the clubs that have to release them early to get sales up.
 
romufc said:
We shall see about that this summer, looks like they will spend £70-80m on Caceido this summer.

They also have players they can sell.

The way we have operated with transfers has got us fecked anyway... all the money we have spent and we will need to replace most the big money signings in the next 2 windows anyway.
Click to expand...
They have to generate £92m in sales before June 30th to comply with FFP/FSP.

That’s precisely the problem, they cannot buy without selling after that splurge and if those signings flop and they don’t recover at least the remaining book value on them then they are left unable to make more signings, without a major spike in revenue.
 
Zed 101 said:
Re: FFP without a takeover or investment this year we would be massively restr

I am not jumping to the defence of anybody here I am just wondering why posters are still listing the numerous human rights issues Qatar have... can we all just concede that Qatar have human rights issues and that Ineos have environmental issues.

How you weigh each one is personal, if you are a staunch environmentalist you will probably see the threat in terms of 10s of millions of people, species and environment extinction, it is which soap box you want to stand on, as is whether or not you can continue to support the club beyond the takeover, because face it the most likely outcome is that a sale does go through and tight now it looks like Qatar will be our new owners.

Sports washing is a myth, how many people would be talking out Qatar's human rights issues if not for the world cup, if not for the proposed Utd takeover? about hmmm sweet FA TBH because it is not happening in their back yard, I am guilty, there is a huge amount of apathy towards anything which does not directly affect people....

Realistically if people are serious about keeping pressure on Qatar, keeping Qatar under the microscope and trying to effect change in Qatar then the utd takeover is possibly the best thing that could happen.

As for the blood on the money, you could argue that the vast majority of Qatar's wealth is clean, it is what they have done in developing the country over the last decade which is particularly distasteful in terms of abusing migrant workers, and if you want to analyse the morality of any large investment anywhere you will almost certainly find blood and worse.
Click to expand...
If you want to pit one against the other on moralistic grounds, why are you absolving Qatar of environmental damage given their wealth is built off fossil fuel reserves?
 
redcucumber said:
Is it typical for owners to 'know' football? Aren't most fans just hoping they hire the right people in the right places and don't strip the club of it's assets? Also random to include allegations levied at the manager as if that has much to do with Ratcliffe.
Click to expand...
The people he has put in place also don’t know football by all accounts
 
Remad7 said:
Why is everything this club do so damn slow? Transfers...Kit reveals...stadium planning...now the sale. Every other club shows off their kit when the season finishes and we wait until middle of July even though its leaked in May... same pattern follows with transfers.
Click to expand...

The club were slow with the social media side too. Always had terrible social media compared to other clubs. Plus were slow to reintroduce the women’s team.
 
Fluctuation0161 said:
This is such rubbish. We can have a take over without being in denial.

You deny sportswashing exists but are actually demonstrating exactly what what it is, by playing down Qatar's human rights issues because your football club may have slighlty more money to spend. Mental gymnastics. I suggest you do a bit more research before spouting off.
Click to expand...
I am not suggesting denial, the opposite, that we should accept things which have already been stated multiple times.

As for sportswashing, maybe I mis phrased, yes it exists but in this case my point is that if the idea is to sports wash by buying Utd, it is a particularly ineffective way of doing it, before world cup/utd bid, I neither knew or cared about what went on in Qatar as would be the case for teh vast majority, now we do, so the exact opposite of what sports washing should accomplish
 
Reuters once again reposted their news from yesterday, 20 minutes ago.

English football club Manchester United is negotiating granting exclusivity to the consortium led by Qatar's Sheikh Jassim bin Hamad al-Thani in talks to sell itself for more than $6 billion, people familiar with the matter said #MUFC https://reut.rs/3PhxcTY - via [ @Reuters ]
 
Status
Not open for further replies.