Club Sale | It’s done!

[Valencia Shin Crosses]

As expected, really. None of the nation states mooted as potential buyers by transfer obsessives on twitter, make very much sense. That's a good thing. People pissing their pants laughing at City in the FFP thread, suggesting that their league titles (assuming they are allowed to keep them) will forever be asterisked, would do well to remember that United will be in exactly the same position a few years down the line if the Saudis/Qatar/Dubai (pick your favourite oil funded autocracy), buy the club.

Not true at all. The reason City is in the spot they are in right now is basically through cooking the books in their revenues and everything that they've reported financially that everyone knew was BS but is now finally being called out by the PL.

We could be owned by giga rich owners and all they would really need to do is spend heavily on infrastructure and wipe the debt, and the club itself would pay for the transfers with the money we already make.

 

[UnitedSofa]

Might get charged but not properly punished

If I remember correctly they were charged quite severely by UEFA but the court of arbitration overturned it. They can’t do that this time.

 

[Rightnr]

To be honest, I think we can get away with some of what Citeh did because of plausible deals we can strike. But Citeh were literally taking the piss having the highest revenue in world club football ahead of us, Madrid, Farca, Bayern, etc.

 

[Shimo]

If I remember correctly they were charged quite severely by UEFA but the court of arbitration overturned it. They can’t do that this time.

Yeah, On Sky they reported that CAS overturned UEFA because there was a time bar on the incidents by UEFA rules. So got off on technicality but, in the premier league there is no such time bar.

 

[Zed 101]

If the city thing is anything like last time the FA like Uefa will be made to look like a load of clowns, City's owners have the best of the best lawyers, they will have enough wiggle room to get them out of any hot water.

I do not see this affecting a potential take over, billionaires will be confident of circumventing anything the FA, Uefa or FIFA throw up

You only have to look at Chelsea exploiting the transfer rules on fair play to see that they were drawn up by half clueless people

 

[Infra-red]

But will City be actually charged and punished? And will sensible and sustainable investment be actually encouraged?

They have been charged today. More than 100 breaches of financial rules.

The punishment is a different matter of course. Let's see if the Premier League have any teeth. Prospective buyers of United and Liverpool will have taken note, though.

 

[Devil_forever]

The decision by the Premier League to charge City with these financial regulation offences and the impending (although now delayed) announcement regarding the independent regulator will probably serve to put off nation states or nefarious individuals from investing, while at the same time encouraging investment from other individuals/entities who were previously concerned about having to compete with the aforementioned states/crooks.

Basically, football getting its house in order with regards to finance should encourage sensible and sustainable investment.

What a dumb take, no we wouldn’t, city’s issue is there lack of ability to generate legitimate revenue. We have no issues with that whatsoever, if anything a debt free United properly monetised would be frightening.

 

[Infra-red]

What a dumb take, no we wouldn’t, city’s issue is there lack of ability to generate legitimate revenue. We have no issues with that whatsoever, if anything a debt free United properly monetised would be frightening.

Nobody will respect any of the "achievements" of a nation state-backed Manchester United, if such a thing were ever to come to pass. We'd be every bit as plastic, hollow and soulless as our neighbours across town.

 

[Red Dreams]

I would hope Ratcliffe is the new owner.
The Saudis and Newcastle must be shitting it.

 

[Infra-red]

Not true at all. The reason City is in the spot they are in right now is basically through cooking the books in their revenues and everything that they've reported financially that everyone knew was BS but is now finally being called out by the PL.

We could be owned by giga rich owners and all they would really need to do is spend heavily on infrastructure and wipe the debt, and the club itself would pay for the transfers with the money we already make.

That's one of the strongest arguments against United being bought by a nation state (i.e. that we don't actually need or want their money). I'd expect any prospective owner to clear the Glazer's debt and invest in infrastructure - certainly, Ineos would do this.

The argument put forward by proponents of state ownership, is that it is the only way for united to "compete" with the other oil state-backed clubs ("compete" of course means to play real life Football Manager with the cheat codes on and buy five Mbappe's every year). If all we want the owner to do is let the club spend its own organically-generated cashflow on players (without pumping in money through bonus sponsorship deals etc), then nation state ownership is completely without benefit or merit for United.

 

[Valencia Shin Crosses]

That's one of the strongest arguments against United being bought by a nation state (i.e. that we don't actually need or want their money). I'd expect any prospective owner to clear the Glazer's debt and invest in infrastructure - certainly, Ineos would do this.

The argument put forward by proponents of state ownership, is that it is the only way for united to "compete" with the other oil state-backed clubs ("compete" of course means to play real life Football Manager with the cheat codes on and buy five Mbappe's every year). If all we want the owner to do is let the club spend its own organically-generated cashflow on players (without pumping in money through bonus sponsorship deals etc), then nation state ownership is completely without benefit or merit.

Except nation state's are the only ones that wouldn't be looking for a return on their investment. Ratcliff or any US based consortium will first and foremost be looking to generate returns, and buying us at a premium and then clearing debt/investing 1B into infrastructure/stadium renovations etc. while STILL allowing the club to have the big transfer budgets we need isn't realistic at all.

 

[Infra-red]

I would hope Ratcliffe is the new owner.
The Saudis and Newcastle must be shitting it.

Let's hope so. One presumes that Newcastle's rather more conservative (at least in comparison to PSG/City) market spending thus far is an indication that they have already been neutered by the threat of rule breaches.

 

[Sviken]

Let's hope so. One presumes that their rather more conservative (at least in comparison to PSG/City) market spending thus far is an indication that they have already been neutered by the threat of rule breaches.

What's the point? All we need is someone to have enough money to clear our debt and upgrade our training facilities and stadium. The club, otherwise, has more than enough money on its own to dominate the transfer market. We just can't do both at the same time.

 

[Infra-red]

Except nation state's are the only ones that wouldn't be looking for a return on their investment. Ratcliff or any US based consortium will first and foremost be looking to generate returns, and buying us at a premium and then clearing debt/investing 1B into infrastructure/stadium renovations etc. while STILL allowing the club to have the big transfer budgets we need isn't realistic at all.

It is if you plan to get your ROI in the backend, with a sale further down the road. No prospective owner is going to be looking to reap returns on a £6bn investment in a business with c. £700m revenues, via dividends. The cashflow just isn't there. The new owners (assuming there are new owners - I'm not wholly convinced there will be) will be looking to grow the value of the business with untapped revenue streams (eg an expanded/redeveloped stadium & fan village).

 

[Infra-red]

What's the point? All we need is someone to have enough money to clear our debt and upgrade our training facilities and stadium. The club, otherwise, has more than enough money on its own to dominate the transfer market. We just can't do both at the same time.

I agree wholeheartedly. It is one of the reasons I don't want a country to buy the club. It is simply unnecessary.

 

[jm99]

The city news makes it way more likely for a middle Eastern state to invest, they want a team in the pl but the arguments before were that it was easier to take a midtable team, pump in 2 billion in spending and still spend less than you would buying us. But if that route suddenly appears to be far more difficult, then buying a team that has massive legitimate revenues, and only really needs debts cleared and investment in the stadium, is a far more attractive proposition than it was yesterday.

 

[Valencia Shin Crosses]

It is if you plan to get your ROI in the backend, with a sale further down the road. No prospective owner is going to be looking to reap returns on a £6bn investment in a business with c. £700m revenues, via dividends. The cashflow just isn't there. The new owners (assuming there are new owners - I'm not wholly convinced there will be) will be looking to grow the value of the business with untapped revenue streams (eg an expanded/redeveloped stadium & fan village).

I think anyone thinking they are going to get ROI on the backend after paying 6b is insane anyways, and doesn't seem like something any investment group would greenlight. Which is sort of my point, as some oil state would be more likely to spend that to have the prestige of owning one of the biggest brands in the world without immediately making the club another company in a portfolio to squeeze value out of. And like I said before, they wouldn't have to inflate revenues like City has done either with fake sponsorships and other shady shite.

 

[Infra-red]

I think anyone thinking they are going to get ROI on the backend after paying 6b is insane anyways, and doesn't seem like something any investment group would greenlight. Which is sort of my point, as some oil state would be more likely to spend that to have the prestige of owning one of the biggest brands in the world without immediately making the club another company in a portfolio to squeeze value out of. And like I said before, they wouldn't have to inflate revenues like City has done either with fake sponsorships and other shady shite.

Boehly, Wyss, Walter and Clearlake Capital would presumably disagree - they are reportedly aiming to turn Chelsea into a £10bn business inside a decade. Obviously, United's asking price is greater but so is the potential (or at least this is what the Glazers will be hoping various US-based consortiums believe, anyway).

 

[jm99]

Boehly, Wyss, Walter and Clearlake Capital would presumably disagree - they are reportedly aiming to turn Chelsea into a £10bn business inside a decade. Obviously, United's asking price is greater but so is the potential (or at least this is what the Glazers will be hoping various US-based consortiums believe, anyway).

Maybe they meant they plan to spend 10bn on players in a decade, and the club will have their value on its balance sheet

 

[Red Dreams]

Let's hope so. One presumes that their rather more conservative (at least in comparison to PSG/City) market spending thus far is an indication that they have already been neutered by the threat of rule breaches.

The Nice examples mentioned are not fair.
Manchester United are the biggest name in football. We generate more than enough revenue. If we are run as a football club we have no problems whatsoever.

 

[Infra-red]

The Nice examples mentioned are not fair.
Manchester United are the biggest name in football. We generate more than enough revenue. If we are run as a football club we have no problems whatsoever.

I agree! I was referring to Newcastle above. Edited for clarification.

 

[Tigersam]

Apologies if this has already been typed (said) but I have a funny feeling that after the news on Monday about Manchester City, the Glazers at United and fsg at Liverpool might have a re-think about selling up. If City get demoted like Rangers were in Scotland a few years back it would make the PL a more attractive prospect for these clubs once again.

 

[Red in STL]

Apologies if this has already been typed (said) but I have a funny feeling that after the news on Monday about Manchester City, the Glazers at United and fsg at Liverpool might have a re-think about selling up. If City get demoted like Rangers were in Scotland a few years back it would make the PL a more attractive prospect for these clubs once again.

The Glazers won't rethink, they just want the money, they may hold out until they get what they want but they will sell eventually, FSG is harder to tell, I suspect they would think more about part-selling rather than the whole caboodle

 

[Tigersam]

The Glazers won't rethink, they just want the money, they may hold out until they get what they want but they will sell eventually, FSG is harder to tell, I suspect they would think more about part-selling rather than the whole caboodle

But five billion is so much money and I reckon it would be more like 7 because although that Super League never got off the ground, it sort of already exists - its called the English Premier league. Plus Old Trafford needs a re-build so that would be another billion at least.

 

[jm99]

Apologies if this has already been typed (said) but I have a funny feeling that after the news on Monday about Manchester City, the Glazers at United and fsg at Liverpool might have a re-think about selling up. If City get demoted like Rangers were in Scotland a few years back it would make the PL a more attractive prospect for these clubs once again.

A decision on city will be a couple of years away probably, by which time Newcastle might have overtaken and they seem to be far shrewder than city were, going from bottom of thr table to 4th in the space of two windows. TV deals being way higher than they were a decade ago gives them more room to maneuver

 

[NK86]

Apologies if this has already been typed (said) but I have a funny feeling that after the news on Monday about Manchester City, the Glazers at United and fsg at Liverpool might have a re-think about selling up. If City get demoted like Rangers were in Scotland a few years back it would make the PL a more attractive prospect for these clubs once again.

It's your hope rather than what will actually happen. Why will the Glazers rethink on them selling their business based on whether City are penalized? How on earth will that make the PL more attractive when a top PL team is punished for flouting the rules for more than 10 year?

It's funny how opposition fans come in this thread posting their hopes of the Glazers continuing based on every small piece of even irrelevant news coming out, masking it as some sort of valid and well thought out opinion.

 

[Red in STL]

But five billion is so much money and I reckon it would be more like 7 because although that Super League never got off the ground, it sort of already exists - its called the English Premier league. Plus Old Trafford needs a re-build so that would be another billion at least.

OT doesn't need to be rebuilt, it's preferable but it's not going to fall down and is perfectly capable of hosting football matches for a good few decades yet.

The Glazer's don't have to sell, they want toat a price that suits them, if that price is met in 2 months good, but if it takes 2 years I suspect they'll wait

 

[Tigersam]

It's funny how opposition fans come in this thread posting their hopes of the Glazers continuing based on every small piece of even irrelevant news coming out, masking it as some sort of valid and well thought out opinion.

Well obviously oppo fans want things to stay as they are - it is getting very congested at the top of the PL especially that top-4 situation and if Man City were sent back to Div 2 that would help. It would especially help Kevin DeBruyner as he will be pretty decent way down there! But the fact is in the Jan transfer window money was flying around, but what business did Manchester United do? Sabitzer a loan deal sealed on deadline day (and that was because of the Eriksen injury) and Wout Weghurst (also on loan). We don't want United getting new owners because they might actually spend some money.

 

[Fridge chutney]

We don't want United getting new owners because they might actually spend some money.

Yes, because the Glazers never spent money on transfers...

 

[Tigersam]

Yes, because the Glazers never spent money on transfers...

Name one decent striker (under 30) and one decent midfielder (don't say Pogba or Bruno F. who is too inconsistent) that United have bought in the last ten years.

 

[AbusementPark]

Yes, because the Glazers never spent money on transfers...

They did, but left the club saddled with debt and not to mention the 1bn theyve taken out in dividends over the years as well.
No investment in training facilities or in the ground itself.
Constant promises of upgrades and not delivering, hiring architects to appease the fans temporarily.
These owners have invested money into the club, but its revenue generated and nothing from their own pockets. If the club is run as a club and not a business then we will have much more money available to spend and our facilities can be the worlds best.

 

[JustKatie]

Name one decent striker (under 30) and one decent midfielder (don't say Pogba or Bruno F. who is too inconsistent) that United have bought in the last ten years.

That's clearly not what they said. Not one mention of what you regard as decent players just that money was spent.

 

[Tigersam]

That's clearly not what they said. Not one mention of what you regard as decent players just that money was spent.

I'm sorry, I don't understand what you typed.

 

[Fridge chutney]

Name one decent striker (under 30) and one decent midfielder (don't say Pogba or Bruno F. who is too inconsistent) that United have bought in the last ten years.

Casemiro is the most recent example, but why are you asking about arbitrary positions on the pitch? Your indirect claim is that United won't spend money on transfers under the Glazers and that is demonstrably untrue.

 

[Fridge chutney]

They did, but left the club saddled with debt and not to mention the 1bn theyve taken out in dividends over the years as well.
No investment in training facilities or in the ground itself.
Constant promises of upgrades and not delivering, hiring architects to appease the fans temporarily.
These owners have invested money into the club, but its revenue generated and nothing from their own pockets. If the club is run as a club and not a business then we will have much more money available to spend and our facilities can be the worlds best.

I'm not defending the glazers, but to claim we don't spend money on transfers as the other poster did is demonstrably false.

 

[Plant0x84]

Name one decent striker (under 30) and one decent midfielder (don't say Pogba or Bruno F. who is too inconsistent) that United have bought in the last ten years.

Casemiro says hi.
Also whilst Odegaard has been great for you guys, I’d take Bruno over him everytime. Not one of your midfield gets into Uniteds current team.

 

[Lastwolf]

Name one decent striker (under 30) and one decent midfielder (don't say Pogba or Bruno F. who is too inconsistent) that United have bought in the last ten years.

I mean if Bruno is inconsistent and not considered vastly beyond decent, name me any club in the last 10 years that have signed a midfielder.

 

[Mickeza]

The idea Bruno isn’t a decent signing - where do we find these people

 

[NK86]

Well obviously oppo fans want things to stay as they are - it is getting very congested at the top of the PL especially that top-4 situation and if Man City were sent back to Div 2 that would help. It would especially help Kevin DeBruyner as he will be pretty decent way down there! But the fact is in the Jan transfer window money was flying around, but what business did Manchester United do? Sabitzer a loan deal sealed on deadline day (and that was because of the Eriksen injury) and Wout Weghurst (also on loan). We don't want United getting new owners because they might actually spend some money.

Then why garb it as what the new owners might do based on Man City

Glazers won't be able to sell it for more because of Man City's issues. We need a lot of investment and no way are Glazers spending out of their pockets and at current levels, they cannot even loan more. So they have to sell up for those reasons.

 

[stw2022]

No club should ever be able to spend more money than it can generate through legitimate financial or commercial arrangements.

If given the choice between the Glazers and a situation where we rely entirely on the generosity of a benefactor who burdens on the club wage bills and expenditure it couldn't possibly sustain without their continued interest in what we do then I'm sorry I'm picking the Glazers. I don't want 5 to fifteen years down the line the owners deciding they no longer have use for us and suddenly pull rug from underneath us and we're saddled with an unplayable staffing costs.

Whoever owns us the expectation should be that we spend what we generate and not a penny more. Ideally without the Glazer-saddled loan repayment. Sure borrowing to fund capital investment but "we can afford player wages that exceed our legitimate income because our owner is loaded" is ridiculously perilous