Club Sale | It’s done!

Status
Not open for further replies.
bosnian_red said:
I guess on the last point, from my POV, I would be happy for us to be purely self sufficient (apart from the initial investment to clear our debts, start the redevelopment of the infrastructure)... But generally I don't think United needs owner funding for transfers and am fine if an owner doesn't plan on doing that. I am fine if an owner plans on making us smartly managed, keeps all money within the club and doesn't invest his own money (past the initial getting us up to speed off the pitch). I think United are more than capable of seriously challenging in a setup like that.
Click to expand...

I'd probably agree with you on the transfer part, but we wouldn't be able to modernise our infrastructure, stadium, Academy, women's team, etc solely from our own revenue, and frankly we desperately need to improve all of these areas. A new stadium (or at the very least significant renovations to the current stadium) were some of the most important things everyone was emphasising before the bids, yet now some seem to be writing them off as unimportant. They're still massive for me and 100% need to be done by any new owner. I'm wary that INEOS have so far made no mention of addressing these areas. We'll see if any of the other rumoured bids address this. Frankly, I'd be much happier with an American owner who does make a written commitment to addressing these areas than Ratcliffe and INEOS at this stage.
 
Not that I’m an expert, but the Ineos bid sounds like the Glazers would still retain some stake in the club? Also, I don’t get the impression we would be debt-free under Ineos ownership.

It sounds like same sh*t, different figurehead.
 
Raoul said:
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.
Click to expand...

Again, the Glazers won't be remaining under an INEOS buyout.
 
Rapsel said:
I think you were missing my point, big man. It wasn't chest pumping. It was being honest and if you think Ajax was always doing well just look at us between 2000 and 2010 when we made loads of money by going to the stock market and all we got was PSV becoming champions for 5 or 6 times while we struggled to even qualify for CL football.
Click to expand...
So how did you guys react when PSV was out winning you lot? Now imagine how Man United fans feel after nearly 2 decades of mismanagement, a decade of utter failure while the club's finances and facilities/infra are being slowly eroded away due to horrible owners.

So don't equate your situation with ours which is what it feels like when you make such posts in this thread.
 
Given what we know upto now, who do we think are the most likely to come out on top here and take control?
 
Suedesi said:
Elliott would be the worst outcome. fecking vultures, and not an improvement at all on the Glazers
Click to expand...

This should go down like a Led Zeppelin

"Singer is active in Republican Party politics and Singer and others affiliated with Elliott Management are collectively "the top source of contributions" to the National Republican Senatorial Committee"
 
Raoul said:
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.
Click to expand...
Isn’t that what any new prospective owner would do? How many actually stick to timelines and promises. At least the Qatari’s have laid out a plan.
 
NK86 said:
So how did you guys react when PSV was out winning you lot? Now imagine how Man United fans feel after nearly 2 decades of mismanagement, a decade of utter failure while the club's finances and facilities/infra are being slowly eroded away due to horrible owners.

So don't equate your situation with ours which is what it feels like when you make such posts in this thread.
Click to expand...
There there, I come in peace and United is quickly becoming my second team. I wasn't so much equating our situation to yours but trying to offer an outlier's perspective and not so much one from a moral highground but from a supporter of a club that like United has pedigree and a football history most other clubs are jealous of. I thought you would appreciate that on a forum.
 
Berbaclass said:
They would be financing somebody’s bid. Not their own I think
Click to expand...
They would still have a voice/influence and they are literally the worst possible investors. When you own equity you become part of the consortium that needs to invest and all they do is "streamline". HELL NO.
 
Berbaclass said:
Could be worse. They could fund a Glazer stay
Click to expand...

That's the issue. They open the door to all the dodgy halfwits. And they will expect a return on their investment whether they "only" funded the purchase for someone else and/or purchase minority shares themselves.
 
enghuei said:


This seems like a plausible explanation for Elliot's bid.
Click to expand...


This kind is the definition of the word vultures. They will finance someone's bid for a minority stake, very likely under brutal conditions for the loanee. The Chinese guy they financed for AC Milan couldn't keep up with the repayment plan, so they removed him and sold to Redbird a few years later. Meanwhile, AC Milan were barely trodding along and were banned from European competition because they couldn't break even.

This would be the absolute worst outcome by a significant margin.
 
red thru&thru said:
How much have The Athletic reported on SJRs greenwashing? The fact he doesn't pay taxes in the UK? INEOS owning 2 other European teams and how how would navigate around that?
Click to expand...

Not to trivialise them, because they’re valid criticisms. But you can surely understand why an autocracy with medieval views on LGBTQ+ and women, as well as a chequered history with worker’s rights, to put it lightly, would take precedent over someone like Jim Ratcliffe who has the same crooked accountant that most billionaires have, and earns his money in polluting chemicals.
 
Strictly from a sporting project, the Qatari proposal is clearly superior and provides more of what the club needs than Ratcliffe. Of course the latter is a “local bid”. Probably been repeated hundreds of times already, no billionaire comes in with clean hands, from the Middle East or Europe. All or most are corrupt and could give two shits about being the authority on ethics and morals.

IMO Ratcliffe checks one important box for so many opposed to the Qatari bid: British. Let’s not pretend race doesn’t matter. If you evaluate each bid without knowing who made it, I’m certain many would presume that it was Ratcliffe who was creating the 92 fund with a commitment of investing billions around Old Trafford, investing in youth and redeveloping the area around the stadium. I mean of course it’s the local billionaire who would commit to such projects in Manchester not someone from Qatar.
 
Rapsel said:
There there, I come in peace and United is quickly becoming my second team. I wasn't so much equating our situation to yours but trying to offer an outlier's perspective and not so much one from a moral highground but from a supporter of a club that like United has pedigree and a football history most other clubs are jealous of. I thought you would appreciate that on a forum.
Click to expand...
The sentiments are really strong in this thread mate. The bids have actually divided the fans badly, so another club's fan coming in and trying to make a post which will wind up one set of supporters isn't the best thing to do.
 
Lecland07 said:
I wouldn't say the loan has had a huge impact. I would say the £1.5bn spent on, vastly, rubbish signings has been a far bigger contributor to any financial issues. The interest payments on the loan are marginal; they are only 1% of revenue, which is not an area of concern to the club. Rising wages and failed transfers have been the biggest issues to fix by far, which is down to management.

Maintenance of the loan is not a problem. Though new owners could come in and pay off the debt, the club will only gain a £20m improvement in return for a £500m investment to pay off the loan. Would it not be better for the new owners just to plough that £500m towards building a new stadium etc.? I would prefer that than the owner to pay off the debt and for us to only see a measly £20m savings on interest per year. It will take 25 years to make up for that repayment of the debt.

I would say we could have spent half of that £1.5bn and been far more successful had the management been correct. That amount is ignoring the lack of control on wages and the amount of money we have used on sacking managers. In the end, a lot of money has been wasted that has denied the club further revenue, due to lack of success on the field. That is and always has been the major concern.

If this wasn't a problem, Manchester United would have been in a position to build a new stadium with the Glazers as owners. The club wouldn't need a new owner to make this possible.
Click to expand...

You're not realizing how much United have paid in interest so far and will continue to pay. 800m has been paid in interest just for the Glazers to have the privilege of owning the club, 800m of the clubs money is lost while they do nothing, the debt helps them not the club. Being debt free from 2005 onwards would've meant United could've financed a new stadium complex. I've already said many times how much of the money has been wasted and that debt in not inherently bad, United could've remained competitive and still financed a new stadium under better management. United have been strangled by it, and by Glazers poor running once Fergie left. We're sat with a old decaying stadium, 10 years of throwing money away. We've missed so much possible prize money and chances to rebuild the stadium complex, the debt and the Glazers have been horrific.

Good debt would be the club taking out a loan to pay for a stadium in 2010. Bad debt for the club is 800m in interest and still paying for guy/family to own us that can't afford it and just wants to sit on the asset and grow to sell on later. Good debt for Malcolm and his family, not for Manchester United.
 
Last edited:
Spoony said:
E]

I've spoken to a few people who've worked in near slave like conditions. What stood out was they've accepted harsh realities of life and more surprisingly were proud 'they' built the stadia for the WC. The exploitation of poverty is disgusting, what's also annoying is the contrast, folk from the West in good jobs getting treated like VIPs. My colleague loved her life in the Gulf. She had no guilt watching workers toil in 50c whilst her family were enjoying the day under some air conditioning.
Click to expand...

It us disgusting mate, my mate has grown to feel bad about the whole thing as became aware of it and the part he plays in it. But he's also not said he's thinking about quitting.
 
Chief123 said:
Isn’t that what any new prospective owner would do? How many actually stick to timelines and promises. At least the Qatari’s have laid out a plan.
Click to expand...

Probably right. I think that given United is a western club that adheres to western rules and norms, many would feel more comfortable with the Qataris if they made a positive statement on their support of LGBTQ rights, unless of course they don't support such rights, which would be a massive problem for United to have to take on. Unlike Man City or some wee club on the NorthEast, United's brand has a global reach of some 650m fans, and such matters will need to be adjudicated before, not after a sale has been made, or else risk it being a continued distraction that will undermine the club's future success.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.