Club Sale | It’s done!

Status
Not open for further replies.
r3idy said:
There has to be some room to run the club better than what it is under new ownership. There is a lot commentated across decent media in recent months about the state of United

- Bloated Squad with a quite mind boggling transfer and contract renewal policy. In short, we usually get fleeced on transfers and usually sell a £5.00 note for £2.50

- Outdated Stadium: We are no longer on the list of venues UEFA would consider for Champions League, Europa League finals. When was the last time there was a decent gig, boxing match or concert at Old Trafford. Less revenue being generated from non footballing commercial activities like conferences etc

- Outdated Fan Experience: As one source in the Athletic commentated, United's pre match corporate entertainment has not changed much in a decade, maybe longer, it's stale. We are still on chicken dinners and Black Forrest Gateux's while other clubs have all sorts of Cafe's and experiences to cater for every taste. Other clubs are getting more $$$ per head per fan that comes through the turnstiles.

Ok some of that will require money invested to fix but once fixed there should be increased revenue and reduced costs ?
Click to expand...

And all the above is true.

However, if a purchase of around £5bn is required, and all the above costs you mentioned is to be invested, how will they run the club if it stays the same? As I say, their past record shows they don't really improve a clubs fortunes on the pitch. What will their appetite be if they see no real returns on the pitch?
 
devilish said:
Is having someone whose sole attribute is originating from the same ball sack that you did as head of football smart? Is it smart to bring in the likes of Barkley and Ramsay? These players had struggled to remain motivated at clubs like Juve and yet somehow they are expected, in their late 20s/late 30s to do that for Nice. Is that smart?

Now we can debate that Ratcliffe is learning (and interested in learning) how to manage football clubs and tbh there's good arguments to back that up including hiring Jean Claude Blanc. But there's nothing around Nice or Lausanne that show that these clubs are being managed in a smart way. At least not yet
Click to expand...

Absolutely agree.
 
Godfather said:
His previous and current engagements at football clubs is the only way to judge him at the moment so I've no idea how that is daft. To expect him to be the owner everyone dreams of when everything he is doing at other clubs points to a different direction is what I'd call naive.
Keep that guy away from us. He reeks as another leech
Click to expand...

Totally agree. You can only go off with what you have in front of you.

Would we have employed the Brentford manager as our manager before? He was doing fine and being smart with what he was/is doing. The answer would be no. So why should we expect a similar situation in club ownership?
 
.
red thru&thru said:
Totally agree. You can only go off with what you have in front of you.

Would we have employed the Brentford manager as our manager before? He was doing fine and being smart with what he was/is doing. The answer would be no. So why should we expect a similar situation in club ownership?
Click to expand...

Should Arsenal have hired an assistant manager with zero experience of being an actual manager.

It’s a daft comparison.

Owners aren’t even slightly comparable to owners. Were the Glazers good owners under Fergie? Was Edwards a good owner? Or did they just get lucky with a manager?

What would you have expected in 3 years at Nice to give INEOS the ok? Should they have spunked money way beyond their means? A la Everton, would that have pleased you?
 
Last edited:
Godfather said:
His previous and current engagements at football clubs is the only way to judge him at the moment so I've no idea how that is daft. To expect him to be the owner everyone dreams of when everything he is doing at other clubs points to a different direction is what I'd call naive.
Keep that guy away from us. He reeks as another leech
Click to expand...

Ratcliffe isn't going to make it once the formal bidding process starts, where the non-serious bidders get weeded out. I wouldn't worry much about him.
 
https://www.dailymail.co.uk/sport/f...vinced-Sir-Jim-Ratcliffes-plans-buy-club.html

”Manchester United officials have been privately scathing about Sir Jim Ratcliffe’s plans to bid for the club, as they are convinced the INEOS owner has no intention of meeting the Glazer family’s demand for offers in excess of £6billion.”

Should be said that with Ratcliffe’s ownership model, these leading officials most likely within 6-12 months after a take over, will lose their job. With a US consortium, they are more likely to stay in place. ME owners? Who knows.
 
Telsim said:
Ratcliffe isn't going to make it once the formal bidding process starts, where the non-serious bidders get weeded out. I wouldn't worry much about him.
Click to expand...

Yeah fingers crossed. Although I'm almost as worried about a US consortium.
 
Godfather said:
His previous and current engagements at football clubs is the only way to judge him at the moment so I've no idea how that is daft. To expect him to be the owner everyone dreams of when everything he is doing at other clubs points to a different direction is what I'd call naive.
Keep that guy away from us. He reeks as another leech
Click to expand...

Of course it’s daft.

In the first 3 years City managed 10th, 5th, 3rd, spending eye watering sums of money that the club couldn’t afford.

In the first 3 years owning Liverpool FSG managed 6th, 8th, 7th.

Let’s not even start on Arsenal’s ownership.

What represents a good owner for you? What did you expect from little fecking Nice in 3 years?

The clubs above, who hardly had a hair raising first 3 years, were at the time of their takeovers all amongst the top 4 average attendances in the country (yes even Citeh). They were, legitimately big clubs, Nice have the 10th highest attendance in ligue 1 ffs.

If you think Nice trying to attract players to compete with Messi, Neymar, Mbappe and spunk hundreds of millions would’ve been “good ownership”, I couldn’t disagree more, there’s as much chance with that approach they’d be doing an Everton. Nice need to copy Arsenal or Liverpool’s approach, spend money the club can afford, keep a sensible wage structure and build slowly and sustainably.
Nice kept the DoF and structure for a couple of years, then tried something else when it wasn’t working and have now hired a top new DoF. That for me is sensible club ownership, and a sensible debt free United owner would have incredible sums of money to spend and a totally different proposition by taking over the biggest club in the country.
 
Last edited:
Godfather said:
Ok you are deliberately acting like a child now. His investments are underwhelming from a sporting perspective which is the only one I care about for Manchester United. We've been handled like a pure business for long enough now. Everything involving Ratcliffe screams red flag. Don't want him anywhere near our club.
Click to expand...

So who do you want?
 
Red in STL said:
So a British transfer record isn't a transfer record?

And most football fans, United's included, would laugh at your last statement, you're either a WUM or have only observed football for a short period
Click to expand...

Back then though the British transfer record and the world transfer record were quite different. There was a sizeable gap between the two.

Nowadays if you break the British transfer record there's a chance you'll be close or exceed the world.

Fergie was competing with Europe's best without getting near European transfer records.
 
Messier1994 said:
https://www.dailymail.co.uk/sport/f...vinced-Sir-Jim-Ratcliffes-plans-buy-club.html

”Manchester United officials have been privately scathing about Sir Jim Ratcliffe’s plans to bid for the club, as they are convinced the INEOS owner has no intention of meeting the Glazer family’s demand for offers in excess of £6billion.”

Should be said that with Ratcliffe’s ownership model, these leading officials most likely within 6-12 months after a take over, will lose their job. With a US consortium, they are more likely to stay in place. ME owners? Who knows.
Click to expand...

I can see Arnold being replaced. But I would keep murtough for now.
 
crossy1686 said:
A shite basketball team in the US just sold for $4b, that is 13x their yearly revenue. United will go for $6b or more.
Click to expand...

The NBA salary cap and states funding stadiums make owning NBA/NFL franchises super lucrative.
 
arthurka said:
Is he this looks as enticing as farmed salmon.
Click to expand...

Well if you completely ignore the part where the article states, "Unlike a great deal of farmed or wild salmon, Plantish’s version is free from mercury, antibiotics, hormones, microplastics, and other toxins".. then yeah, I guess it does?
 
M15 Red. said:
Well if you completely ignore the part where the article states, "Unlike a great deal of farmed or wild salmon, Plantish’s version is free from mercury, antibiotics, hormones, microplastics, and other toxins".. then yeah, I guess it does?
Click to expand...
Well at least for me farmed salmon is the worst food you can possibly find it's absolutely vile from the process to what's put in your plate. I just assumed this was probably terrible eating as well and had nothing to do with a good piece of a wild salmon.

Old boy Jim isn't buying up rivers to eat it he is buying up land, waters and future resources from that land, he now owns about 2% of Iceland all in the name of salmon conservation. Given his companies polluting and how they treat the earth I just find it a bit rich.
 
arthurka said:
Well at least for me farmed salmon is the worst food you can possibly find it's absolutely vile from the process to what's put in your plate. I just assumed this was probably terrible eating as well and had nothing to do with a good piece of a wild salmon.

Old boy Jim isn't buying up rivers to eat it he is buying up land, waters and future resources from that land, he now owns about 2% of Iceland all in the name of salmon conservation. Given his companies polluting and how they treat the earth I just find it a bit rich.
Click to expand...

Fair enough.
 
Marwood said:
Back then though the British transfer record and the world transfer record were quite different. There was a sizeable gap between the two.

Nowadays if you break the British transfer record there's a chance you'll be close or exceed the world.

Fergie was competing with Europe's best without getting near European transfer records.
Click to expand...

I know the point your making but your wrong about the British record being close to the world record.

Grealish was 100m and is the British record. Neymar was nearly 200m. It'll take some going to break that record
 
simonhch said:
Not this old chestnut again. Chelsea sold for 2.75bn. An additional 1.5bn was promised for investment but it wasn’t part of the sale price. Sigh.
Click to expand...
Before sighing and ridiculing, perhaps get numbers right hahaha It was £2.5bn + £1.75bn for investment.
 
Blood Mage said:
Are we really worth 6 billion? Seems like a mental price to pay for a fecking football club.
Click to expand...

Not by any traditional method of valuing a business. Ultimately though, things are worth whatever people are prepared to pay for them. The Glazers will be desperately hoping for a bidding war between multiple parties with deep pockets. Whether that comes to pass (or whether it's just SJR) is still too soon to say.
 
Last edited:
Steve Bruce said:
I know the point your making but your wrong about the British record being close to the world record.

Grealish was 100m and is the British record. Neymar was nearly 200m. It'll take some going to break that record
Click to expand...

Yeah true.

But that's PSG. Neymar and Mbappe are outliers even by world record standards. Having one or two transfers double the usual record overnight didn't use to happen either.

Having said that how much was Haaland really? We'll never know but no chance it was his official release clause.
 
crossy1686 said:
Phoenix suns
Click to expand...

You cannot compare NBA franchises at all with football clubs. They operate in different way and under a different set of rules.

Suns are a championship contender, so not even a shite team. Injuries have disrupted their season so far.
 
Regulus Arcturus Black said:
.


Should Arsenal have hired an assistant manager with zero experience of being an actual manager.

It’s a daft comparison.

Owners aren’t even slightly comparable to owners. Were the Glazers good owners under Fergie? Was Edwards a good owner? Or did they just get lucky with a manager?

What would you have expected in 3 years at Nice to give INEOS the ok? Should they have spunked money way beyond their means? A la Everton, would that have pleased you?
Click to expand...

So, your premise is, you're only a good owner if you fall lucky with a good manager?
 
Regulus Arcturus Black said:
Of course it’s daft.

In the first 3 years City managed 10th, 5th, 3rd, spending eye watering sums of money that the club couldn’t afford.

In the first 3 years owning Liverpool FSG managed 6th, 8th, 7th.

Let’s not even start on Arsenal’s ownership.

What represents a good owner for you? What did you expect from little fecking Nice in 3 years?

The clubs above, who hardly had a hair raising first 3 years, were at the time of their takeovers all amongst the top 4 average attendances in the country (yes even Citeh). They were, legitimately big clubs, Nice have the 10th highest attendance in ligue 1 ffs.

If you think Nice trying to attract players to compete with Messi, Neymar, Mbappe and spunk hundreds of millions would’ve been “good ownership”, I couldn’t disagree more, there’s as much chance with that approach they’d be doing an Everton. Nice need to copy Arsenal or Liverpool’s approach, spend money the club can afford, keep a sensible wage structure and build slowly and sustainably.
Nice kept the DoF and structure for a couple of years, then tried something else when it wasn’t working and have now hired a top new DoF. That for me is sensible club ownership, and a sensible debt free United owner would have incredible sums of money to spend and a totally different proposition by taking over the biggest club in the country.
Click to expand...

So you are using City going from 10th to 3rd in three years to somehow convince people Nice that are completely stagnating in a God awful league are well run? That doesn't make much sense. And as for Arsenal and Pool: Good you brought them up as they are run by Yanks I don't want anywhwere near our club. So your whole post pretty much confirmed my opinion.
 
Ratcliffe consistently leaking like a sieve to convince everyone he's poised to by the club. I don't see what someone who genuinely was interested would possibly gain from that.

It clearly matters to him that people know he wants to buy us, or that they at least think that he does.
 
TheReligion said:
Why do you want them to take over?
Click to expand...

As I have the believe they would be willing to invest the sums in the club that are needed. I could obviously be wrong but I think they wouldn't treat United solely as a means to make profit. I also hope they'd implement a good structure to our club that will lead to sustainable success on the pitch. I don't think Ratcliffe is able
or willing to spend what is necessary to be successful in the PL. And I'm done with US owners. So they are pretty much the only option out there I would be happy with.
 
Blood Mage said:
Are we really worth 6 billion? Seems like a mental price to pay for a fecking football club.
Click to expand...

depends How you see it…. This is once in 50-100 years opportunity to own arguably one of the top 2-3 clubs in world football so traditional valuation methods don’t apply….

United if run properly has the potential to be the first club to hit $1b revenue on consistent basis if we can become successful on pitch again (Barcelona did it once but I don’t trust their accounts, who can)….

so if you really think about it 5-6x revenue potential multiple (in few years time) doesn’t sound crazy given the other points I highlighted above….

and associating with a brand like ours is everyone’s dream and I genuinely think that will be the driving force and not the returns.

All I want is someone to buy, make sure debt free…don’t take dividends out for few years..

Spend decent chunk on first team for 2-3 transfer windows that get us back to competing again and finally …. Build a new stadium, finance it by selling naming rights to a large extent …

If I look at what I want from a new owner, a state sponsor is more likely to give all that
 
stw2022 said:
Ratcliffe consistently leaking like a sieve to convince everyone he's poised to by the club. I don't see what someone who genuinely was interested would possibly gain from that.

It clearly matters to him that people know he wants to buy us, or that they at least think that he does.
Click to expand...
Or the club are leaking that he’s likely to pay lower end of what they’ve been talking about to encourage a bidding war, who would definitely have a lot to gain from doing so.
 
Gurtej said:
depends How you see it…. This is once in 50-100 years opportunity to own arguably one of the top 2-3 clubs in world football so traditional valuation methods don’t apply….

United if run properly has the potential to be the first club to hit $1b revenue on consistent basis if we can become successful on pitch again (Barcelona did it once but I don’t trust their accounts, who can)….

so if you really think about it 5-6x revenue potential multiple (in few years time) doesn’t sound crazy given the other points I highlighted above….

and associating with a brand like ours is everyone’s dream and I genuinely think that will be the driving force and not the returns.

All I want is someone to buy, make sure debt free…don’t take dividends out for few years..

Spend decent chunk on first team for 2-3 transfer windows that get us back to competing again and finally …. Build a new stadium, finance it by selling naming rights to a large extent …

If I look at what I want from a new owner, a state sponsor is more likely to give all that
Click to expand...
or they could invest their 6billion in real stuff and make some actual return? what would any billionaire (who by all accounts are ruthless ultra-capitalists) do?
 
Status
Not open for further replies.