what difference will it make we have zero say and the Glazers are selling to the highest bidder
Club Sale | It’s done!
- Thread starter JB08
- Start date
- Status
what difference will it make we have zero say and the Glazers are selling to the highest bidder
The last part is the key worry. Everyone saying the club only needs to look after itself in terms of transfers and all will be fine if we are debt free. The key component in that is that the owner needs to put in the best in business in charge of the football operations for us to be successful. His record at Nice is anything but that. However, those wanting Ineos are only blindly hoping they (Ratcliffe) will magically become the perfect owners for us (simply by not being an ME state) but their prior football project points to the contrary.
It is more difficult to do that now under the financial sustainability rules. The hope has to be that the new owner (whoever they are) takes the brakes off by dispensing with the Glazers' acquisition debt and dividend payments. You can invest an unlimited amount in infrastructure under the financial rules, and I'd much rather see any new owners' money poured into the stadium, youth team and training facilities.
It isn't their own personal money they're spending, it's revenue generated by the club they'd be spending.
I'm against it, but it would be hilarious to see the media uproar if it happened. All the usual suspects who arselick City at every opportunity would no doubt be crying about us buying the league.
Our history in Europe is disappointing in terms of silverwear and we should have won more.
Three European Cups though, including being the first ever English team to win it a mere 10 years after the team was decimated after Munich, is good going.
We also had that spell of three finals (lost two to Barca) which skews things somewhat.
We are one of only a handful of clubs to have won the ‘European Treble’ (CWC, UEFA/EL and EC).
Overrated isn’t fair.
I get that, but we're entering into new territory if we need a stadium - and we're now competing with three clubs spending crazy money.
We have also been spending 'crazy money'. More than City have spent, in fact. And we have beaten City to transfers like Sanchez, Fred and Maguire, because we were willing to spend more on those targets than they were.
We have plenty of money (and would have even more if we were cleared of debt and weren't paying dividends and bogus management fees to the Glazers all the time).
We don't need our owners to buy players for us.
There are literally no good owners out there, just shades of shit on the moral compass.
United doesn't need a sugar daddy owner. The despots have the biggest impact at clubs that are total shite and in obscurity globally. Personally would prefer Jim 'I support [team on sale at time of statement]' Ratcliffe for all the reasons people have stated, assuming he isn't just a British Glazer and will asset strip United some how.
Fundamentally, we just need someone who is going to run the club correctly and invest properly - on and off the pitch. We keep getting reminded that the Glazers never put their own money on the table for transfers - they simply owned United, saddled the club with debt, invested in feck all infrastructre and took out dividends (the only owners to do so on a regular basis).
The only requisite therefore of any new owner is to clear the debt and run the club properly. Once that's done upon sale we should be able to compete with anyone, whether we're owned by Ratcliffe or King Midas. United is fecking huge, we are so far beyond any club that was bought by some billionaire sugar daddy in the past (Chelsea, City, PSG) at time of sale. People need to remember that because if we do end up bought by a state I don't honestly think we'll see anything different on the pitch.
United doesn't need a sugar daddy owner. The despots have the biggest impact at clubs that are total shite and in obscurity globally. Personally would prefer Jim 'I support [team on sale at time of statement]' Ratcliffe for all the reasons people have stated, assuming he isn't just a British Glazer and will asset strip United some how.
Fundamentally, we just need someone who is going to run the club correctly and invest properly - on and off the pitch. We keep getting reminded that the Glazers never put their own money on the table for transfers - they simply owned United, saddled the club with debt, invested in feck all infrastructre and took out dividends (the only owners to do so on a regular basis).
The only requisite therefore of any new owner is to clear the debt and run the club properly. Once that's done upon sale we should be able to compete with anyone, whether we're owned by Ratcliffe or King Midas. United is fecking huge, we are so far beyond any club that was bought by some billionaire sugar daddy in the past (Chelsea, City, PSG) at time of sale. People need to remember that because if we do end up bought by a state I don't honestly think we'll see anything different on the pitch.
There's no growth in the domestic market TV wise, commercial deals means advertising and sponsorship in different markets, ironically the one thing the Glazers have done well.
The products that United endorse in China or India are not the same as the ones in the UK, that's where the growth is, that's the areas these businessmen/consortiums are really interested in
I wish buyers could be upfront about their plan for the club's finances. It would be pretty naive if people think anyone is going to wipe out years of their company's hard earned revenue, no credit, no lending, pay cash just to simply let us run independent with no short or long term plan to recoup the initial investment. Their other businesses would go down under in months. At 4-5bn o one is coming to simply liberate us. Being worth an amount doesn't mean they even have anything close to that amount in cash without selling assets.
At 4-5 billion United can only gain financial independence with a super liquid, bored mega billionaire owner. The benefit of the doubt being given to this local lad United fan has to be the most dumbed down hype since Ole was at the wheel. Is he liquid enough to use 4bn like monopoly money?
At 4-5 billion United can only gain financial independence with a super liquid, bored mega billionaire owner. The benefit of the doubt being given to this local lad United fan has to be the most dumbed down hype since Ole was at the wheel. Is he liquid enough to use 4bn like monopoly money?
City and PSG are not owned by a what you term a sugar daddy, they are owned by State owned investment funds, Roman at Chelsea was a sugar daddy as he owned it personally and wrote off the debt
They won't be paying off the Glazers Debt. It will be included in the full price. Like when you take out a Mortgage. You buy the house for the agreed price, the outstanding Mortgage is then settled by the seller.
I think it's just for discussion's sake, or the thread would be closed. We kinda already know this is just idle talk. What we want is irrelevant to what will happen. If the glazers cared about leaving us in good hands they wouldn't have let Woodward stay for so long.
A sugar state then, it’s an irrelevant distinction. The point is exactly the same, Chelsea, City, PSG and Newcastle were all shit to middling clubs when bought. Financial doping whether from an oligarch or state is still financial doping.
Bah Gawd! The Game just pedigreed Marcus Rashford!
I understood that reference.gif
Hopefully they include anti-Boehly clauses too!
JR Erwing is loaded.
Why bother discussing it at all then? It doesn't matter what we say, but people are assuming British billionaire 'fan' = ideal owner, without knowing anything about him.
It may be absolutely fine, but on current evidence I'm not sure they are the best placed owner. His ownership of Nice has been a shambles if you ask anyone in France.
I do not want us to be a sportswashing job for a middle eastern oil state, but I also don't want another 10 years of what we just had either.
Simon Jordan said it, so it must be true. So that rules out a state owed takeover. Or Simon must be able to read the future and be able to pre-empt what each bid intends to do. Ask him for this weeks lottery numbers.
What do you think the new owner will expect in return after spending upwards of 5billion quid? Surely he will expect some financial return over and above just sticking that amount in a bank or bonds.
I didn't say it was true. I just said he mentioned most buyers would not use their own money to build a stadium. It was just his opinion like everybody else on here is giving theirs. Everybody, including me said whoever bought us would need to include the cost of a stadium in their purchase, when he said they might get finance to do it. That they would feel safe doing it as a stadium will hold its value where a players value can fluctuate.
Depends on who they are, a business/consortium will be looking for a return a sugar daddy type like Roman isn't necessarily looking for anything except the prestige, oil state wouldn't be seeking profits in the short term, they're looking for prestige and redemption more than money intially
Yeah that is a concern along with things I read about how OGS Nice are being currently run
Well apparently WWE is for sale now too
As some said it might be that he thought it wasn't worth it, due to the spending power of PSG, but Lille won the title, so with the right signings why couldn't Nice. Is he going to think the same with City, Chelsea and Newcastle. If you don't try to compete you won't compete.
Now compare the income generated by Manchester United vs Nice. He will obviously want to run both clubs in a sustainable manner but trying to get Nice to be able to come anywhere close to PSG’s spending is a completely different ball game.
Just wondered why he bought a club like Nice? I am probably going to answer my own question now. Due to fan ownership in some leagues etc. He then said he would not buy a PL club, but apparently went in for Chelsea, even though he had said he wouldn't buy a PL club. Why not a Championship club and get it promoted and build from there.
To be fair, his late bid for Chelsea was bizarre.
Maybe he just wanted to use Nice as test case? Get a feel for what’s involved before investing serious money in a really big club?
Why would anyone compare Nice to PSG? The issues with Nice is that they haven't been competitive when compared to Rennes, Lens, Monaco or Marseille.
He lives in Monaco which is basically in Nice's suburb.
To be honest, I find it bizarre that any legit business owner would want to pay the sort of money that the Glazers are asking for United. Look at what the Saudis paid for Newcastle. That was a deal which could get you a proper return on your investment. I guess maybe there aren’t any low hanging fruit left?
Not really true anymore though mismanagement has come back to bite us in the arsehole United owe a fortune on unpaid transfer fee's which will count towards FFP.
Fact is no matter how you spin this, we'll probably be owned by a billionaire, conglomerate or investment group of some kind. Billionaires don't tend to be the best people, and conglomerates etc. don't tend to be saints either. Chances are no matter who picks us up, they will have some bad things about them. Now, we can absolutely be reasonable in saying we don't want the worst of the worst, but if you want to find a billionaire who also is a great person by all accounts, it's simply not gonna happen.
So, whoever picks us up, I just hope it's someone who doesn't murder people, honours human rights, and invests in the club instead of taking away from it. And even that, probably, is a tough ask...
So, whoever picks us up, I just hope it's someone who doesn't murder people, honours human rights, and invests in the club instead of taking away from it. And even that, probably, is a tough ask...
Yeah it's high risk, and there's far more competition thesedays. It doesn't seem to make business sense which is why I think a Gulf state or SA will buy us.
Yeah, we are — for a very good reason — allergic to the word debt. But that is in relation to debt used to buy the shares in Man Utd — ie it has nothing whatsoever to do with the club, only the shares of the club.
Debt to build a new stadium does not impact our FFP status and is tax efficient.
Ultimately, an owner can have a company financed by debt or the owners capital. If the owner can get a 10% return on equity it has while being able to lend money from the bank for 5%, it’s of course better to take on as much debt as possible while investing the owners money elsewhere.
Well apparently WWE is for sale now too
It would be the greatest cross over in history. Players coming out to their own themes.
I for one don't really care who United's owners are as long as they run the club effectively, protect the club's history and are obsessed with winning. I imagine many other fans feel the same way.
- Status