Why would that be an issue if deep down we Don't know that they are better owners then Jimmy is?
Club Sale | It’s done!
- Thread starter JB08
- Start date
- Status
Why would that be an issue if deep down we Don't know that they are better owners then Jimmy is?
Some pointed out that they dont believe his United is all for me charme offense. And I tend to agreebut Ratcliffe was a Chelsea ticket holder, and to some, that's apparently as bad as it can get
it's hilarious, really.
That's fair enough and I respect that. I see things from what is best for United. The difference between the Qatari and Ratcliffe is pretty the same between psg and nice
Okay. Let's get this straight. Football clubs are terrible assets (if we're simply talking about pure economic value) for actual billionaires. It's just not cost effective waiting around years when you can make billions of dollars doing other profitable stuff. So in that sense they're a bad investment which is why you will rarely see any actual billionaires getting in on this. Obviously when it comes to the Middle East - it's different. They want exposure to their countries , they don't care about the pure economic value of what clubs can contribute. In that sense, United is a crown jewel for sports. But what does INEOS get out of it? More exposure isn't going to help them at all. So all that is left is one thing - a vanity purchase on behalf of Sir Jim. Which is fine. Let's say he wants to leave a legacy behind him. Problem is - who inherits after that? And how likely it is that he'll feel the same way about United.
An investment in the billions is not gonna pay anytime soon, that's for sure. Obviously we are a huge club and completely self-sustaining if we remove the debt, but it's still gonna take us years to play catch up due to the Glazers horrible mismanagement of the club. Not only are we gonna have to catch up on infrastructure, but we also have to be up there with the best when it comes to players. And in that department, there's still plenty to do. This brings me to my next point - INEOS is gonna have to invest heavily at least for 5, maybe even 10 years until we get up to speed. Again, do we really believe that a company's entire existence would be in the service of United? I doubt that.
I'm not ridiculing him as a buyer, not at all. Frankly, I'd be happy with whoever gets us rid of the rats and as long as the club isn't saddled with more debt, that's still an improvement in my book. So in a sense - i'm actually very happy if Sir Jim inherits. Problem is - is he a better option than the Qataris who we know are gonna invest a shitton of money into the club and get us back to speed in a few seasons at best? Who, on top of it all, will never care about profits from the club, will not take dividends and who are basically going to spend the equivalent of their pocket change when it is all said and done? I don't like being owned by states, but frankly given the amount of deep shit we found ourselves in, we really have no choice. If it was when Magnier and McManus sold the club, when it was in tip-top financial shape, maybe I would have thought differently. But as it stands right now - we have a lot of issues.
It's not a matter of when he dies. I mean the sheikh, as you said, might die tomorrow, but the very nature of the transaction would have continuity because United would be of strategic value to the Qataris. With Sir Jim, it's a vanity purchase and the value of United will remain as long as its in hands. It's very unlikely that whoever inherits from Ratcliffe is going to feel the same way. 'Why the hell would I need to invest in this football club when I have much better things to do?' would be the logic here.
Well it’s not because we’re Manchester United and even dog shit owners with 16% interest rates got into 3 CL finals. And even now, they appear to have somehow with Murtough and ETH, put the club back on track.
United are the biggest club in the World, Nice are well, Nice.
Yeah but how much of that is rival fans
That's a great post
Boring day, no new news. Raine needs to speed it up.
Once a new stadium or refurb is made, United are self sustainable like no other football club. They don’t just fall apart if INEOS in 15 years don’t want to match Jim’s investment.
At that point they could sell, likely for a huge profit, or let the club service itself.
Yeah Ratcliffe had to make bigger waves with that INEOS statement it's all a bit underwhelming
and it's their and your right to question that. But I have more than once seen "the Emir is a United fan" mentioned as a positive here, while Ratcliffe is criticized. It really doesn't matter to me which one is a "real" United fan or the bigger one at that.
Where would be stand RE | FFP if Qatar did come in and buy the club?
Could we legitimately spend £400/500m in a window and not run the risk of being punished?
Genuine question because I dont really know how FFP works
Could we legitimately spend £400/500m in a window and not run the risk of being punished?
Genuine question because I dont really know how FFP works
Yeah this is another reason I back Qatar bid,don't want them buying one of those two
Ineos were lobbying Truss to get fracking going literally six months ago.
I want the best for United and the Qatari are the best of the lot out there. Rest assured I will switch loyalties the moment a better candidate comes in. These guys put money and effort in their football projects. Ineos seem happy with mid table mediocrity, they bid for chelsea way past the deadline and can't even bother coming out with a half decent mission statement
That's a lot of assumptions. A stadium by INEOS will likely be built via debt incursion since they don't have the cash reserves to fund the initial purchase of the club. When it comes to INEOS' bid, there's a lot of "ifs" and that's the problem.
I think Ratcliffe was criticized because his overall statement just pales in comparison to the sheikh. 'Bring Manchester back in Manchester' and 'not have anymore debt' simply doesn't sound very appealing next to 'improving the whole structure of the club, training grounds, academies, stadium and wiping off the debt'. I don't think anyone here gives a flying feck whether the sheikh is a United fan or not, but his sales pitch is a million times better, that's for sure.
But this isn't needed because there is no event they don't sell now they have an offer like that from Qatar and Ineos, it's more than enough, and about £5 billion more than Glazers deserve to make.
Any hint that the Glazers won't sell and take up this sort offer for themselves, then they must know all merry hell will break loose for them.
Ratcliffe came out with this split loyalty BS.
I know. His Chelsea afiliation isn’t the reason I don’t like him, that’s all I said.
He’s a horrible tory brexiteer posing as some saviour to United because he was born in the area. Feck off.
FFP position wouldn't change much as its calculated on income. Could do a city style Qatar Airways sponsorship but that wouldn't impact the upcoming window
Can spend as much as you want on the stadium, training ground etc though which long term will boost ffp
That’s just nonsense though, as has proven in cycling, F1 and with Eliud Kipchoge.
They strive for excellence, but Nice is fecking Nice, I could never agree with Jim going in their and spending billions to be second best in France. That’d just be moronic. Nice needs to be grown, over time.
Which one is it though? One of them affects millions daily, the other thousands.
The point that I'm making is that it's very subjective because one is more damaging when it comes to volume while the other less damaging in terms of volume but maybe further away from many in terms of culture and values.
It, at least had some ideas of what the Qataris would do. Ineos' statement was xenphobic nonsense, what does "put Manchester back into Manchester United" mean? Do they not realise there are millions of non British supporters?
And I dont think the Emir gets off lightly here either. But IMO Ratcliffe should have put more effort in the emotional part as that would differentiate him - yet he did not
I don’t understand this. If Glazers take financing then aren’t they spending their own money on United, something they don’t want to do?
What would be the point? Unless they just pocket it and that’s that
They don't need to be good or bad owners, they just need to hand Klopp a shedload of money and say ' win me everything '.
We've seen Jims management of Nice (or should we say his little brothers), and it hasn't been good. Maybe this younger Qatari will have his head screwed on and let the proper people get on with it.
Are you his fecking paramour or what? This is some teenage angst talk.
I'll still take fracking over persecution of gay people and keeping women on a leash any day.
Yes, but not immediately. It's done on an overage over many years, so once the debt is gone it will free up more cash to spend every year.
We could have 1 big window, then a smaller couple years to follow.
No of course not. Given a choice between SJR, The Glazers and Eliot I'd choose the former easily. I am only backing what I think is the better owner
From what I read clubs have 3 years to comply and then it drops from the first year being 90 percent of turnover to the third year being 70. Permitted losses have doubled though and more can be sought if it’s proven clubs are in great, financial health,
Owners can inject their own money into the infrastructure etc but you can’t spend the clubs money on it without FFP coming into play. From the reactions I read to the new rules it seems to favour oil and big clubs in some way than FFP even does now.
I see arguments up the page about that but UEFA can’t stop the owners spending their own money and say, give the stadium to the club, it’s impossible to regulate that. Just because they own United doesn’t mean every purchase and deal has to run through them.
Mate you clearly don't like Radicliffe
, you inventing all these scenerios etc that he might not want this, who going to look after the club when he dies, and he might take this and that out with dividends, but Qatar's won't.I'm not buying it. I don't think be as bad as the others, don't think it's vanity driving this.
Only way that could happen is if Radicliffe decided to go the glazer route, which can't see happening. At that sort of overlay the club needs to be successful. The stadium infrastructure will pay itself the same way arsenal's, spurs etc did. Again I'd imagine every one will be investing in that area.
My preferred buyer is anyone who isn't American to be honest. So Radcliffe or Qatar's would fit the bill
You constantly call him a tax dodger, a polluter, hypocrite, “Brexit Jim”, you doubt he’s bidding for anything other than PR. You’ve call him a cnut.
You made posts claiming he’s morally corrupt…
And you do it on a daily basis, so forgive me for getting the wrong end of the stick.
His 'read on it' is wrong. He assumed the words of a summary were correct, but when you read the articles, the summary is badly drafted. 89.02 is clear, there is no 'seem' about it.
All those claims are backed by observable evidence. What you're doing here is the same as people try to play off Qatar as squeeky clean.
Hypocrisy much?
Why would Ratcliffe be a better choice than Qatari ownership?
You would think for a club the size of United the person or persons with the largest financial worth and willingness to invest would be the best choice. There are things that need done which will require Massive investment. Training facilities and a new stadium or refurbishment.
A new stadium if That’s the route chosen to go down surely would cost around 2bil. You’re not going to take a backward step and build a smaller stadium. Refurb might cost a bil. Training facilities we’ll say what 50-100 mil?
Developing the area around the stadium, fan experience and all that jazz. Let’s say it’s a further 3bil on top of your 6 bil purchase of the club and let’s not forget wiping out the bil debt. So we are now looking at say 10 bil.
Haven't even considered the possible extra facilities or stadium required for the Woman’s team.
Team and players I feel would take care of themselves, the club surely must generate the money to cover whatever signings are needed. This isn’t like when Chelsea, City or PSG got sugar daddy/ state money. They needed to catch up, we just need to be allowed to operate at full capacity.
People are concerned about the idea of sports washing but surely people can’t be so easily influenced that they would forget about all the atrocities and human rights issues that happen there. I don’t see how supporting United if Qatari owned helps reduce the scrutiny on their country.
It just doesn’t make sense to me. Or maybe I just have absolutely no morals whatsoever and don’t give a damn. I would just like the wealthiest and most likely to invest in United for its future so I can continue to enjoy watching the team I’ve loved since I was a child.
You would think for a club the size of United the person or persons with the largest financial worth and willingness to invest would be the best choice. There are things that need done which will require Massive investment. Training facilities and a new stadium or refurbishment.
A new stadium if That’s the route chosen to go down surely would cost around 2bil. You’re not going to take a backward step and build a smaller stadium. Refurb might cost a bil. Training facilities we’ll say what 50-100 mil?
Developing the area around the stadium, fan experience and all that jazz. Let’s say it’s a further 3bil on top of your 6 bil purchase of the club and let’s not forget wiping out the bil debt. So we are now looking at say 10 bil.
Haven't even considered the possible extra facilities or stadium required for the Woman’s team.
Team and players I feel would take care of themselves, the club surely must generate the money to cover whatever signings are needed. This isn’t like when Chelsea, City or PSG got sugar daddy/ state money. They needed to catch up, we just need to be allowed to operate at full capacity.
People are concerned about the idea of sports washing but surely people can’t be so easily influenced that they would forget about all the atrocities and human rights issues that happen there. I don’t see how supporting United if Qatari owned helps reduce the scrutiny on their country.
It just doesn’t make sense to me. Or maybe I just have absolutely no morals whatsoever and don’t give a damn. I would just like the wealthiest and most likely to invest in United for its future so I can continue to enjoy watching the team I’ve loved since I was a child.
And thats what make this club special, the best in the world. his statement didn’t make sense. Tribalism is rampant and he’s pushing towards that.
well he is all that right? Now if you believe that such a thing makes you morally corrupt then that's your prerogative.
That's not how acquisitions work though. The controlling shareholder puts the acquisition to the vote and then it is a done deal. You can't not sell.
- Status