Club Sale | It’s done!

Status
Not open for further replies.
Judas said:
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.
Click to expand...
Yeh exactly, I said to someone earlier in the thread that because of what's happening at city now there is no way any potential new owners could get away with all that cook the books shite anymore, it's going to scrutinised like crazy now.
 
BluesJr said:
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.
Click to expand...
Fan ownership would be the very worst thing that could happen to this club as this discussion attests to.

Furthermore a poor tax policy and weak regulation of the energy sector doesn’t justify selling out.
Neither for that matter does Mbappe, who frankly despite his obvious talent, is rapidly becoming a poster boy for all that is wrong with our game.
 
Plant0x84 said:
Fan ownership would be the very worst thing that could happen to this club as this discussion attests to.
Click to expand...
Then you’re looking for a unicorn that doesn’t exist. Ratcliffe is certainly not the answer. No “good” people own football clubs.
 
If people weren't getting swept up by the idea of some Arabian Prince coming to Old Trafford, farting out billions of pounds and smiling then I think the Ratcliffe/INEOS interest would be viewed very differently.

If that had all come out a year ago when we saw no end to the Glazers, I think people would be willing them to buy the club.

A lot of what I've heard sounds good and people seem to be taking it all wrong because they hear of loans etc. There's good debt and bad debt. And the Nice comparison is valid but United aren't a club in need of a total overhaul to become successful.
 
Godfather said:
Which seems unlikely
Click to expand...
I have no idea for sure, I'm just telling the person I quoted what was being reported earlier, someone with better know how about that kind of thing can explain it better than me, some people did so in the last few pages.
 
Spoony said:
Surely if Ratcliffe takes over, money will be going out of United again?
Click to expand...

Not necessarily. But we would need further information.

It's important to remember that the Glazers aren't the norm, even among owners seeking to make profit. Few (if any?) PL clubs pay dividends in the way we have, for example.
 
TheReligion said:
I do find it a little bit hypocritical if I’m honest.
Click to expand...

Fair point. There isn't a black or white solution for this. The golden 80's won't come back.

So everybody has to set his own red line. For me the red line is who controls the club.

There are many fans who are more traditional and reject any sponsorship from autocratic regimes.

I'm not criticizing United but rather the FA which let take overs from dubious billionaires and oil states happen in the first place. Out of greed they opened a can of worms that eventually will harm the game much more than it benefits.
After 10 years of City's take over you are in the unfortunate position, either to become a sugar daddy or oil state club also, or won't be able to compete in the highest level.
 
I wouldn't be massively surprised if Ratcliffe isn't buying United to make money

He's 70, he could just wanna have a bit of fun before he croaks it.. and if he just wanted to make money there are much better ways to spend 6 billion quid

Nobody knows for sure, but there are so many posts that are certain he'll take money out of the club as if you have the inside track
 
B. Munich said:
Fair point. There isn't a black or white solution for this. The golden 80's won't come back.

So everybody has to set his own red line. For me the red line is who controls the club.

There are many fans who are more traditional and reject any sponsorship from autocratic regimes.

I'm not criticizing United but rather the FA which let take overs from dubious billionaires and oil states happen in the first place. Out of greed they opened a can of worms that eventually will harm the game much more than it benefits.
After 10 years of City's take over you are in the unfortunate position, either to become a sugar daddy or oil state club also, or won't be able to compete in the highest level.
Click to expand...

Of course you’re entitled to your opinion but it seems you’re here to look down and pick fault with those United fans who openly support ME ownership.

Ultimately, as you point out, what choice do the fans have? You can’t suggest everyone turns their back on the club when you yourself happily support yours whilst it take millions from the ME as discussed..

Just feels like a bit of a fishing expedition to try and kick our fanbase. Perhaps I’ve got it wrong.
 
Posted this on another thread, but I think it’s valuable highlighting here why Ratcliffe and the Qataris are not the same. Some skeletons in the closet are worse.

As someone born and raised for 17 yrs in the Persian gulf (Abu Dhabi) let me shed some light on how the GCC countries treat immigrants (South Asians, East Asians from poorer countries like the Philippines, and Africans). The kafala system where their passports are taken away in exchange for employment still exists. My father fortunately was educated and worked in a decently high ranking finance position at a services company and witnessed a lot of this. His company (amongst many, many, many others) housed immigrant labor in camps. Those camps were in far off remote locations with up to 8 adult men sharing a 2 bedroom apartment and sleeping on bunk beds. Their pay was accessible monthly (primarily to send money to their families abroad) and they were provided with food and other amenities so that they wouldn’t have a reason to access their income. These immigrants need permission and a compelling reason to leave the camp. They can only leave camps via a daily bus taking them to the city.

These people now don’t have access to their hard earned money, need permission to go anywhere, have bog-standard accommodations, have their passports taken away and need to give a 3 month notice to fly back home (which they could only do once every 5 years because of how expensive it was).

This is the systemic abuse they suffer. The non-systemic abuse includes severe racial discrimination including being spat on, beaten, raped by the rich and powerful local Emiratis (Qataris in Qatar), and all of this is fully ignored by the legal system there. By law, immigrant workers basically have no rights at all.

On top of that, they have no voting rights, their religious beliefs are suppressed, they have no rights to protest, and you’ve all heard the stories of being forced to work in inhumane heat during summer and other ungoverned workplace conditions. As mentioned previously, this continues there to this day.

Now you tell me, is an unethical billionaire like Jim Ratcliffe who’s probably fecked over 100s of people and probably made them lose their livelihoods, better or worse than a Qatari owner?

As a south Asian who’s fortunate to live in the free world but grew up seeing this shit happen to my people, feck the Qataris. I will stop following Man United and will remove this huge, huge part of my life. I’ve been a fan since I was 9 and United is a love of mine. I will discard this love of mine if the Qataris take over.
Click to expand...
 
cyberman said:
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?
Click to expand...

I can't speak for you guys but I see them as plastic clubs because of their ownership. They just can buy success with unlimited funds. No need to develop and build a team. If a player doesn't perform they just spent another 80 or 100 million for his replacement.
There is no fair competition with these state doped plastic clubs.

I don't have problems with smaller clubs winning trophies. Leicester winning the EPL was refreshing.
 
BluesJr said:
Then you’re looking for a unicorn that doesn’t exist. Ratcliffe is certainly not the answer. No “good” people own football clubs.
Click to expand...
You’re right. We are very much looking for the best of a bad bunch. I don’t claim that Ratcliffe is the only answer, or even the best answer - I just feel he is a better answer than the current alternatives. As the process unfolds that position may change.

What I do object to is the wilful ignorance and downright making stuff up by some posters just because they want mega money signings and shiny new toys.

I don’t believe that is a sustainable model - look at Chinese football for an example.
 
On the off chance all this ends in a minority investment with the Glazers staying as majority owners then the protests need to be bigger than ever.

All a minority investment will do is allow them to ruin the club for another 5+ years
 
B. Munich said:
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.
Click to expand...
Most United fans don't complain about Chelsea or City because of their owners. They complain that their owners are pumping in money through dodgy dealings and sponsorships to cheat their way to the top.

You are assuming that United will also do the same, though there's no factual backing of that since no football club of United's stature have ever been bought out by super rich owners yet. If we fall down that pit, come back and raise these points. Till then all I hear are complaints over us getting out of our current shite ownership and that's causing many opposition fans to be clearly unhappy.
 
buchansleftleg said:
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.
Click to expand...

I agree with the way forward and making us sustainable as we have the resources to compete by generating our own income if we're not paying debt repayments or dividends but Ratcliffe is not as stupid as you're making out. He's made a very successful business, is worth billions and is the UK's richest man through running properly run businesses. Anything signed debt related will go through layers of lawyers and they won't "miss anything in the small print" when signing a deal worth over £5 billion!

The thing I think is missing in the thread is that nobody (whether oil money or not) is going to pay billions in cash and anything of this value will be underwritten by debt. It's just bad practice not to do that as you make more by tying it up in investments not having cash on hand (unless you're called Apple). Whether the person / buying company is responsible for that debt or United is what really matters. When City were bought, the debt to the lender will have been taken on by Mansour, so they were debt free but they've now got quite a substantial debt when a loan was held against the club via CFG.
 
B. Munich said:
I can't speak for you guys but I see them as plastic clubs because of their ownership. They just can buy success with unlimited funds. No need to develop and build a team. If a player doesn't perform they just spent another 80 or 100 million for his replacement.
There is no fair competition with these state doped plastic clubs.

I don't have problems with smaller clubs winning trophies. Leicester winning the EPL was refreshing.
Click to expand...
But United can outspend anybody who has oil money so what difference does oil money make to our reputation?
I can’t see how having parasites killing our club makes us less plastic than having owners who simply allows us to spend what we make.
It doesn’t make one bit of sense.
I’m also acutely aware of the utter silence the rival fans have been over the Glazers so let’s say any concerns from now on in won’t register with our fanbase
 
TheReligion said:
Of course you’re entitled to your opinion but it seems you’re here to look down and pick fault with those United fans who openly support ME ownership.
Click to expand...

Only the ones who criticized City and Chelsea and now openly support oil state ownership.

My initial post here addressed the many United fans who (rightfully) for years criticized the value of the titles City and Chelsea won. They said they don't care how many EPL titles City will win because they are worthless and just bought.
I wanted to know how these United fans feel about ME take over. They must feel gutted to become just another City.
 
Tarrou said:
I wouldn't be massively surprised if Ratcliffe isn't buying United to make money

He's 70, he could just wanna have a bit of fun before he croaks it.. and if he just wanted to make money there are much better ways to spend 6 billion quid

Nobody knows for sure, but there are so many posts that are certain he'll take money out of the club as if you have the inside track
Click to expand...

I don't for a second believe he isn't looking for a return on what is an investment.

But looking for that return on investment doesn't automatically mean taking money out of the club. You can also get that return by seeking to increase the value of the asset beyond the price you paid for it, while using it as a mechanism to increase the value of your overall brand.

It's important to bear in mind just how small the money INEOS could take out of United is relative to their overall income.
 
Plant0x84 said:
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.
Click to expand...
I agree with your last paragraph and would want the best possible owners for our club. For you it is SJR, while for others it is some ME consortium of super rich guys.

Both the choices/preferences are understandable, so there's no point trying to go over the top to score points.
 
Reapersoul20 said:
Posted this on another thread, but I think it’s valuable highlighting here why Ratcliffe and the Qataris are not the same. Some skeletons in the closet are worse.
Click to expand...
That’s a very powerful post. Thank you for sharing your experiences. You paint a picture of modern slavery in all but name, which all United fans should think long and hard about wishing our club to be associated with, and a smokescreen for.
 
B. Munich said:
Only the ones who criticized City and Chelsea and now openly support oil state ownership.

My initial post here addressed the many United fans who (rightfully) for years criticized the value of the titles City and Chelsea won. They said they don't care how many EPL titles City will win because they are worthless and just bought.
I wanted to know how these United fans feel about ME take over. They must feel gutted to become just another City.
Click to expand...
You keep repeating yourself as if that somehow turns your hypothetical point into some solid fact.

You are assuming and doing mental gymnastics to claim that United will also fudge their books, use money they haven't earned to win undeserved titles but would not agree to anyone claiming that will not be the case as we are rich enough to manage ourselves fine as long as the burden of the debt can be removed.
 
sullydnl said:
I don't for a second believe he isn't looking for a return on what is an investment.

But looking for that return on investment doesn't automatically mean taking money out of the club. You can also get that return by seeking to increase the value of the asset beyond the price you paid for it, while using it as a mechanism to increase the value of your overall brand.

It's important to bear in mind just how small the money INEOS could take out of United is relative to their overall income.
Click to expand...

He's 70, and you're certain he's buying United for profit?

Why can't he just be buying it because he wants it?

I don't know either way, I just don't understand why everyone can be so sure of this.
 
NK86 said:
I agree with your last paragraph and would want the best possible owners for our club. For you it is SJR, while for others it is some ME consortium of super rich guys.

Both the choices/preferences are understandable, so there's no point trying to go over the top to score points.
Click to expand...
I find the frivolity in the way some people talk about the ME and their long list of ‘indiscretions’ distasteful.
Other than greed, I’m not so sure the oil money argument is understandable. We have to make too many exceptions and turn too many blind eyes to think they are best for our club.
 
Tarrou said:
He's 70, and you're certain he's buying United for profit?

Why can't he just be buying it because he wants it?

I don't know either way, I just don't understand why everyone can be so sure of this.
Click to expand...
He’s also already Britain’s richest man, or one of. I don’t see why MORE money would be a motivation to him.
 
B. Munich said:
Only the ones who criticized City and Chelsea and now openly support oil state ownership.

My initial post here addressed the many United fans who (rightfully) for years criticized the value of the titles City and Chelsea won. They said they don't care how many EPL titles City will win because they are worthless and just bought.
I wanted to know how these United fans feel about ME take over. They must feel gutted to become just another City.
Click to expand...

Again I think you’re fishing for a bite and on a bit of a wind up with comments like this.

What is it exactly you want to know?
 
Globalists who're doing their absolute best to destroying this world. I don't want anything like Jim Ratcliffe anywhere near my club. God Forbid.

I want a owner who cares about football and hopefully want to build a good relationship with us supporters. Not just making money from others pockets.
Give me s Qatar consortium 7 days a week, especially on weekends and Wednesday's. At least we know who we're dealing with.
 
Plant0x84 said:
I find the frivolity in the way some people talk about the ME and their long list of ‘indiscretions’ distasteful.
Other than greed, I’m not so sure the oil money argument is understandable. We have to make too many exceptions and turn too many blind eyes to think they are best for our club.
Click to expand...
You do understand "best for our club" and "best for what you view as our moral standing" are not the same thing?
 
Plant0x84 said:
He’s also already Britain’s richest man, or one of. I don’t see why MORE money would be a motivation to him.
Click to expand...

You don’t become a billionaire by thinking “nah I’ve got enough money now.”

It’s a driven obsession. Warren Buffet is 92 and is still trying to make more. He was worth $35bn when he was 70 and over $100bn today. They’ll stop when they drop.
 
LawCharltonBest said:
If people weren't getting swept up by the idea of some Arabian Prince coming to Old Trafford, farting out billions of pounds and smiling then I think the Ratcliffe/INEOS interest would be viewed very differently.

If that had all come out a year ago when we saw no end to the Glazers, I think people would be willing them to buy the club.

A lot of what I've heard sounds good and people seem to be taking it all wrong because they hear of loans etc. There's good debt and bad debt. And the Nice comparison is valid but United aren't a club in need of a total overhaul to become successful.
Click to expand...
Good post.

There is also a big difference between United liability and INEOS liability which seems to be getting lost.

I took from the SJR news that United would be debt free and unshackled. We would be more than able to compete in that scenario.
 
Reapersoul20 said:
Posted this on another thread, but I think it’s valuable highlighting here why Ratcliffe and the Qataris are not the same. Some skeletons in the closet are worse.
Click to expand...

Amazing post. The apologists for Arab state brutality and corruption would love to gloss it all over and enjoy the $$$ but these regimes are evil.
 
Plant0x84 said:
Good post.

There is also a big difference between United liability and INEOS liability which seems to be getting lost.

I took from the SJR news that United would be debt free and unshackled. We would be more than able to compete in that scenario.
Click to expand...
And would they absorb the price of the stadium and training ground?
Imo there’s a reason why that hasn’t been leaked out
 
B. Munich said:
Only the ones who criticized City and Chelsea and now openly support oil state ownership.

My initial post here addressed the many United fans who (rightfully) for years criticized the value of the titles City and Chelsea won. They said they don't care how many EPL titles City will win because they are worthless and just bought.
I wanted to know how these United fans feel about ME take over. They must feel gutted to become just another City.
Click to expand...

We wouldnt be just another City thankfully.

City prior to the takeover were literally nobodies in footballing terms and had been for decades who turned up twice a season for games against us and were mid table at best. We might not be the best team the world like 2008 anymore but we arent that at least.

See Robinhos famous comment about how he thought he was joining United because he didnt even know City existed?

Theres a much higher chance of us winning trophies even now than City ever would have prior to the takeover.

Ill always treat Citys wins with utter indifference because in my mind theres no way they would have won anything (or even be in the Premier League) without being bought and made in to a superclub from the ground up. (Plus the fact theyve been financially doping but anyway).

Personally have concerns about ME takeover. But I also have concerns about SJR and his bid as well. I dont think anyone in a position to take over has truly clean hands and a spotless record.

My bigger worry is it ends up being a minority investment and we end up stuck with the Glazers for longer.
 
Tarrou said:
He's 70, and you're certain he's buying United for profit?

Why can't he just be buying it because he wants it?

I don't know either way, I just don't understand why everyone can be so sure of this.
Click to expand...

He's 70. How long it will take before he kicks the bucket? Do you think Ineos wouldn't then milk us for profit?
 
Status
Not open for further replies.