I like me a hyperbole.“ blood on the streets”
Club Sale | It’s done!
- Thread starter JB08
- Start date
- Status
There is already a lot worse than blood on the streets of Amsterdam
we all know why INEOS ignore those areas and we all know that if bid proposals were reversed suddenly those supporting INEOS would view billions on debt as very very bad absolutely unacceptable, and no mention of the stadium, training and women’s team as a huge negative from the Qatari bid.
The Qataris are obviously going to message that they care about and will invest in all the issues various subsections of the fanbase care about as a means to assuage any anxieties, then once in charge slow roll change at their leisure and generally do the bare minimum to keep fans from revolting.
The funny thing is, lets ask the Ajax fans the same question after 10 years of being bled dry by their owners, lack of leadership, not winning the league and having a handful of CL appearances.“ blood on the streets”
Easy to make bold claims when everything is perfect.
It's not. It's because the ineos bid didn't talk about getting rid of the debt. Most fans would probably favour them as long as we knew we would be debt free and there was commitment to infrastructure, especially stadium (even if using borrowed money as at least we are getting an asset for the debt).
19 years.
Excellent post. Very well put.
Cool.
sounds like the glazers
We'd have to press Jim on how the stadium and surrounding area can be improved/built, how this is financed and how will it affect summer spending.
Debt isn't inherently bad but there's lots of ways it can be depending on many factors. We had all this 101 business talk how this is normal, don't be scared of debt some fans said when the Glazers sunk the club into debt. It's had a huge effect and really when people talk about debt in purchases it's usually to the beneficiary of the owner to make use of money elsewhere and many people/companies get consumed with debt and go into administration or scrape along getting nowhere fast over decades. All depends how you end up paying in interest then the debt each year, the rates and how it affects your yearly operation. Success can offset that but United have been poor and missed out so much CL, sponsorship and other prize money while needing to spend more just to keep tabs with the increasing pressure of clubs around us.
We need a breakdown of how much the club is paying now, how much we'd be paying directly or indirectly through Ineos what kind of interest and debt do we need to pay for stadium/facility improvements, does this extend to the womens side.
I suspect we'd be heavily hampered and in 5-10 years time time we'll be holding the short straw while Pool and Spurs take on middle eastern backing.
To those who keep parroting debt is fine. United have paid around 800m in interest, once rising to 16% and pay around 20m per year today and still have 500m to pay back. United have been hugely hampered just so a family could own United. We've missed out on so much money that could've paid for 90k stadium and area revamp twice over in the last 17 years. We're also facing debt free state clubs that will probably increase. United currently pay around 40m per year in interest and dividends.
Debt has strangled Manchester United, we had no reason to go into debt unless someone that couldn't afford us had some selfish desire to and could convince the banks. Plunging us into debt and strangling us only helped the Glazer family funds elsewhere. We didn't need that type of owner.
Debt isn't inherently bad but there's lots of ways it can be depending on many factors. We had all this 101 business talk how this is normal, don't be scared of debt some fans said when the Glazers sunk the club into debt. It's had a huge effect and really when people talk about debt in purchases it's usually to the beneficiary of the owner to make use of money elsewhere and many people/companies get consumed with debt and go into administration or scrape along getting nowhere fast over decades. All depends how you end up paying in interest then the debt each year, the rates and how it affects your yearly operation. Success can offset that but United have been poor and missed out so much CL, sponsorship and other prize money while needing to spend more just to keep tabs with the increasing pressure of clubs around us.
We need a breakdown of how much the club is paying now, how much we'd be paying directly or indirectly through Ineos what kind of interest and debt do we need to pay for stadium/facility improvements, does this extend to the womens side.
I suspect we'd be heavily hampered and in 5-10 years time time we'll be holding the short straw while Pool and Spurs take on middle eastern backing.
To those who keep parroting debt is fine. United have paid around 800m in interest, once rising to 16% and pay around 20m per year today and still have 500m to pay back. United have been hugely hampered just so a family could own United. We've missed out on so much money that could've paid for 90k stadium and area revamp twice over in the last 17 years. We're also facing debt free state clubs that will probably increase. United currently pay around 40m per year in interest and dividends.
Debt has strangled Manchester United, we had no reason to go into debt unless someone that couldn't afford us had some selfish desire to and could convince the banks. Plunging us into debt and strangling us only helped the Glazer family funds elsewhere. We didn't need that type of owner.
Last edited:
How is it obvious that that's what they're going to do?
Perhaps they mean what they say, it's not that far fetched. I personally doubt that they will skimp when it comes to investment in the club.
I see the tactic is to try and convince the United fan base everyone is telling them they can't have Qatari owners, so we should all tell them to feck off and embrace them.
Absolutely gross, the most basic divide and conquer tactic.
Absolutely gross, the most basic divide and conquer tactic.
In reality, some people will go to Dam Square and nothing will happen. All the hoopla doopla around the WC and the king went to 'represent' in Qatar.“ blood on the streets”
Would you be ok with a Dutch or European billionaire?
The Glazers were worse in that the fans actually did justifiably revolt which kept them on the backfoot for upwards of a decade, which snuffed out any chance they would ever be accepted, even if they did somehow manage to deliver.
That is your own assumption.
I chuckled when that Ajax fan was thumping his chest as if he was making a winning point. They are the richest club in their league by a mile. They have excellent facilities and are run very well by their current establishment. They win their league more often than not while playing good football.
I think we should gift them a Glazers takeover once they get their billions from us. Would be fun watching that very lot.
Na.
Qatar, UAE and Saudi Royals have spent the last 50 years in dick waving contests about who has the most and the best. The last 20 years it has been ever bigger yachts.
Now its football teams.
The one thing you can absolutely guarantee about a qatar onwer is that they will want to be ahead of city and newcastle.
Well surmised.
While you may very well be right, this is all conjecture.
What guarantees do we have Ratcliffe won't be gone in 10 years and then we end up in a worse position, possibly worse than now.
No, fans are simply reading the statements of both potential buyers outlining their plans and vision for the club and making their minds up based on that.
Shouldn't any potential owner? City are the current benchmark.
The debt will still be on the club because the debt isn't on the Glazers and then Ratcliffe/Ineos would be taking out more to get the funds to pay the Glazers which will be Ineos's debt but we all know we will be used to pay it
Indeed.
Who cares about that? What’s next hire Southgate as manager? Having an English owner means absolutely diddly squat
I agree, but the only measure of success the Qataris will want in their competition with the Saudis and Emiratis, is the actual acquisition of United. What happens after will be of lesser consequence. We will of course probably win more than City and Newcastle, but they will be under little pressure on the Qataris to deliver on their rhetoric (infrastructure development, supporting the Women's team etc).
Last edited:
Right here in Zimbabwe if you ran on a gay rights platform you would only be guaranteeing certain defeat. Its the same in most of Africa except for maybe SA and Kenya.
In some cases its most important to note that these countries are politically fragile without a strong man as leader because of centuries old tribal and sectarian rivalries. Gaddafi was a murderous piece of shite but if we are being honest the Lybia he ran was better that wreck they have right now.
Its not like in the West where you have institutions and politicians that respect constitutional norms. These things are alien to most and its a trade off between the things you'd deem vile and a complete breakdown where the real cnuts can emerge in the absence of that fear inspiring autocrat.
I don't just mean results.
They'll want to do everything better and bigger. Stadium, womens team, investment around the area, all of it.
He doesn't know anything.
What's the problem with this?
Basically what happened at Ajax before Johan Cruijff decided to take off the gloves in 2010. Given the owners should be replaced by the dumbfecks on the board but further it was pretty much the same.
To be honest, I can't see the Glazers passing up a chance to sell control but retain a minority stake, as it would allow them to step out of the target zone from fans but still retain a financial stake if/when a SuperLeague happens.
I mean that's what Ratcliffe/Ineos are doing yet they somehow already bottled it in their statement which has got people that were against Qatar saying "maybe Qatar would be better for the club'
Yeah it was a terrible statement. The Qatari one was light years better imo.
- Status