Seriously don’t waste your time replying mate.
Club Sale | It’s done!
- Thread starter JB08
- Start date
- Status
Let’s just hope that they do sell mate. Otherwise the club really is in the toilet.
Yeah an early grave is definitely beckoning whilst they remain which is awful thing to say
What happened today with Sancho is also another reason to hope for new owners. There is a lack of direction at the club from top to bottom and so our dirty linen is constantly in public
Really depends, you can hope for a city situation where they poach the best of the best football minds and install them to run the club and pretty much leave them to get on with it, or you can have a PSG style vanity project. You would hope that as it's a lead by a fan you'd hope for the former.
This is the real issue many do not want to face:
Qatar are no guarantee of a Ferguson style era of dominance.
city have bought Barcelona's tried and tested regime. This is why they are currently top. There is absolutely no innovation (past possible cheating) in their activity. Whenever this regime fancy a new challenge, city will struggle to replace them.
We have heard the regular 'please ignore our human rights abuse' overtures from Qatar.
We'll buy off the debt! Build a 'modern' stadium! A new training facility! Sheikh Jassim's a boyhood red, honest!
All of it is complete fluff.
We need hard evidence of what Qatar intend to do with managing the football side of the club and so far all we have, is their mismanaged PSG disaster.
Like Woodward on steroids.
This is parallel to the moral aspect of their ownership, which may not concern entitled reds, but will of plenty concern to those they systematically abuse.
Yes PSG are famously a drama free club.
Did anyone else find it odd that during Sky`s coverage yesterday they jumped on the "rumour" that the Glazers are now not going to sell.
Yet just over a week ago there was also a "rumour" that Qatar had won the bid, yet during coverage after that news they hardly covered it at all?
Yet just over a week ago there was also a "rumour" that Qatar had won the bid, yet during coverage after that news they hardly covered it at all?
That's all I want is a proper structure but we are never getting it unless they sell up and have accepted that's not happening
The funniest part is that Sky's own reporter (Kaveh Solhekol) wrote a piece contradicting what the Daily Mail claimed.
In my mind, it was opportunistic wumming by the Daily Mail. "Not much new reporting on the takeover lately, international break coming up, United about to play Arsenal...let's stir the pot." They know full well even if they are wrong, the piece will generate discussion and garner attention, and not like their reputation takes a hit.
That's another source earmarking November as the expected conclusion for all this. How reliable is Graeme Bailey?
The line about £6bn not being enough doesn't worry nor surprise me, not after the Cardiff City owner statement suggesting it'll be > £7bn.
The line about £6bn not being enough doesn't worry nor surprise me, not after the Cardiff City owner statement suggesting it'll be > £7bn.
- You up ?
- Yes.
- Can you wire me 7 billions ?
- No.
- Ok cool think about it. I'll be there.
"Transfer Correspondent" for 90 Min Football. Also works for TeamTalk and SiriusXM radio station. Probably tells you all you need to know...
So we're potentially selling our soul for a 50/50 chance of being a "well-run" successful football club?
At least you've acknowledged some issues with the ownership model though. Too many see it as the answer to all our problems and don't see any negatives because they're not the Glazer family.
Yeah but how reliable is he?
He works for a sirius outlet
we'll take it.It's ON!
Not sure why you bother trying to gauge the sources/reporters. Most of they are probably correct 20-30% (at best) of the time. Question is which 20-30%?
Remember when everyone was reporting that we'd get an announcement by the end of March? And then an announcement by the end of June? Good times.
It may not solve some of our problems, but it will solve a lot of issues regarding infrastructure and investment into other things that fall outside of FFP. No doubt OT needs development, training facilities, youth facilities, even having owners that can take advantage of the investment rules witin FFP would be good.
I like that this implies that the club has a soul still worth selling.
We already sold our soul when the Glazers bought us. But the club will always have a magic about it.
Value of club is going down not up....
I'd say a couple more bad results and the Glazers might start sweating and realise they need to up and go before the value really drops.
Wishful thinking I know, but hey you never know!
So now the fecking vampires want £10bn... time for fans to return tickets and not turn up for games. It's the only thing the cnuts might understand
Wire me the money's.
I think if really pushed hel pay some more. Not sure it's another bil though.
Worth noting Graeme Bailey is about as reliable as a pebble
So now talks are still ongoing? Or has nobody heard anything from the Glazers in months? Surely it's one or the other?
One of those situations can be true for one bidder, while the other can be true for the second bidder.So now talks are still ongoing? Or has nobody heard anything from the Glazers in months? Surely it's one or the other?
They never specified a year to be fair.
Literally, the Glazers are holding the club hostage whilst demanding a ransom, this has to end soon, the club cannot function with this hanging over it.
Peak was when it made its way onto Bloomberg Terminal. Really thought we were in the endgame then.
Jassim cannot afford what he is allegedly bidding. Lucky for him, it is a state bid so seven bill is easily affordable.
The Glazers are just waiting for Qatar to crack. Which they will.
I reckon it'll be Qatar by Xmas.
About right, but Qatar will not want our fanbase as organised.
They're buying United to sell their dictatorship, remember.
A rejuvenated fanbase in complete solidarity can turn on them soon enough, also. They want us grovelling and grateful, viewing them as a saviour we all have to thank.
Difficult to know what to do if they've come to the conclusion that the club will be worth another £2-3bn in a couple of years. If it was a business making loo roll then any owner in the world would keep it under those circumstances.
I'd also guess (and am prepared to be shot down here), that the Glazers, and their business advisers, shareholders etc, don't necessarily view themselves as being responsible for Utd winning less. They'd argue that after taking over they oversaw an 8 year period of success, and vastly increased the turnover of the club. £243 million in 2005 to £711 million in the year before covid is massive, and likely outweighs other clubs' increases. If they view themselves as integral to this increase in value (and i don't have any idea what proportion of it is down to them), then they may well feel entitled to profit from it as owners. They could argue that the only reason they are able to pay the fees and wages that they can, is down to them, the Glazers. The only obvious factor that correlates with Utd's decline is Ferguson leaving ( and potentially Gill).. It's a tough one because I can well believe that in the corridors of power the narrative is hugely different to what we read on these message boards. Like I say, it's not necessarily a viewpoint I buy in to, but i wonder if it has some traction.
Hypothetically speaking, if the Glazers could somehow prove that due to their stewardship the club was worth eg £1bn more than it would have been under the old ownership, and with a turnover £100m more than it otherwise would have been, should they be rewarded for that? Would it justify the dividends? I'm not sure, but i think this is not quite the black and white issue it's often described as. It's more a result of the juxtaposition of high finance and elite sports in general, than specific to Utd.
I'd also guess (and am prepared to be shot down here), that the Glazers, and their business advisers, shareholders etc, don't necessarily view themselves as being responsible for Utd winning less. They'd argue that after taking over they oversaw an 8 year period of success, and vastly increased the turnover of the club. £243 million in 2005 to £711 million in the year before covid is massive, and likely outweighs other clubs' increases. If they view themselves as integral to this increase in value (and i don't have any idea what proportion of it is down to them), then they may well feel entitled to profit from it as owners. They could argue that the only reason they are able to pay the fees and wages that they can, is down to them, the Glazers. The only obvious factor that correlates with Utd's decline is Ferguson leaving ( and potentially Gill).. It's a tough one because I can well believe that in the corridors of power the narrative is hugely different to what we read on these message boards. Like I say, it's not necessarily a viewpoint I buy in to, but i wonder if it has some traction.
Hypothetically speaking, if the Glazers could somehow prove that due to their stewardship the club was worth eg £1bn more than it would have been under the old ownership, and with a turnover £100m more than it otherwise would have been, should they be rewarded for that? Would it justify the dividends? I'm not sure, but i think this is not quite the black and white issue it's often described as. It's more a result of the juxtaposition of high finance and elite sports in general, than specific to Utd.
Last edited:
Aye, I think we can't really argue about the level of funding allocated to player acquisition under the Glazers. There's a lot to criticize about where the funding might come from or is organized (it is the club money they're using and apparently they'd rather feed the debt than making contributions of their own), and certainly negligence & ineffectiveness in failing to appoint the right people to oversee its use.
Without extending any praise for it, they did turn United into a maxed out money machine, at least so far along all the easy levers : We know they're not interested in the longer term view or have any care for the harder parts like upgrading the stadium, getting distanced every year by the teams that understood they needed to do so to stay healthy in upcoming decades.
It's hard to understate how woeful ownership (including from US groups) has been in many clubs of many leagues for the last decade or more, historic clubs with strong academies ending bankrupt all over continental Europe. I'm not saying that to somehow rank the Glazers higher than McCourt, Textor or 777 Partners, it's probably down to their father having the good sense of buying one of the most lucrative clubs available that is "too big to fail" and coasting on that for two decades.
Last edited:
Club is not even worth £3bn on the market (this is at its peak btw) after all this speculation.
The Glazers are living on Cloud Cuckoo Land if they think it'll go up by that much in another 3 unsuccessful years.
If Chelsea was worth 4-5bn surely Utd is worth more. I don't think you can say that because a deal didn't go through that they are't worth that money. Unless you are talking about market cap of United PLC?
- Status