Thats what I was saying to the poster.
It's long game, we don't need unlimited money from a owner to sustain and be successful.
The club in 15 years time for example be worth double or more, pure profit on their
investment
Club Sale | It’s done!
- Thread starter JB08
- Start date
- Status
Thats what I was saying to the poster.
It's long game, we don't need unlimited money from a owner to sustain and be successful.
The club in 15 years time for example be worth double or more, pure profit on their
investment
No, regardless of who owns us we cannot spend more than we make, which is the reason Newcastle aren’t buying up everything they can. Under new FFP rules you also can’t put money into stadiums, infrastructure, youth academies if it’s outside of your revenue.
The days of mad spending are over, unless you’re city and you’re full blown cheats
Great stuff, but I want to make one distinction that is very important to keep in mind — to understand the current events and analyze them properly.
Even when discussing long-term investments, a reference is often made to a 5 to 10 year horizon at the most. But when it comes to real long term investments — there is an idea that it is best to invest in strong sustainable brands that doesn’t have a shelf life.
Champagne is often used as an example. It’s not available to invest in, but many say that if they could invest in one thing long term, it would be champagne. There is a cap on how much that can be produced, and people will want to buy it in 350 years. Rolex. Infrastructure, air ports. Air lines. Power grids.
Another way to look at it is to look at what you as a ‘real’ long term investor is afraid of, and Nokia and Ericsson are good examples of that. The cell phone market is huuuge and growing, you have a clear 1 and 2, that seems to be hard to catch up. And then boom, over a 3-5 year period both those producers are more or less out of the market. The IBM stock has like been flat for 20 years.
Iconic brands that are immune to technical development are hard to find. MUFC is one of them. If someone sell MUFC in 50-100 years, I think that it’s a really good chance that the value of the club will have kept up with the economy as a whole. Can you say that for sure about Facebook, Google, GM or whatever? Maybe, maybe not.
But for an investor looking to spread the bets — it does make sense.
Consequently, the argument that ‘the only reason to invest in MUFC is sportswashing’ doesn’t hold water, for example.
Yeah that's definitely a pipe-dream because unfortunately Ratcliffe isn't a British Abramovich so will want ROI
I mean I'd rather have neither, and think it's quite possible to be deeply queasy about the idea of Qatar whilst also being quite honest about Ratcliffe and his company.
I don't pretend to know, but as far as I remember there were stories about Avram and Joel not wanting to sell, so they are maybe looking to buy to the others out, which if a company like this would loan them the money to do so would be doomsday sort of stuff for United.
I'd assume they take the financing and get the club to pick up the tab, though it just seems so unlikely given the fallout they would get from this, and surely the end game was always to cash out, rather than take a few million per year, but I wouldn't put anything past them.
I’m not calling SJR clean at all, don’t put words into my mouth man.
He’s far from it, as is likely anyone rich enough to buy us.
Devilish is on a daily crusade to say not a bad word about ME but constantly slag of Ratcliffe, there’s the difference.
My issue with ME isn’t their human rights, it’s that I’m completely against state ownership in football, I think it’s a disgrace that has brought the game into disrepute.
That might make sense, if we weren't currently competing with them all in spite of all of the buffoonery of the past decade. That is the grand irony here. High monetary value player acquisitions (club-to-club transactions) aren't correlated with team success the way that you and others talk about it. Player wages and reward structures have a much bigger impact where there is headroom for a player's performance to increase [1].
The clubs you list all have more more fundamental economic and reputational problems than United. Our footballing woes have hurt us, but the damage is more superficial in nature when you look at the messes. Barca were always going to go broke trying to compete with the finances of nation states. Their strategy was doomed from the start.
A better deal than what we have today with the Glazers doesn't require us to lose everything we stand for. Alas, that's not really a deciding factor in negotiations so I expect we'll end up in a bad spot. I just struggle more with supporters who try to rationalise these dealings in the manner you do.
[1] Ronaldo-like transfers often fail because there is no growth in spite of huge wages and the best you can hope for is maintenance of performance.
You can spend on stadiums etc through cash injection. It’s just regulated now if the club spends the money.
You can’t stop Qataris building a new stadium away from United and giving it to the club. It makes no sense. It would mean Qatar could never build another building ever again without United being billed
Muppetiers are desperate for anything not ME
From what the article says it’s finance in return for minority shares. Only reason they take it is if they pocket it otherwise I can’t see it making sense
Caveat this post: I'm no expert.
However..... The new rules of cost control allow 90% for 23/24, down to 70% in 25/26 (where it stays)
This means: We'd have scope for around 40m extra in costs currently [we're at 75%ish], and can generate an extra 15m (100m revenue) or so from CL qualification + allowable revenue. Obviously if we become more successful we'll get more. So say we went out to sign Mbappe for 250m in the summer; that'd be pretty much our allowance used us for that year. [assuming no player sales/wage changes/or increased revenue] - I'm not sure when our Amortizations etc fall off though, so we could have more, but it won't be 500m a window. Especially if we sign a player on huge wages.
I don't know how to answer that. You're right it's subjective thugh, and also that one plays the cards life deals them. If you put Ratcliffe in the Emirs shoes, I'm sure there would be just as many if not more migrant worker deaths. If you put the Emir in Ratcliffes shoes, who knows. I honestly cannot answer "who is the worse of the evils" or "who has a worse impact on the world?" I can answer, who is best for manchester united (Qatar) and who is worst for football (also Qatar)
The two full Seasons they've played since the takeover they finished 9th and 6th, the two seasons before the ones you mentioned were 4th (two points off second) and 3rd(nine points behind psg!)
The point is ligue 1 isn't a strong league, you don't need to spend 600m to become the second best team even if you bought a relegation candidate. Buying a team that's consistently between 9th and 3rd the seasons before you bought them, really shouldn't require much investment to at least reach 3rd consistently and within a season or 2. Newcastle have gone from bottom of the table to top 4 in 12 months with 200m investment, getting to be a top 3 side in the French league should be far less tricky
Ah yes, mega rich billionaires are always satisfied with their current level of wealth, and definitely didn't be a brexiteer in the hope of lower taxation levels for himself.
He likely wanted to tax dodge in order to spend more of his money involved in shit he loves, like running, F1, Cycling and football.
Mega rich billionaire do tend to love spunking money on sports.
No, that is not correct, investment of equity into infrastructure etc is allowed. Article 89.02
I just quoted from 89.02. I'll quote the full article for you.
"Aggregate football earnings may be adjusted upwards if relevant expenses include relevant investments and only if the aggregate amount of any such adjustment is covered either by contributions in the reporting period T or equity at the end of reporting period T that have not already been used to cover the acceptable deviation."
I happen to agree with you as posted before that I believe it can be covered by equity injection, but to call him flat out wrong based on the wording of that article is... wrong.
Isn't the minority share thing what they always wanted though?
If they sell 40 % for the money they need to build a new stadium, with maybe enough left over to to pay off the siblings to certain extent, then they have the chance to see what we are worth in 7-8 years time, I don't know I just think the whole Elliot thing smells horrible.
Newcastle are not going to remain 4th though and it certainly appears a false position, aided by Liverpool and Chelsea’s absolute horror show seasons.
But once again, now on a massive massive tangent.
yeah thia is a huge thing people miss. Maybe United could eventually pay Jim back the 6bn, though not fecking likely. But if you can borrow 6bn liquid from banks there are far better returns (property, investment in stocks (as far as I'm aware the s and p 500 investment averages returns over 10% annually). There's a massive opportunity cost involved in spending 6bn on this.
I thought it was more regulated now?
The only way the value of Manchester United will have kept up with the economy as a whole, is if sky starts charging about £3000 a year
Probably made the mistake of thinking those non British supporters still had some kind affinity/appreciation for what Manchester is and how it relates to Manchester United. Calling it Xenophobic is dumb. The statement literally says that they want a progressive, fan centred approach. If you can’t see how that links to Manchester and prefer to call it Xenophobic then I don’t know what to say to you.
The bottom line is we know so little about both bids. Ineos need to be far clearer with what their plans are for the debt and how it is going to benefit the club and fans, until that point, everyone is making wild assumptions about it.
On the flip side, most seem happy to just accept the Qatar bid, without having a fecking clue what this guy is actually bringing to the table other than money. Do we want an autocratic owner who’s going to come in and raise ticket prices or create a hospitality driven stadium with no atmosphere - like all those things the Glazers did wrong for the first 15 years. Are we going to have a meddling owner that ends up like Abramovic, or weird situations like PSG.
Some extra money in the transfer windows is not even close to being the most important issue for me.
I'm pretty sure he's said as much. No one will remember him for running a successful petrochemicals company.
Say the same to Ballmer, Malcolm Glazer, Roman, Jack Walker etc etc…
There might be better investments, but none half as fun with half the exposure.
Aye, exactly this.
Turned my phone off at 4:30pm uk time yesterday and have just turned it on again came straight here and I see 100 more pages
I’ll hang about and not look anything up. Who wants the privilege in updating me on the state of play? Who is favourite to get us?
I’ll hang about and not look anything up. Who wants the privilege in updating me on the state of play? Who is favourite to get us?
People have a right to their opinion, especially when it involves a state that is anti-lgbt and has a horrible history of abusing workers rights. The football forum here can be tense, no need to make it worse.
Read the banner at the bottom before posting.
Well it's not a tangent. Jim took over a team that cost far less, 100m is about the same as we spent on pogba ffs. It's a team that required far less investment, yes you'd need about a billion to compete with psg, but I'd wager 400-500m makes them consistent CL finishers with the additional tv revenue from that, the fact he wasn't willing to invest so significantly on a team with essentially zero initial outlay compared to us is worrying
I replied to your post claiming:
“If their profits don't increase each year then they're furious”
To say:
“Jim owns 60 odd percent of the company, with just two other minority owners, Jim aint gonna be furious with himself”.
And now your banging on saying he should’ve spunked half a billion on Nice (which in my opinion would’ve been moronic and unsustainable). The feck is that “not a tangent”?
Is there? I mean, from my perspective and yours, absolutely, but we have little to no concept of what 6b is. Someone whose net worth is double that and who owns a company worth 10 times that may not share our interpretation of opportunity cost. Maybe they view not acquiring United as the larger opportunity cost.
Calm downSo many posts like this today yet @Pexbo singled me out as the angry one
Are we still going over which countries have horrible history of abuse/violations/colonization/mass murders/slave trade/starting wars/etc etc. And do you think the entire world other than ME/Qatar is pro- LGBT?
The thread warning is going well I see.
There's a thread with only updates here.
If I was stupidly rich, 70 years old, and owner of a company that still rakes in 2bn ish a year, I’d consider buying my hometown club (and the biggest in the World) a no brainer.
It’d be my love child and like Roman with Chelsea, I’d be there every week lapping up the adulation.
Or I guess Jim could go to his grave with deep deep pockets and a boring like couple of decades. No wonder he wants too be in F1, cycling etc, that’s what he’s worked so hard for, to enjoy this period of his life.
Yeah it was a really bad investment for malcolm glazer ffs
Roman was about a russian guy given big Western profile making it less likely he'd be assassinated. And more to the point none of these people had to shell out 6bn on these clubs. Chelsea was bought for a few hundred million and sold for 2.5bn while it was being held by the government. If Roman had sold it he'd have gotten 3-4bn.
The massive initial outlay and the fact that tv rights are surely near their peak short of a super league. This deal is incomparable to any previous football deal
We need to start a twitter movement to tell them to feck off. They are the worst possible news for this club. #feckoffelliot
Ratcliffe’s business plan doesn’t look good.
That’s the brutal reality and no further explanations can change the facts that’s in his bid. He needs economical backing from from JP Morgan and Goldman Sachs. That’s a huge red flag no matter how people try to downplay the significance of such cooperation. Someone has to pay the interest and if MU become a part of his imperium we’re also part of his liabilities.
The second red flag is his wording of “majority owner”. A split ownership is always a split ownership and with financial partners like GP Morgan and Goldman Sachs is Ratcliffe’s maneuver space one way or another always restricted.
The third red flag is how unspecific he’s in his business plan. Listen to Warren Buffett and Charlie Munger and they will tell you that they hate vague and unsure promises and immediately turn down such business plans. Over 150 successful years of experience valuing business plans is good enough for me to trust their advices.
Jim Ratcliffe’s bid isn’t good and trustworthy enough compared to the bid from Qatar, not even close.
I perfectly understand that the HBQTI community is worried and probably rightly so regarding some aspects but if we just compare apples to apples and oranges to oranges it’s like chose between a brand new luxury Mercedes Maybach and a used old Opel Record.
That’s the brutal reality and no further explanations can change the facts that’s in his bid. He needs economical backing from from JP Morgan and Goldman Sachs. That’s a huge red flag no matter how people try to downplay the significance of such cooperation. Someone has to pay the interest and if MU become a part of his imperium we’re also part of his liabilities.
The second red flag is his wording of “majority owner”. A split ownership is always a split ownership and with financial partners like GP Morgan and Goldman Sachs is Ratcliffe’s maneuver space one way or another always restricted.
The third red flag is how unspecific he’s in his business plan. Listen to Warren Buffett and Charlie Munger and they will tell you that they hate vague and unsure promises and immediately turn down such business plans. Over 150 successful years of experience valuing business plans is good enough for me to trust their advices.
Jim Ratcliffe’s bid isn’t good and trustworthy enough compared to the bid from Qatar, not even close.
I perfectly understand that the HBQTI community is worried and probably rightly so regarding some aspects but if we just compare apples to apples and oranges to oranges it’s like chose between a brand new luxury Mercedes Maybach and a used old Opel Record.
- Status