He runs it sustainably. United doesn't need an owner to come in and pump money. Yes clear the debt, but otherwise, United (and other clubs) should be entirely self sufficient.
Club Sale | It’s done!
- Thread starter JB08
- Start date
- Status
Fantastic news. Would be my ideal outcome, others will make their move now.
This is just the beginning, there should be loads of other bidders show their hand in the next few weeks, solid start though.
I looked up how Nice did last year and they finished 5th on goal so. They would have finished 4th and been automatically in the Europa League group stages, but they got deducted 1 point for failing to control a crowd during one of their matches.
They were 3 points from 3rd (2 if not for the deduction) which meant a two legged CL playoff tie for a place in the group stage. Nice aren’t the biggest French team by any means. They’re probably like Wolves within the French football environment. They have history but way back in the 50s and haven’t really done much since then, but they‘re probably in the Top 20 French teams in terms of stature, possibly Top 10?
I’m not a French football expert by any means but that’s what I got the impression of them from some high level scan about them. I don’t think it’s reasonable for Nice to mount a sustained challenge against PSG with INEOS money. Ligue 1 looks pretty unpredictable a lot of the time. Surprise clubs finish in the Champions League and the more bigger ones like Lyon, Marseille and Lille really underperform.
But I don’t know whether INEOS/Ratcliffe will treat United much differently. You wonder whether they did Nice as a dry run for a real project they’re interested in, like United. The gap between United and Nice is the size of the Grand Canyon in terms of capability and potential. People who have never heard of INEOS will probably know who they are if they do end up buying United, so one of things they’ll see is they will be banking on using United’s reach to extend their reach in the world.
They were 3 points from 3rd (2 if not for the deduction) which meant a two legged CL playoff tie for a place in the group stage. Nice aren’t the biggest French team by any means. They’re probably like Wolves within the French football environment. They have history but way back in the 50s and haven’t really done much since then, but they‘re probably in the Top 20 French teams in terms of stature, possibly Top 10?
I’m not a French football expert by any means but that’s what I got the impression of them from some high level scan about them. I don’t think it’s reasonable for Nice to mount a sustained challenge against PSG with INEOS money. Ligue 1 looks pretty unpredictable a lot of the time. Surprise clubs finish in the Champions League and the more bigger ones like Lyon, Marseille and Lille really underperform.
But I don’t know whether INEOS/Ratcliffe will treat United much differently. You wonder whether they did Nice as a dry run for a real project they’re interested in, like United. The gap between United and Nice is the size of the Grand Canyon in terms of capability and potential. People who have never heard of INEOS will probably know who they are if they do end up buying United, so one of things they’ll see is they will be banking on using United’s reach to extend their reach in the world.
Last edited:
That's my point! Where are these players going now? Brighton, West Ham, Leeds, Dortmund etc. Why are they going there instead of United? Guaranteed play time in the league and a chance to step up to a bigger club for £80m in a couple of seasons. That's better than sitting on the bench for 2 to 3 years at United behind Casemiro isn't it?
The market is too competitive now and we simply don't have the finances or generate the finances to go out and buy two midfielders in the summer for the first team and say, get rid of Martial and Maguire and bring replacements in. That's a 3 summer window job for us, City do that over night if they want.
In the next few years you're going to see £100m minimum transfer spend from most clubs in the top 6 of the PL every summer. We're almost there now. Villa and Arsenal spent way more than that already last year.
Would be wonderful if the Glazers were gone by March.
Too soon, I think end of June, one last dividend.
It doesn't seem to be an issue for Real Madrid or Bayern though, does it? Yes teams spend more. But they don't do 150m every single year. They might load up one year and then have 1 year where they have high sales with a 0 net spend. Look through clubs and see the past 5 years average, past 3 years, whatever, and see just how few actually match up to what United has spent in terms of net spend. Both in transfer fees and in wages.
With Dubai I think they'll just use United as a walking ad for their city. Dubai's entire existence is built on tourism.
It's not just that though, is it? We're simply incapable to compete with the amount of money that has been invested every year by other clubs, especially City. Even back during SAF's days, in the later years, we were lagging behind in terms of infrastructure and modern day club building. And the state of it today compared to other big club is... disastrous. When we pay the big bucks for transfer, that money is being taken from somewhere else that should be. City can both invest absurd amount of money on players, ship them off when they don't pan out and in the mean time keep up state of the art infrastructure. We're simply not capable of doing that even with United's resources.
Look at Liverpool today. They're fecked because despite the shrewd signings and what not, their squad is aging and they don't have the money for a quick revamp which leaves them right now in a transitional state that they'll be for years. And they won't be able to turn it as quickly as we did (if you can call almost 10 years quick) because they simply don't have the money United has.
Face it. You can have the best management - it doesn't matter. At the end of the day, money is what speaks the most.
Honestly think he’ll be on the poorer end of the scale when all is said and done when it comes to who eventually owns us. Still fully expect it to be an oil state.
OGS Nice have changed manager 5 times during the last 6 years.
League positions varies from 5th to currently 10th during the same period.
13 incoming players this season, 9 last season. -75m Euros in net spend over the last 3 years.
Does not strike me with any confident.
League positions varies from 5th to currently 10th during the same period.
13 incoming players this season, 9 last season. -75m Euros in net spend over the last 3 years.
Does not strike me with any confident.
It had nothing to do with the WC, the vote was already done and had nothing to do with PSG. It had to do with Sarkozy, Bazin, Colony Capital and Accor though.
All well and good but what you are describing there is a feeder club, stepping stone ala Dortmund at best.
The point about high transfer fees is that they are paid by the top clubs for the best players. The only exception is contracts being run down but even there we paid dumb money for Casemiro and Arsenal paid 50m for Jesus.
The only way is up for prices in football and we need someone with deep pockets .
Exactly. The “INEOS are worth xxx amount of billions” is very naive.
Sorry if I offended you petal.
If you take the view that the Glazers are bad owners then Ratcliffe's interest is surely of interest. I would need to hear more about what he has in mind, but the alternatives are oil states or Chinese owners (which has its own risks) unless some consortium appears. We've seen plenty of spending since SAF retired, but with poor results, so the structure he would have in mind is important. A wealthy lifelong Utd fan who comes from Failsworth and has a strong business background is a good start (although of course he's also a Chelsea season ticket holder).
Not that simple. The Glazers may have run up the debt but it belongs to the club and it won't be leaving with them. If we don't have a commitment from the new owners to clear the debt then we are far from healthy and as regards Jim, he has given no indication that he will be happy to spend his own money clearing other peoples debt.
Me too. It’s bizarre. Ratcliffe would be a million light years better than glazers.
I don’t want to be another sportswashing project.
They've spent silly amounts over the years to compete with English clubs, and they've refused to get involved recently which has caused Madrid to age badly and Barcelona are in financial ruin. Madrid bought that French lad for £80m last summer and they had to wait for Rudiger to become a free agent to sign him. We all know they wanted Mbappe, which wouldn't have been cheap and they missed out on Haaland because City were paying more.
Unless the players you sign for big money actually win trophies or play well, you aren't going to be able to sell them for profit. Madrid's new stadium has been built to bring in more revenue so they can spend more, it's not been done for a laugh, they know they can't compete in the market like they used to. Yesteryear, Haaland, Mbappe, Salah etc all end up at Madrid or Barcelona. Look where they are now.
The good thing with Sir Jim going public with his interest first is that when the big guns come in he will be quickly forgotten about.
Yes, City are capable of spending more than us unfortunately. That is the reality of the situation. You don't say "feck all my morals, join them". You change how you operate. Liverpool is a horrible example for you. It's exactly what works for my point. They were managed well, spent shrewdly, competed at the highest level for 5 years. And now have to do a normal rebuild that every club in the existence of football has ever had to do. Just like Sir Alex would say, a cycle last 4 years or so. They rebuild for a couple of years, and they're back unless they dump off Klopp like idiots. City can bypass the normal transition/cycle period, partially because of their spend, yes, but also mainly because they have Pep Guardiola who frankly is a genius of a football manager who will go down as history as someone who was as impactful or more impactful than Cruyff. So unfortunately, that is what it is. Once Pep leaves, just like before Pep, City will have to live with normal football managers who are incapable of dominating year after year to the degree that Pep is.
And on Liverpool again - their squad needs a refresh for the transition. You know what they did? Spent 100m on Darwin Nunez who has been a flop so far instead of refreshing the midfield which has an age of above 30.
No thanks.
The Ineos statement when trying to buy Chelsea claimed they had no interest in profits and 1.75billion would be invested in the club over 10 year period. Also didn’t want to leave Stamford Bridge but I don’t think much more detail was released as they bid quite last minute and didn’t go through Raine group process.
Good chance their bid for Utd would likely be reasonably similar.
Good chance their bid for Utd would likely be reasonably similar.
Yeah, I get the feeling it's like me publically saying I'm interested in dating Margot Robbie...
Not sure about that.
I'd imagine the debt belongs to the owners and the club is the collateral to that loan.
Whoever buys Manchester United, will buy it for other means than just for the pure love of the club.
Wonder if there was a poll, Jim or Dubai, what would redcafe vote for?
My vote goes with Dubai.
My vote goes with Dubai.
Last edited:
Nah, the Glazers have placed all the debt on the club, that's why this version of a takeover is now illegal and FC United was started. United could fold one day if those debts get out of hand.
What you're speaking of is what Bohely did at Chelsea.
I'd vote for the Pole
United make plenty, it's what's taken out via dividends and interest that's killing us
The only thing that the Glazers were ever useful for was sorting out commercial deals
Fair enough
Yeah and the Airbuses were a massive coincidence too.
https://www.google.com/amp/s/www.in...-to-get-qatar-2022-world-cup-8471758.html?amp
Nope. The debt is the clubs, its in the financial reports. The Glazers don't owe a penny and don't give a stuff about what happens to the club once they have cashed in.
Bayern is definitely not a stepping stone club. And nobody is saying that you stop spending big. United has the highest net spend in terms of transfers the past 5 years. We always have among the highest wage bills. It is simply about being smart with it, not dumb. United falling behind City the past decade isn't because they have unlimited money and "boo hoo, we can't compete with them financially". It's because their owners in terms of the football side of things, spent their money more wisely. Brought in better managers. Made better signings.
Look at the net spend table since 2017/18. https://www.transfermarkt.us/transf...os=&altersklasse=&w_s=&leihe=&intern=0&plus=0
- United -761m
- Chelsea -631m
- PSG -506m
- Arsenal -480m
- City -469m
- PSG – £348.1million
- Barcelona – £285.6million
- Real Madrid – £250.3million
- Bayern Munich – £237.6million
- Manchester United – £223million
If they have no interest at all in profits, what would then be their motivation to buy United? Image?
The sports washing has worked a treat it would seem, as every one seems to be ok with middle eastern buying the club, and Radcliffe seems a poor pick, when reality be should 100% be the front runner in my opinion.
Haven't seen any other potential buyers I'd be as happy with. He's at least from England, supports the club, and is a successful self made business man. Only drawback about him is he was for brexit, possibly a red flag
We need (at least) 2 bil worth of investment over the next couple of years though.
Tweet
— Twitter API (@user) date
Even here Bayern are in the top 5 of wages. They also have the benefit of literally creaming the Bundesliga for the best talent at a discount because they all WANT to be there and there is NO competition. Hardly an endorsement for your argument.
Do people actually think ratcliffe could buy us on his own without any debt. If he can leverage Ineos then fair enough.
- Status