Yeah I agree great managers play a huge role but in your own example in the PL, Oil clubs won 4 out of the 6 premier league titles. So getting the money in does play a huge role. I think the key thing that a huge spend that a lot of the oil clubs end up doing is putting in the investment behind the scenes, City were gearing up long before Pep took over and from an infrastructure perspective far outstrip us. That's the bit that needs money being pumped in, not just the Mbappes of the world. Of course on the really rare occasion a team like Leicester or Montepellier will win the league but realistically that's not something to hold your hat on.
Club Sale | It’s done!
- Thread starter JB08
- Start date
- Status
I've noticed he doesn't say "heh" as much now, not much at all..... dunno what to make of that
Despite their state of the arts academy/training centre and achievements at youth team level, how many youngsters made the grade at City and Chelsea, or contributed meaningfully to their success? I counted Foden and Mount. It might bear fruit in the future for them, but I honestly think their impact is massively exaggerated. What worked for them is a competent set up, that identify the right manager, that bring in the right players, that cut the cord when performance dips instead of letting it spiral out of control, all of which can be achieved without unlimited funds.
Yes, it’s embarrassing to play under leaky roof at OT, yes, it’s embarrassing when news made the papers that the pool players use for recuperation has broken tiles, but ultimately, those aren’t good enough excuse for a team that consistently has top 3 wage bill + transfer spend in the league to miss out on CL football 4 times out of 10 and bottling a title challenge anytime it was offered. It’s nice to have a shiny new stadium, but both Arsenal and Spurs have proved that it did diddly squat to their sporting ambition. I’m of a mind to see what we can achieve first with competent people in charge, instead of resigning to the ‘if you can’t beat them, join them’ mindset.
True, but it's quite clear that Liverpool have burned out and Klopp doesn't have the unlimited budget to invest and rebuilt constantly like Guardiola. Sure, you can compete with oil clubs for a short period of time, but eventually they'll just grind you out.
I agree with much of what you say, but it’s not ‘one man’ who’s created that for City - it’s the infrastructure.
City won the PL by a point last season after Guardiola spent how much more than Liverpool?
And this season, they’re only on for the league because Arsenal completely bottled it and drew to West Ham and fecking Southampton.
Arsenal should’ve been able to lose that City game and still win the league.
Guardiola is a flawed manager who spends a ridiculous amount of money and can’t assemble a team to keep a clean sheet. He’s obviously a good manager but without Haaland this season they’d be battling for third with Utd and Newcastle.
Think it’s safe to assume that it’s because Qatar have pulled out
I think the impact is quite important for a number of different factors. It helps attract the right manager and the right players when it's not simply just about money. And if then they need any further investment that can be made as well because of the fact that the achievements at youth level often bears fruit in the fact that it's a constant revenue stream. City have taken advantage of this already and Chelsea will continue to do so in the summer when they have to sell players.
It's far from embarrassing that United have gone from having one of the best facilities to one of the worst for the top teams. I'm of the view that if you can keep investing in the right things and create great place to work in you will attract the competent people in charge rather than just hope you get lucky as you never know how good someone will be. City created that right environment for the closest thing to a sure to a right manager and that's the place to start from. Otherwise yeah let's hope we do a Leicester in a few years time.
Exactomundo. Usain Bolt might get ahead in a marathon with a burst of speed but eventually he'll succumb to the sheer endurance and consistent high level of a proper marathon runner.
Now I hopefully don't need to explain who's who in that example.
They had a bad season before last barely squeaking top 4 after their Covid title. It could just be that Klopp’s style of football doesn’t lend itself well to sustained dominance, he had those at Mainz and Dortmund after all, I wouldn’t take it as definitive proof of being unable to compete with oil money in the long term.
City had the same set up and backing for Mancini and Pellegrini, both did not achieve that level of dominance.
You can add all the caveats you want about Guardiola, but he has lost only 3 titles since he started taking charge of senior football teams, that’s an insane record regardless of his financial backing. Carlo Ancelotti is probably the greatest CL manager to date and he’s bottled his fair shares of league title, that consistency is not just a matter of money, Fergie himself will tell you how hard it is to motivate a league winning team to go out and do it again and again and again.
Greenwashing. Welcome to these types of news stories linked with Man utd. The below story is from this week alone. I hope all of you morally aligned individuals don't turn a blind eye to the climate change contribution and the environmental impact of INEOS's operations.
Exactly, if they have bid less than SJR that’s hugely unexpected when Keegan put out Sheikh Jasim doesn’t understand why SJR is making a bid because they would always outbid him!
Their PR game has or will backfire unless something comes in this week with a much stronger bid!
Utd is a different beast to Liverpool. We haven't even been at the top for a decade and we still have more financial muscle than Liverpool.
The idea Utd can't compete without oil money is an uneducated view.
Chelsea don't have oil money anymore but their new owner has still splaffed over £400m on new players within 12 months and has pledged £1.5b on a stadium redevelopment.
How much more so you think owners who have oil money are going to spend compared to Boehly? Zero and they may even spend less.
What matters is club revenues and the ability to have a high FFP threshold. Utd is one of the best placed clubs in the world for this. After this it's about having the right expertise and spending the money wisely. The sheer desperation some are displaying for oil money is misguided.
Oil money isn't 100% necessary to compete and we should be OK going off our own revenues, but there's so much in this thread where people say that money doesn't guarantee success and to look at us and Chelsea. We're not the best example because over the last decade we basically needed an entirely new first 11 at the start of it, we had to buy experience because we didn't have time to buy youth and this has meant needing replacements more frequently, we've maybe spent similar amounts to city but they started the decade with a far stronger side.
And Chelsea will have a serious reckoning in the next few years if these signings aren't successful, sure they amortised the payments over several years, but that means in the next 5 to 8 years they'll have these payments every year. And they're locked into long term contracts on fairly high wages. Boehly was banking on quick success generating higher revenues,if that doesn't materialise then they'll be seriously limited in their spending
That's business for you. Shareholders have made their investments already by buying the original shares, and they get to profit from further investment without putting more in themselves.
If you have the majority share in a Buisness and you need to invest, no one else is going to do it for free on your behalf.
Exactly, it's about maximising turnover as the new rule will be clubs only being able to invest 70% in its players. So the only real way to increase our transfer butget will be to make more money, not get handouts from rich owners.
Only thing I'm curious about is whether taking on further debt and not clearing the current debt with Ineos will impact our ability to build new infrastructure (stadium, training ground etc.) without severely impacting our ability to sign players and remain competitive.
Yeah I expected them to deliver a KO bid with their backs against the wall,however then I remember their statement of not overpaying. On the other hand we have also heard they were prepared to do what it takes so feels like mixed messages.
Bit harsh, I mean yeh some posters are annoying in here but I wouldn't call them parasites
Be surprised if we get any more positive tweets about Qatar still being in the race nowJesus, I saw a Keegan tweet and I got excited and thought there was news
The one potential appointment of Ratcliffe that does interest me is Mitchell,you have seen with the likes of Mane, Upamecano and Alderweireld what he can unearth given opportunity
Putting the debt on Ineos and Ineos bearing the payments for it are very different. United could still be making annual interest payments to Ineos who could be just loaning that money to United. Would it make it more palatable to you?
Now before you say why would a behemoth like Ineos do so, you need to understand that they have their own debt repayments kicking in from 2026. They will be taking on billions in debt for the acquisition as well, so there's nothing to say one way or another that United still won't be on the hook for the existing debt, which will be a real kicker.
That’s exactly where we are up to and the glazers would get more overall money in their pockets from the Qatar bid.
It feels like the media have just gone for the title and headline which would cause the biggest stir and in reality it’s a lot closer.
This is like an episode of murder she wrote and the fans are Jessica
Can someone summarise the latest state of play? Ineos or Qataris?
It appears Qataris put forward more investment for the club, but Ineos gave more to the Glazer family, which is all they care about
Ineos have valued the glazers shares at a higher price but are looking at purchasing less with the possibility of the glazers staying on.
Qatar have offered more physical money but their offer values the shares of the glazers at a lower price.
So take more money from the Qataris or take less but still have a remaining stake in the club but with no control and more then likely a clause to sell their remaining percent at the same rate as the original chunk were purchased for “x” amount of years.
If Ineos have the funds to take over and remove the debt then why wouldn’t they? At a time of rising interest rates, paying off the tens of millions of interest a year will ultimately eat into their profits and ultimately harm their asset.
Have you taken the time to look into qatar's environmental record? Spoiler: it's not great.
Just six months ago:
https://amp.france24.com/en/sport/2...mars-qatar-s-carbon-neutral-world-cup-promise
Greenwashing!
Qatar waffles on about stuff completely irrelevant to the sale and played this out like it was a back and forth on Twitter.
Ineos took it seriously and apparently now have the edge. According to reports they've put forward two bids, one with Avram and Joel Glazer maintaining 20% of A Shares, the other with Ineos buying out all Glazers. The former values the club higher but also means the Glazer family ceed all control of the club. Both are effectively full take overs for all intents and purposes.
The Qatars made the mistake of thinking we, the fans, have any input on this sale and commenced a sports washing PR campaign rather than a serious bid to take over the club.
That does seem a strange thing to make a big part of your proposal. You would have thought they would have had an idea of who they're dealing with here what with Jassim being such a big United fan for 3 decades.
Indeed great point and while we're at it let's also not forget about Qatar's contributions towards climate change given they are the world's largest exporter of natural gas and have the worlds highest Co2 emissions per capita.
Qatar are giving more to the glazers, it’s only by a breakdown of percentages of shares that appears to value them more it’s nowhere near as clean cut as people are implying.
X amount of shares at £5.50 vs X plus 20% more at shares at £5.25 the latter gets the more money even though it’s valued lower.
Because thats not how businesses work. INEOS is a seperate entity to Utd. The same debt model we have now will continue under ratcliffe.
Its changing a blood sucking leach for another. The bid from the middle east is the only one that has said it will wipe out the debt, pay for stafoum upgrades and training ground upgrades. If you want to compete with City you fight fire with fire or state ownership with state ownership.
Really? Sceptical it would be decided over a bank holiday though it may not be in the US.
Yeh that’s not right the times haven’t released any such article, they just went with the headline that Jim was pricing the shares at a higher value which is standard business practice for a smaller percentage.
Yeah absolutely none of that would surprise me.
Yeah it’s factual but clever use of the scenario.
I could bid 10,000 for a single percent of a company which would mean I value the business higher but in reality I’m not after the other 99% so it’s a half truth.
Is there anything to be read into the fact that the Qatari’s haven’t just gazumped all other bidders to bypass all these added rounds of bidding?
Maybe the data room numbers made for grim viewing in terms of our future earnings/expenditures.
Maybe the data room numbers made for grim viewing in terms of our future earnings/expenditures.
- Status