Club Sale | It’s done!
- Thread starter JB08
- Start date
- Status
Not sure how paying off our current 1bn debt (loans & transfers) + 2bn on a stadium and 250k on a training ground can be described as “justice” for 1.5bn leaving the club.
1.5bn - 1bn - 2bn - 0.25bn = -1.75bn
“Justice” isn’t going plus to the tune of 1.75bn, that’s financial doping.
Last edited:
tbf we were constantly developing OT from the 90s to early 00s and also built Carrington in 00.. all without loans.
aye, that shocking history of finishing 5th a few times.So current form is better than all their previous Ineos history?
They’ve been there a little over 3 years
Seeing as I have RAB rightly on ignore how would I know what he's spouted.
Not wanting any debt near the club is not me being entitled, rather the opposite.
What?????????
With geopolitical and moral debatesNow that there aren't any matches for two weeks, this thread will really take off!
“Rightly”.
Must be hard when someone continuously points out the massive hypocrite one is. This post below is the one our al here agreed wholeheartedly with not too long ago….
.
I’d “rightly” stick me on ignore too so I wouldn’t be reminded of my mind boggling hypocrisy.
That's how some see the Glazers. Some will stay, some might go to FCUM, same as before. For most, as has been stated, they'll continue with a bit of their soul missing. To be slating people as hypocites for staying is childish at best.
Precisely.
I really hope this measured approach will be applied to the football side as well. My only worry (from a football point of view) is signings big names that aren’t a good fit just to make headlines. All they need to do is get with ETH and figure out a few DOFs that he can work with and go get one of them.
Move it to the mains.....
So what would OT look like and how much would it cost if we didn’t constantly develop through the 90 and 2000s while having 1.5b siphoned from the club?
It's been brought up previously here and how Jassim's father spoke about the bod for the club. So, no, it was irrelevant!
Some interesting stock action. At the same time Jassim's advisors were with mufc officials.
Tweet
— Twitter API (@user) date
Why would you ignore one of the more level headed, common sense sensible posters on here?
Guess he said something that didn’t parrot your own opinions? Incredible.
The problem with the Glazer debt is that it has never been paid down and they have still be taking dividends out of the club.
The leveraged buyout should never have been allowed to happen, but if they had paid their way before taking money out it wouldn’t have been so bad as it is.
If INEOS (or anyone else) wants to take out debt to pay their way then so be it - it’s a normal part of business and not to be feared. Even more so the fact that we have been told INEOS will bear the debt and the club will have ‘no new debt’.
Glad we can agree it was completely irrelevant.It's been brought up previously here and how Jassim's father spoke about the bod for the club. So, no, it was irrelevant!
One of the few things we know about Sheikh Jassim is that he was on the board of credit suisse. I hope he was involved long before the bank apparently went to shit
They are in such a great form that they are at 7th place.So current form is better than all their previous Ineos history?
So what? Does it really matter if he has a Chelsea teddy bear and wears blue pants? No it doesn’t. What matters is what his plans are and how he is going to finance them
Of course it was. It was lost on you! Hahaha.
It doesn’t matter. But he has a history of this. Using rhetoric he doesn’t believe in, and also making promises he later goes back on.
"Don't let the facts" distract your opinion!So current form is better than all their previous Ineos history?
QIA is/was also a shareholder of Credit Suisse. Wonder if that has any bearing on the bid.
It was lost on us all. As I said, we agree. Cheers
Started the season at the bottom of the table so yeah, it's pretty decent. The Digard experiment has been a success story so far.
They didn’t start bottom. They got there. Then reversed. It’s decent that they’ve avoided being in a relegation scrap.
Again, and I know it's tricky to actually read people's posts, but I'll spell it out regardless, my original post stated that ALL bids are from business men wanting to make money.
That includes INEOs.
If you feel a small club hindered by FFP should be able to compete with a FFP dodging behemoth with a decade head start within three years then you obviously don't have much sense, but that much is obvious from some of what you have been saying in this thread.
Mike Keegan: After two weeks of visits from interested groups, the word is that the Glazers are ready to hand over their property, if the price is right.
https://www.dailymail.co.uk/sport/f...errard-return-punditry-role-Channel-Four.html
https://www.dailymail.co.uk/sport/f...errard-return-punditry-role-Channel-Four.html
From what I recollect we have outstanding about 550m loan for what we owe the banks for the Glazers buying us. Also that is an assumption that we will be building a new stadium rather than revamping OT for which the costs could be nearer 1bn.
Taking those into consideration
1.5bn - 1bn - 550m - 100m (credit facility)
That's closer to how I see it. Again all based on numbers which have been floated around for the rebuild and the 1.5bn being an approximate figure not considering the fact that even inflation comes into the picture. I am not expecting the money for players we bought to be paid back by the new owners as that is not a loan but a cost on the balance sheet which the club can take care of out of its own pocket even if it means a slight knock on our capability to buy new players this summer.
This thread is really toxic.
This is awful math. Have you heard of inflation?
Spurs' amazing stadium cost 1bn brand new five or so years ago. Now imagine what we could have done with this money if we invested it at the time.
Qatar money being somehow deserved because we’ve had the Glazers as owners taking money out of the club for 17 years is such a dumb argument. It’s a really weak way to justify state ownership.
‘Justice’ would be the Glazers paying off their debt themselves and giving back the billions it has cost the club to have them as owners, but that’s never going to happen so why should the Qataris pick up the tab?
No, the Qataris want United and are willing to pay through the nose for the club for entirely different motivations. They are not doing the fans or the Glazers any favours or acts of charity.
‘Justice’ would be the Glazers paying off their debt themselves and giving back the billions it has cost the club to have them as owners, but that’s never going to happen so why should the Qataris pick up the tab?
No, the Qataris want United and are willing to pay through the nose for the club for entirely different motivations. They are not doing the fans or the Glazers any favours or acts of charity.
Did anyone say they are doing it for charity? You are inventing scenarios in your head and then arguing against them at this stage.
Moreover it's nought to do with the Qataris. Even if Ratcliffe does it, I would still consider it justice for the shite ownership and money drain the club has had to suffer the last 18 years as a direct consequence of the Glazers. You cannot just say "well it doesn't work that way". A lot of companies get an injection of cash/streamlining of operations when they are bought out if that helps improve the overall condition of the organization. That is exactly what that would be.
The stadium and training facilities development is not going to be some PR activity but will benefit the club and increase its value simply because they will have better tangible assets compared to now. So if the owners think they want to do so, why does it become a problem with some especially considering how the Glazers have completely run us into the ground through sheer greed and incompetence.
Erm, it's not about deserved.
It counters the ABU argument (that so many of you are already peddling like sheep) that somehow having an owner willing to invest to grow their asset (with a new stadium being chief among these considerations) for United is 'cheating' and 'unfair'.
What this argument of lost money and time is trying to show is that we would just be getting back to a level playing field which has been denied to the club for 17 years. It's not complicated if you at least attempt to think critically.
And we're not talking about the moral side, just about money. I'd make the same argument for any new owner, including that Boston Celtics owner if he's indeed in for us
No right you are mate someone paid to build the stadium in 1909, let's not worry that none of that survived WW2 bar a concrete tunnel. And that United have been self-sufficient for the best part of a century. And let's not forget that time we sent a St Bernard Dog down the pub for a whip round to raise money. When you think about we're basically the same as City.
Old Trafford was renovated/expanded in 1992, 1995, 1999, 2000 and 2005 and the club built Carrington in 2000.
So where did the money for those 5 stadium expansions and a brand new training ground come from?
Like that time the Madrid council bought their training ground at a hugely inflated price that was also financial doping ie. cheating. But for their current stadium redevelopment the same as Spurs and Arsenal they've had to borrow money, which is what most clubs do.
You are entitled to consider it as anything you like mate. I consider it financial doping and I'd personally prefer the club to remain self-sufficient.
Really? Thanks for this breaking news. You should have sold it to Bloomberg
You’re welcome.
Like you said, we are each entitled to our own opinions. One thing I would like to highlight though is that not one of the teams whose example you provided and neither Man Utd pre-Glazers were ever exploited like we have been. I cannot just shrug it off and say "that's life" and then take a stand against an owner who is willing to help improve our infra.
Maybe you consider it financial doping, I only consider it leveling the playing field (wrt the other top clubs who have had the benefit of far better owners than us) after we were exploited brutally for nearly 2 decades.
- Status