Usually on ArsenalMania I think based on who that guy supportsThe idea Bruno isn’t a decent signing - where do we find these people
Club Sale | It’s done!
- Thread starter JB08
- Start date
- Status
We want to be debt free or just about debt free, new stadium, much improved training facilities and proper stadium for women and kids teams. So it is that on top of what the Glazers want. Then the transfers will take care of themselves with money the club generates naturally. Better ground for the women and kids will generate money if it is at same site as main stadium.
Some folk just aren’t satisfied with anything, that’s the problem.The idea Bruno isn’t a decent signing - where do we find these people
Glazers are the only Premier League owners who have never put a penny of their own money into the football club they ownYes, because the Glazers never spent money on transfers...
Do the research.The information is there
I'm hoping that we just get someone to run the business side of things in a better way and with the sense to leave the football side of things to experts in that area. ETH has shown a pragmatic approach to making signings where needed like Erikson and Sabicer - he has also shown a willingness to go for a big signing when needed - so far he has been vindicated with Martinez and I'm still giving Anthony time to develop.
We need the glazer era debt sorting out and we need significant investment in Old Trafford and other facilities, but that can be financed on a long term basis that should only impact on the bottom line in a positive way in the long term if we get higher crowds through a ground expansion and increased revenue from matchday due to a better experience in and around the ground.
So, for me we just need a reasonably mature corporate structure, rather than be dependant on Oligarchs burning dinosaur juice at the expense of the planet. We don't want an egomaniacal American owner looking to flex their wealth as some sort of pissing content between themselves and other American owners. I also think that any sort of fan involvement should only be in an advisory or consultative role - The matchday forum tells me we can't trust a lot of our fans opinions on things.
So I want the ownership of the club to become the most uninteresting story about the club. We want stories about an improved stadium, better facilities for fans, players of all the teams wearing the shirt and being competitive in all competitions. Our History, legacy, and ethos of attacking football should ensure we have the revenue to compete with the best teams for the best players with the right attitude for the club.
We need the glazer era debt sorting out and we need significant investment in Old Trafford and other facilities, but that can be financed on a long term basis that should only impact on the bottom line in a positive way in the long term if we get higher crowds through a ground expansion and increased revenue from matchday due to a better experience in and around the ground.
So, for me we just need a reasonably mature corporate structure, rather than be dependant on Oligarchs burning dinosaur juice at the expense of the planet. We don't want an egomaniacal American owner looking to flex their wealth as some sort of pissing content between themselves and other American owners. I also think that any sort of fan involvement should only be in an advisory or consultative role - The matchday forum tells me we can't trust a lot of our fans opinions on things.
So I want the ownership of the club to become the most uninteresting story about the club. We want stories about an improved stadium, better facilities for fans, players of all the teams wearing the shirt and being competitive in all competitions. Our History, legacy, and ethos of attacking football should ensure we have the revenue to compete with the best teams for the best players with the right attitude for the club.
This video makes daddy feel a little better about potential American investment.
Although I'd still rather an American consortium does not win. Anyone know anything about what the Boston Celtics co-owner guy is like?
Although I'd still rather an American consortium does not win. Anyone know anything about what the Boston Celtics co-owner guy is like?
You need to explain why that is a bad thing. Clubs who sustain their own expenditure without relying on the ongoing never ending support of their owners is what ever club should be doing
Some of these posts.. why is it a bad thing to have owners who not only don't invest but also actively take money out while we linger in mediocrity and the infrastructure gets progressively outdated, making us even less competitive?
Maybe you should explain why you think this needs an explanation?
I’m not saying whether it’s a good or bad thing. I’m replying to the post which claimed the glazers spend money, when they don’t
Think it is that the poster he replied to said the Glazers spent the money, they didn't it was Manchester United's money.
Well you can also argue that as they own the club, any money the club has is actually their money
IF they don’t se they will be taking out another £200million pound loan just to trade so yes they actually might have to sell unless they do the unthinkable and invest their own money highly unlikely!
And if they think spending 200 million of their own money will get them the 6 billion or so what they want then they'll likely do that, the point is that they're not being forced to sell because they need money to pay for something else, they're choosing to sell because they want to cash in
They didn't even buy the club with their own money.
We're not sustaining our expenditure though. We are severely lacking on infrastructure and our debt is increasing, not going down.
I suspect you didn't buy your house or car with your own money either, I know I didn't!
Maybe deciding to take a interest only loan instead of a repayment loan to buy the house is a bad idea when you end up with 519mill in debt when never changing the windows new kitchen no extension or landscaping. Yes the house has increased in value in the market but the debt hampers investment in needed areas and basically remortgaging increasing he debt during the life span of ownership. I would be first to admit stupidity in these areas , which i probably am, but looking for the same or better price than the house next door which has had continued hard cash invested in it over the years, is probably hoping for the best outcome.
Legally it isn't. If the club's money was their money then so too would the debt be their debt. They own the business but not its assets as they are separate entities.
The poster implied that we will not spend money on transfers under Glazer ownership, which is a categorically ridiculous claim given that we are top three spenders on transfers in the WORLD over the last 10 years.
Are we allowed to name a decent midfielder who is 30? Or does that break your narrow little range?
at least thats the silver lining to the cloud that is the Glazers, some clubs will be looking over their shoulder after the Man City debacle but at least at Utd we know that we have owners that did not put 1 cent into the club.
It's not the same thing. You still pay for your house with your money afterwards. The Glazers paid off the loans with the money taken from the club that they brought. Do you understand the difference now?
I know what the difference is, as I understand, it it's jot an uncommon business practice to do this sort of thing
It is not uncommon but it is predatory when instead of paying off that debt in a sustainable way you continue to take money out of the club and leave it still saddled with the original 500 million debt after paying 1 billion in interest from its own revenue.
The point is the Glazers are a burden and that's good. We know they can feck off tomorrow and we won't suffer one iota. We're entirely self sufficient. We aren't relying on sponsorship deals that only exist on paper to fund our wage bill or our transfer spend.
If tomorrow City's owners decide the negative publicity surrounding the charge isn't worth it do you really think the club won't collapse under the weight of all the obligations it had committed to if it only relied on revenue that actually existed?
It might not happen. But it might. At least with United we rely on nobody but ourselves and I never want that to change regardless of who owns us
If tomorrow City's owners decide the negative publicity surrounding the charge isn't worth it do you really think the club won't collapse under the weight of all the obligations it had committed to if it only relied on revenue that actually existed?
It might not happen. But it might. At least with United we rely on nobody but ourselves and I never want that to change regardless of who owns us
And the Glazers own Manchester united so it's their money whether we like it or not.
So if they own Manchester United the debt is theirs as well.
Technically yes, but if they sell United it won't be, it will be "owned" by whomever buys the club
No. The debt is secured against the club and assets, not against the Glazers personally.
I assume you are thinking Casemiro and yes, he has been a revelation. Eriksen is also good (for about 60 mins), but my point stands - both of these players are only going to get slower and pick up injuries more often plus their re-sale value will be miniscule. I read today Manchester United are considering a 100 million attempt to recruit Harry Kane and as soon as I saw that I thought "will they never learn"? Because 150 million for Mbappe would make more sense.
Not that simple. We are a PLC - the L standing for limited which relates to the liability should the club go bust. The Glazers would not be held responsible for any business losses in excess of the amount they paid for the shares.
Also the debt is secured against the club and its assets, so the Glazers are not personally liable to repay the debt, it’s the clubs responsibility. There is a very real difference between club money and Glazer money, and the clubs money only becomes the Glazers money when they take dividends.
This is correct, my earlier post is wrong as I hadn't realised we were still listed as a PLC
Tweet
— Twitter API (@user) date
Uh oh. Do not want.
It’s going to be a wild few weeks
this was the one that was coming, I think they win. No doubt about it. Think the league may intervene though.
Bleugh.
even though i don't want it, how could they even attempt to do that after allowing Newcastle
Best for the club.
It's a bid from Qatari non state players according to the article. And it seems like they're serious about buying the club according to Mike Keegan.
- Status