You did the hard yards for me!And you should have told him that it was a ridiculous claim.
Club Sale | It’s done!
- Thread starter JB08
- Start date
-
In the latest episode of the United Hour Podcast, Nik @Rood and Imran @Annihilate Now! start with the good news by celebrating Manchester United Women's emphatic FA Cup win over Spurs at Wembley and the future of manager Marc Skinner.
Then it's the bad news and the ever worsening form of our Men with losses to Arsenal and Palace.
Finally the main debate - ETH Out now or keep him until the end of the season - if not longer. Are you Team Nik or Team Imran?
- Status
I mean most of the bidders for Chelsea went public. It's not that odd.
What's so difficult to understand about that? We're a bit of a joke at the moment. That doesn't suddenly erase the legacy and history the name itself carries.
According to who? Talksport?
Because its a contradiction of epic proportions
Talksport sources
Maybe once bids were formally made. He hasn't even bid. That's not the story. It's "interested" as it was a few months ago.
Big Jim has announced he's interested in bidding....again. He's a Glazer backed stalking horse. Tease out the bidders by making them think there's now pressure to press ahead now there's confirmed other "interest"
Bid or don't. The club is for sale why the feck are you telling journalists you're "interested in bidding"? Do it.
It has 0 to do with the money! Come on. You aren't seriously claiming that our problem the past decade has been money? And then put Spurs as an example? That's exactly my point isn't it? Spurs have made good decisions over time to increase their stature and improve their facilities. United, yes we've ignoring other portions. Instead of putting money in the structure, in the facilities, the Glazers take out dividends (166m since 2016) and have thrown away 750m since the Glazers took over on debt repayments. That's almost 1 BILLION pounds just thrown out because of shite ownership. Under normal ownership, that billion is reinvested into the club structure and facilities, and in addition to this, the 1 billion that was spent on transfers the past 10 years would be spent more wisely. Less money wasted on managerial sackings, and so on.
0% of United's issue since Sir Alex left has been related to how much money the club brings in. Come on. How can anyone claim that when all the facts points to United, after 10 years of mediocrity, still having the capability to outspend everyone in terms of year after year net spend and is always among the top wage spenders? What more can you actually ask for from a financial perspective? It's pure greed to want anything more, and being dramatic on the back of nothing to claim that United can't compete financially.
I'm not sure what your last sentence has to do with anything. United's name doesn't carry the weight it used to because of mismanagement for years turning us into a mid table team despite being the biggest spenders. It is one thing to be mid table in spend, and to have to be spot on every year just to compete and have 0 wiggle room. Teams who have a net spend of 0 because they need to move players on at the right times and find gems and be coached perfectly to compete. United doesn't have that restriction and nothing points to that. United has been managed like garbage the past 10 years. We've had garbage managers, and garbage owners, garbage transfer committees, etc. We've wasted 1 billion on transfers and shit managers. And then wasted another 1 billion on shite ownership because of debt repayments and dividend payments.
This is all becoming very public. At least we might know a bit more about the eventual winner and project before the Glazers sign off, even if we cannot do much about it.
in what way? You can be both at the same time. The club isn't in good state at the moment. To deny that is to just lie to ourselves. Ten Hag might change that, but it's way early days to even talk about that. But at the same time it has history and legacy that few other clubs can match. I don't understand why this is such a difficult concept for you to understand.
And what have Spurs done with their financially good decisions? They're still a top 6 club, same way they've always been since more than 15 years ago.
I feel llke i'm repeating myself constantly now. At the cost of literally everything else that makes a top club. Our stadium is in need of repair, our training grounds need improvement, youth, overall club infrastructure. We're lagging heavily behind there. And not only have we not cleared the debt off, it's still rising. We're not pulling that money out of our asses, it's taken from somewhere else.
Who has competed so far by having a net profit except Liverpool? And even Liverpool have hit a dead end that they won't escape from just in a year or two.
Shit
Well at least we know how to properly protest against the owner should Ratcliffe be tight arsed with us
Tweet
— Twitter API (@user) date
Tweet
— Twitter API (@user) date
You said the club is a joke.
I see what you are saying about how things have been run but no need for the over dramatic sensationalism.
Like we have never done that right, like to snatch Robson from liverpool who were winning everything at the time and done it many a time since. And you might want to check your history as they didnt start spending big till 09, hmm wasn't José out in Italy with Inter then and didnt return till after AF retired, so city were never competing against Jose and AF at the same time.
And be wary of saying things like, oh pep only had to deal with klopp, as till Wenger AF only had to deal with big Ron one season, doglish another before he ran upstairs, keegan another before his epic live meltdown the clown, and then it was only Wenger for 7 years before Jose rocked up who (wenger) like klopp didnt get to spent big money either.
Fill the stadium with 74k polish?
It has to be a state backed club or we will be left behind. Its as simple as that.
To all these people in this thread with a grandiose sense of self importance, i assume United is a big part of your life?
You'd rather virtue signaling on things you have absolutely no say in or effect on than to have your favorite team win?
These ME investors wont disappear because you feel like a good person and get a few pats on the back. They will move on to another club and we will fall further behind.
Life is hard and you should take the crumbles thrown at you. Or someone else is.
United is a hugh part of my life and life is short so if the ride will get a tiny bit better with ME owners, so be it.
If you truly want to be a good person you should move out in the woods and build yourself a little cabin with your bare hands. Because, make no mistake, we are all tainted by corruption.
That's my two cents anyway. Be free to disagree.
To all these people in this thread with a grandiose sense of self importance, i assume United is a big part of your life?
You'd rather virtue signaling on things you have absolutely no say in or effect on than to have your favorite team win?
These ME investors wont disappear because you feel like a good person and get a few pats on the back. They will move on to another club and we will fall further behind.
Life is hard and you should take the crumbles thrown at you. Or someone else is.
United is a hugh part of my life and life is short so if the ride will get a tiny bit better with ME owners, so be it.
If you truly want to be a good person you should move out in the woods and build yourself a little cabin with your bare hands. Because, make no mistake, we are all tainted by corruption.
That's my two cents anyway. Be free to disagree.
Spurs with their financially good decisions have transitioned into being a standard prem club to being firmly in the big 6 bucket where they compete with the big 6 every year, have a clear gap with the rest of the league in terms of their revenue, etc, which will enable them to compete long term. Spurs are not United. But the idea is the same. They have made good decisions over time and have gone from something similar to what Aston Villa were to being set in the top 6 in terms of money.
You are repeating yourself because you clearly aren't reading what I am saying
. United don't need state funded owners to be at the top. United just needs competence. It is not at the cost of literally everything else that makes a top club. Our stadium and training grounds and infrastructure is in need of revamp, because it has been neglected. It hasn't been neglected because we have spent on transfers. It has been neglected because we have shit owners, and because 1 billion has been drained out of the club for no reason other than the Glazers taking it out of the club. That's my point. Under any normal ownership, over the past 20 years, we would have spent another 1 billion on internal club things. Another 1 billion spent on facility upgrades, renovations, etc. That isn't at the expense of the transfer fees we have spent the past 10 years. That is in addition to that amount. Again, we are not where we are because the club doesn't generate enough money. That is 100% incorrect. What you want, is to have enough money that it pushes through incompetence so you are incapable of failing. Nobody is incapable of failing. Incompetence will always come back to bite people in the ass. That is where we are. What we need to get out of it, is an owner to come in and clear the debt, and then manage with competence.
Liverpool have hit a transition period that again, every team has to go through. Which is fine, it happens. What will feck them is Klopp likely won't stay through a transition into another big team, as that takes time. United is another animal compared to Liverpool, but Liverpool has shown that it's possible anyway. But what you quoted is me saying that United doesn't have the restrictions of needing to maintain a net profit. We have loads of transfer market strength, as we show every year. We just need to, you know, not be dumb. Which is hard for football clubs.
If one of the Arab potential buyers come in with a big bid I'd expect them to get it. From reading elsewhere there's no way INEOS/Ratcliffe get into a bidding war
Skim off the top, move money around, use the cash that they generate here to service debt and boost other ventures. Sell for equal or more in time.
Ah right, thank you
No doubt Ratcliffe will try and generate support from the fans. We all remember the Lfc game where a banner with his face was being taken around and a lot of support online.
The fans could be crucial for any bid.
The fans could be crucial for any bid.
Ballmer would be interesting.
Highly doubt he's got any interest in owning 2 teams though.
Good question, but do not worry. From my view point at least, the following assumptions can be trusted:
(a) Nobody will be looking to buy us only to sell (a club at the same level as) West Ham. If you do not insert a lot of money to the club — that is what will happen.
(b) No kind of investment case that would attract investors like Malcom Glazer can be made. It could if you could buy us for 1bn. Not for 5-6.
(c) Put Manchester United plc in 4-6bn in debt — we will play in the Championship within 3 years. It is not happening.
I am not worried for a bad buyer. I get the concern given the history — but that doesn’t scare me. I think the biggest concern would be the huge economic downturn that we currently see resulting in nobody tabeling a high enough bid to convince the Glazers to sell. Getting a first bid in from Ratcliffe that surely won’t be that high, but at the same time at least legit, that is a big step on the way and only good news.
We can attempt to debate the merit of different owners — but it will not matter one bit. The Glazers will take the highest bid. Whomever we get, will results in good things for the club in terms of investment in infrastructure and the squad. Some owners would be more likable than others.
Lastly, we can discuss deep pockets and of course it’s to an extent relevant. But while teams can cheat with sponsorship deals etc — there are certainly limits nowadays that didn’t even remotely exist just 5-10 years ago. If someone buy this club and invest say around 2bn — there is no way a team like City or Newcastle or PSG could come in and spend twice as much as we could.
If you think you can build a new stadium plus pay off our debt with "investors as owners", you are dreaming. Nobody can buy a club for 7b and pay 3 extra billion on a new stadium and club debt.Spurs with their financially good decisions have transitioned into being a standard prem club to being firmly in the big 6 bucket where they compete with the big 6 every year, have a clear gap with the rest of the league in terms of their revenue, etc, which will enable them to compete long term. Spurs are not United. But the idea is the same. They have made good decisions over time and have gone from something similar to what Aston Villa were to being set in the top 6 in terms of money.
You are repeating yourself because you clearly aren't reading what I am saying
Again, we are not where we are because the club doesn't generate enough money. That is 100% incorrect. What you want, is to have enough money that it pushes through incompetence so you are incapable of failing. Nobody is incapable of failing. Incompetence will always come back to bite people in the ass. That is where we are. What we need to get out of it, is an owner to come in and clear the debt, and then manage with competence.
Liverpool have hit a transition period that again, every team has to go through. Which is fine, it happens. What will feck them is Klopp likely won't stay through a transition into another big team, as that takes time. United is another animal compared to Liverpool, but Liverpool has shown that it's possible anyway. But what you quoted is me saying that United doesn't have the restrictions of needing to maintain a net profit. We have loads of transfer market strength, as we show every year. We just need to, you know, not be dumb. Which is hard for football clubs.
Nah I want some oil goddammit
He's another sportswasher but with less money than the rest. Mediocre option but at least better than the Glazers I guess.
Thinking about this , I wouldn’t be surprised if it’s a media stunt , everyone knows he was interested but claimed the club wasn’t for sale. Now the club is for sale he’s kind of forced to show interest.
I don’t think he’ll end up winning the process with INEOS and I don’t think his bid is serious.
I don’t think he’ll end up winning the process with INEOS and I don’t think his bid is serious.
They could, but again we're reaching back to the original point - they won't be investors. The club as it stands, per the price alone, is not a viable investment. Let alone paying off the club's debt, renovating Old Trafford and the training grounds on top of competing with the rest of the PL on transfers. Whoever buys the club, he's not doing it for profit.
Could he be working with the Glazers in getting others to pay more?
There's so many possible theories.
Someone asked at the TUS, if owners will present their plan for the club. I wouldn’t be surprised if that happen. Say you have 4 potential bidders. One got the best “pedigree”. One will invest more than the rest in the club. A third will involve the fans. A 4th have no benefits at all.
How should we expect these type of bidders to act? Like it’s not far fetched to expect the guy with the best pedigree — Ratcliffe — to go out and let everyone know that he is in the running. Could the one who will invest the most let the fans know that? Doesn’t seem far fetched.
At the same time, it does not really matter, right. Sure some group could tear down heaven and sky if the wrong owner gets involved, could scare someone off.
I am glad that he went to public. Now real buyers (Saudi, Qatar, Dubai) will start bidding.
This could be over in March. I hope.
This could be over in March. I hope.
Good question, think it’s about 70/30 between Ratcliffe and some others. Will look into it more.
The review process with Raine can be very intensive. I have a hard time picturing any scenario where a group could keep the fact they are involved a secret, so I don’t see the point in trying. It isn’t the sort of situation where someone can slip a bid past prospective buyers.
If it is handled the way Raine would normally (and for you, hopefully), then the “price” is only one phase, and it will be broken down into detailed plans for debt management, infrastructure investment, etc. where is the investment coming from?
I’m always wary of “net worth”, so Ratcliffe would make me nervous.
Abramovich liquidated nearly all his assets prior to buying Chemsea and didn’t blink an eye at throwing upwards of 30% of his worth or more into Chelsea.
But that is very rare for individual owners.
Think of it this way: Ratcliffe’s net worth (not Ineos’) is roughly 6 B? That’s not much more than Boehly’s, and Boehly isn’t the money guy for Clearlake.
If Ineos, not Ratcliffe alone, are the buyers then that would create an entirely different set of issues and potential problems.
Whoever buys you, to do it right, is going to need to come out with around 3B in cash on hand AFTER the sale, just to right the ship. If I were a United fan I would want to know how serious Sir Jim is about United. Would he be Roman-level serious about the percentage of his wealth he would willingly put in the team? Or would he be all about “balancing he books and growing over time”? Basically the Glazers but only slightly better?
I would feel better if they made the requirements and criteria Raine were set more public, like with Chelsea. The Glazers owe United fans at least that much.
Yeah that sounds like a good idea and will definitely help to give a picture of how he runs a club
No, I think Margot Robbie and Scarlet Johansson are more recent.
Why would they need to follow Ratcliffe's lead
We don't need to build a new stadium. Renovate Old Trafford and the facilities. But at the same time... I don't expect any owner to come in and "gift that" out of their own pocket. We need an owner who comes in and clears the debt during the purchase, and then just doesn't take money out. And then you refinance to fund renovations with the clubs own money... because that is a club thing and it's fair to take out debt on the club to refurbish the stadium that belongs to the club, and it's a pretty normal thing to do. I am very ok with operating fairly and normally, even if it means there is down years or times where you have to struggle through a bit as you prioritize spending. That's the way it's always been. By no means should the expectation be that an owner comes in and just gifts us a refurbished Old Trafford out of the goodness of his own heart. Also on that, not sure why some people want a new stadium rather than just renovating Old Trafford. I'd much rather just update Old Trafford like Real Madrid did with the Bernabeu. Moving to a new stadium would be a shame IMO.
And who is buying the club for 7b?? It'll be 5bn.
Cost of an extensive renovation is north of a billion quid too. So it's going to cost a lot regardless... the new Camp Nou is costing over billion. But yeah it would be my choice too. Also a new stadium's stands wouldn't be as close to the pitch.
- Status