Club Sale | It’s done!

Status
Not open for further replies.
sglowrider said:
I recognise that we have spend enough on transfers but just badly. But this was despite declining revenues growth.

The problem with this? It came at a cost of everything else. Woodward shifted resources from elsewhere into the transfer budget --- instead of infrastructure upgrades, and/or the club is well known at paying the non-playing staff poorly etc.

City could do all of the above. We could only gamble/afford to do one big priority.
Click to expand...

What won City their titles? The youth teams, the stadium, the womens team?

No, their squad did. The playing talent. The managers qualities.

Where is Liverpools big infrastructure over the past five years that propelled them to success? There isn't one. Salah did, their fullbacks did. Klopp did.

To produce a squad capable of winning a league yes takes a certain amount of money. We've spent that money and more.

@Rightnr has a twisted logic that because it hasn't worked the solution is to do more of the same. Crazy stuff.

A state isn't required to win a league. Smart people are. Business smart and football smart.
 
Regulus Arcturus Black said:
https://www.sheffield.ac.uk/crafic/research/manchester-centripetal-city

I’m from Manchester mate, so I ”talk to Mancs on the ground” pretty fecking often.

And are you actually pretending Manchester hasn’t received feck tonne of government investment? Have you not been to Manchester the past 10 years man?
Click to expand...
This.

Manchester has the fastest rate of redevelopment outside of London.Loads been pumped in from government for things like district heating network around city centre.
 
Regulus Arcturus Black said:
see above…

Several factors will greatly increase revenues.
Click to expand...

Yeah I found that article, though it didn't seem specific as to where the increase was coming from and it said debts had increased by 20%, the situation under the Glazers certainly seems unsustainable, and we definitely need more than 100m spending in the summer if we're to compete with city, our midfield falls apart when casemiro is absent, we need a top striker, we need a right back, it's going to be closer to 200m needed again this year unless we want to lose ground on city and arsenal
 
Marwood said:
What won City their titles? The youth teams, the stadium, the womens team?

No, their squad did. The playing talent. The managers qualities.

Where is Liverpools big infrastructure over the past five years that propelled them to success? There isn't one. Salah did, their fullbacks did. Klopp did.

To produce a squad capable of winning a league yes takes a certain amount of money. We've spent that money and more.

@Rightnr has a twisted logic that because it hasn't worked the solution is to do more of the same. Crazy stuff.

A state isn't required to win a league. Smart people are. Business smart and football smart.
Click to expand...
How many titles did Liverpool's smart people win them in the end?

And Arsenal have spent loads recently and have a brand new stadium which is raking in money for them. I also don't know but assume they have nowhere near our debt AND their owners never took out dividends.

I cannot help you if you are unwilling to face the reality that unless we get the big wealth backing for at least 5 years to get us back on our feet, we won't be challenging for the league more often than every 10, at best 5, years. Money wins in the end
 
jm99 said:
Yeah I found that article, though it didn't seem specific as to where the increase was coming from and it said debts had increased by 20%, the situation under the Glazers certainly seems unsustainable, and we definitely need more than 100m spending in the summer if we're to compete with city, our midfield falls apart when casemiro is absent, we need a top striker, we need a right back, it's going to be closer to 200m needed again this year unless we want to lose ground on city and arsenal
Click to expand...

So you think the company lied to the NYSE in it’s year end results with their predictions for next year?

And no-one actually spends 200m in a window, that’s not how transfers work.
 
sglowrider said:
I recognise that we have spend enough on transfers but just badly. But this was despite declining revenues growth.

The problem with this? It came at a cost of everything else. Woodward shifted resources from elsewhere into the transfer budget --- instead of infrastructure upgrades, and/or the club is well known at paying the non-playing staff poorly etc.

City could do all of the above. We could only gamble/afford to do one big priority.
Click to expand...

City have done all that by cheating the books. We all know that. We don't want to go down that route.

If we had better people at the club over the last decade we wouldn't have wasted hundreds of millions on useless playing talent and managers. Think of how much extra we'd habe to invest in the infrastructure if we'd been just a bit less dumb in the transfer market.

A state backing isn't an automatic fix for that. It all depends who the new owners get in to run the club.
 
Mickeza said:
I don’t think that’s what it is saying at all. To me it is saying in his bid he’s borrowing more than our existing debt to purchase the club.
Click to expand...

It's definitely worded in a strange way but the bolded is a given as there's no way the Glazers would sell for less than a billion.

The banks are prepared to back a takeover offer with bonds and loans, according to the person, who asked not to be identified discussing confidential information. If a bid is made, the banks will cover the value of Manchester United’s existing debt—which stands at roughly $800 million—and potentially go much higher, they said.
Click to expand...

I could be wrong (and they could be full of shit) but to me that reads as they will back the takeover bid and cover the existing debts ie pay them off. As there is some evidence that the current debt would have to be paid off in the event of a change of ownership.
 
sglowrider said:
Agree. Let's hold off on the assumption that will be a state own entity. I think jassim has something different.
Click to expand...

I think Jassim will be the best bid, unless one of the mystery bidders is an incredibly cash rich billionaire, and even then someone like Musk sounds awful. But I think if anyone believes that the son of a guy who's wealth, even if the guys wealth was 20 billion, his son isn't paying 6bn, plus clearing the debt, plus investment in infrastructure etc. Without some state backing, it's just not possible. The father's wealth was estimated at 2 billion so even allowing for it being off by a factor of 10, which is a lot, I still can't see the son being able to do all this without some backing from the Qatari state.

That doesn't mean the state will be making the decisions, they likely are happy to have a prominent Qatari as the owner of such a large brand, but if you think they aren't providing any of the financing, I think people are deluding themselves there
 
Regulus Arcturus Black said:
So you think the company lied to the NYSE in it’s year end results with their predictions for next year?

And no-one actually spends 200m in a window, that’s not how transfers work.
Click to expand...

Wasn't there a story that we owed 300m for transfers this summer though, which given what we spent under ole doesn't sound right.

I didn't say that, just that there was very little specific as to how we've had a 200m turnaround while losing champions league broadcasting revenue
 
Regulus Arcturus Black said:
hasn’t the Dad also said he doesn’t like the deal?
Click to expand...

I believe so, but that doesn't mean he wouldn't help with funding, it is hugely unlikely he'd give half of his entire net worth for it though. Its almost certain to have some state backing unless his dad is really worth about 60 or 70 billion and forbes was miles off with their evaluation. Who knows, maybe, but it seems enormously unlikely to me
 
Rightnr said:
How many titles did Liverpool's smart people win them in the end?

And Arsenal have spent loads recently and have a brand new stadium which is raking in money for them. I also don't know but assume they have nowhere near our debt AND their owners never took out dividends.

I cannot help you if you are unwilling to face the reality that unless we get the big wealth backing for at least 5 years to get us back on our feet, we won't be challenging for the league more often than every 10, at best 5, years. Money wins in the end
Click to expand...

You've just watched us spend as much as anyone in the world for a decade and win practically nothing. Struggle to make top 4. How are you still believing this without the huge caveat of "money spent well wins in the end."

Liverpool have won more than us. Plus a Champions League, another champions league final and brilliant, entertaining football to watch.A kick of the ball away from winning more titles.

All whilst spending less than us. How does Liverpool prove your point we need Qatar to compete? How do Arsenal?
 
jm99 said:
I think Jassim will be the best bid, unless one of the mystery bidders is an incredibly cash rich billionaire, and even then someone like Musk sounds awful. But I think if anyone believes that the son of a guy who's wealth, even if the guys wealth was 20 billion, his son isn't paying 6bn, plus clearing the debt, plus investment in infrastructure etc. Without some state backing, it's just not possible. The father's wealth was estimated at 2 billion so even allowing for it being off by a factor of 10, which is a lot, I still can't see the son being able to do all this without some backing from the Qatari state.

That doesn't mean the state will be making the decisions, they likely are happy to have a prominent Qatari as the owner of such a large brand, but if you think they aren't providing any of the financing, I think people are deluding themselves there
Click to expand...

Depending on who's in the 92Foundation consortium and their business model. I suspect there will be a bunch of government-linked companies ,(who are floated on the stock exchange).
It's a digitalised ecosystem model versus the ratcliffe more traditional model
 
Marwood said:
You've just watched us spend as much as anyone in the world for a decade and win practically nothing. Struggle to make top 4. How are you still believing this without the huge caveat of "money spent well wins in the end."

Liverpool have won more than us. Plus a Champions League, another champions league final and brilliant, entertaining football to watch.A kick of the ball away from winning more titles.

All whilst spending less than us. How does Liverpool prove your point we need Qatar to compete? How do Arsenal?
Click to expand...

Tbf if we include this season, assuming we do, I believe we've finished ahead of Liverpool as much as often as they've finished ahead of us under klopp, and that's with them having their best period in decades and us our worst.

The thing is though, as I said above, the Glazers spending is mostly to patch up areas in dire need of repair, they'd relied on fergie's brilliance for so long, the team was basically done after he retired. Moyes needed a total revamp and he got fellaini, they only spent when it was clear we wouldn't be getting champions league revenue if they didn't, but they didn't push on, spending more money at times when we could have tried to compete for titles could have made a difference, but the Glazers seemed to go with a strategy of "just good enough", as long as the team could finish top 4 they were happy. They only really invested when we were falling out of that grou
 
Blood Mage said:
I'd imagine there's a few figures behind the scenes at the club who are squeamish at the thought of Qatari ownership and would prefer Ratcliffe to be the new owner. Who knows if they'll influence the Glazers' decision though.
Click to expand...
Absolutely no one is convincing the Glazers to turn down half to a full billion more cash, not even SAF could pull that off.
 
georgipep said:
But what appeals to you in the Qatari option?
Click to expand...
No debt. Has more money. Plus not impressed by INEOS ownership of Nice and the Swiss or African club. Don’t get that “but United will be different” argument. If you feck up foot surgery your not likely going to become a brain surgeon on the grounds of “well foot surgery isn’t the same”
 
Rightnr said:
How many titles did Liverpool's smart people win them in the end?

And Arsenal have spent loads recently and have a brand new stadium which is raking in money for them. I also don't know but assume they have nowhere near our debt AND their owners never took out dividends.

I cannot help you if you are unwilling to face the reality that unless we get the big wealth backing for at least 5 years to get us back on our feet, we won't be challenging for the league more often than every 10, at best 5, years. Money wins in the end
Click to expand...

Last decade. This is from last February so Chelsea would obviously be climbling fast.

https://www.skysports.com/football/...rcelona-and-arsenal-for-net-spend-over-decade

45IR9Mo.png
 
sglowrider said:
Depending on who's in the 92Foundation consortium and their business model. I suspect there will be a bunch of government-linked companies ,(who are floated on the stock exchange).
It's a digitalised ecosystem model versus the ratcliffe more traditional model
Click to expand...

If thats a way of saying that it will involve a lot of money from the Qatari state then yeah maybe. But given that the talk has been about taking the club private, I don't think they're going to want to purchase it through stock exchange listed companies as they then likely will have a different set of obligations.
 
stevoc said:
Don't they mean the UK government welcome the totally independent, private and definitely not in any way associated with the Qatari state bid to buy Manchester United?
Click to expand...
They didn't block City or Newcastle's, or Roman's takeover. Why should they block us?
 
NotThatSoph said:
Last decade. This is from last February so Chelsea would obviously be climbling fast.

https://www.skysports.com/football/...rcelona-and-arsenal-for-net-spend-over-decade

45IR9Mo.png
Click to expand...

100m spent less than city, when we get overcharged for being united and being desperate, plus a team that was in dire need of a complete overhaul after years of Glazer underfunding, the worst of which being selling Ronaldo for 80m and barely spending 20m replacing him. So in addition to getting less value for our money because we pay the "United tax" we also needed a lot more spending and spent 100m less. We're also absolutely atrocious at selling players, so the net spend is a lot higher
 
jm99 said:
100m spent less than city, when we get overcharged for being united and being desperate, plus a team that was in dire need of a complete overhaul after years of Glazer underfunding, the worst of which being selling Ronaldo for 80m and barely spending 20m replacing him. So in addition to getting less value for our money because we pay the "United tax" we also needed a lot more spending and spent 100m less. We're also absolutely atrocious at selling players, so the net spend is a lot higher
Click to expand...

Aye, think that was his point.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.