Feel bad saying this but at least with Ratcliffe our transfers would be quicker,however worry about how much he can actually invest in stadium and training facilities
Club Sale | It’s done!
- Thread starter JB08
- Start date
- Status
Or it’s setting up for a humble, self deprecating concession.
At this stage I would take Sir Jim. Anyone but the Glazers. I cant stand them fecking leaches.
Doubt he’s got the funds for extra investment right now, he will want to manage the club finances better so that the club can invest in the future. Really wish he’d make a commitment to clear the debt though, that would help a lot. Don’t think we will see wholesale changes to the club management in the short term if a sale goes through, to whoever wins
Tweet
— Twitter API (@user) date
I read a brief article saying he has used that term a loose dig at the Glazers and the current shit show they are overseeing at this present time.‘A brand like Man Utd’
He’s a fecking proper numpty.
You know the tragi-comedy will continue under him. He has it written all over him.
This is not a guy who’s gonna put Utd back on top.
The references to Lausanne and Nice in which he states he has experience is a thinly veiled criticism of the 92 Foundation as they have no experience in running any sports teams.
Make of that what you will.
Probably with a new shirt sponsors, club sale is not going to happen
Tweet
— Twitter API (@user) date
Agreed. They’ll definitely turn down 6 billion because they’ve managed to get an extra 10m a year in shirt sponsorship.
Probably there is no 6B on the table.
Probably what they wanted, they never got and they decide to take the 10m as they wait for 10B
Surely someone has a mock up kit done already
They will include it in the asking price, like they did with Adidas. £60 million a year is not a great increase from the existing deal.
Think both ineos and Qatar would want their own brands as shirt sponsors, so this maybe an added complication.
Standard. Zero influence on a sale
If the club is increasing advertising and sponsorship revenue, it could help the Glazers justify increasing the price.
Shows the club is profitable despite the obvious mismanagement and scandals engulfing us. They could brazen it out for ten billion, or stick around with Ratcliffe.
One thing concerning is Quallcomm's logo is written in blue!
What the prospective buyers could be asking is why has it taken you so long to get a sponsor? If United was at a strong point, then there should a queue to get their name on the front of a shirt.
As I said, the increase is only just over £10 million on the existing deal. And that is what they are targeting. They have not achieved that yet.
Nice to know Crfaton has found something else to write about.
Last edited:
As someone mentioned already it is a few millions on top. It wont change anything
Not at all. They are trying to buy the club. Shirt sponsors are irrelevant to them at the mo, as it just brings more money into the club they want to buy. Five years down the road they might want their own sponsor, but it’s not an impediment to them trying to close a sale right now.
3-4 years worth of the increase in sponsorship revenue (12 million a year), will just about cover Raine's fee for handing this saga.
Other way around. Lack of sale frees up the club to look for new sponsor.
Team viewer have wanted out for a long time now.
If he has or is doing due dilligence, he may scale back costs on redevelopment.
Feels like the Glazers want to try and pull some levers similar to Barcelona to try and milk a bit more before probably selling next year.
I agree with you wholeheartedly. Football club's are more than a brand - they are historical communities, cultural touchstones and national treasures. Manchester United encompasses all these things and they should be treated as such.
That said, I'm pretty sure Boehly used the term brand to describe Chelsea and I'm confident that Stan Kroenke only consider Arsenal to be one of his many sports brands. It is sad to witness the disconnect but that is the way these robber barons view football clubs.
In fairness. Ratcliffe did say that he wanted to put "Manchester back Into Manchester United". He also wanted to create "fan centred ownership."
That would be fantastic to see that come to fruition.
Oh yeah they would have no issues whatsoever
I don't see fan ownership ever becoming a realistic possibility over here,mainly due to the fact this league welcomed Abramovich,Mansour and PIF with open arms. Wish this never got the green light in 2003 and then we wouldn't have to join them in order to stay competitive.
Yeah the time for fan ownership has come and long gone.
I'd sign up, too, whenever they denounce Qatari state ownership and promose to protest it with equal vehemence.
Newcastle levels of self-deception going on.
It's for these directives we should be protesting, but the majority of our fanbase want Qatar. They think it means we will run football and 'do what we want'.
We're Manchester United. We do what we want. Even if it's becoming positive PR for the repression of human rights.
Ultimately, English football clubs are just businesses. The 'community' aspect is to make you think it is a religion, or ethos, or something more palatable. It's just fluff, though, the culmination of intense marketing. And the vast majority of fans are actually okay with this reality.*
Qatar will exploit this delusion wholesale and prove, rather insidiously, the 'West' is somehow amoral and equally suspect as their dictatorship. Ineos have their agenda, too.
The only people who can do anything about it are the consumers (I include other supporters who pay subscriptions, watch us to lose et al), but, as you can see, some 'want 'their' (the greatest deception) club back'.
They're not interested in changing the status quo, they want to become the status quo.
Qatar, or Ineos, will indeed lap it up and proceed accordingly.
*Liverpool are particularly bad for this.
Last edited:
He wouldn't get rid of them though.
Why do adidas get the small logo like the crest and pay 75m a season but the big logo along the middle pays a lot less of that?
Adidas also get the revenues from the merchandise (kit sales). The shirt sponsor just gets their name on the shirt.
I assume it's linked to Adidas having license to produce exclusive clothing etc for the club whereas Snapdragon can't really do that so they're paying for the brand recognition only
He would get rid of 4 out of 6 and the last two would be gone from decision making. Obviously it's far from optimal, but still a massive improvement.
If you do not have an agenda then what would be your point?
What do we want? nothing!
When do we want it? whenever you have got a minute, wouldn't want to be any trouble!
Maybe want to get somebody to proof read before creating, I understand the intention i.e. no ulterior motives, but you do have an agenda you morons otherwise you couldn't exist, literally 3 lines down you say you want the Glazers out and then further go on to list how you will go about it....if this is the level of acumen displayed in the initial statement I would not hold out much hope for "The 1958"
Whilst I applaud the intentions do people actually think they can affect any change? like the Glazers care as long as they make money and like anyone can bring any external pressure... it is literally ridiculous to think that this is anything but a complete waste of time.... the only 2 probable outcomes are nothing or the Glazers become less likely to invest than they already are.... good luck guys
Last edited:
Will they still be getting paid even if the club isn't sold? Would be pretty Glazer-y to pay £48m for a non-event. Adding that to the fan reaction, would be an absolute travesty to not sell.
Tried to sign up, but subscription to the newsletter is mandatory, so no thanks.
Wonder if there is connection between this and Ratcliffe's interview quotes being released
Just opt out after?
- Status