Transfer Tweets - Manchester United - 2024/25

[Insanity]

I'm sorry, is this the Transfer Tweet thread or the General Chit Chat thread?

I think all the transfer talk should be hidden in the darkest corner of the forum until the end of April, minimum.

 

[Bertie Wooster]

As if there would be any relevant tweets anyway. 99% of the January ones turned out to be nonsense.

I do wonder why some are getting so worked up about the transfer chat on here between tweets.

We're a week or two into the four month period without any transfers, and even during the windows the vast majority of tweets are clickbait and BS. There's going to be very few creditable tweets with any kind of breaking news for the next few months - so of course there'll be transfer chat in between them the tweets from some tier 1 or 2 with 'updates to reveal no real news', or tier 4 or 5 clickbait ones with unlikely rumours.

 

[golden_blunder]

The rule has always been there, limited chat only. This is the transfer forum so only chat related to the transfer tweets. Discussion on formations etc should not be in the transfer forum

 

[mazhar13]

 

[Sassy Colin]

I think he was referring to the transfer window just closed, not to summer.

 

[mazhar13]

Tier 2:


Reminder: three parts of APT were found to be unlawful. The PL took care of those and tried to enforce the rest of APT, but City argued that all of it should be null and void. The tribunal ruled in their favour, so now these rules cannot be enforced.

If all of APT is now null and void, then INEOS can, in theory, sponsor United with a higher valuation should they choose to go down this route to increase the funds in the club.

 

[Big Ben Foster]

Tier 2:


Reminder: three parts of APT were found to be unlawful. The PL took care of those and tried to enforce the rest of APT, but City argued that all of it should be null and void. The tribunal ruled in their favour, so now these rules cannot be enforced.

If all of APT is now null and void, then INEOS can, in theory, sponsor United with a higher valuation should they choose to go down this route to increase the funds in the club.

Yes, but then we're back to the dilemma of minority ownership: why would they sponsor the club at above-market rates and effectively give the Glazers a free ride?

 

[Gavinb33]

Tier 2:


Reminder: three parts of APT were found to be unlawful. The PL took care of those and tried to enforce the rest of APT, but City argued that all of it should be null and void. The tribunal ruled in their favour, so now these rules cannot be enforced.

If all of APT is now null and void, then INEOS can, in theory, sponsor United with a higher valuation should they choose to go down this route to increase the funds in the club.

Newcastle about to make Man City look frugal

 

[FrankWhite]

Newcastle about to make Man City look frugal

Yep, oil owners about to run amok

 

[RedSky]

Well I for one am surprised that City managed to overturn the PL Rules. I wond$r how th£y manag$d that f£at.

 

[P-Nut]

Yes, but then we're back to the dilemma of minority ownership: why would they sponsor the club at above-market rates and effectively give the Glazers a free ride?

This is the crux of it, we're stuck until a full sale is ratified. Probably another 18-24 months before we even start hearing noises about it though.

 

[GBBQ]

Yes, but then we're back to the dilemma of minority ownership: why would they sponsor the club at above-market rates and effectively give the Glazers a free ride?

They might have little option but to invest. If we’re dependant on player sales before we can buy then there’s no way we’ll be able to upgrade the squad.

The alternative is that their value of the club deteriorates and they lose a significant chunk of their investment. Investing £100 million in the right way would have a net benefit for Ineos as well as the Glazers.

 

[spwd]

They might have little option but to invest. If we’re dependant on player sales before we can buy then there’s no way we’ll be able to upgrade the squad.

The alternative is that their value of the club deteriorates and they lose a significant chunk of their investment. Investing £100 million in the right way would have a net benefit for Ineos as well as the Glazers.

This is what I said last week. Obviously they should have been keeping everything serviced and up to standard ticking along nicely but they didn't. Now it needs a massive amount to get us out of the hole and someone, be it the cnuts/jim or a 3rd party will need to spend more now than if they'd just ran us somewhat less shit.

I think jim could put some more in but only if the cnuts put more in at the correct ratio. This must be ok to do as he did put in $300m when he first came in.

 

[mazhar13]

Yes, but then we're back to the dilemma of minority ownership: why would they sponsor the club at above-market rates and effectively give the Glazers a free ride?

You're right, and that's going to, ultimately, hold United back considerably. The only other option is for Ratcliffe/INEOS to sanction a loan to United at a more favourable rate if they want to increase the club's funds.

 

[mazhar13]

Reminder: the rules that were deemed null & void are the old ones that are currently not in effect. City basically did that to set a precedent on their challenge for the new APT rules that are currently in place. Tier 2:


This, though, has an impact on the PSR enforcement in those periods as it may have impacted how clubs would have conducted their business back then.

 

[hellhunter]

Reminder: the rules that were deemed null & void are the old ones that are currently not in effect. City basically did that to set a precedent on their challenge for the new APT rules that are currently in place. Tier 2:


This, though, has an impact on the PSR enforcement in those periods as it may have impacted how clubs would have conducted their business back then.

Could this lead to teams fighting their previously sentenced point deductions?

 

[mazhar13]

Could this lead to teams fighting their previously sentenced point deductions?

Potentially, yeah, if they were impacted by those exact APT rules. I can also see clubs asking for some sort of recompense from the PL for being held back by those rules.

 

[Godfather]

Tier 2:


Reminder: three parts of APT were found to be unlawful. The PL took care of those and tried to enforce the rest of APT, but City argued that all of it should be null and void. The tribunal ruled in their favour, so now these rules cannot be enforced.

If all of APT is now null and void, then INEOS can, in theory, sponsor United with a higher valuation should they choose to go down this route to increase the funds in the club.

Doubt they will

 

[cj_sparky]

INEOS are cutting back across all the sports investments aren't they? All whilst being taken to court by New Zealand Rugby for not paying the first installment of their 2025 sponsorship?

Yet people think they are going to give us some magic sponsorship deal if APT is voided.

 

[pascell]

What a mess. Can see City walking away with a slap on the wrist.

 

[FrankWhite]

INEOS are cutting back across all the sports investments aren't they? All whilst being taken to court by New Zealand Rugby for not paying the first installment of their 2025 sponsorship?

Yet people think they are going to give us some magic sponsorship deal if APT is voided.

Not sure how that's gonna work. We already have a shirt sponsorship and why would ineos pay to sponsor a club that's not theirs.

 

[Walters_19_MuFc]

£50M for a 17 year old?

I reckon, in 5 years, we might be quite good.

We signed Yoro for 52M, and if we were to acquire Quenda, he would be 18 by the time he plays for us.

 

[golden_blunder]

Tier 2:


Reminder: three parts of APT were found to be unlawful. The PL took care of those and tried to enforce the rest of APT, but City argued that all of it should be null and void. The tribunal ruled in their favour, so now these rules cannot be enforced.

If all of APT is now null and void, then INEOS can, in theory, sponsor United with a higher valuation should they choose to go down this route to increase the funds in the club.

Except they can’t afford to sponsor the all blacks so where would these big deals with INEOS come from? I keep hearing about this suggestion since the news about city

 

[golden_blunder]

INEOS are cutting back across all the sports investments aren't they? All whilst being taken to court by New Zealand Rugby for not paying the first installment of their 2025 sponsorship?

Yet people think they are going to give us some magic sponsorship deal if APT is voided.

Yeah I don’t get the logic either. Wishful thinking perhaps

 

[Irrational.]

City have ruined football and hellbent on ruining it further.

 

[Jacob]

It will take a long, long time before we're a top 4 side again. No player in their right mind (and of decent quality) would join us in this current state.

We're heavily banking on a big portion of academy and bought talents to turn out as we hope for.

 

[mazhar13]

Source:

 

[Semper Fudge]

Source:

Noticeably slimmer in that Madrid pic.

 

[mazhar13]

 

[mazhar13]

Tier 2:

 

[croadyman]

Tier 2:

Still badly need to sign striker, was hoping for an Osimhen with Gyokeres seemingly off table but would take Delap/Mateta instead