Everyone says this, and yet no one knows. They certainly haven't been circumspect when it comes to PSG, splunking absolutely huge amounts on players in positions they don't need, all to compete in Ligue 1. There were certainly lower cost ways to do the whole PSG project, that might have been more successful, and yet they did what they did.
Club Sale | It’s done!
- Thread starter JB08
- Start date
- Status
Even so, it's literally the only reason people are objecting, and a fairly big one. Its like saying besides being greedy leeches, the Glazers aren't actually all that bad, they let us spend our own money and are generally patient with managers.
where do you draw the line between the club's money and fake money?
No one knows anything do they but what you say sounds very unlikely
For all we know, absolutely any owner might do that.
But we are a genuinely rich and self sustaining club, that's been saddled with the Glazers. Other fans still attribute our success under Fergie to Howard Webb ffs, who cares what they say?
the idea of being worth 560billion is mind boggling
Investment consortiums more interested in making money and making top 4 every year are far less likely than sugar daddies treating the club like a personal toy.
Most probably not. Like most big corporations they probably are registered offshore.
They're wasteful as feck, there's more evidence for that than "they aren't stupid". Bribed their way to get a WC, overpaid for all the infrastructure needed, have spent truckloads at PSG and managed to not win Ligue 1 in a few of the seasons.
With TeamViewer looking to get out, a Qatar takeover opens the door for someone like Qatar Airways to sponsor us, on better terms than TV. A 10% increase or what not would be completely understandable given our recent form and recovery without any questions being asked.
Caymans so they get away with it! The leeches.
I genuinely don't understand how any United fan who has been calling Chelsea and City plastic clubs for years can be rooting for fecking Saudi blood money. Hypocrisy of the highest order.
Yep it’s pretty insane to think their wealth would be capable of giving every person on this planet £50 and still have a few billion left over.
Yeah I know, which is why I said when you put that concern aside, the football side of things is going to be great. Personally it doesn't bother me that much, yes these states commit awful offences but as much of that is down to the society and religion still having such a big hold, as it is the rulers. Them partnering with the west is likely to lead to progress and things getting better, as women have recently got more rights in Saudi Arabia than they ever had before. Its not something that will happen overnight, probably take 20-30 years for real meaningful progress in lgbt rights, but when we were still a religious society homosexuality was illegal here, treating them like pariah states will make them more insular, not less, and certainly won't improve things for anyone in those countries
More conjecture. And if making top 4 every year is the goal, then we are screwed anyway.
Having oil money didn’t make them plastic
I don’t think you know what plastic means.
Last summer was great, and tbh I'm not too bothered about us going mad in the transfer window, a top striker and decent midfielder will be ok, the infrastructure is where it's at.
Don't pretend like United fans haven't been on the high horse saying they bought their success. We both know we have.
Why would we be screwed?
Tweet
— Twitter API (@user) date
Well said. I’m concerned that it will all be ‘for show’.
After all, that is what the end goal is for them - sportswashing. Making their regime ‘seem’ modern whilst continuing to oppress people in their own country.
It could be all about the glossy show they want to present with superstars that don’t actually gel as a team, much like the bollox that is PSG
Where would City be without the money invested by UAE? Where will Manchester United be in 5 years whether it’s Qatar or Ratcliffe? The size of the club, it’s history and revenues means we will compete towards the top regardless as we have still done under owners who have leached 1.5bn out of the club. City are entirely dependent - we aren’t. They’re clearly entirely different things. And for the record I want Jim.
that makes it even more insane to think
Ratcliffe/Qatar/Musk consortium? 
I don't want us to go mad, I just want us to get the targets we want to get instead of settling for Burnley strikers on loan or free transfers of players that were formally once dead.
this is becoming like transfer deadline day. Refresh, coffee etc
Partial ownership with the Glazers still involvedRatcliffe/Qatar/Musk consortium?
Dude, what the feck is wrong with you?!
There is so much incorrect stuff being said on this thread, it's doing my head in.
1. RICH OWNERS DOESN'T MEAN WE CAN SPEND MORE!!! Our binding constraint is FSR, which essentially means our expenditure must be linked to our revenue. Owners can't just pump in money willy-nilly. And with City being charged by the PL with 115 offences, creating articifical streams of income isn't exactly a good idea. Besides, despite what people like to say, spending money under the Glazers has never been a problem; the problem has been spending money BADLY.
2. IF YOU THINK THE GLAZERS ARE CNUTS, HAVE YOU CONSIDERED THE QATARIS??? I mean, if how you think very little of the Glazers, have you ever considered that the Qataris aren't exactly Mother Teresa?
3. The Saudis here are inconsequential, they were outbid for Chelsea by Boehly.
4. I'm not saying he buys Utd but if Sir Jim does, it won't be a Leveraged Buy-Out. Instead, Ineos will take out a loan and purchase Utd. The risk sits entirely with Ineos, not with Utd. Any attempt to suggest otherwise is either disingenuous or deeply misinformed.
1. RICH OWNERS DOESN'T MEAN WE CAN SPEND MORE!!! Our binding constraint is FSR, which essentially means our expenditure must be linked to our revenue. Owners can't just pump in money willy-nilly. And with City being charged by the PL with 115 offences, creating articifical streams of income isn't exactly a good idea. Besides, despite what people like to say, spending money under the Glazers has never been a problem; the problem has been spending money BADLY.
2. IF YOU THINK THE GLAZERS ARE CNUTS, HAVE YOU CONSIDERED THE QATARIS??? I mean, if how you think very little of the Glazers, have you ever considered that the Qataris aren't exactly Mother Teresa?
3. The Saudis here are inconsequential, they were outbid for Chelsea by Boehly.
4. I'm not saying he buys Utd but if Sir Jim does, it won't be a Leveraged Buy-Out. Instead, Ineos will take out a loan and purchase Utd. The risk sits entirely with Ineos, not with Utd. Any attempt to suggest otherwise is either disingenuous or deeply misinformed.
He's planning on dying before he pays off any debt related to United
Looks like qatar vs saudi then
Yeah but it’s not because they have money. It’s because money is all they have. Literally mid table teams with money.
That’s why they’re plastic
So will this be done by bank transfer or PayPal? If it's done by PayPal, them feckers can sometimes hold the money for 30 days for dodgy transactions !!!
not completely true, you can spend as much as you want on youth and training ground/equipment etc and not be effected by FFP
We could challenge for the best youth players across the world, we can build a top of the line world class training ground (with a new pool)
Will Ineos really be funding us to the tip top spec? i'm not sure.
Doesn’t say what year……
One of the things most baffling in this thread is the idea that Liverpool fans would be gutted. Maybe gutted their rivals are just a play thing, but I think they’ll be ecstatic overall. I’d piss myself (but feel slightly sorry for the fanbase) if Liverpool were owned by Qatar.
- Status