It is very unlikely that anyone will do that.
Club Sale | It’s done!
- Thread starter JB08
- Start date
- Status
It is very unlikely that anyone will do that.
I think one of the many good things to come from what's happening to city is that I don't think cooking the books will happen, or even be possible, at another club now that's taken over by a state backed bid or something similar, because I think the premier league will bring in something that puts bigger scrutiny on what happens with financial dealings and everything else from now on.
All important questions and ones that we will hopefully get an indication of the answers to in the coming weeks.
I'm sure it's been mentioned elsewhere in the thread, but has Ratcliffe ever indicated that he would not look to take dividends out of the club?
No owner will reveal the plan they have
I did read your post about how all potential buyers will be taking a loan to buy us. Only seems to be confirmed for Ratcliffe (through reports), while it's not clear for the other bidders. It's not out of the realm of possibility that ME bidders maybe doing a transaction without needing to borrow. We'll need to see.
I know he said he wouldn’t do that at Chelsea and has gone on record saying it’s not how to operate a club.
See reading the earlier tweets about SJR reads to me like the club would be purchased outright and the GS thing would be just to restructure the debt over to INEOS meaning that they wouldn't be 6-8bn in debt it would be 600-800m or whatever the debt currently stands at.
It's chump change for them and provides massive business benefits in the name of tax relief etc
It's chump change for them and provides massive business benefits in the name of tax relief etc
Well Felix and Kudus would not be short term targets, they are club targets which we have scouted for a long time. Plus they are both young so not short term, Wout or Falcao or Cavani is a short term signing.
Plus there is difference between going full Chelsea or actually signing a summer target in the January window, just the budget from summer window is carried forward here.
Nobody is becoming Chelsea if we are signing a striker replacement for a player who has been injured throughout the season. Becoming Chelsea is signing 3 players for a same position or signing players just so your rivals can't.
Worth remembering that dividends are the exception rather than the rule . United are the only Premier League club to pay dividends. The Glazers are uniquely stupid and greedy.
Yeh I basically said this in my post earlier, there's nothing we can do about it no matter who any of are preferences are.
Have to agree with this. It's all well and good being opposed to controlling and toxic regimes who are destroying lives and families, but you can't restrict that to exclusively other countries.
A corporate sugar daddy
So let me get this right. There are people on this forum that genuinely, truly believe INEOS will take on an X billion debt, with presumably high interest rates, on their own books, and more importantly use their own money to service it and they will absolutely not use the club's money. Then they are going to take on another X hundred million or perhaps another 1 billion debt to invest into the infrastructure, and this will also end up on their books and not the club's. And they will also end up serving that debt as well and absolutely not use the club's money? Meanwhile, they will also keep investing in the squad and presumably not take any dividends. Or they take dividends, leaving us again the only club who pays dividends to their owners. And all of this because Ratcliffe is a local lad and a United fan? A man who had no qualms about poisoning the people and the environment and steering the entire country towards Brexit purely in the name of profit, while also moving to Monaco to avoid paying taxes?
But Jim is literally a white knight riding in
But equally it's stupid to claim the UK is the same as Qatar on, say, LGBT issues. Because there's a massive gulf.
Equally it's stupid to equate being a Tory donor and Brexiteer with actually being a nation state or a proxy of a nation state.
There are no morally good potential owners. But there also very large and clear degrees of morally bad within that. And the attempt to paint them all as similarly awful is either nihilistic if genuine or (more likely) sophistry.
It's around 20 million £. There is a significant part of the fanbase who are very vocal against this kind of sponsorship. The annual general meeting in 2021 was totally chaotic, because the board didn't want to discuss the topic. Since then many round tables have been established and it's currently decided whether to extend the deal or not.
I think no club in the world, which wants to compete in all fronts, can reject "questionable" money.
My point of view it's okay as long as these sponsors don't have any say at the club. I know there are many more traditional fans who don't want any questionable sponsors at all.
Let's assume United and Liverpool are taken over from ME investors. Then you at least 5 clubs with unlimited funds. Still one will miss the CL. As money doesn't matter they will just buy new players, like Boehly did. Then it won't be 600 million but soon 1 billion or more. Where will it end?
people coming up with all sorts of horseshit in this thread to justify wanting oil money
you'd be better off just owning it
you'd be better off just owning it
I fear you may be talking too much sense for this thread, and might have a happier time smashing your face into a wall
This kind of nihilistic attitude is exactly what will cause the human race to destroy itself.
This ‘idealist moral high ground nonsense’ is the only thing keeping us from self inflicted extinction.
We should have higher aspirations for our national sport, and particularly for our great club.
Whether they will or not but they should do. Chelsea new owners were persuaded to give a mandate for their plans, how much they were committing to infrastructure, transfers etc so I don’t see why the questions can’t be asked. In fact if I was a buyer I’d want to put my ideas out there to get the fans on side
fair play, i appreciate it
Apologies if this is posted earlier. Explains quite a lot about GS and JP Morgan roles in SJR bid.
I don't want a state-backed takeover, but worth noting that from 2024, the Premier League is set to have five Champions League places. Six or even seven places could be possible some years, if a team that finishes outside the top 5 goes on to win the Champions League or Europa League in the same season.
https://www.theguardian.com/footbal...w-coefficient-plan-for-places-country-success
That’s quite interesting and an assumption that there’s no influence from the region at all in the club.
I do find it a little bit hypocritical if I’m honest.
The bold bit made me laugh. Yes, one's preference for potential new owners of a football club are the sort of things that will lead to the destruction if civilization as we know it, not any of the other multitude of shite being actually pulled by corporations, countries and humans in general.
The story is already written. Ratcliffe was on the verge of having offer accepted but was blown out of water by last minute bid from [enter name of people who are successful bidders] but he's definitely going to bid lots and lots of money for Liverpool now and is determined to buy them. In case nobody believes him he'll leek at least one story to press a week how he's going to do it.
Big banks are ready to back him. The best banks. The bestest banks anyone has ever seen. Its going to be so beautiful, honestly.
Big banks are ready to back him. The best banks. The bestest banks anyone has ever seen. Its going to be so beautiful, honestly.
True. But not many would have issues with say Apple of they bought United. Nevermind Nike and adidas and their sweatshops.
But again, in reality that isn't happening
Any such move would mean the Glazers willingly giving away part of their ownership and putting money that they're entitled to into the club in order to fund the stadium, training facilities etc and help the club.
They aren't going to sell hundreds of millions of pounds (possibly a billion or more) of their asset without pocketing that money for themselves. And if they do pocket it themselves (which they would) then no capital investment happens (because Qatar won't fund that if they aren't in charge) and the club continues to decline. Also why would Qatar allow the Glazers to be more powerful within the club than themselves? They're not stupid, they'll know they are incompetent football owners.
And the idea of sportswashing becomes null and void because they'd be placing themselves alongside very unpopular owners who the United fans hate
It's a non-starter whatever angle you look at it. Unless the part ownership comes from an American PE group.
I've watched that video of Ratcliffe talking to the business school students and I have to say I'm no longer sure he is the right person to own the club. I had doubts about the transferability of his skills and that video confirmed it for me. He's clearly very knowledgeable in terms of the petro / pharma industry but his business language was very stale and meh. Just the usual talk about running a lean business, cutting overheads blah blah blah.
If JP Morgan et al are sorting out the funding for his bid then I would anticipate they will run rings around him in the small print of the deal and we could end up with another Glazer situation where debt has been kicked further down the road and we get more of the glazer tactic of painting over rusty metal in terms of investment.
I'm morally opposed to States running a club but I feel that we have to make the best of what we can right now, otherwise the club will continue to meander. I strongly suspect that we will have a middle east consortium that will at the very least have the unofficial backing of one of the nation states.
So we as fans need to ensure that the new owners are made aware that we want long term investment, and not be bought off with a media signing like Mbappe or Kane.
We want them to take over and clear the debt and liabilities left by the Glazers. We can put investment in facilities onto normal long term financing arrangements
Invest heavily in a remodel / rebuild of Old trafford and the surrounding area to bring wealth into the area, not just the club, and put fan consultation at the heart of these changes.
Invest in training and coaching infrastructure for all the teams, Men, Women, youth and to vastly increase the amount of community work done by the club Foundation with schools and colleges in the area
Make clear commitments on working practices and policies to suit a modern western democracy, including supporting the clubs stance on equality and inclusion
Allow the club to work within whatever FFP regulations based on it's normal revenue, without trying to hot-house or fake extra revenue or hide costs through voodoo accounting
Continue the clubs tradition of investing and nurturing young talent, rather than shopping at Harrods and buying up all the trinkets, spending big only on young talent rather than big names for clicks
Acknowledge that, with ownership of United comes a higher degree of scrutiny, and that fans and journalists will hold them to account, without fear of reprisal or rancour
And, given that higher degree of scrutiny, they also exert whatever influence is possible to begin to modernise policies in their own countries to be fairer, more just and more inclusive.
If they can do that - and fans agree not to be morons like newcastle fans wearing tea-towels on their head- Then I could begin to stomach such owners.
If JP Morgan et al are sorting out the funding for his bid then I would anticipate they will run rings around him in the small print of the deal and we could end up with another Glazer situation where debt has been kicked further down the road and we get more of the glazer tactic of painting over rusty metal in terms of investment.
I'm morally opposed to States running a club but I feel that we have to make the best of what we can right now, otherwise the club will continue to meander. I strongly suspect that we will have a middle east consortium that will at the very least have the unofficial backing of one of the nation states.
So we as fans need to ensure that the new owners are made aware that we want long term investment, and not be bought off with a media signing like Mbappe or Kane.
We want them to take over and clear the debt and liabilities left by the Glazers. We can put investment in facilities onto normal long term financing arrangements
Invest heavily in a remodel / rebuild of Old trafford and the surrounding area to bring wealth into the area, not just the club, and put fan consultation at the heart of these changes.
Invest in training and coaching infrastructure for all the teams, Men, Women, youth and to vastly increase the amount of community work done by the club Foundation with schools and colleges in the area
Make clear commitments on working practices and policies to suit a modern western democracy, including supporting the clubs stance on equality and inclusion
Allow the club to work within whatever FFP regulations based on it's normal revenue, without trying to hot-house or fake extra revenue or hide costs through voodoo accounting
Continue the clubs tradition of investing and nurturing young talent, rather than shopping at Harrods and buying up all the trinkets, spending big only on young talent rather than big names for clicks
Acknowledge that, with ownership of United comes a higher degree of scrutiny, and that fans and journalists will hold them to account, without fear of reprisal or rancour
And, given that higher degree of scrutiny, they also exert whatever influence is possible to begin to modernise policies in their own countries to be fairer, more just and more inclusive.
If they can do that - and fans agree not to be morons like newcastle fans wearing tea-towels on their head- Then I could begin to stomach such owners.
I'm not worried United getting rich owners.
I'm only wondering what the United fans, who post regularly that Chelsea's and especially City's trophies and titles don't bother them as they are just plastic clubs and gotten through financial doping or cooking up the books think with United will be just another oil state club.
I, for myself, would lose interest in football and stop following Bayern if they ever have ME oil states as owners.
Surely if Ratcliffe takes over, money will be going out of United again?
Do you think we see them as plastic clubs because of who owns them or the fact they were smaller clubs buffed up by billions to win leagues?
But you’ll accept ME money into your club as that’s different?
Sounds very hypocritical and that you’re simply using the predicament United fans find themselves in to point score.
Excellent post, agree with it all.
Glad you enjoyed my post.
It was deliberately over the top and dramatic to make a point.
I wasn’t equating football directly to the demise of the species, rather commenting on the ‘everything’s fecked so let’s party and watch it burn’ attitude of that post.
United’s problems start and finish with the Glazers. We don’t need to sell out for vast state funded oil wealth to correct those problems. We need to rid ourselves of the Glazers, with a competent owner and leadership structure who clears the debt and lets the club invest the revenue it delivers itself.
If you don’t see the obvious difference between us, Chelsea but especially City when it comes to oil money, you’re at best thick as mince.
The world is already completely fecked. Look at the energy bills vs the profits these companies make. That’s just one of a thousand examples. I watch football to enjoy it and watch my team win. If everyone else is taking part in this nonsense then we should too.
FYI, my ideal scenario would be the German fan ownership model for all clubs, but it’s never going to happen so no point wasting energy on it.
That's fair enough but I just don't see it. Who is going to pay back a multi billion loan to buy us? INEOS from their current revenue stream? Would the shareholers be happy with an investment that's not giving them dividends? That's not going to repay them for an enormous loan? That's - in that case - not more than an asset in their books? That's going to take huge investments in the future? Seems unlikely
What's most important though is that all that talk over a minority investment goes away. That would actually be the worst outcome.
Somebody explained it earlier in the thread, but the short answer is no from what's been put out there by journos.
- Status