Club Sale | It’s done!

[Seveneric]

I doubt there's any billionaire- private or corporate from the ME whose wealth isn't linked to the state in some way. So, the "it's not the state, it's a private ownership" retort is meaningless imo, it's all the same from a "morality" standpoint. It only makes a difference to the league and their set criteria for ownership.

 

[Bilbo]

I'm the same. Rather not but what do you do,

As far as morals etc go the Glazers are scum so them going is the big plus here.

If ME money buys us not much we can go. It come down to money, and what billionaires actually have the moral high ground that can buy us?


The club is the fans, the city, the stadium, the history.......ownership not that important regarding support

No I agree. I can't stop supporting United, and I won't because my position is now, and has been for some time, that football is a circus that sold its soul a long time ago.

Having said that, the experience is still much the same regardless. I've been to many games and yet I still can't wait to get to Old Trafford tonight. I don't see that suddenly stopping because someone else is signing the cheques

 

[Ten Lasso]

Question for those against Qatar ownership.

If they come in, clear the debt, and simply allow the club to spend whatever they earn, without siphoning profits out of the club like the Glazers, would you celebrate any of our successes any less?

 

[justsomebloke]

There are like 50,000 Qataris in a country where consanguineous marriages are common. Everybody is related to everybody and the royal family owns everything and everyone.

There are apparently more than 300,000 Qatari citizens.

 

[Rozay]

sportswashing has existed for almost a century and isn't just a term reserved for ME states

Germany, Italy, Argentina and China have all done it

it's obviously a real thing that exists in the world

It being a term that lots of people use does nothing for me. And if it is indeed the correct term for EVERY country/group that embarks on a sporting project without being UNICEF, then that makes it irrelevant in and of itself. We'd be trapped in a whataboutism circle within 5 seconds of any conversation.

 

[Zed 101]

You prefer murdering, homophobic misogynists to people who simply want to make a profit on their investment? Ok, you do you I guess.

Find me a philanthropic saint of a billionaire who would rather invest billions into a football club rather than use it for the betterment of some worthy cause and I will find you a flying pig.

All billionaires have skeletons in their closets, arguably INEOS' environmental impact and track record has a greater significance to the planet than the domestic affairs of a country.... and if we look at Americans take your pick from weapons and pharmaceuticals, as well as environmental, either one destroying their own country or helping others to destroy their neighbours. Not supporting or declaiming either which way, or belittling human rights issues, just pointing out that perspective is a thing, there is greenwashing as well as sportswashing.

Just to be clear, it is not like we have a say anyway, whoever buys I am sure will be gone over by the British media who will be intent of vilification because that sells, then in a couple of months when it is no longer selling it will all be forgotten as it will by the vast majority of fans.

Note: I am aware that for them to canonised they must be dead.

 

[Infra-red]

It being a term that lots of people use does nothing for me. And if it is indeed the correct term for EVERY country/group that embarks on a sporting project without being UNICEF, then that makes it irrelevant in and of itself. We'd be trapped in a whataboutism circle within 5 seconds of any conversation.

Welcome to every thread on this topic in the last five years.

 

[Plant0x84]

First and foremost, we are not shareholders of man utd company- we are fans of football clubs.

People like yourself speak about the benefit of the club as the core for your decisions, but would rather pick American ownership who will have their own interests at heart by sucking everything out of the club to gain a profit, this is how they make their money! ME ownership and even Radcliff would not do that, they do not need to run man utd in a way to spend as little as possible for maximum return.

Moreover, a lot of people would not like any ME wealthy private individuals because they have borderline prejudice against ME countries as being morally wrong.

Get off your high seat.

Boehly is American. Do you see him spending as little as possible? Kroenke is American. Do you think he spent as little as possible on the Emirates stadium? The Glazers are an exception, not the rule. You cannot tar all Americans as evil profit obsessed asset strippers any more than you can tar all ME investors as morally bankrupt murderers. You have to take it on a case by case basis.
Furthermore, no ‘high chair’ here - it’s called having a discussion and sharing opinions. It’s kinda the point of a public forum like this.

 

[Tarrou]

It being a term that lots of people use does nothing for me. And if it is indeed the correct term for EVERY country/group that embarks on a sporting project without being UNICEF, then that makes it irrelevant in and of itself. We'd be trapped in a whataboutism circle within 5 seconds of any conversation.

this is a meaningless strawman

its the correct term for a country that uses a sporting event to repair a tarnished reputation

 

[Elcabron]

The reason stadium and infrastructure investment (including investment into youth facilities) were exempted from FFP calculations was because spending in those areas can been seen as a benefit not just to the individual club, but also the fans and to football in general. If City or PSG spend a fortune on their training facilities and the those facilities go on to develop the next generation of talented players, then that enriches not just those clubs, but also the game. If a wealthy owner later decides to sell the club, the club can still continue to benefit (and earn financial rewards) from that infrastructure investment (unlike a load of expensively-purchased, highly-paid players, which would become a millstone around the club's neck when the owner leaves).

Good explanation and makes sense I suppose. If Dubai or whoever buys us out and a new stadium is built from their input, Arsenal and Spurs will feel very hard done by I'd imagine. However if say Spurs were bought out, presumably the new owners could clear any debt related to the stadium? Assuming they could afford to do so.

On the question of our debt, it was not used for investment in stadium/facilities so presumably it would be unfair from FFP point of view if our new owners cleared that debt thereby freeing up cash to allow club to spend more on players?

 

[justsomebloke]

First and foremost, we are not shareholders of man utd company- we are fans of football clubs.

People like yourself speak about the benefit of the club as the core for your decisions, but would rather pick American ownership who will have their own interests at heart by sucking everything out of the club to gain a profit, this is how they make their money! ME ownership and even Radcliff would not do that, they do not need to run man utd in a way to spend as little as possible for maximum return.

Moreover, a lot of people would not like any ME wealthy private individuals because they have borderline prejudice against ME countries as being morally wrong.

Get off your high seat.

Foreign owners who are simply in it for the money are generally preferable to foreign owners who have broader agendas, in my view. Because those agendas are about other things than growing the English game, and one of them, in the case of ME investors, is to shift the balance of influence in international football away from Europe. Not least through leveraging the appeal and power of European club football through ownership. Which is not good for us, even if the purposes are not necessarily nefarious as such, if seen from a neutral vantage point.

 

[Adebisi's Hat]

I for one will welcome our Qatari overlords. I hear some who say they would be happy to stay mid table than have Qatari owners and to me this is crazy as if we do that these lads will just trot down the road and give the money to Liverpool or someone else. While i do get some of the objections, to get all high and mightly now at this stage is a bit too late. The Premier League/FA have responsibility here and should have ensured ownership parameters years ago before we had Glazers, Abu Dhabi, Shiniwatra and all these sorts of lads buying up clubs.

 

[Plant0x84]

Question for those against Qatar ownership.

If they come in, clear the debt, and simply allow the club to spend whatever they earn, without siphoning profits out of the club like the Glazers, would you celebrate any of our successes any less?

This is a slightly disingenuous question, if I may. Nobody advocating ME ownership wants what you have described, they all expect and some demand money money money, like it is literally all ME can offer and the be all and end all.
There are no doubt American investors who would do the above - building value in the asset ( new stadium and increased gate receipts for example) expecting a profit on future sale of the club rather than dividends and asset striping.
INEOS and Jim Ratcliffe would likely do the above too.
The point with ME ownership and those objecting to it is the external factors like morality, sportwashing, and competition etc. I haven’t seen anybody worried about ME profiteering although there is no reason why they wouldn’t want a return profit same as anybody else.

 

[RedStarUnited]

Good explanation and makes sense I suppose. If Dubai or whoever buys us out and a new stadium is built from their input, Arsenal and Spurs will feel very hard done by I'd imagine. However if say Spurs were bought out, presumably the new owners could clear any debt related to the stadium? Assuming they could afford to do so.

On the question of our debt, it was not used for investment in stadium/facilities so presumably it would be unfair from FFP point of view if our new owners cleared that debt thereby freeing up cash to allow club to spend more on players?

The new owners will be clearing it as part of the transaction to acquire the club, I would like to assume that transaction is outside of FFP controls. For example, the new owners can request the glazers clear any debt before the transaction closes.

 

[Zoo]

Tweet

— Twitter API (@user) date

 

[Judas]

Done dealio.

 

[ShinjiNinja26]

Tweet

— Twitter API (@user) date

Regarding the dual ownership thing, how come Red Bull can own both Salzburg and Leipzig and it’s not an issue? Also both clubs literally played each other in Europe a couple of seasons ago.

 

[romufc]

I for one will welcome our Qatari overlords. I hear some who say they would be happy to stay mid table than have Qatari owners and to me this is crazy as if we do that these lads will just trot down the road and give the money to Liverpool or someone else. While i do get some of the objections, to get all high and mightly now at this stage is a bit too late. The Premier League/FA have responsibility here and should have ensured ownership parameters years ago before we had Glazers, Abu Dhabi, Shiniwatra and all these sorts of lads buying up clubs.

Agreed with this.

Its funny because we complain that the Glazers take money out, happy for top 4 and where are the standard. When someone who will come in, invest in the club, fans want to take the high ground.

The one thing I know from other clubs, the middle eastern owners will want to win. We are here complaining about the stadium, facilities, etc... we know these owners will improve all of that.

 

[Womp]

I'm not sure about the dual ownership thing. Would they prioritise one over the other? What happens if we meet in Europe etc? I don't see a problem if both the clubs are at different levels, but the goal is we are competing with PSG in regards to major trophies.

 

[LawCharltonBest]

Tweet

— Twitter API (@user) date

He's the guy who put the black rug on Messi if I am not mistaken

 

[cyberman]

Tweet

— Twitter API (@user) date

Seems like a piece designed to jump in the information train.
I can’t see how anything like a rule change is needed

 

[Tarrou]

Regarding the dual ownership thing, how come Red Bull can own both Salzburg and Leipzig? And both clubs literally played each other in Europe a couple of seasons ago.

anything is do-able with UEFA if you have money

if Qatar want United, it will happen for sure

 

[Mike Smalling]

Tweet

— Twitter API (@user) date

This is honestly just depressing to think about. Imagine if we become one of those clubs. Nothing is worth that.

 

[sglowrider]

Tweet

— Twitter API (@user) date

Souk-style bargaining is about to begin.

 

[2ndTouch]

I can’t see how anything like a rule change is needed

So, what happens if subsidiary 1 (PSG) is bound to play subsidiary 2 (Utd) in the CL?

 

[Nick7]

Regarding the dual ownership thing, how come Red Bull can own both Salzburg and Leipzig? And both clubs literally played each other in Europe a couple of seasons ago.

Different people run each club separately. Whether they do or not? I don’t know but that’s how they got it passed UEFA I think. They showed a clear separation between teams

 

[littlepeasoup]

If Qatar are interested, it's a fait accompli.

Mbappe in the summertime.

 

[ShinjiNinja26]

Different people run each club separately. Whether they do or not? I don’t know but that’s how they got it passed UEFA I think. They showed a clear separation between teams

If that’s the case then I’m sure the Qatari’s will have no issues doing the same, or at least make it look that way.

 

[Adebisi's Hat]

I'm not sure about the dual ownership thing. Would they prioritise one over the other? What happens if we meet in Europe etc? I don't see a problem if both the clubs are at different levels, but the goal is we are competing with PSG in regards to major trophies.

i would have no worries about this. If they are going to spend 6billion you can be sure they have thought of this and the timing of the City debacle is good because it will ensure any new owner has their T's crossed and i's dotted.

 

[sglowrider]

Agreed with this.

Its funny because we complain that the Glazers take money out, happy for top 4 and where are the standard. When someone who will come in, invest in the club, fans want to take the high ground.

The one thing I know from other clubs, the middle eastern owners will want to win. We are here complaining about the stadium, facilities, etc... we know these owners will improve all of that.

We should start taking names. When we win the league, pipping the scousers on the very last day -- then proceed to beat Real Madrid in the finals of the CL a week later, I would be interested to see what those folks on the high chairs will be saying.

 

[JJ12]

If Qatar are interested, it's a fait accompli.

Mbappe in the summertime.

Is his relationship strained with them? After he wanted to leave or is it all hunky dory?

 

[Nickelodeon]

Question for those against Qatar ownership.

If they come in, clear the debt, and simply allow the club to spend whatever they earn, without siphoning profits out of the club like the Glazers, would you celebrate any of our successes any less?

Everything will be tainted. Just like it has been for City.

 

[thegregster]

Regarding the dual ownership thing, how come Red Bull can own both Salzburg and Leipzig and it’s not an issue? Also both clubs literally played each other in Europe a couple of seasons ago.

My guess is the plan is to sell up/get out of PSG and buy Utd.

 

[cyberman]

So, what happens if subsidiary 1 (PSG) is bound to play subsidiary 2 (Utd) in the CL?

Banned from Europe or some such?
I know they can’t play each other in Europe if they have the same owners but haven’t City bought a club in Spain that could theoretically reach the CL? In fact any club in Europe would fall into that category?
What I’m saying is I’m sure it isn’t a takeover problem since this problem doesn’t exist in England. They might just buy the club and sort it later.
If I were a PSG fan Id be worried. They’ve already said they’re open to investment there so I’m guessing that investment would take them below the threshold that allows them to take over United anyway.
it’s all too coincidental

 

[Red the Bear]

One positive (if you could call it that) regarding the Qatari ownership would be us not being in any real danger concerning our financials from uefa's perspective as they have an impeccable relationship with those lot.

I also think that would put us out of the super league conversation for good.

 

[Rampant Red Rodriguez]

Whilst I am quite excited about being owned by a super wealthy family, I am also concerned about the club wellbeing if they sell club for whatever reason. Do we have any information on the businesses sold by the Qatari Royal family?. I'm worried about the idea of post oil owners, I'm so not down for a Glazers pt. 2 if the Arab families ever sell up..

 

[ShinjiNinja26]

Tweet

— Twitter API (@user) date

 

[Tarrou]

So, what happens if subsidiary 1 (PSG) is bound to play subsidiary 2 (Utd) in the CL?

nothing, like when the red bull clubs played

they just have to just through a few legal hoops to satisfy UEFA that are probably bollocks but that's how they did it

 

[Plant0x84]

Find me a philanthropic saint of a billionaire who would rather invest billions into a football club rather than use it for the betterment of some worthy cause and I will find you a flying pig.

All billionaires have skeletons in their closets, arguably INEOS' environmental impact and track record has a greater significance to the planet than the domestic affairs of a country.... and if we look at Americans take your pick from weapons and pharmaceuticals, as well as environmental, either one destroying their own country or helping others to destroy their neighbours. Not supporting or declaiming either which way, or belittling human rights issues, just pointing out that perspective is a thing, there is greenwashing as well as sportswashing.

Just to be clear, it is not like we have a say anyway, whoever buys I am sure will be gone over by the British media who will be intent of vilification because that sells, then in a couple of months when it is no longer selling it will all be forgotten as it will by the vast majority of fans.

Note: I am aware that for them to canonised they must be dead.

Thats kind of the point though.

We can be sure anybody spending £6bn isn’t doing so out of the goodness of their hearts, and will expect some form of return on their investment (not necessarily financial).

We can also be sure that our new owner will be human, therefore none of the prospective bidders will be whiter than white. But there are levels between dodgy tax practises or environmental impact or arms sales and murdering journalists for example.

Which of those things we are prepared to accept attached to our football club is a personal decision and will inform which buyer we ultimately support.

 

[Plant0x84]

Tweet

— Twitter API (@user) date

Lovely. Get fecked Glazers.