Club Sale | It’s done!

Status
Not open for further replies.
No doubt. It's going to be Beckham or one of the other of the class of '92, but most likely Beckham. And honestly, I'm all for it. It's about time someone who actually knows the club is in charge of it.
At this point he is the class of 92. I can't imagine anyone using the Nevilles, Scholes or Butt to get the masses on their side. The guy has serious football pedigree. No better person really.
 
822344_ff46e789f07b4cf7992fc03a716c847f~mv2.jpg


I rest my case your honour
What’s Stephen Merchant got to do with the sale?! :wenger:
 
Not to sound incredibly naive or anything...but just because the government likes the prospect of a massive cash injection to the area by the Qatari's, does that mean they'll have even the slightest bit of influence over the the Glazer's decision? Surely not, right?
 
Not to sound incredibly naive or anything...but just because the government likes the prospect of a massive cash injection to the area by the Qatari's, does that mean they'll have even the slightest bit of influence over the the Glazer's decision? Surely not, right?

Who gets approved by the FA, PL and government will have influence. No point them accepting an offer if they know it won't get accepted or drag on for long.
 
Not to sound incredibly naive or anything...but just because the government likes the prospect of a massive cash injection to the area by the Qatari's, does that mean they'll have even the slightest bit of influence over the the Glazer's decision? Surely not, right?

It's a complete red herring...As others have said, it'll be the Glazers decision and not the govt - this isn't the Chelsea sale where the govt seized the club from Abramovich.

Besides, 'Leveling Up' is a Boris Johnson slogan and not a Sunak policy. It never really meant anything, it was a load of crap.
 
  • Like
Reactions: 711
would you come back when they sell up a decade later? I’m assuming you are currently love United hate Glazer? How is hating a different owner the end of your support

It's not the owner really, it's the money. If we start spending massive amounts of unearned money like PSG and City, then there's really no point to supporting United anymore. Yay our owners are rich, we win.

I dislike the Glazers because they're quite parasitic, but at least we're trying to play fairly with our own money, hell we're even playing with a handicap with the debt etc. I guess it depends how the new owners run the club really before I judge.
 
I gave my experience regarding my interaction with ME billionaires from saudi/qatari royal families. Which represents a far smaller subset of people then the one that you had mentioned

You don't need to get your knickers in a twist Especially since you were the one asking for more information

I didn't ask you originally. You made a silly statement and I asked you to continue doing so which you gladly did :)
 
I didn't ask you originally. You made a silly statement and I asked you to continue doing so which you gladly did :)

That's what you get for trying to engage in a serious conversation in here. Thank god for the ignore button
 
That's what you get for trying to engage in a serious conversation in here

I knew a white guy a few years ago from Crewe who used to spend his doll payments the second he got them. Abramovic would never spend a penny if he owned Chelsea.
 
A golden opportunity for the Glazers. Pocket a cool £5 billion from us and then drop £3 billion on Liverpool. Get that super league monies
Oh my days, this would be a dream scenario.
 
This need to get done asap, it's already mid Feb now. We need to spend big again in the summer. The squad need investment because it's not ready to challenge yet.
 
Can one of you beautiful gentlemen or ladies bring me up to speed on this? Or are you all still arguing over who makes the best owners?
 
Can one of you beautiful gentlemen or ladies bring me up to speed on this? Or are you all still arguing over who makes the best owners?
Bids in by Friday. Thought to be 5 serious ones. Qatar look the strongest currently.
 
Can one of you beautiful gentlemen or ladies bring me up to speed on this? Or are you all still arguing over who makes the best owners?

As others have said, next Friday is the soft deadline for written offers. INEOS will be bidding. Mystery private (ie non-state) groups from the USA, Qatar and Saudi Arabia are being reported as 'likely' to submit offers. I guess we'll find out during the course of the following week (w/c 20 Feb) who the possible contenders are.
 
1)Harris Blitzer Sport and Entertainment and their partners
2)Stephen Pagliuca and his partners

Then there are one or two others who are unnamed. Also a possibility that one or more of these groups could partner up.
I’ve asked a few times but nothing..

@Messier1994? Any ideas

Are the above confirmed? I know that references has been made to those who bid for CFC and that one is confirmed to not be in, but I mix them up.

With that said, if one of these known US pro team owners were leading a consortium to get us — I think they would be more public.

Since they aren’t, my bet is that the US interest mostly comes from “financiers” led consortium. I.e. were most of the money comes from a firm like the 6th Street that in return would get a share of our broadcasting money (like Barca have done) for a long time, someone being more of a figure head, like Pagliuca, and a few other investment funds.
 
Why would UEFA just be questioning the Qatari's and not Jim Ratcliffe for his involvement in Nice too? I don't get why that's hardly ever mentioned by the papers etc.

Aa far as i understand there's no rules against owning multiple clubs it's owning multiple clubs which play in the same UEFA competitions.

United and PSG are likely to play in the CL most years. So unless UEFA rule they are separate entities one of the clubs wouldn't be able to participate.

With Nice there's not the same likelihood.
 
It's well known that in game theory you maximise your highest final bid by running a series of rounds of sealed bidding, thus squeezing everybody's highest possible bid from them. That's what we will see in the next month.
 
Aa far as i understand there's no rules against owning multiple clubs it's owning multiple clubs which play in the same UEFA competitions.

United and PSG are likely to play in the CL most years. So unless UEFA rule they are separate entities one of the clubs wouldn't be able to participate.

With Nice there's not the same likelihood.

But it should also still be mentioned a bit more often than it does - we can easily go into Europa and them. If he bids for us the same questions UEFA will need to ask
 
This need to get done asap, it's already mid Feb now. We need to spend big again in the summer. The squad need investment because it's not ready to challenge yet.
For the 100th time, we have FFP problems regardless of who the owner is. We need to sell heavily before we can buy.
 
For the 100th time, we have FFP problems regardless of who the owner is. We need to sell heavily before we can buy.
This is not true. The debt could be paid off by the new owners, so you're just stating the current status quo and assuming it's fact.
 
The new owners (whoever they are) can help with our cash flow problems. They can't do anything (at least in the short term) about amortisation of intangible assets. United need to a) sell players, b) increase revenues, or c) do both.

Champions League qualification obviously helps with b.
 
Aa far as i understand there's no rules against owning multiple clubs it's owning multiple clubs which play in the same UEFA competitions.

United and PSG are likely to play in the CL most years. So unless UEFA rule they are separate entities one of the clubs wouldn't be able to participate.

With Nice there's not the same likelihood.

Yes, this is correct. RB Leipzig and Red Bull Salzburg didn't have a problem until they both qualified for the UCL in the same season. UEFA are concerned about the integrity of the competition, which is understandable.
 
If you read the piece in question, all it entails is opinions of two people. And the first opinion is of Chris Woerts who thinks a potential Qatari takeover will lead to Erik ten Hag being sacked because the Qataris prefer Spanish coaches and he points to City and their Spanish coaches as a example. Qatari ownership at PSG proves that theory wrong

Second opinion is of Rene van der Gijp, who disagrees and says they won't sack ten Hag because he's doing well and the fans/players love him.

City have only had one Spanish coach, Guardiola.
 
I find it very weird when people say because they are in Qatar they have ties to being murderer's. Its just a basic view.

Its funny because alot of people will say they do not want state ownership but will take Fly Emirates as a sponsor. Just they cant own the club but they can invest in it... makes no sense.

All the while flying with Emirates to go on holiday in the UAE.
 
Yes, this is correct. RB Leipzig and Red Bull Salzburg didn't have a problem until they both qualified for the UCL in the same season. UEFA are concerned about the integrity of the competition, which is understandable.
And yet they still played each other in an UEFA competition
 
No, we don’t!
Yes we do.
We don’t if we get CL.
CL is a necessity but not sufficient. It was made clear we need sales and CL football.
This is not true. The debt could be paid off by the new owners, so you're just stating the current status quo and assuming it's fact.
Yes it is. I'm not posting the Ornstein tweet again. It's feck all to do with debt.

Just read the credible reporters news and stop ignoring it to suit your fantasy.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.