One said journo said circa £250m not so long ago, same clown is now saying nearly a billion for the same work. Everton's stadium is costing around £600m from report and thats happening now.
Club Sale | It’s done!
- Thread starter JB08
- Start date
- Status
One said journo said circa £250m not so long ago, same clown is now saying nearly a billion for the same work. Everton's stadium is costing around £600m from report and thats happening now.
Heterosexual intercourse involves riding some dicks does it not?
If not then I have a lot to look forward to
Wasn’t it something like £325m out of Ratcliffe’s personal pocket and then a further £2b coming in from Ineos?
The guy also claimed Ratcliffe did not mention what he was going to do publicly because it had no impact on the Glazers (presumably because they don’t really care about the leaks in the OT roof).
I guess we’ll find out how full of shit people are in the next coming weeks/years.
No, because the potential profits are a drop in the bucket compared to what Ineos makes in a single week or month. Has been discussed on here several times. You don't buy a 6 billion asset to take profits unless Ratcliffe expects to live for 400 more years.
True, but giving them a lifeline to stay probably isn’t the best way to get them out…
So who’s gonna put money towards transfers? Will it still be glazers, or will Ratcliffe chip in and hand out transfer budgets?
The Glazers have put money towards transfers?
I'm talking about the ownership situation. There's going to be nothing announced today in regards to that.
I imagine that the club will continue to pay for transfers from its own cashflows. I doubt we'll see much difference in the overall funds committed to new players, but hopefully we will find that the money is spent a little more wisely if competent people can be brought in on the sporting side to replace the idiots we currently have in charge.
Outside investment for transfers isn't really required - the club makes enough money to cover player purchases. What the club needs instead is money for infrastructure investment (improvements to Carrington and Old Trafford).
You gonna organise a whip-round then?
Thanks for proving the point.
You’ve just said to question SJRs bid without referencing any other bid is whataboutery, utter nonsense.
Not sure what the hell have City & Newcastle got to do with this either.
Discuss the Ratcliffe bid on its merits, of which there are very few. This isn’t about City, Qatar or Newcastle. Whataboutery, irony - pick one.
If you want to call them allowing us to spend our own money ‘putting money towards’ then yes.
Better to just put him on ignore mate, he's like a broken record!
See my explanation instead:
Using the phrase, and I quote, 'dickriders', to belittle people who support Maguire.
It's (also) homophobic because there are plenty of male commentators who are supporting Maguire, including many on this forum.
It's homophobic.
I've noticed also Barthez, Rightnr and yourself were all vociferously pro-Qatar.
Apropos of nothing, surely.
Whataboutery is usually utter nonsense, yes.
The pro-Qatar crowd on here desperately need to accept they've backed the wrong horse, and lost, in more ways than one.
They're the two biggest examples of what happens when you embrace sportswashing.
Deluded conspiracy theories, false equivalences, 'the West', ad hominem attacks on those pointing it out, whataboutery, the full package.
If you would actually read my posts instead you'll soon notice I am a consistent critic of both Ineos and Qatar.
This is because they are few, if at all any, benefits to either bid. Being anti-sportswash does not make you pro-Ineos.
Still smarting?
Expand over the railway and make it 100k+. We have the biggest fanbase, might as well use it. This way you could also lower ticket prices and get real atmosphere in.
Newcastle is owned by the Saudi Government. From Wiki: "It was created in 1971 for the purpose of investing funds on behalf of the Government of Saudi Arabia.[3] The wealth fund is controlled by Crown Prince Mohammed bin Salman, Saudi Arabia's de facto ruler since 2015.[4][5] "
That's Suadi State ownership.
The Qatari bid does seem different, but I still could not support that. It's tough because the club should be bigger than the owner but since the takeover of sports teams by greedy billionaires or corrupt governments seems to be the norm, it's hard to separate the 2.
If I lived in Manchester, I probably would be an FCUM supporter but as I don't really have a local team around me, I stuck with United. It just sucks all around.
That never seems to happen though, does it? They will almost always maximize profits. I prefer a remodeled OT (look at what Barca and Real Madrid are doing), but I don't think there is any option where the supporters are not taken advantage of.
SEC filing just released by United relating to Ariel Investments. Not sure what it means but:
https://otp.tools.investis.com/clie...gId=17047629&Cik=0001549107&Type=PDF&hasPdf=1
https://otp.tools.investis.com/clie...gId=17047629&Cik=0001549107&Type=PDF&hasPdf=1
I couldn't explain the technicalities to you off top of my head (there are people on here with knowledge of corporate structures, as well as of ME governing structures., who have provided detailed explanations re. Saudi and Qatar investment fund relationships to the state, the relationship of business groups to the state etc) , but it's just a hard and fast rule that the Investment Group controlling Newcastle would have had to prove sufficient independent from the Saudi Government in order to be allowed to have majority control. However much you think that's just a technicality, they're not state owned in the way that suggests. Also, this still doesn't answer the question as to why a bid from one sort of owner is substantively different from another (SJR, since both bids were headed by people claiming to be fans) , let alone keeping the Glazers would be preferable to SJ takeover.
While I disagree with the point about State ownership, I do agree that we are splitting hairs. To me, it doesn't matter if the owner is private or state owned, as long as they are reputable, have the clubs, community and supporters' best interest at heart (see Wrexham as an example). We don't see that with the Glazers, we certainly don't see that with Newcastle (we know they are sportswashing).
You've supported Utd through the worst ownerships in footballing history. I'm sure you will continue to support the club irrespective of future owners too. If you've been able to separate the club from its ownership then I presume your default wish is for whoever owns the club to take best care of it - which is to spend, communicate and plan. Anything outside of that is agenda driven in one way or another whether that's a social pressure instigated by a media bias or your own activist agenda taking the place at the top of your priority. There's nothing wrong with the latter but know that Utd is many people's church and that for them means its placed at the highest point (which incidentally is why I believe sports washing doesn't work the way the media wants us to believe it to).
This is nothing directly related to the takeover. Since Ariel Investments hold a 5% or greater stake in the plc, this is a filing they needed to complete. In this case, it is an amendment of their filing as required due to a change in their holdings of 1% or greater.
Surely not true, get the infrastructure and hierarchy right first, then invest in the playing staff.
Huge red flags if any signings are made while a new sporting director and chief exec are not in place.
The way this club has been run, I'm surprised the Glazers have the self-awareness to not announce anything on the day SBC is laid to rest.
Sadly, I don't think this is true.
The takeover might be announced this week, but the completion will take time. It would be great if we could have a big January for once, but if we get Todibo and no one else I'd already be satisfied.
Mostly increased corporate seats, hospitality Lounges, restaurants vip Boxes as well as 15,000 seats. Spurs now make as much as us or close on a Match-day with 13,000 fewer seats.
If INEOS partner with a a sponsor like Mercedes and decide a four stage stadium development at £250m each phase with the final investment finalised capacity at 90,000. The Matchday revenue last year £136m increased from £110m previous year, mostly due to more hike like games and slight increases to ticket price.
The current season ticket is between £598(low) and £994(high). Move forward three years with inflation that becomes £650 and £1,100 with an average of £850
74,000 to 90,000 means 16,000 extra season tickets sold at £850 which equals £13.6m extra plus all those hospitality and corporate business opportunities.
That’s £20m every year extra just in Match-day add the merchandise and your up to £25m extra.
Match-day income for United could rise to £175-200m especially with extra home games in Europe after next years reforms. INEOS will sponsor the stadium so it will be Old Trafford with INEOS displayed everywhere. This really does become self funding and INEOS will have no hesitation in capitalising on this.
Yes. I just saw a match at the Bernabeu. They’re not quite done with remodeling but close. My impression: it’s more sleek/modern but keeps in tact the history of the stadium. Madrid did get a very favorable loan with minimal interest but we should definitely emulate what they’ve done.
£250m is for one phase of a four phase redevelopment which uploaded on you tube ages ago, it’s quite an extensive redevelopment and involves the train tracks being moved. We’ll see right now it’s all hypothetical and the press will print what they think United fans want to hear ?
Agree this is the ultimate vanity project for him, he wants to be remembered for the man that made the club great again, got to admire his cohones, but his track record in football shows very little for the fans to be confident about.
We need to see £100m added in January to obvious players that we sell hopefully giving a new DOF £150-160m to go buy 3 or 4 top young players.
Love a war chest me.
Hope he doesn’t sack ETH before then or it’ll be an heirless chest.
No more Eredivisie players please.
I am sure they don't. Ratcliffe probably just told them his fax machine is broken to get it delayed for a bit.
If they can geta couple of Saudi sales lined up, I can see RW and CB lbeing lined up. I still think ETH has issues with his midfield balance and that isn't just down to personnel but to how clearly he sees that. We should be moving out McT (and planning ahead to move out Case) and bringing a powerful CM in to interchange with Mainoo, but ETH doesn't seem willing to recognize the problem and certainly not enough to 'risk' young player.
Unless SJR himself takes the lead on moving out the likes of Scott and bringing in Thuram from our new 'sister club' (Thuram is also a risk, but he has better profile in terms of his style of player, anticipation, getting on the ball etc) , I don't see an immediate (partial) solution. Having a SD with a clear-eyed vision who has authority to challenge Ten Hag will be key if latter is to continue, but the SD will probably take longer than a month or two to bed in, so we might be in stasis between now and the Summer.
I'll take the Glazers over anything Saudi, so no, I have not supported them through the worst owners in my opinion (and I recognize that it's just a personal opinion).
Has anyone done the world a favour and kept tabs on how many times these shit sources get anything correct?
- Status