Club Sale | It’s done!

Status
Not open for further replies.
People are losing sight of the real potential evil owners: American private equity/other funds owners who would want to make a profit in a few years down the line.

In the article by the people’s person , they mentioned three potential American owners from a ‘credible source’.

This would be the worst scenario out.
 
devilish said:


Flex is one of the decent youtube influencers. He said that he met some of the Qatari royal family during his trip in the country. They confirmed that they want to buy Manchester United and that they are massive United fans. However the bad news is that this might be a summer move. Price is 5B btw something that is being confirmed by multiple sources
Click to expand...


Summer move? Raine are taking bids this week and next. And are closing in Q1 as long as there is adequate bids
 
TsuWave said:
£8B+debt+cost of new stadium and top of the art facilities+squad investment

is that right? yeah, bring the Qataris
Click to expand...

I suspect the 8billion quid will have built-in the potential refurbishment, training facilities upgrades and the debt. I can't imagine United going for 10 billion-plus unless the Saudis or others get involved, creating an auction.

The Glazers will be praying and thanking Jesus, Mohammad, Buddha and Shiva every day till they collect the money.
 
Rozay said:
Nope, it is just economic growth and development like any country in the world has the right to do, not just western ones. This 'sportswashing' term is ridiculous. Are the US bidding for the World Cup as some ruse to distract everyone from the fact that they are anti-abortion or invade countries? Or is that just 'different' and of course, 'whataboutism'?

People need to realise that all ME states do not operate from the primary position of what people living in England think about their human rights policies.
Click to expand...

sportswashing has existed for almost a century and isn't just a term reserved for ME states

Germany, Italy, Argentina and China have all done it

it's obviously a real thing that exists in the world
 
Plant0x84 said:
Yes. He is Knighton in disguise. :wenger:

Not sure how that relates to what you’ve highlighted, but the point is he isn’t interested in strangling as much profit as possible out of the club. It’s not that kind of investment.
Click to expand...

I was just being facetious. It's good to know that he sees it as a hobby investment. I have not read that anywhere. He owns 2/3rd of Inoes. I assume that it will be some foundation from pledging his 2/3 ownership of INOES that will own the United entity? Like a Howard Hughes Trust that used to own various companies/entities. Otherwise, the 1/3rd of shareholders may not be as keen on United.

At the end of the day, I suspect he won't be able to outbid the Qataris or whoever from the ME. Better them buying United than them buying the Scousers.
 
Theres 2 points that will help me feel more comfortable.
1. It can't be a state buying us. Thats just wrong on so many levels. If its a wealthy individual or individuals then it would be more acceptable in my eyes.
2. We should still be careful when signing players etc. No need to be throwing money around. We can spend what we generate. Just means those leeches the Glazers won't be about to bleed us dry. I dont want to be a club that is seen as only being successful due to our mega rich owners. See how well we are doing atm with the purse strings nearly closed.
 
Rozay said:
Nope, it is just economic growth and development like any country in the world has the right to do, not just western ones. This 'sportswashing' term is ridiculous. Are the US bidding for the World Cup as some ruse to distract everyone from the fact that they are anti-abortion or invade countries? Or is that just 'different' and of course, 'whataboutism'?

People need to realise that all ME states do not operate from the primary position of what people living in England think about their human rights policies.
Click to expand...
Read about 1936 Olympics.
 
DownRiver said:
People are losing sight of the real potential evil owners: American private equity/other funds owners who would want to make a profit in a few years down the line.

In the article by the people’s person , they mentioned three potential American owners from a ‘credible source’.

This would be the worst scenario out.
Click to expand...
Evil Americans? Give it a rest. We live in a capitalist economy- there is nothing wrong with wanting to make a profit. What matters is the way the club is run.
Sporting success could be the biggest boost to the clubs profitability and marketability, so somebody seeking a return on investment could come in and run the club perfectly, without debt crippling the club and be the best thing to ever happen to United on and off the pitch.
 
Silverman said:
Theres 2 points that will help me feel more comfortable.
1. It can't be a state buying us. Thats just wrong on so many levels. If its a wealthy individual or individuals then it would be more acceptable in my eyes.
2. We should still be careful when signing players etc. No need to be throwing money around. We can spend what we generate. Just means those leeches the Glazers won't be about to bleed us dry. I dont want to be a club that is seen as only being successful due to our mega rich owners. See how well we are doing atm with the purse strings nearly closed.
Click to expand...

After watching Super League: War on Football, having Nasser Al Khelaifi on our side may not be the worst thing ever. He's probably the most powerful man in football at the moment.
 
Nori- said:
The biggest issue I can see happening with the Qataris owning both PSG + United is
Click to expand...

Wouldn't be an issue since it's not the people that own PSG. It would have been like saying it would habe been an issue for Boehley to own Chelsea because the Glazers on us and FSG owns Liverpool.
 
Spoony said:
So will it be state ownership or not?
Click to expand...
No it’s officially private individuals. I assume the fit and proper test will examine where those funds are coming from as state ownership isn’t permitted - it didn’t stop Newcastle.
 
NYAS said:
Nothing here so far.
Click to expand...

Thanks for coming back to me.

Do you think local sources are not interested in the story, downplaying it or just don't have any information to corroborate it?
 
Silverman said:
Theres 2 points that will help me feel more comfortable.
1. It can't be a state buying us. Thats just wrong on so many levels. If its a wealthy individual or individuals then it would be more acceptable in my eyes.
2. We should still be careful when signing players etc. No need to be throwing money around. We can spend what we generate. Just means those leeches the Glazers won't be about to bleed us dry. I dont want to be a club that is seen as only being successful due to our mega rich owners. See how well we are doing atm with the purse strings nearly closed.
Click to expand...
1. Not possible under PL rules. It would be individuals.
2. One would assume the City debacle will be taken note of. Newcastle haven’t exactly gone crazy - their investment has looked fairly responsible thus far.

I think that sadly, the investment required to buy the club, renovate OT and facilities, invest in playing squad and service debts rules out Sir Jim as an option. If he has the funds he’d by preferred choice.
 
Elcabron said:
Wow. Very surprised to learn that. Seems very unfair but good news for united I suppose.

Thanks for posting that.
Click to expand...

The reason stadium and infrastructure investment (including investment into youth facilities) were exempted from FFP calculations was because spending in those areas can been seen as a benefit not just to the individual club, but also the fans and to football in general. If City or PSG spend a fortune on their training facilities and the those facilities go on to develop the next generation of talented players, then that enriches not just those clubs, but also the game. If a wealthy owner later decides to sell the club, the club can still continue to benefit (and earn financial rewards) from that infrastructure investment (unlike a load of expensively-purchased, highly-paid players, which would become a millstone around the club's neck when the owner leaves).
 
MUFC OK said:
No it’s officially private individuals. I assume the fit and proper test will examine where those funds are coming from as state ownership isn’t permitted - it didn’t stop Newcastle.
Click to expand...
Depends who those individuals are, what their links are and how they made their money. We need more information really to make a judgement one way or the other. Until that happens this is all just speculation.
 
So am I correct in assuming that injecting money into infrastructure does not matter in terms of financial restrictions that are imposed by the PL/UEFA?
 
Unlikely lad said:
So am I correct in assuming that injecting money into infrastructure does not matter in terms of financial restrictions that are imposed by the PL/UEFA?
Click to expand...
No that is exempted and i think there is some waiver also in FFP.
 
sglowrider said:
I was just being facetious. It's good to know that he sees it as a hobby investment. I have not read that anywhere. He owns 2/3rd of Inoes. I assume that it will be some foundation from pledging his 2/3 ownership of INOES that will own the United entity? Like a Howard Hughes Trust that used to own various companies/entities. Otherwise, the 1/3rd of shareholders may not be as keen on United.

At the end of the day, I suspect he won't be able to outbid the Qataris or whoever from the ME. Better them buying United than them buying the Scousers.
Click to expand...
Yeah I got that, was taken in the spirit intended hence the Knighton quip. ;)
There is a Stretford paddock video where Kieran Maguire talks about Sir Jim and INEOS.



Not sure I agree that we should accept being a sportwashing project just to stop the scousers, and it will be interesting to see how the bidding process goes down, although the fact that Avram has been in Qatar a lot since the World Cup might have a bearing on the eventual sale outcome.
 
#07 said:
Thanks for coming back to me.

Do you think local sources are not interested in the story, downplaying it or just don't have any information to corroborate it?
Click to expand...

The media landscape is much less tabloid here. If they did report on a story like this with their own sources, then it would pretty much be confirmation.

I’d say this story is either not as advanced, or not as concrete, as the Caf seems to believe it is at this stage.
 
The gulf area is full of billionaires just like everywhere else. Having a Qatari investor is no different than an American one. I'm against state backed ownerships but we shouldn't assume that every bid coming from this region is state backed. I'd wait for more details first.
 
NYAS said:
The media landscape is much less tabloid here. If they did report on a story like this with their own sources, then it would pretty much be confirmation.

I’d say this story is either not as advanced, or not as concrete, as the Caf seems to believe it is at this stage.
Click to expand...

:annoyed::annoyed: Off to the City & Financial Doping thread then. I will express my moral outrage there.
 
Tarrou said:
sportswashing has existed for almost a century and isn't just a term reserved for ME states

Germany, Italy, Argentina and China have all done it

it's obviously a real thing that exists in the world
Click to expand...
Yep. It's become a bit of a thing on here to suggest sports washing isn't a thing. "But do you think autocrats really care what the rest of the world thinks" well, yes..? They are by definition power hungry and buying a huge club like United (or Newcastle) obviously affords them more influence.
 
Last edited:
Someone said:
The gulf area is full of billionaires just like everywhere else. Having a Qatari investor is no different than an American one. I'm against state backed ownerships but we shouldn't assume that every bid coming from this region is state backed. I'd wait for more details first.
Click to expand...

There are like 50,000 Qataris in a country where consanguineous marriages are common. Everybody is related to everybody and the royal family owns everything and everyone.
 
Very disappointing but completely expected news. I just have to hold out hope that no bid with ties to gulf states or any government with terrible human rights records wins out eventually.
 
Oh ffs not the qataris.


They gonna say they renovate the stadium only to then buy all the stewards new confirming pants. 0 trust in them. We'll become entangled in some shit like city within a couple of years.
 
Plant0x84 said:
Evil Americans? Give it a rest. We live in a capitalist economy- there is nothing wrong with wanting to make a profit. What matters is the way the club is run.
Sporting success could be the biggest boost to the clubs profitability and marketability, so somebody seeking a return on investment could come in and run the club perfectly, without debt crippling the club and be the best thing to ever happen to United on and off the pitch.
Click to expand...


First and foremost, we are not shareholders of man utd company- we are fans of football clubs.

People like yourself speak about the benefit of the club as the core for your decisions, but would rather pick American ownership who will have their own interests at heart by sucking everything out of the club to gain a profit, this is how they make their money! ME ownership and even Radcliff would not do that, they do not need to run man utd in a way to spend as little as possible for maximum return.

Moreover, a lot of people would not like any ME wealthy private individuals because they have borderline prejudice against ME countries as being morally wrong.

Get off your high seat.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.