Don’t saddle us with that again
Club Sale | It’s done!
- Thread starter JB08
- Start date
- Status
I’ve already said in a previous post, I’m not even gonna talk about a team that has spent most of the 21st century in the second division in Switzerland.
I don’t expect anything more from a takeover than a takeover to make them financially sound.
What’s that got to do with anything? There are many reasons but they would be specific in the context of Lausanne. They are unlikely to win the CL, and will struggle to attract the players to try because the Swiss league is such a comparatively poor/low level. Therefore spending millions on them would be poor business and not indicative of a good owner.
I don’t think Berbs understands that 99% of club ownership Worldwide is about being a good custodian, rather than about huge success on the field.
The Swiss team have spent most seasons of the 21st-century in the second tier. They are not a project to become some super club in Switzerland.
Nice on the other hand are a project I think can be made into a bigger club in France, but they can’t cheat FFP and therefore can’t even imagine usurping PSG; so spending hundreds of millions on trying to be the second best team in France in a relatively quick time period also feels like stupid ownership.
You mean like RB Salzburg.
How many of that 99% pursue a multi-club model?
Your point?
Here’s what can happen if you don’t have a good custodian. I’m sure Wigan would be delighted to have an owner who just came in to make them financially sound and wasn’t planning on making them into a great English club. There have been many examples down the years.
https://amp.theguardian.com/footbal...points-for-failing-to-pay-players-march-wages
But its feasibly impossible that its the case. Abdullah Al Thani is worth $800m and he bought Malaga for 36m euros. Its quite evident that it was his own money. Jassim on the other hand is worth 1.1B and he's buying United for 5-6B + investing another 2B. He can't do that without external help and since he didn't involve banks then it must come from someone else. Who would possibly have 7-8B lying under the sofa who will be willing to giving them to him? Its evident who is the man behind Jassim after all.
Which leads to the second point. Since its evident whose the person behind Jassim then United's ambitions will be similar to the other state owned clubs ie success. For the record If I had to choose between QSI and the Abu Dhabi's then I'd choose the latter. They are, in my opinion, better owners.
Well, surely the point of having multiple clubs is that the 'lower clubs' are of actual use to the bigger clubs. Leipzig/Salzburg for example.
You see it with Brighton and USG. City and Lommel/Troyes.
He bought the club nearly 6 years ago and so far has shown little regard for it.
Its not really a lie. The club will be owned by Jassim. However I can see Qatar buying a minority stake of a significant size and I believe that they will one day be owners. I see that 'lie' as far more acceptable then a promise coming from a company who pledged European football to Lausanne only to get them relegated twice.
so yes, once again you are back in the bed because you are hundred percent convinced it is based on a massive lie.
I think you should read that again you are 100% backing a massive lie.
I answered you in the previous post
BUT at this point, they only bought one bigger club just over three years ago and have no “big league” club so maybe if they were to buy Utd they would start using the multi club system. In that way maybe they would then start to make the Swiss team a bit stronger. Maybe that’s part of a long-term plan, how the feck do I know?
I know, but it’s almost mental to read, you’re backing a bid because you’re 100% convinced it’s a lie.
The Quataris making ref to Glazers potential future involvement might mean that (they suspect that) such Involvement will be a feature of a successful bid.
Genuine question on this one Dev, how do we know that no banks are involved?
This is something that would be really interesting to find out.
Are you basing this on the fact that the admitted big lie has also said that it will be debt free, because you do realise that could simply mean that United would be debt free and that bank and loaning is in fact involved?
Last edited:
That’s different again, because Redbull is an Austrian company with an Austrian owner. For all I know Mateschitz was a Salzburg fan before the takeover. In any case they had financial issues which he saved them from.
If Ratcliffe wanted to make them competitive in the Swiss league it would cost him relatively little money, he hasn't shown such ambition. That's the point.
RB Salzburg won the league the year after they got taken over, I think Lausanne got relegated.
He comes across as somebody who promises things but ultimately fails to deliver.
Can't even afford a blue tick
That's irrelevant. Your point seems to be mostly that why would anyone bother trying to build anything in the Swiss league as the level is so poor. "They won't win the Champions League so why bother"
You do realize that the money for competing in the CL group stage is pretty good right for clubs that size?
Salsburg also won the league 3 times in the 90’s and have always been a top Austrian side.
The season before the INEOS takeover, the swiss side were in the second tier and hadn’t won a top title since the 60’s.
I don’t see it as being worthy of discussion, maybe there’s a long term plan for them once they buy a big league club. Or maybe just preventing them from being a Wigan was enough.
That information would have probably came out by now just as it came out for SJR or the Glazers (when they bought the club)
Why? If it’s being loaned by a Qatari bank, we know they are extremely secretive.
So again, you’re basing it on the big lie, in this case, not lying.
I really do think you should step back on this one and try to take a more neutral stance of seeing who exactly is behind the funding for this bid and how the funding is structured before you jump into bed with them to the degree you have done.
It actually doesn't. It shows he has experience investing in sports, whereas Jassim is just a boy who sits on a chair in a bank.Because it proves Ratcliffe isn't a great owner
No shock there
Yes, investing poorly.
Bringing Salzburg into the discussion was irrelevant, I just answered your point. He likely bought and invested in them specifically because of the Austrian connection.
Your (and others) assumption is Ineos are poor owners because their clubs haven’t been financially doped to dominate their respective leagues. I don’t believe that to be true.
Also I didn’t say ‘why bother’ at all. I said pumping in millions for no/very little return is not good ownership, and the investment should be in context to the situation of the club. The point being what has happened at Nice and Lausanne won’t necessarily happen at United because we are a different level.
Because it proves Ratcliffe isn't a great owner
No shock there
You’re right, anything less than making the Wigan of Switzerland a top team is shite.
Fair enough.
The team that went bankrupt twice in the 00’s deserves more than sound stable financial ownership, they should be sporting excellence also.
Nice is worth a lot more than what they paid.
You can say he hasnt run a club the size of United, thats a valid concern. But i doubt he'd be running us like Lausanne/Nice. They look more like noirmal investments, or a practice run.
Well they haven’t gone bankrupt again have they?
As I say, there are different reasons for owning a football club and as a fan of a club that went bankrupt twice and had to start the middle of the 00’s in the bottom level of Swiss football, I know I would be delighted with an owner that just comes in to make my club financially sound; but that doesn’t want to throw the kitchen sink at a club that spent most of the 00’s in the second tier into a Swiss super team.
Each to their own though, bankruptcy sounds fun, ask Wigan now.
So this then means the Glazers would have to reinvest that money back into the club, something that they're never done before.
But then even if they do, what would be the benefit to Elliot? How do they realise their investment back?
Whoosh
@Regulus Arcturus Black
Objectively, Ratcliffe has done poorly with Lausanne. However you choose to spin it.
Objectively, Ratcliffe has done poorly with Lausanne. However you choose to spin it.
Yes agreed and that was my point mate. All I'm saying is they haven't put a penny into the club, whatever ever they spent out of their own pockets to buy the club has been paid back a few times over at least. So whatever they make from selling the club at this point is pure profit.
And I'd like to think we can both agree they are wankers?
That's my concerns alleviated then.
Objectively they are a second tier team for most of the 21st century that went bankrupt twice in the 00’s that are now financially sound and in the second tier. Probably gonna do their yoyo thing again.
But sure, call it poor if you think the only reason for buying a football club is a sporting excellence. I don’t think that’s always the reason. I think there’s different reasons for different types of football clubs, and thank feck for that because otherwise 99.9% of football clubs in the World would be fecked, if no-one wanted to simply fund them.
Objectively they have been relegated twice in 5 seasons under his ownership
Would be interesting to hear from people who follow Swiss league although I doubt we will. Anyway I think we can safely assume that getting relegated twice in 5 years was not part of plan. Unless they play some 4D chess and are trying to fill up the trophy cabinet with division 2 trophies.
Glad I could help
- Status