Club Sale | It’s done!

Status
Not open for further replies.
Rawls said:
There is so much incorrect stuff being said on this thread, it's doing my head in.

1. RICH OWNERS DOESN'T MEAN WE CAN SPEND MORE!!! Our binding constraint is FSR, which essentially means our expenditure must be linked to our revenue. Owners can't just pump in money willy-nilly. And with City being charged by the PL with 115 offences, creating articifical streams of income isn't exactly a good idea. Besides, despite what people like to say, spending money under the Glazers has never been a problem; the problem has been spending money BADLY.

2. IF YOU THINK THE GLAZERS ARE CNUTS, HAVE YOU CONSIDERED THE QATARIS??? I mean, if how you think very little of the Glazers, have you ever considered that the Qataris aren't exactly Mother Teresa?

3. The Saudis here are inconsequential, they were outbid for Chelsea by Boehly.

4. I'm not saying he buys Utd but if Sir Jim does, it won't be a Leveraged Buy-Out. Instead, Ineos will take out a loan and purchase Utd. The risk sits entirely with Ineos, not with Utd. Any attempt to suggest otherwise is either disingenuous or deeply misinformed.
Click to expand...
1. Everyone know's this, they're just excited that we might actually be able to spend money again instead of looking in the free transfer bin. Mbappe is obviously a joke.

2. Mother Teresa was also a bit of a cnut.

3. No one's talking about the Saudis? Just some tweets mentioning they might be involved, pure speculation.

4. Jimmy boy won't take a loan on his own company to pay off the debt currently on the club, so we'll have that problem still and the money leveraged against INEOS will also become our problem. He isn't going to take a £5b loan and pay it off monthly out of his own pocket for a laugh.
 
MTF said:
They're wasteful as feck, there's more evidence for that than "they aren't stupid". Bribed their way to get a WC, overpaid for all the infrastructure needed, have spent truckloads at PSG and managed to not win Ligue 1 in a few of the seasons.
Click to expand...

I don’t care what they spend.
I’d also throw money around if I had £560 billion.
 
cyberman said:
Yeah but it’s not because they have money. It’s because money is all they have. Literally mid table teams with money.
That’s why they’re plastic
Click to expand...
That's not really true. Chelsea finished 2nd the year before Roman took over, and actually have history as a club. The financial freedom that enabled them to blow away the transfer market was game changing.
 
Wumminator said:
One of the things most baffling in this thread is the idea that Liverpool fans would be gutted. Maybe gutted their rivals are just a play thing, but I think they’ll be ecstatic overall. I’d piss myself (but feel slightly sorry for the fanbase) if Liverpool were owned by Qatar.
Click to expand...
They will get left behind. They will absolutely be gutted. Their fans on twitter are begging for Qatar to buy them
 
Jericholyte2 said:
Wasn’t it reported that INEOS would absorb the debt, so United wouldn’t be burdened by it?
Click to expand...
They haven' said jack shit about the current debt being paid off, I'm weary of that. And although INEOS would burden the loan, it doesn't mean United won't be paying it. How are INEOS shareholders going to feel about a £5b loan at their expense?
 
mu4c_20le said:
That's not really true. Chelsea finished 2nd the year before Roman took over, and actually have history as a club. The financial freedom that enabled them to blow away the transfer market was game changing.
Click to expand...
Didn’t they finish 4th through a last game play off v Liverpool?
They were literally about to go out of business before Roman joined, that’s how plastic they ended up being
 
mu4c_20le said:
Why would we be screwed?
Click to expand...

Going for Top 4 and going for the titles are not the same ambitions. You prepare depending on your ambition, like the Glazers. They were content with us finishing Top 4. If that goal was met, everything else was irrelevant.

Do you think Manchester United should be a club that aims to finish Top 4? Or for the CL and PL titles?
 
Wumminator said:
One of the things most baffling in this thread is the idea that Liverpool fans would be gutted. Maybe gutted their rivals are just a play thing, but I think they’ll be ecstatic overall. I’d piss myself (but feel slightly sorry for the fanbase) if Liverpool were owned by Qatar.
Click to expand...
Strange thought that. Very strange.
 
Berbaclass said:
They will get left behind. They will absolutely be gutted. Their fans on twitter are begging for Qatar to buy them
Click to expand...
The ones on twitter are plastic fans and probably glory hunters. RAWK hates oil money and are actually hard left (caf is more centre right these days). They would probably stop supporting the club for real if oil took over.
 
arthurka said:
Tell the 147 that were executed last year that.
Click to expand...
I'm by no means defending the Saudis. I think some of their actions are reprehensible.

I just replied to the poster who inferred that they're worse than the Qataris. They're certainly not.
 
Rawls said:
There is so much incorrect stuff being said on this thread, it's doing my head in.

1. RICH OWNERS DOESN'T MEAN WE CAN SPEND MORE!!! Our binding constraint is FSR, which essentially means our expenditure must be linked to our revenue. Owners can't just pump in money willy-nilly. And with City being charged by the PL with 115 offences, creating articifical streams of income isn't exactly a good idea. Besides, despite what people like to say, spending money under the Glazers has never been a problem; the problem has been spending money BADLY.

2. IF YOU THINK THE GLAZERS ARE CNUTS, HAVE YOU CONSIDERED THE QATARIS??? I mean, if how you think very little of the Glazers, have you ever considered that the Qataris aren't exactly Mother Teresa?

3. The Saudis here are inconsequential, they were outbid for Chelsea by Boehly.

4. I'm not saying he buys Utd but if Sir Jim does, it won't be a Leveraged Buy-Out. Instead, Ineos will take out a loan and purchase Utd. The risk sits entirely with Ineos, not with Utd. Any attempt to suggest otherwise is either disingenuous or deeply misinformed.
Click to expand...
Why you shouting honey?
 
mu4c_20le said:
The ones on twitter are plastic fans and probably glory hunters. RAWK hates oil money and are actually hard left (caf is more centre right these days). They would probably stop supporting the club for real if oil took over.
Click to expand...

Libcafe is centre right? Now I heard everything
 
I'd rather continue with the Glazers than become another sportswashing vehicle.
 
Rawls said:
There is so much incorrect stuff being said on this thread, it's doing my head in.

1. RICH OWNERS DOESN'T MEAN WE CAN SPEND MORE!!! Our binding constraint is FSR, which essentially means our expenditure must be linked to our revenue. Owners can't just pump in money willy-nilly. And with City being charged by the PL with 115 offences, creating articifical streams of income isn't exactly a good idea. Besides, despite what people like to say, spending money under the Glazers has never been a problem; the problem has been spending money BADLY.

2. IF YOU THINK THE GLAZERS ARE CNUTS, HAVE YOU CONSIDERED THE QATARIS??? I mean, if how you think very little of the Glazers, have you ever considered that the Qataris aren't exactly Mother Teresa?

3. The Saudis here are inconsequential, they were outbid for Chelsea by Boehly.

4. I'm not saying he buys Utd but if Sir Jim does, it won't be a Leveraged Buy-Out. Instead, Ineos will take out a loan and purchase Utd. The risk sits entirely with Ineos, not with Utd. Any attempt to suggest otherwise is either disingenuous or deeply misinformed.
Click to expand...

You typing in all caps isn't going to stop the Qataris buying the club mate. Best get used to the idea rather than having a go at other people who think we'd be better off under Qatar than Glazer or Ratcliffe ownership.
 
Adam-Utd said:
not completely true, you can spend as much as you want on youth and training ground/equipment etc and not be effected by FFP

We could challenge for the best youth players across the world, we can build a top of the line world class training ground (with a new pool)

Will Ineos really be funding us to the tip top spec? i'm not sure.
Click to expand...

Not to mention without interest payments and dividends we'll have far more to spend from our own revenues
 
Adam-Utd said:
not completely true, you can spend as much as you want on youth and training ground/equipment etc and not be effected by FFP

We could challenge for the best youth players across the world, we can build a top of the line world class training ground (with a new pool)

Will Ineos really be funding us to the tip top spec? i'm not sure.
Click to expand...
Fair enough but I'm skeptical spending big on infrastructure would really have a transformative impact on the playing field. It would help no doubt but don't think it'd be a gamechanger.
 
mu4c_20le said:
The ones on twitter are plastic fans and probably glory hunters. RAWK hates oil money and are actually hard left (caf is more centre right these days). They would probably stop supporting the club for real if oil took over.
Click to expand...
You believe what people say on RAWK?
 
mu4c_20le said:
The ones on twitter are plastic fans and probably glory hunters. RAWK hates oil money and are actually hard left (caf is more centre right these days). They would probably stop supporting the club for real if oil took over.
Click to expand...
looking forward to a half empty Anfield then, if and when it happens
 
I hope SJR buys it, and that whenever United wins trophies the captain has to put on a fleece vest with Ineos and a bunch of bank logos before lifting the trophy.
 
Can Qatar compete with Todd Boehly? Just saw Chelsea are going for Bellingham and Osihmen in the summer
 
Wumminator said:
One of the things most baffling in this thread is the idea that Liverpool fans would be gutted. Maybe gutted their rivals are just a play thing, but I think they’ll be ecstatic overall. I’d piss myself (but feel slightly sorry for the fanbase) if Liverpool were owned by Qatar.
Click to expand...
I'd have a read of RAWK if I were you. They're gutted and have been begging for oil money
 
Rawls said:
Fair enough but I'm skeptical spending big on infrastructure would really have a transformative impact on the playing field. It would help no doubt but don't think it'd be a gamechanger.
Click to expand...
It can make a big difference in players choosing to play for us.

Just look at what Ronaldo was saying publicly about our training ground. Hasn't been updated since he left the club!

How can that stand for a club of our level? The Glazers haven't invested anywhere. It could be the 10% difference we need.
 
mu4c_20le said:
The ones on twitter are plastic fans and probably glory hunters. RAWK hates oil money and are actually hard left (caf is more centre right these days). They would probably stop supporting the club for real if oil took over.
Click to expand...
Yeah. They wouldn't. They'd celebrate any trophy won with oil money as much as the next person
 
mu4c_20le said:
The ones on twitter are plastic fans and probably glory hunters. RAWK hates oil money and are actually hard left (caf is more centre right these days). They would probably stop supporting the club for real if oil took over.
Click to expand...

Wow what a noble lot
 
Wumminator said:
One of the things most baffling in this thread is the idea that Liverpool fans would be gutted. Maybe gutted their rivals are just a play thing, but I think they’ll be ecstatic overall. I’d piss myself (but feel slightly sorry for the fanbase) if Liverpool were owned by Qatar.
Click to expand...
I dont know what world you are living in but they will be a complete opposite of ecstatic.
 
Wumminator said:
One of the things most baffling in this thread is the idea that Liverpool fans would be gutted. Maybe gutted their rivals are just a play thing, but I think they’ll be ecstatic overall. I’d piss myself (but feel slightly sorry for the fanbase) if Liverpool were owned by Qatar.
Click to expand...
Nonsense. You won’t see any Liverpool fan ecstatic.
 
jm99 said:
Not to mention without interest payments and dividends we'll have far more to spend from our own revenues
Click to expand...
Yeah, we can compete for transfers using our own revenue alone. With no debt and dividends we could spend like 300m a year no problem.
 
crossy1686 said:
1. Everyone know's this, they're just excited that we might actually be able to spend money again instead of looking in the free transfer bin. Mbappe is obviously a joke.

2. Mother Teresa was also a bit of a cnut.

3. No one's talking about the Saudis? Just some tweets mentioning they might be involved, pure speculation.

4. Jimmy boy won't take a loan on his own company to pay off the debt currently on the club, so we'll have that problem still and the money leveraged against INEOS will also become our problem. He isn't going to take a £5b loan and pay it off monthly out of his own pocket for a laugh.
Click to expand...

Tbf mbappe isn't a joke, he's not going to sign this summer, but he only signed s 3 year deal at psg and if he leaves there's only going to be real who can legitimately match our offer, we're definitely about to be a top destination for elite footballers again
 
Jev said:
I genuinely don't understand how any United fan who has been calling Chelsea and City plastic clubs for years can be rooting for fecking Saudi blood money. Hypocrisy of the highest order.
Click to expand...
After 20 years of the plastic clubs being allowed to operate on steroids, Newcastle being added to the mix and maybe Liverpool, I think it’s fair to realise that this is the only viable solution.

The authorities have also not stopped the Glazers from riding ramshackle over the club in that time. Patience has been eroded. You can’t blame fans for thinking that given what’s been allowed to happen to both the plastic clubs and us in two decades it is time for change.

As for us calling them plastic, they are. Unlike us they were nothing clubs who were artificially given success due to the financial doping. None of their success post-takeover was earned. Our economic transformation will be just adding to that of an already established successful club.
 
I think Ratcliffe's desire to be our owner is sincere and he has the best interests of the club at heart. I actually feel a bit sorry for him that Qatar are going to blow him out of the water. And at the end of the day we need massive investment more than we need a nice guy owner.
 
Jev said:
I genuinely don't understand how any United fan who has been calling Chelsea and City plastic clubs for years can be rooting for fecking Saudi blood money. Hypocrisy of the highest order.
Click to expand...

Nobody cares.

Mbappe on the left
 
jm99 said:
Tbf mbappe isn't a joke, he's not going to sign this summer, but he only signed s 3 year deal at psg and if he leaves there's only going to be real who can legitimately match our offer, we're definitely about to be a top destination for elite footballers again
Click to expand...
It doesn't matter what our offer is if he's set on Madrid. We can have all the money in the world but we'll still miss out on players and there's no shame in that, you can't win them all. Plus with his attitude I'd be weary of signing him anyway, we don't want to become PSG.
 
Wumminator said:
One of the things most baffling in this thread is the idea that Liverpool fans would be gutted. Maybe gutted their rivals are just a play thing, but I think they’ll be ecstatic overall. I’d piss myself (but feel slightly sorry for the fanbase) if Liverpool were owned by Qatar.
Click to expand...
They were pretty excited when Salah was pictured with the Qatari representatives 2 months back
 
jm99 said:
Tbf mbappe isn't a joke, he's not going to sign this summer, but he only signed s 3 year deal at psg and if he leaves there's only going to be real who can legitimately match our offer, we're definitely about to be a top destination for elite footballers again
Click to expand...
The difference being (as dodgy as it sounds) in this instance the buyer and the seller would effectively be the same people. The Qataris can choose whatever transfer fee they like for a transfer between the two clubs.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.