Club "sponsors" which do not exist

I feel sorry for the emptiness City fans feel when they win stuff.

The feeling having won promotion during their shite years or winning the old league in the late £60s has never been recaptured in recent times
 
matt10000 said:
I feel sorry for the emptiness City fans feel when they win stuff.

The feeling having won promotion during their shite years or winning the old league in the late £60s has never been recaptured in recent times
Click to expand...

They must all feel longing for the good ol days in League 1

I know I'll look on these past 10 years of United with nostalgia, compared to the sterile winning under SAF
 
RedRocket9908 said:
Its suprising that any major sponsor would want to extend their partnership with a club thats facing so many charges

Click to expand...

They’re betting that Man City don’t get charged with anything. After that they get all the exposure they need/want. Now if they do get charged.. that’s when whoever struck the deal gets the chop and they back track with some BS statement saying they were not aware etc etc.
 
That betting one with the stock photo on their linkedin account is my favourite. :lol:
 
ForeverRed1 said:
it would be interesting to have a look who has finished second everywhere since they have been winning. We would of had a few
Click to expand...

Ourselves and Liverpool have finished second behind them three times each. Then Arsenal this season.
 
When are you lads going to realise that no one cares that their sponsors don’t exist because everyone is getting a big fat cut of the pie?

The only reason they’re being investigated in the first place is because other teams from the league demanded it.
 
Andersonson said:
People moan about city's shadyness, but wants the Qatari to win our bidding....
Click to expand...

They've been calling them cheats and saying how hollow their success is for years, but as soon as there was opportunity to join them they couldn't drop their knickers quick enough.
 
Anyone know if INEOS can sponsor its own club that they own, Man Utd?
 
Herman Toothrot said:
They've been calling them cheats and saying how hollow their success is for years, but as soon as there was opportunity to join them they couldn't drop their knickers quick enough.
Click to expand...
I haven't seen any United fans saying they want the new potential owners to make up fake sponsors and cheat their way to success
 
Edwards6 said:
I haven't seen any United fans saying they want the new potential owners to make up fake sponsors and cheat their way to success
Click to expand...

Plenty have definitely implied it. Have a rummage in the various threads about the potential United takeover, and the one asking if people would stop supporting United if we became the project for a nation state. Plenty of people are basically saying «I don’t give a feck so long as we win»

Same as how the forum has plenty of comments stating they understand people placing money over virtually anything else, it’s just a matter of the amount being high enough.

Explains the world we live in, I guess.
 
Herman Toothrot said:
They've been calling them cheats and saying how hollow their success is for years, but as soon as there was opportunity to join them they couldn't drop their knickers quick enough.
Click to expand...

The Qatari takeover would be completely different from City's ABU Dhabi takeover, for one Man Utd are already a huge club with a huge fanbase and have the turnover to fund its own player signings so wont need billions pumped in from the Qatari's.
 
Herman Toothrot said:
They've been calling them cheats and saying how hollow their success is for years, but as soon as there was opportunity to join them they couldn't drop their knickers quick enough.
Click to expand...

Can’t think of anything worst than being owned by a state.

However It’s similar to cycling I guess, if everyone else is cheating and getting medals eventually you just think F it. There is no “top none state owned team trophy”

The more valuable United become the more debt a normal owner has to put on us, meaning bigger debt repayments in a massive circle.

If the choices are being bled dry slowly again, spending just enough to keep top 4 or being a sugar daddy team it’s not really a hard choice.
 
Quite a leap going from “city didn’t have a huge enough global fan base so needed to inflate sponsorships to increase revenue to justify spending” to “everyone wanting Qatar wants them to do the exact same at United” isn’t it?

I mean, they could just want Qatar to take away the debt, invest in infrastructure and let the clubs own (legitimate) earnings do the rest & get pumped straight back into the team?

I’m neutral on the topic of ownership btw, and more to the point, a fair few humans do tend to be hypocrites every so often. Shocker.
 
Given Qatar's human rights history, potential money laundering is a long way down the list of reasons to object.
 
I don't want Qatari ownership but if they win it doesn't necessarily mean they will fudge the numbers like city do to circumvent ffp
 
RedRocket9908 said:
The Qatari takeover would be completely different from City's ABU Dhabi takeover, for one Man Utd are already a huge club with a huge fanbase and have the turnover to fund its own player signings so wont need billions pumped in from the Qatari's.
Click to expand...
City through their fake sponsors now earn more than United. For United to compete, Qatar would have to cook up sponsorships. Organically grown income can't compete with City's finances. For example in addition to billions on the first team, City have spent billions on infrastructure, buying clubs all over the world, academy, etc. I am not saying it's right but that is how it would be.
 
Dr. StrangeHate said:
City through their fake sponsors now earn more than United. For United to compete, Qatar would have to cook up sponsorships. Organically grown income can't compete with City's finances. For example in addition to billions on the first team, City have spent billions on infrastructure, buying clubs all over the world, academy, etc. I am not saying it's right but that is how it would be.
Click to expand...

Man Utd is a big enough global brand to find legitimate sponsors that will enable us to compete with City and already have, the shirt deal for Adidas for example was for a world record £750m.
 
arnie_ni said:
I don't want Qatari ownership but if they win it doesn't necessarily mean they will fudge the numbers like city do to circumvent ffp
Click to expand...

It doesn't. But the corollary of that is that we also won't get the sort of financial benefit from state ownership that previous clubs have.

When you also consider that even City Football Group felt the need to take out a $650m loan to fund investments, it suggests the actual financial benefit of having state owners over a group like INEOS isn't anywhere near as clear as some people are imagining it is.
 
Ish said:
Quite a leap going from “city didn’t have a huge enough global fan base so needed to inflate sponsorships to increase revenue to justify spending” to “everyone wanting Qatar wants them to do the exact same at United” isn’t it?

I mean, they could just want Qatar to take away the debt, invest in infrastructure and let the clubs own (legitimate) earnings do the rest & get pumped straight back into the team?

I’m neutral on the topic of ownership btw, and more to the point, a fair few humans do tend to be hypocrites every so often. Shocker.
Click to expand...

This is not organic by any means (the bolded).
 
crossy1686 said:
I understand that people with massive amounts of money can easily corrupt a western system and western laws as if they’re main purpose was to be open to corruption in the first place.
Click to expand...

You dont get that kind of money without being shady. Nobody even knows how much they've got
 
sullydnl said:
It doesn't. But the corollary of that is that we also won't get the sort of financial benefit from state ownership that previous clubs have.

When you also consider that even City Football Group felt the need to take out a $650m loan to fund investments, it suggests the actual financial benefit of having state owners over a group like INEOS isn't anywhere near as clear as some people are imagining it is.
Click to expand...
I'm in total agreement. If we play within the rules of ffp, as long as we aren't getting drained, it won't really make much of a difference who owns us.

Obviously Qatar might be able to rebuild the stadium etc but I'm just talking about the on field product
 
sullydnl said:
When you also consider that even City Football Group felt the need to take out a $650m loan to fund investments, it suggests the actual financial benefit of having state owners over a group like INEOS isn't anywhere near as clear as some people are imagining it is.
Click to expand...

If the idea (which is what some people peddle) is that Qatar would simply let us spend what we generate, then the difference/benefit is exactly none/zero: because surely that is precisely what Jim has in mind too.

(The idea that he's trying to buy Manchester United in order to make a relatively small short- or even mid-term profit is absolutely ridiculous.)
 
You must log in or register to reply here.