TheReligion
Abusive
And you should have told him that it was a ridiculous claim.
You did the hard yards for me!
And you should have told him that it was a ridiculous claim.
I mean most of the bidders for Chelsea went public. It's not that odd.Even if you're going to an auction to buy a sideboard if you're really interested in bidding for a particular sideboard you don't fanny around the auction room with other potential bidders telling everyone how great that sideboard is and you're determined to buy it. Because you'd be a fecking idiot if you did that. Unless you knew the guy selling the sideboard and was working with him to drive up the price. And that's just a sideboard
That's essentially what Jim is doing with a £6bn asset and I think it's naive to think there isn't something else going on here that isn't entirely on the level
What's so difficult to understand about that? We're a bit of a joke at the moment. That doesn't suddenly erase the legacy and history the name itself carries.The clubs a joke but the name carries weight. Right.
According to who? Talksport?What's so difficult to understand about that? We're a bit of a joke at the moment. That doesn't suddenly erase the legacy and history the name itself carries.
What's so difficult to understand about that? We're a bit of a joke at the moment. That doesn't suddenly erase the legacy and history the name itself carries.
According to who? Talksport?
I mean most of the bidders for Chelsea went public. It's not that odd.
It has 0 to do with the money! Come on. You aren't seriously claiming that our problem the past decade has been money? And then put Spurs as an example? That's exactly my point isn't it? Spurs have made good decisions over time to increase their stature and improve their facilities. United, yes we've ignoring other portions. Instead of putting money in the structure, in the facilities, the Glazers take out dividends (166m since 2016) and have thrown away 750m since the Glazers took over on debt repayments. That's almost 1 BILLION pounds just thrown out because of shite ownership. Under normal ownership, that billion is reinvested into the club structure and facilities, and in addition to this, the 1 billion that was spent on transfers the past 10 years would be spent more wisely. Less money wasted on managerial sackings, and so on.He absolutely is, let's not kid ourselves. Ask yourself this - would Klopp be able to achieve the same thing Guardiola has at City? I'd argue with 90% chance that yes, he would. Would Guardiola have managed to achieve the same thing Klopp has done with Liverpool? That would be a resounding "NO" imo. Guardiola has never been tested at any club he's been. He's always taken club who financially dwarf the competition. Closest thing to a challenge would be his first season at Barca, but even then - Barca and Real are pretty clear cut above the rest of La Liga. As far as Liverpool's squad, I'll disagree on this as well. The squad is aging, their midfield and defense are at the moment complete trash and even Salah is really not performing that well. Sure, he had dips with Dortmund in his last season as well, but what do Liverpool and Dortmund have in common? They haven't invested shit in a rebuild. Liverpool, for almost the entirety of Klopp's tenure, have been working on a net profit. That's not how you compete with a club that can buy a 100 million player in City and then promptly bench him. He's not SAF, but he is the closest thing to SAF in modern football given what he has done with the clubs he has taken that have no business in competing for trophies. In contrast, Guardiola has never went through these deep waters. He's bailed every time things have started to turn south for him. At both Barcelona and Bayern he left when he needed to spice up things and at City so far he hasn't, but he has unlimited budget there anyway. He really doesn't require any rebuilds.
Man City before Pep were a "newborn" club, so to speak. They were still struggling to become a 'big' club and enticing overpriced players with ridiculous wages and transfer fees. And said City also had to compete with Mourinho and SAF, who although heavily gimped by spending, was still SAF. Guardiola's only challenge, I'm sorry to say, has been Klopp who has vastly inferior resources to him.
You're talking how much we've spend, but again you're forgetting that all of this has come at a huge cost in other areas of the club. We're lagging behind almost every other top club, hell even clubs like fecking Spurs are dwarfing us when it comes to proper football structure. A lot of this has to do with money. We haven't won the league in 10 years now, how have we been able to compete? As a matter of fact, we haven't even come close to winning the league. A lot of this has to do with bad decisions, true, but most if it has to do with the money we don't have. Players look at United and ask themselves - what can United offer that other teams in the PL can't? Just a name? In the '00's we used to be THE club to play for. Madrid and United were the clubs every player wanted to be in. Now we are considered a bit of a joke. Thankfully, the name still carries some weight, but that can only get you so far.
in what way? You can be both at the same time. The club isn't in good state at the moment. To deny that is to just lie to ourselves. Ten Hag might change that, but it's way early days to even talk about that. But at the same time it has history and legacy that few other clubs can match. I don't understand why this is such a difficult concept for you to understand.Because its a contradiction of epic proportions
And what have Spurs done with their financially good decisions? They're still a top 6 club, same way they've always been since more than 15 years ago.It has 0 to do with the money! Come on. You aren't seriously claiming that our problem the past decade has been money? And then put Spurs as an example? That's exactly my point isn't it? Spurs have made good decisions over time to increase their stature and improve their facilities. United, yes we've ignoring other portions. Instead of putting money in the structure, in the facilities, the Glazers take out dividends (166m since 2016) and have thrown away 750m since the Glazers took over on debt repayments. That's almost 1 BILLION pounds just thrown out because of shite ownership. Under normal ownership, that billion is reinvested into the club structure and facilities, and in addition to this, the 1 billion that was spent on transfers the past 10 years would be spent more wisely. Less money wasted on managerial sackings, and so on.
I feel llke i'm repeating myself constantly now. At the cost of literally everything else that makes a top club. Our stadium is in need of repair, our training grounds need improvement, youth, overall club infrastructure. We're lagging heavily behind there. And not only have we not cleared the debt off, it's still rising. We're not pulling that money out of our asses, it's taken from somewhere else.0% of United's issue since Sir Alex left has been related to how much money the club brings in. Come on. How can anyone claim that when all the facts points to United, after 10 years of mediocrity, still having the capability to outspend everyone in terms of year after year net spend and is always among the top wage spenders? What more can you actually ask for from a financial perspective? It's pure greed to want anything more, and being dramatic on the back of nothing to claim that United can't compete financially.
Who has competed so far by having a net profit except Liverpool? And even Liverpool have hit a dead end that they won't escape from just in a year or two.I'm not sure what your last sentence has to do with anything. United's name doesn't carry the weight it used to because of mismanagement for years turning us into a mid table team despite being the biggest spenders. It is one thing to be mid table in spend, and to have to be spot on every year just to compete and have 0 wiggle room. Teams who have a net spend of 0 because they need to move players on at the right times and find gems and be coached perfectly to compete. United doesn't have that restriction and nothing points to that. United has been managed like garbage the past 10 years. We've had garbage managers, and garbage owners, garbage transfer committees, etc. We've wasted 1 billion on transfers and shit managers. And then wasted another 1 billion on shite ownership because of debt repayments and dividend payments.
Shit"(Ineos) never wants to be the dumb money in town, never, never," he (SJR) told The Times in 2019. (United) haven't got the manager selection right, haven't bought well. They have been the dumb money, which you see with players like Fred. "We won't look elsewhere until we have had a good run here (at Nice). We need to find out how to be successful before you ever want to write a big cheque. It's quite difficult."
How's Nice doing?
in what way? You can be both at the same time. The club isn't in good state at the moment. To deny that is to just lie to ourselves. Ten Hag might change that, but it's way early days to even talk about that. But at the same time it has history and legacy that few other clubs can match. I don't understand why this is such a difficult concept for you to understand.
And what have Spurs done with their financially good decisions? They're still a top 6 club, same way they've always been since more than 15 years ago.
I feel llke i'm repeating myself constantly now. At the cost of literally everything else that makes a top club. Our stadium is in need of repair, our training grounds need improvement, youth, overall club infrastructure. We're lagging heavily behind there. And not only have we not cleared the debt off, it's still rising. We're not pulling that money out of our asses, it's taken from somewhere else.
Who has competed so far by having a net profit except Liverpool? And even Liverpool have hit a dead end that they won't escape from just in a year or two.
Man City before Pep were a "newborn" club, so to speak. They were still struggling to become a 'big' club and enticing overpriced players with ridiculous wages and transfer fees. And said City also had to compete with Mourinho and SAF, who although heavily gimped by spending, was still SAF. Guardiola's only challenge, I'm sorry to say, has been Klopp who has vastly inferior resources to him.
Well at least we know how to properly protest against the owner should Ratcliffe be tight arsed with us
Spurs with their financially good decisions have transitioned into being a standard prem club to being firmly in the big 6 bucket where they compete with the big 6 every year, have a clear gap with the rest of the league in terms of their revenue, etc, which will enable them to compete long term. Spurs are not United. But the idea is the same. They have made good decisions over time and have gone from something similar to what Aston Villa were to being set in the top 6 in terms of money.in what way? You can be both at the same time. The club isn't in good state at the moment. To deny that is to just lie to ourselves. Ten Hag might change that, but it's way early days to even talk about that. But at the same time it has history and legacy that few other clubs can match. I don't understand why this is such a difficult concept for you to understand.
And what have Spurs done with their financially good decisions? They're still a top 6 club, same way they've always been since more than 15 years ago.
I feel llke i'm repeating myself constantly now. At the cost of literally everything else that makes a top club. Our stadium is in need of repair, our training grounds need improvement, youth, overall club infrastructure. We're lagging heavily behind there. And not only have we not cleared the debt off, it's still rising. We're not pulling that money out of our asses, it's taken from somewhere else.
Who has competed so far by having a net profit except Liverpool? And even Liverpool have hit a dead end that they won't escape from just in a year or two.
Skim off the top, move money around, use the cash that they generate here to service debt and boost other ventures. Sell for equal or more in time.The Chelsea buyout was a consortium, and they're spending money like it doesn't matter, with the stadium to pay for yet for them, so what's the thinking here, reach a point where they have paid for a young squad and better stadium, and then start to take money out in dividends? In which case it'd going to take a very long time to get their money back, or sell the club on again in 5-10 years?
Ah right, thank youThat was Qatar Airways
Like James Ducker has reported, expect other bidders to go public in the coming weeks. I'm personally expecting some big hitters from the ME or America to win the bidding. Someone like Steve Ballmer from the US could potentially emerge and he has the wealth to make things happen.
Do people actually think ratcliffe could buy us on his own without any debt. If he can leverage Ineos then fair enough.
If you think you can build a new stadium plus pay off our debt with "investors as owners", you are dreaming. Nobody can buy a club for 7b and pay 3 extra billion on a new stadium and club debt.Spurs with their financially good decisions have transitioned into being a standard prem club to being firmly in the big 6 bucket where they compete with the big 6 every year, have a clear gap with the rest of the league in terms of their revenue, etc, which will enable them to compete long term. Spurs are not United. But the idea is the same. They have made good decisions over time and have gone from something similar to what Aston Villa were to being set in the top 6 in terms of money.
You are repeating yourself because you clearly aren't reading what I am saying . United don't need state funded owners to be at the top. United just needs competence. It is not at the cost of literally everything else that makes a top club. Our stadium and training grounds and infrastructure is in need of revamp, because it has been neglected. It hasn't been neglected because we have spent on transfers. It has been neglected because we have shit owners, and because 1 billion has been drained out of the club for no reason other than the Glazers taking it out of the club. That's my point. Under any normal ownership, over the past 20 years, we would have spent another 1 billion on internal club things. Another 1 billion spent on facility upgrades, renovations, etc. That isn't at the expense of the transfer fees we have spent the past 10 years. That is in addition to that amount.
Again, we are not where we are because the club doesn't generate enough money. That is 100% incorrect. What you want, is to have enough money that it pushes through incompetence so you are incapable of failing. Nobody is incapable of failing. Incompetence will always come back to bite people in the ass. That is where we are. What we need to get out of it, is an owner to come in and clear the debt, and then manage with competence.
Liverpool have hit a transition period that again, every team has to go through. Which is fine, it happens. What will feck them is Klopp likely won't stay through a transition into another big team, as that takes time. United is another animal compared to Liverpool, but Liverpool has shown that it's possible anyway. But what you quoted is me saying that United doesn't have the restrictions of needing to maintain a net profit. We have loads of transfer market strength, as we show every year. We just need to, you know, not be dumb. Which is hard for football clubs.
They could, but again we're reaching back to the original point - they won't be investors. The club as it stands, per the price alone, is not a viable investment. Let alone paying off the club's debt, renovating Old Trafford and the training grounds on top of competing with the rest of the PL on transfers. Whoever buys the club, he's not doing it for profit.If you think you can build a new stadium plus pay off our debt with "investors as owners", you are dreaming. Nobody can buy a club for 7b and pay 3 extra billion on a new stadium and club debt.
Thinking about this , I wouldn’t be surprised if it’s a media stunt , everyone knows he was interested but claimed the club wasn’t for sale. Now the club is for sale he’s kind of forced to show interest.
I don’t think he’ll end up winning the process with INEOS and I don’t think his bid is serious.
No doubt Ratcliffe will try and generate support from the fans. We all remember the Lfc game where a banner with his face was being taken around and a lot of support online.
The fans could be crucial for any bid.
Question is who owns Ineos? Is it listed or is it Jim? The other shareholders wont like if he (hopefully) pumps money into the club. That for me is a key issue
The review process with Raine can be very intensive. I have a hard time picturing any scenario where a group could keep the fact they are involved a secret, so I don’t see the point in trying. It isn’t the sort of situation where someone can slip a bid past prospective buyers.I mean most of the bidders for Chelsea went public. It's not that odd.
Can anyone here go to his French team forum and ask the fans their about him ?
I think we can get a pretty good idea about him as an owner
Sorry, Nigella Lawson is perhaps more up to date?
Why would they need to follow Ratcliffe's leadI am glad that he went to public. Now real buyers (Saudi, Qatar, Dubai) will start bidding.
This could be over in March. I hope.
We don't need to build a new stadium. Renovate Old Trafford and the facilities. But at the same time... I don't expect any owner to come in and "gift that" out of their own pocket. We need an owner who comes in and clears the debt during the purchase, and then just doesn't take money out. And then you refinance to fund renovations with the clubs own money... because that is a club thing and it's fair to take out debt on the club to refurbish the stadium that belongs to the club, and it's a pretty normal thing to do. I am very ok with operating fairly and normally, even if it means there is down years or times where you have to struggle through a bit as you prioritize spending. That's the way it's always been. By no means should the expectation be that an owner comes in and just gifts us a refurbished Old Trafford out of the goodness of his own heart. Also on that, not sure why some people want a new stadium rather than just renovating Old Trafford. I'd much rather just update Old Trafford like Real Madrid did with the Bernabeu. Moving to a new stadium would be a shame IMO.If you think you can build a new stadium plus pay off our debt with "investors as owners", you are dreaming. Nobody can buy a club for 7b and pay 3 extra billion on a new stadium and club debt.
We don't need to build a new stadium. Renovate Old Trafford and the facilities. But at the same time... I don't expect any owner to come in and "gift that" out of their own pocket. We need an owner who comes in and clears the debt during the purchase, and then just doesn't take money out. And then you refinance to fund renovations with the clubs own money... because that is a club thing and it's fair to take out debt on the club to refurbish the stadium that belongs to the club, and it's a pretty normal thing to do. I am very ok with operating fairly and normally, even if it means there is down years or times where you have to struggle through a bit as you prioritize spending. That's the way it's always been. By no means should the expectation be that an owner comes in and just gifts us a refurbished Old Trafford out of the goodness of his own heart. Also on that, not sure why some people want a new stadium rather than just renovating Old Trafford. I'd much rather just update Old Trafford like Real Madrid did with the Bernabeu. Moving to a new stadium would be a shame IMO.
And who is buying the club for 7b?? It'll be 5bn.