This has been rumored to be done for years now. I think they haven't done it yet, cause probably what they want is less than what they estimate. However, they have presented record earnings to it might be a good time to go public.
Saudi Takeover - Claim deal done
- Thread starter NWRed
- Start date
- Status
In the football world that's a bucket load and it doesn't take into account the wage bill.
It really isn’t anymore.
I've just got one more thing to say after reading the past few pages: "Saudis" does not have (or need) an apostrophe.
Bless you. At the same time, have a word with those who ask questions like «this ?»
Which teams in Europe have outspent us (net spent) since SAF retired?
Which teams in Europe have ha a higher wage bill at the same time?
The club which United should aspire to beat.
The wage bill is not really a good point, considering how United overpay for average players.
Barcelona?
The wage bill is always where the largest amount of money goes. United has been shit at it (same as for transfers) which can be fixed by having competent people in the board, not by injecting oil money.
Of course it is, there is actually not a lot of clubs with comparable net spendings on a regular basis.
City?
Mate, when the Chelsea and City fans are ripping me a new hole because my team is shit compared to theirs, no one is talking about moral issues surrounding the clubs etc.
When I have to watch a listen to 'Agueroooo' moment, I don't ever hear the cries from the pundits about morality.
When kids look back at history and search the success that United had, it will say the number of medals they won, not the moral high ground.
On a regular basis...
We earn more money than any other club 'On a regular basis' so we should be spending more money than other clubs.
We clearly struggled last season, needed investment. We lost Fellaini, Herrera, Lukaku and not one of them players were replaced.
Villa came in and spent 140m this season, so why was we only able to spend around 70m give or take
So you have one(two with PSG) club out of hundreds and that club doesn't make its money in football which comes back to my point, in football 50m-90m of net spendings is a bucket load.
It doesn't go against my point, we spend a bucket load because we generate a bucket load. We don't have to pretend that it's not a lot of money and more than almost every other clubs on earth will spend.
I don’t care about the rest of the football world. City is the club to beat in England and the investment over the last two or three years has clearly not been enough to bridge that gap an inch - especially considering United’s financial firepower.
The post was a reply to another posters question. We were talking football and titles, not morality contest.
Fair enough. They've spent 15m more than us on average (for a grand total of 91m pounds), while having a lower wage. All in all, very comparable spendings. The difference in quality is way higher than what 91m pounds buy you though.
Same for PSG (where we actually have spent slightly more).
Only Barcelona has really outspent us, while we have outspent all the other big teams (Real, Bayern, Chelsea, Liverpool, Juve etc).
For sake of comparison, since SAF retired the current European champions and EPL leaders have spent around 150m compared to United's 550m at the same time. While having a significantly lower wage, which makes the total difference in spending more than a billion.
I'm with you on this. I have no burning desire to have the Saudis in but what is for sure, whoever is to purchase us, we'll all have questions about their past etc.
Have we signed them yet? No?! Woody out!
Of course you care about the rest of the football world, otherwise you wouldn't have answered that it wasn't a bucket load of money when I told you that it was in the football world. You mentioning City doesn't actually support your point because they didn't outspend us by a lot and they haven't been a whole lot better than other rich clubs like Liverpool, Barcelona, Real Madrid, Bayern or Juventus in the last 5 years. And we outspent most of these teams.
I disagree that we'd be selling our souls. Whether or not Glazer's have spent the money is not the question here, the question for me is how the club would be run. I mentioned earlier I couldn't be certain on how United would be run under Saudis. I'm just banking on them purchasing is is for winning titles. So they will do their upmost to make this happen.
Whereas under the Glazer's, they have proven anything but. We have massively underachieved (after saf) and there are no signs of that turning.
Problem we've got is, if the Saudis took over, we don't actually need their money. We just need people with an actual idea and we can run ourselves.
With the Glazers, we've got a bunch of profit hungry owners, who have spent 'bucket loads' while also taking out bucket loads and under them we've gone backwards as a club.
Ideally we'd get taken over by somebody who wants us to be successful, but no billionaire is buying us to make us successful unless they've got many billions... and at that point, we're looking at only a few people
I don't want the Saudis here, but at least they'd let us spend the money we earn without taking money out. They'd not be in it for the profits, rather for the success.
Which is the complete opposite of what we have now
Saudis: Want success, wouldn't take money out of the club, wouldn't need to pour money into the club
Glazers: Want profits, take money out of the club, Success is a passive in their plan
With the Glazers, we've got a bunch of profit hungry owners, who have spent 'bucket loads' while also taking out bucket loads and under them we've gone backwards as a club.
Ideally we'd get taken over by somebody who wants us to be successful, but no billionaire is buying us to make us successful unless they've got many billions... and at that point, we're looking at only a few people
I don't want the Saudis here, but at least they'd let us spend the money we earn without taking money out. They'd not be in it for the profits, rather for the success.
Which is the complete opposite of what we have now
Saudis: Want success, wouldn't take money out of the club, wouldn't need to pour money into the club
Glazers: Want profits, take money out of the club, Success is a passive in their plan
In the sphere of elite football clubs that aspire to be the best in the world it is not a bucket load. Is that better then?
That 20m in yearly dividends is gonna make all the difference between us not being successful and us being successful?
But should 'credible' sources firefight every story? If it's a none story or some nonsense then why should time be wasted. If it was true, you would expect a lot of journalists to jump on it
The Glazers are tightened the purse strings now and haven't given us the needed transfer budget for 2.5 years now. This isn't changing anytime soon, all the while Old Trafford is looking older and older.
This is going to get worse. So would a Saudi take over be that bad? I'm split. The notion that the club would 'lose it's soul' is a bit of a fantasy anyways as the club lost it's soul a long time ago. However the club being a propaganda project doesn't sit right with me either so I'm not sure how I feel.
This is going to get worse. So would a Saudi take over be that bad? I'm split. The notion that the club would 'lose it's soul' is a bit of a fantasy anyways as the club lost it's soul a long time ago. However the club being a propaganda project doesn't sit right with me either so I'm not sure how I feel.
Not sure if it counts but just remembered that Aramco is investing something upwards of 10bn in India's Reliance Industries. But that would be a purely financial investment, trying to secure a consumer for it's oil.
No, in that sphere it's a buck load of money too. In that sphere you have the likes of Bayern, Juventus, Liverpool and Real Madrid with years with negative spendings and who generally didn't spend half of that net spend. And for what its worth, it's a bad sign that we spent that much money on a regular basis, with the state of our team it means that we are terrible at acquiring players which means that we have incompetent people running the club which is of course ultimately on the owners.
If this rumoured takeover involves any of the same people responsible for the deal with WWE, we need to stay well clear. I have a friend who is well connected within WWE. I won't post what he told me because it's not public knowledge and I don't want to risk any trouble. Essentially there's supoosedly been serious shadiness that kicked off after last week's event there. It will probably come out publicly in the coming days and there will be repercussions.
Now, that we can all agree with.
A lot of talk about net spend and overall spend in here, it's missing the point imo.
Our issue isn't the money available to spend, it is the setup above manager level. The Glazers/Woodward have no interest in the football side and have not looked any closer to rectifying it by hiring a team who are capable.
My only hope for the Saudis is that they would overhaul the structure in the club and have a proper footballing setup from CEO down.
Our issue isn't the money available to spend, it is the setup above manager level. The Glazers/Woodward have no interest in the football side and have not looked any closer to rectifying it by hiring a team who are capable.
My only hope for the Saudis is that they would overhaul the structure in the club and have a proper footballing setup from CEO down.
if it’s coming out then what’s the issue? Why even mention it if you aren’t going to sayThat's because there is a media blackout for independent sources.
If given the choice between watching us play like this for the next 10 years or watching the worlds best talent playing and winning multiple trophies then I wouldn't have much to think about and wouldn't consider them tainted. Life's too short. Enjoy it while you can.
I’m with you on this.
The Saudis knows that sooner or later they have to adapt to the modern world. Buying a famous football club is maybe one small step towards progress. If a ownership means that they become more tolerant to other religions, other opinions, women and HBTQ then that must be a good thing.
I'm with this too. They are going to come if the Glazers sell, no matter what we say.
No. Just the original unsubstantiated claim from some PR nobody working for one of the minor royals. It's unlikely he'd know anything of value, which is presumably why no media organisations have picked up on it.
Bit of a stupid sweeping statement given the vast differences between visiting say Iran and Malaysia. They are all brown and foreign though.
I for one will welcome our new saudi overlords!
Except that's not how sportswashing works. Other regimes have happily continued to do terrible things while using sport to gloss their image and Amnesty International have already highlighted Saudi Arabia's attempts to do the same even amidst increasing repression. The point of sportwashing is to distract from the bad things you do, not to act as a starting point for reform. It very specifically isn't a coupling of reform and image management.
Ye're either arguing that sportswashing is actually a positive thing or that sportwashing won't be used to do what sportwashing is designed to do. Both positions being at best extremely naive and at worst extremely disingenuous.
- Status